SW3190301_18-237 Geotechnical Report_20190411

,SOUTHERN ENGINEERING
Consulting • Engineering • Construction Testing • Special Inspections
PRELIMINARY REPORT OF SUBSURFACE
EXPLORATION
AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION
FOR
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
PREPARED FOR
Alliance Consulting Engineers
124 Verdae Boulevard
Suite 505
Greenville, SC 29607-3843
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
SOUTHERN ENGINEERING AND TESTING, P. C.
6120 Brookshire Boulevard, Suite A, Charlotte, NC 28216
[phone] Office • [phone] Office 2 • [phone] Fax

S®UTHERN ENGINEERING
Consulting o Engineering o Construction Testing • Special Inspections
December 4, 2018
Mr. George A Genero, P.E.
Alliance Consulting Engineers
124 Verdae Blvd, Suite 505
Greenville, SC 29607-3843
Preliminary Report of Subsurface Exploration
and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
Dear Mr. Genero,
SOUTHERN ENGINEERING has completed the authorized preliminary subsurface exploration and
geotechnical engineering evaluation for the planned Apprentice Academy project located at the intersection
of Weddington Road and Clark Road in Monroe, North Carolina. The enclosed report describes the field
exploration procedures and presents the results of our testing and preliminary engineering evaluation along
with geotechnical related design and construction recommendations for this project.
Because of design and construction changes that occur on a project, questions often arise concerning
subsurface conditions. SOUTHERN ENGINEERING would be pleased to continue its role as the Geotechnical
Engineer of Record (GER) during the project construction.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you during the design phase of this project. We are available
to provide the recommended construction materials testing services. We'd be pleased to discuss these
services with you.
Sincerely,
SOUTHERN ENGINEERING AND TESTING, P.C.
NC License No. C-4167
Winfred E. Luscomb, Jr., E.I.T.
Staff Geotechnical Engineer
Enclosures
Richard E.�a` r�r iP P.E.
Principal p41;
Lo
SOUTHERN ENGINEERING AND TESTING, P. C.
6120 Brookshire Boulevard, Suite A, Charlotte, NC 28216
[phone] • [phone] Office • [phone] Facsimile

Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of this subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation was outlined in
SE&T Proposal No.: 18-10451, dated September 27, 2018. Authorization to provide this service is in the
form of a task order issued by Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc. to SOUTHERN ENGINEERING.
The primary objectives of this service were to evaluate the subsurface conditions within the area of planned
construction and to make preliminary recommendations regarding foundation design. More specifically,
this study included the following objectives:
(1) Evaluate the existing subsurface soil and groundwater conditions within the area of the planned
building and parking and drive areas
(2) Provide preliminary recommendations concerning site preparation and grading
(3) Recommend foundation types that can safely and economically support the planned
construction, evaluate the allowable bearing pressures of the foundation subsoils encountered
during the exploration for support of shallow foundations and provide our estimates of
foundation settlement.
(4) Recommend a preliminary design modulus of subgrade reaction value for the planned concrete
slab -on -grades.
(5) Provide the site seismic class according to the 2012 NC State Building Code
(6) Evaluate the suitability of on -site soils for reuse as structural fill
(7) Recommend steps for achieving high -density structural fill capable of satisfactorily supporting
the proposed construction.
(8) Provide general recommendations for flexible and rigid pavement subgrade preparation and
estimated CBR values for the on -site soil subgrade.
(9) Provide recommendations concerning quality control measures during construction.
The scope of this study does not include an environmental assessment or testing and sampling the soil,
water, or air for the presence of hazardous materials.
FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES
Field Exploration
The subsurface exploration included ten soil test borings at the site. The soil test borings were advanced
with an ATV-CME 45B mounted geotechnical drill rig equipped with a safety hammer to depths of
approximately 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration (SPT) tests were performed
at selected depths within the soil test boring, typically 2 '/2 feet, 5 feet, 7 '/2 feet, 10 feet and every 5 feet
thereafter below the existing ground surface. SPT testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM
procedures utilizing a manual hammer. The SPT N-values, in conjunction with visual soil classifications,
are indicative of a soil's engineering characteristics. The approximate location of the soil test boring is
provided on the Boring Location Plan in the appendix.
SouTHERNENGINEERINGAND TESTING, P.C. Page 2 of 15

Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
Our field representative located soil test borings by estimating distances and angles from existing site
reference points. Ground surface elevations were not provided. The soil test boring logs provide detailed
descriptions of the soils encountered. The appendix also includes groundwater conditions, penetration
resistances, and other related information.
Laboratory Testing
The laboratory investigation consisted of a physical examination and classification of samples obtained
from our investigation. Classification of the soil samples was performed in general accordance with
ASTM D-2488 (Visual -Manual Procedure for Description of Soils). Soil classifications include the use of
the Unified Soil Classification System as described in ASTM D-2487 (Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes). The results of the laboratory testing are summarized in the appendix.
The soil classifications also include our evaluation of the geologic origin of the soils. These evaluations
are based on our experience and interpretation and may be subject to some degree of error.
GENERAL SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Site Location and Description
The site consists of an unimproved parcel of land located at the intersection of Clark Road and Weddington
Road in Monroe, North Carolina. The site is heavily wooded throughout with softwood trees and may be
used as a tree farm. The southern portion of the site is wooded with both hardwood and softwood trees.
Some existing single-family homes are located adjacent to the southern and northern property lines.
Topographic information was provided with the conceptual site plan. The elevations across the sight appear
to change between 20 and 30 feet, with the highest elevations observed in the area of the proposed school.
The low-lying areas of the site appear to be located in the areas marked as wetlands.
Regional Geology
Geological conditions of the area are primarily associated with the Piedmont Physiographic region of
North Carolina. With exception of soils deposited in low-lying areas due to erosion, the site soils are derived
in place due to the weathering of parent bedrock. The predominant bedrock in this location is composed of
metamudstone and meta-argillite.
Soils in this area have been formed by the in -place weathering of the underlying crystalline bedrock, which
accounts for their classification as "residual" soils. Residual soils near the ground surface, which have
experienced advanced weathering, frequently consist of sandy Clay (CL), sandy Silt (ML) or silty Sand
(SM). Chemical weathering of biotite and Fe -bearing materials contained in granite typically produces iron
oxides which result in predominately orange, yellow and brown colored soils.
With increased depth, the soil becomes less weathered, coarser grained, and the structural character of the
underlying parent rock becomes more evident. These residual soils are typically classified as sandy
micaceous silt (ML) or silty micaceous sand (SM). With a further increase in depth the soils eventually
become quite hard and take on an increasing resemblance to the underlying parent rock. When these
materials have a standard penetration resistance of 100 blows per foot or greater, they are referred to as
partially weathered/decomposed rock. The transition from soil to partially weathered rock is usually a
SouTHERNENGINEERINGAND TESTING, P.C. Page 3 of 15

Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
gradual one, and may occur at a wide range of depths. Lenses or layers of partially weathered rock are not
unusual in the soil profile.
Partially weathered rock represents the one of transition between the soil and the metamorphic rocks from
which the soils are derived. The subsurface profile is in fact, a history of the weathering process which the
crystalline rock has undergone. The degree of weathering is most advanced at the ground surface, where
fine grained soil may be present. The weathering process is in its early stages immediately above the surface
of relatively sound rock, where partially weathered rock may be found. The thickness of the zone of partially
weathered rock and the depth to the rock surface have both been found to vary considerably over relatively
short distances. The depth to the rock surface may frequently range from the ground surface to 60 feet or
more. The thickness of partially weathered rock, which overlies the rock surface may vary from only a few
inches to as much as 40 feet or more.
Existing fill, or man placed, materials were
experience indicates that it is not uncommon
materials on sites in developed urban areas.
General Subsurface Conditions
not encountered in the soil test borings. However, our
to encounter existing fill, buried debris and undesirable
The stratification of the soil conditions at the actual soil test boring locations follows. Variations in the
subsurface may occur away from the soil test borings. It is important to note that, whereas the soil test
borings were performed under the supervision of an experienced geotechnical engineer, it is sometimes
difficult to record changes in the subsurface within narrow limits. As a result, the interpretations of
thicknesses, depths, and composition of various strata presented within this section are subject to a certain
degree of error and may vary away from the soil test boring locations.
Topsoil was encountered in soil test borings 237-1 through 237-10 at the ground surface. The thickness of
the topsoil was between approximately 2 and 3 inches. The topsoil thickness should be expected to vary
throughout the site and may be deeper, especially in the lower lying areas of the site.
Residual or weathered in place materials were encountered beneath the topsoil in soil test borings 237-1
through 237-10. The natural residual materials generally classified as a micaceous sandy Silt (USCS ML)
and micaceous silty Sand (USCS SM). The standard penetration resistance (SPT N-value) of these
materials range from 14 to 98 blows per foot.
Residual materials that exhibit an SPT N-value greater than 100 blows per foot are considered to be partially
weathered rock. Partially weathered rock was encountered in soil test borings 237-1 through 237-10, with
exception to soil test boring 237-3. Auger refusal was encountered in soil test borings 237-7 and 238-8 at
approximate depths of 7.5 and 15.0 feet below the existing ground surface. Each soil test boring was
terminated in residual materials.
Groundwater was not encountered in the soil test borings. It should be noted that groundwater levels will
fluctuate depending on seasonal variations of precipitation and other factors, which may occur at higher
elevations at some time in the future.
Each soil test boring was backfilled upon completion to prevent a potential hazard to pedestrian traffic. For
more detailed descriptions of subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, please refer to test pit log section
of the appendix.
SouTHERNENGINEERINGAND TESTING, P.C. Page 4 of 15

Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Project information has been supplied by Mr. George A. Genero, P.E. of Alliance Consulting Engineers.
A conceptual site drawing indicating the planned Phase I and Phase II was prepared and provided to us by
Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc. The provided concept level drawing also indicates the locations for
site improvements including new driveways, parking lots and stormwater detention pond.
We understand that a new two-story school classroom building, and gymnasium are planned for this site.
The two-story classroom building and gymnasium are expected to be concrete tilt -up or masonry structures
with metal joist or structural steel, and supported on conventional spread footings and a concrete slab on
grade. We anticipate that continuous wall loads on the order of 4 to 6 kip per lineal foot, with maximum
column loads on the order of 125 kips. We understand that the school will be accessed by new driveways
and parking areas (visitor, employee and bus), a sports field and a stormwater detention pond. No basement
levels or site retaining walls were indicated. Earth cuts to fill on the order of 3 to 5 feet are assumed for
this project.
If the loads stated above are less than the actual loads in the final design or if the existing building
foundations are loaded, SOUTHERN ENGINEERING should be contacted to assess the applicability of the
following recommendations. Also, if any below grade construction is planned, our recommendation may
no longer be valid and subsequent recommendations will need to be issued.
GENERAL COMMENTS
When the plans and specifications are complete, or if significant changes are made in the character or
location of the proposed construction, a consultation should be arranged to review the changes with respect
to the prevailing soil conditions. At that time, it may be necessary to submit supplementary
recommendations.
All sheeting, shoring, and bracing of trenches, pits and excavations should be made the sole responsibility
of the contractor and should comply with all current and applicable local, state and federal safety codes,
regulations and practices, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and North
Carolina State and local government requirements.
SouTHERNENGINEERINGAND TESTING, P.C. Page 5 of 15

Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the information available on the planned building and
improvements, the data obtained from the soil test borings and our experience with soils and subsurface
conditions similar to those encountered at this site. Because the soil test borings represent a very small
statistical sampling of subsurface and existing foundation conditions, it is possible that conditions
uncovered during construction may differ substantially from those encountered in this exploration. In these
instances, adjustments to the design and construction may be necessary depending on actual conditions.
The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional
advice contained herein, have been presented after being prepared in accordance with generally accepted
professional engineering practice in the fields of foundation engineering, soil mechanics, and engineering
geology. No other warranties are implied or expressed.
General Development Considerations
The site subsurface conditions are favorable for support of the planned construction. The following
geotechnical related conditions were identified during our site visit and subsurface exploration performed
at the site that may impact construction.
The existing site soils classified as sandy Silt (ML) and silty Sand (SM) soils, which are generally
suitable for re -use as structural fill. However, the fine portions of these materials exhibited liquid
limits ranging from 47 to 49 and plasticity indexes greater than 12. Materials with liquid limits
greater than 50 are generally considered to be highly plastic soil types and the on -site materials are
considered suitable, but may exhibit some characteristics of more plastic materials. We anticipate
that much of the on -site materials can be used for structural fill, but moisture conditioning (drying)
will likely be required for compaction. These materials may challenge efficient earthwork
production by the site contractor. The use of quick lime to dry these materials may be required if
the materials become wet.
2. Partially weathered rock and rock including auger refusal were encountered at the site. We
anticipate that much of the soil and partially weathered rock can be excavated with conventional
construction equipment, such as track mounted crawler excavators, heavy loaders and dozers.
Some ripping and difficult excavation may be encountered. Sound rock where encountered at the
site may likely require pre -drilling and blasting for efficient removal. The contractor should
exercise extreme care to prevent over -blasting of rock in areas below the planned new school
building, as excessive settlement and damage to the townhomes can occur as a result.
General Site Preparation
Trees, underbrush, topsoil, roots, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the planned
construction area and 10 feet beyond. Special attention should be given to the removal of tree and shrubbery
stumps. Extensive root systems and localized soft soils are commonly encountered during removal of
stumps.
Site clearing, grubbing, and stripping should be performed only during dry weather conditions. Operation
of heavy equipment on the site during wet conditions could result in excessive mixing of topsoil and organic
debris with clean underlying soils. We anticipate that greater thicknesses of topsoil and unsuitable materials
may be encountered in the bottoms of existing swales, near creeks and in the low-lying areas of the site.
So UTHERNENGINEERINGAND TESTING, P.C. Page 6 of 15

Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
All necessary demolition and removal of existing foundations and pavements and removal or relocation of
existing underground utilities should be completed before site grading operations begin. We recommend
that existing underground utilities be re-routed outside of the planned construction area. The existing utility
lines should be removed. We recommend that the ends of abandoned utilities left in place be permanently
sealed to prevent the inadvertent introduction of fluids into the construction area.
If the existing underground utilities are removed, the resulting excavations should be backfilled in
accordance with the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. Soil density
tests should be performed to verify that the backfill materials have been placed in accordance with
recommendations presented in this report. Any excavation that extends below the proposed construction
should be backfilled in accordance with the recommendations of this report.
The planned pavement and ground slab areas should be proofrolled with a loaded dump truck (minimum
20 tons) prior to the placement of structural fill. Areas of proposed excavation should be proofrolled after
rough finished grade has been established. Proofrolling should be performed under the observation of the
Geotechnical Engineer to determine if any localized unstable soils are present near the ground surface that
require remedial action. Proofrolling should facilitate the identification of soft surficial soils but should not
be expected to reveal soft conditions more than 2 feet below the ground surface at the time of proofroll.
Though not encountered in the soil test borings, unsuitable materials may be encountered during site work
operations. We recommend that the budget include a contingency for removal and replacement of
unsuitable materials and soils with new structural fill if necessary. Additionally, the contractor should
provide unit rates for this service.
Foundation Recommendations
After site preparation and site grading have been completed, it is our opinion that the planned construction
may be supported on conventional shallow foundations. We recommend that a design allowable soil
bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for design. The design bearing pressure is
contingent on the foundations bearing in residual sandy Silt (ML) and silty Sand (SM) or on new structural
fill. Assuming that the design recommendations provided in this report are utilized, we estimate that total
foundation settlements will be less than 1 inch for wall loads of 1 to 2 kip per linear foot. Differential
settlement between adjacent columns is expected to be on the order one-half of the total settlement.
New footings should not bear on existing fill or soft subgrade. If this condition is encountered, the
unsuitable materials should be removed and replaced with lean concrete or other suitable material.
Alternatively, the foundations could be lowered to competent bearing materials, extending through the
existing fill or soft materials.
The foundation subgrade soils are subject to deterioration under wet conditions. We recommend that the
final design for the building should facilitate the collection of surface runoff and direct it away from the
building foundations. The roof should utilize a gutter and down spout system (or other suitable system) to
divert water away from the structures.
We recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for wall footings to prevent general bearing capacity failure
in isolated weak bearing soils. Also, all footings should bear at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the
prevailing exterior ground surface elevation to minimize the potential damage due to frost heave.
SouTHERNENGINEERINGAND TESTING, P.C. Page 7 of 15

Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
Foundation bearing surface evaluations should be performed in each foundation excavation prior to
placement of reinforcing steel. These evaluations should be performed by a representative of the
Geotechnical Engineer to confirm that the design allowable soil bearing pressure is available. The
foundation bearing surface evaluations should be performed using a combination of visual observation and
dynamic cone penetrometer testing.
Dynamic cone penetrometer testing, as described in ASTM STP-399, should be performed in each column
footing and at intervals of 15 feet in continuous wall footings, or as deemed sufficient by the Geotechnical
Engineer. Where reinforcing steel is placed in the foundations, an inspection must be conducted to observe
that specified chairs or supports are provided and that the reinforcing steel is properly positioned, as
specified.
Exposure to the environment can weaken the foundation subgrade, if they are exposed for extended periods
of time. If the foundation bearing surface becomes unstable due to exposure to the environment, remedial
work, such as removal of unsuitable soils, may need to be performed prior to concrete placement. We
recommend that the use of a lean concrete mud mat within the footing excavation when concrete placement
will not occur on the same day as excavation.
Concrete Slabs -On -Grade
We recommend that a design modulus of subgrade reaction value of 100 pci be used for concrete
slabs -on -grade on a preliminary basis. This recommended value assumes that the site preparation is done
in accordance with the recommendations of this report and the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils are
compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of their standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) maximum dry density.
Turn -down slabs should bear at least 18-inches below the final exterior grade for frost protection.
To prevent the capillary rise of infiltrated water from adversely affecting the concrete slab -on -grade floor
systems, we recommend that all slab -on -grade construction be underlain by a minimum 4-inch thick layer
of open graded stone. The use of No. 57 open graded crushed stone meeting the NCDOT specifications is
suggested.
The IBC 2009 building code requires damp -proofing the slab by placing a membrane of 6-mil polyethylene
with joints lapped not less than 6 inches beneath ground slabs. Joints in the membrane should be lapped
and sealed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions. We believe, along with
American Concrete Institute, that a 10-mil polyethylene vapor retarder has better survivability during
installation and that the cost difference between 6 and 10-mil is insignificant. We recommend that the use
of a 10-mil vapor retarder be considered for this project.
Construction activities and exposure to the environment often cause deterioration of the prepared
slab -on -grade subgrade. Therefore, we recommend that the subgrade soils be evaluated by a representative
of the Geotechnical Engineer immediately prior to floor slab construction. This evaluation may include a
combination of visual observations, proofroll observations, and field density tests to verify that the subgrade
has been properly prepared. If soft or loose areas are encountered, recommendations for remedial measures
should be provided by the Geotechnical Engineer.
SouTHERNENGINEERING AND TESTING, P.C. Page 8 of 15

Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
Seismic Site Class
Based upon the guidelines presented in the North Carolina Statewide Building Code 2012 and the average
properties of the soils encountered in the soil test borings, the site class most applicable to the site is Site
Class D. Site Class D is identified as a stiff soil profile with the following average soil properties:
1. Shear wave velocity between 600 and 1,200 feet per second.
2. Standard penetration resistance greater than 15 blows per foot, but less than 50 blows per foot.
3. Soil undrained shear strength greater than 1,000 pounds per square foot, but less than 2,000 pounds
per square foot.
Our evaluation utilized average standard penetration resistance test value available from the field
exploration operations and our experience. A site shear wave velocity study can be performed to refine the
site seismic class if desired. Additionally, a site -specific evaluation can be performed to account for the
regional seismicity and geology, the expected recurrence rates and maximum magnitude of events on
known faults and source zones can also be considered. The results of the site shear wave velocity study
and a site -specific evaluation may result in reduced design spectral response accelerations.
SOUTHERN ENGINEERING is prepared to provide these services if the design necessitates.
Excavation Considerations
The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and
should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the
excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety
regulations including the current North Carolina and OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards.
Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor for the means, methods, and sequencing
of construction operations. We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. Under no
circumstances should the information provided herein be interpreted to mean that
SOUTHERN ENGINEERING is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's
activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.
In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation
depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. Specifically, the current OSHA
Health and Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926 and North Carolina requirements should
be followed. It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not
closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties.
The contractor's "responsible person", as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in
the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. If an excavation, including a trench, is
extended to a depth of more than twenty (20) feet, it will be necessary to have the side slopes designed by
a professional engineer registered in the State of North Carolina.
Materials removed from the excavation should not be stockpiled immediately adjacent to the excavation,
inasmuch as the load may cause a sudden collapse of the embankment. Slope stability analysis should be
performed to determine the factor of safety for cut or fill slopes.
The contractor's "responsible person" should establish a minimum lateral distance from the crest of the
slope for all vehicles and spoil piles. Likewise, the contractor's "responsible person" should establish
protective measures for exposed slope faces.
SouTHERNENGINEERINGAND TESTING, P.C. Page 9 of 15

Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
Excavation Characteristics
For the purpose of discussing excavation characteristics; the materials found in the test borings may be
placed into three broad categories: residual soils, partially weathered rock and bedrock.
Most of the existing fill and residual soils at the project site should generally be excavated with conventional
soil excavation equipment, such as scrapers, loaders, etc. However, residual soils having penetration
resistances ranging from 50 to 100 blows per foot may prove to be difficult to excavate using scrapers.
These hard soils may require the use of heavy dozers or loaders to effectively achieve excavation. It is
possible that hard soils may require ripping in some instances.
Although materials identified as partially weathered rock may in some cases be excavated with
conventional soil excavation equipment, we believe that it is wise to assume that partially weathered rock
will require ripping to efficiently achieve excavation. The thickness and the continuity of partially
weathered rock should be expected to vary widely even over a relatively short distance. Additionally, it
would not be unusual to find lenses of partially weathered rock within more weathered residual soils.
Ripping can probably best be achieved with a single -tooth ripper mounted on a large tractor such as a
Caterpillar D-8 or larger. In small area excavations, such as footing and utility trenches, excavation of
partially weathered rock may require the use of track mounted backhoes, or pneumatic jackhammers.
The term rock, as used in this report, refers to material that would prevent further advancement of the test
boring using conventional soil drilling techniques. The depth at which this occurs is known as "auger
refusal'. For preliminary planning purposes, it may be prudent to assume that rock occurs only a short
depth below the termination depths of the borings, and that blasting will be required for materials identified
as rock.
It is important to note that the depth to rock or partially weathered rock may vary quite rapidly over
relatively short distances. It would not be unusual for rock or partially weathered rock to occur at higher
elevations between or around the soil test borings.
So UTHERNENGINEERINGAND TESTING, P.C. Page 10 of 15

Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
Structural Fill
In order to achieve high -density structural fill, the following recommendations are offered:
(1) Materials selected for use as structural fill should be free of organic matter, waste construction
debris, and other deleterious materials. The material should not contain rocks having a
diameter over 3 inches. It is our opinion that the following soils represented by their USCS
group symbols will typically be suitable for use as structural fill and are abundant in the
Piedmont Physiographic region: (SM), (SC), (SW), (SP), (SP-SM), (SP-SC) and gravels.
Materials selected for use as structural fill should have a liquid limit not to exceed 40 and a
plasticity index no greater than 12. The following soil types should be considered unsuitable
for approved off -site borrow: (ML), (MH), (CL), (CH), (OL), (OH), and (Pt). We anticipate
that the on -site soils classified as CL, ML and SM should be suitable for re -use as structural
fill as approved by the geotechnical engineer. Some moisture conditioning, such as scarifying
and drying, may be required to allow for efficient compaction.
(2) Laboratory Proctor compaction tests and classification tests should be performed on
representative samples obtained from the proposed borrow material to provide data necessary
to determine acceptability and for quality control. The moisture content of suitable borrow
soils should generally not be more than 3 percentage points above or more than 3 percentage
points below optimum at the time of compaction. More stringent moisture limits may be
necessary with certain soils. Permanent pond embankments backfill should be compacted wet
of the optimum moisture content.
(3) Suitable fill material should be placed in thin lifts (lift thickness depends on type of compaction
equipment, but in general, lifts of 8-inch loose measurement is recommended). The soil should
be compacted by mechanical means such as a vibrating sheep's foot or a smooth drummed
vibratory roller. Within small excavations such as behind retaining walls or in footing
excavations, we recommend the use of gasoline powered tamps or diesel sled tamps to achieve
the specified compaction. Loose lift thickness of 4 to 6 inches is recommended in small or
confined area fills.
(4) We recommend that all structural fill be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard
Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM Specification D-698). Structural fill deeper than 10 feet
should be compacted to at least 98% of ASTM D-698. The upper 12" of pavement or slab
subgrade should be compacted to a density not less than 100% of ASTM D-698. Roadway
improvements should be constructed in accordance with the requirements of NCDOT for
subgrade fill, base course stone and asphalt placement.
(5) An experienced soil engineering technician representing the Geotechnical Engineer should take
adequate density tests throughout the fill placement operation to verify that the specified
compaction is achieved. It is particularly important that this be accomplished during the initial
stages of the compaction operation to enable adjustments to the compaction operation, if
necessary.
SouTHERNENGINEERINGAND TESTING, P.C. Page 11 of 15

Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
Pavement Considerations
No specific analysis has been made for the design of pavements. The following comments are basic
considerations which will not eliminate the need for a careful review, analysis, and laboratory testing. In
designing flexible pavements for parking lots or roadways, the existing subgrade conditions must be
considered together with the expected traffic use and loading conditions. The conditions that will influence
the design can be summarized as follows:
1. Bearing values of the subgrade can be represented by a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) for the
design of flexible pavements or a Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) for rigid pavement structures.
2. Groundwater conditions, variations in water levels, expansive considerations, and the necessity
for underdrains
3. Vehicular traffic, in terms of the number and frequency of vehicles and their range of axle loads.
4. Probable increase in vehicular use over the life of the pavement.
5. The availability of suitable materials to be used in the construction of the pavement and their
relative costs.
Generally, flexible pavements derive their strength from:
1. The existing subgrade soils.
2. Any additional compacted fill soils.
3. Stabilization of the subgrade.
4. The base course.
5. The asphaltic concrete.
The strength of granular soils may be increased by proof compacting or by stabilization with cement,
whereas the stability of clay subgrades may be increased by various methods including soil compaction and
lime stabilization. Subgrades of higher strength generally require less pavement thickness.
Based on the results of the soil test borings performed in the building area, we anticipate that the subgrade
soils within the proposed pavement areas to consist primarily of Sandy Silt (USCS ML) and Silty Sand
(USCS SM). The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) for these soils may reasonably range from approximately
3 to 5, if the subgrade soils are uniformly compacted to a minimum of 100% of the standard Proctor
(ASTM D698) maximum dry density in the upper 12 inches.
SouTHERNENGINEERINGAND TESTING, P.C. Page 12 of 15

Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
Pond Considerations
Based on detail provided about the project, we understand that one BMP facility is planned for the southern
portion of the site adjacent to the Phase II Parking. We provide the following preliminary pond
recommendations.
Clearing, grubbing and stripping of the foundation and abutment areas of the planned embankments should
be performed in accordance with the Site Preparation recommendations provided in this report. After
clearing, grubbing and stripping operations are complete, the subgrade should be observed and proofrolled
by the geotechnical engineer. Proofrolling operations should be performed with a loaded (20-ton minimum)
dump truck or the heaviest possible equipment that will not cause disturbance of suitable subgrade soils.
The proofrolling equipment and load should be provided by the contractor.
If excessively soft or unsuitable materials are discovered during the proofrolling operations, these materials
should be removed and replaced with compacted fill. Where rock is exposed after stripping or undercutting,
all loose materials should be removed prior to placing the compacted fill. Rock subgrades should be
observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of compacted fill. Additionally, the subgrade for
planned conduits and structures should be observed and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to
installation. Compacted fill should not be placed prior to performing the required foundation and abutment
preparations. The contractor should be responsible for the removal and control of any surface water and
groundwater.
Compacted fill should extend to the fill limits, lines and grades indicated by the approved construction plan.
Compacted fill materials should consist of USCS soil types of, MH, CL and CH. Any off -site borrow
should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior the commencement of hauling and placement
activities. Compacted fill should be free of organic materials, rubbish, frozen soil, snow, ice, particles with
sizes larger than 3 inches or other deleterious materials.
Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal layers of 8 to 12-inch loose lift thickness. The moisture
content of the fill should be controlled such that the materials are at or as much as 3 percent greater than
the optimum moisture content. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted with a sheep's foot, vibratory type
compactor. Each layer should be compacted to not less than 95 percent of the Standard Moisture Density
Relationship (ASTM D-698). Any layer that becomes smooth under compaction or construction traffic
should be scarified to a depth of 2 inches to provide adequate bonding between layers.
Soil compaction testing should be performed to determine the in -place density and moisture content during
construction of the embankments to verify compliance. Testing frequency should include at least one test
per 5,000 square feet of compacted area per lift, but in no case less than two tests per lift.
Permanent embankments should not exceed slopes greater than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. In service, the
dam embankment should maintain a thick, healthy grass cover over the embankment. The grass should be
cut to prevent growth heights greater than 8 inches. The embankment should be kept free of trees and
brush. All erosion gullies, bare areas, paths, animal burrows or other occurrences should be repaired
promptly. Spillway structures should be periodically cleared of debris and should be observed for blockage
after any significant rainfall event. Annual inspections of the BMP are recommended to insure proper
function.
SouTHERNENGINEERINGAND TESTING, P.C. Page 13 of 15

Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
RECOMMENDED QUALITY CONTROL SERVICES
Additional foundation engineering, testing, and consulting services recommended for this project are
summarized below:
(1) Subsurface Exploration and Final Geotechnical Recommendations: We recommend that soil
test borings be advanced in the planned building and gymnasium footprint area once finalized.
The borings and recommendations presented in this report are preliminary and subject to
modification in the final geotechnical report.
(2) Proofrolling Observation and Compaction Testing: Proofrolling should be performed by
SOUTHERN ENGINEERING at the site prior to the placement of additional fill to determine if
remedial measures are necessary. Additionally, soil compaction testing should be performed
during earthwork operations to verify that the required degree of compaction has been achieved
by the site contractor.
(3) Footing and Floor Slab Evaluations: It is recommended that footing and slab areas for this
project be evaluated by SOUTHERN ENGINEERING. The purpose of these evaluations will be
to verify that the design soil bearing pressure is available and that subgrade areas are properly
prepared.
(4) Reinforcing Steel Observations: It is recommended that we observed reinforcing steel placed
for footings, floor slabs, sidewalks, curb and gutter and rigid pavements (dumpster enclosure
pad) for this project. The purpose of these evaluations will be to verify that the 28-day design
compressive strength is available.
(5) Concrete Quality Control Testing: It is recommended that Portland cement concrete placed for
foundations, slabs on grade, sidewalks, curb and gutter and rigid pavements (dumpster
enclosure pad) for this project be tested by SOUTHERN ENGINEERING. The purpose of these
evaluations will be to verify that the 28-day design compressive strength is available.
The recommendations conveyed in this report have been based upon information derived from limited
sampling and testing. Accordingly, the recommendations' appropriateness cannot be evaluated until
SOUTHERNENGINEERING learns more about actual subsurface conditions by observing earthwork in the
field, at which time SOUTHERN ENGINEERING will finalize its recommendations. It is in the best interest
of the Client to retain SOUTHERN ENGINEERING to observe earthwork operations with respect to the
contractor's compliance with design concepts, specifications, and recommendations, and to help develop
alternative recommendations if the conditions observed differ from those inferred to exist.
No entity can be as familiar with the design concepts inherent in these recommendations as
SOUTHERNENGINEERING. Accordingly, only observations by SOUTHERN ENGINEERING can permit
SOUTHERNENGINEERING to finalize its recommendations and enhance the likelihood of the design concept
being adequately considered during implementation of its recommendations.
SOUTHERNENGINEERING appreciates the opportunity to work with you during the design phase of this
project. We are prepared to provide the recommended construction materials testing and special inspection
services during the construction phase.
SouTHERNENGINEERINGAND TESTING, P.C. Page 14 of 15

Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Apprentice Academy
Monroe, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 18-237
December 4, 2018
EV99401-110
SouTHERNENGINEERINGAND TESTING, P.C. Page 15 of 15

-- Geotechnical- Engineering Report ---)
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you — assumedly
a client representative — interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively
as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from
a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems
that, for decades, have been a principal cause of
construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and
disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed below,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.
Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business
Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a
wide array of risk -confrontation techniques that can
be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a
construction project.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific
needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted
for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil -
works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each
geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-
engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who
rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client
can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives
should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
- not even you - should apply this report for any purpose or project except
the one originally contemplated.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an
executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report
in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
about Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project -specific factors
when designing the study behind this report and developing the
confirmation -dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few
typical factors include:
• the client's goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and
risk -management preferences;
• the general nature of the structure involved, its size,
configuration, and performance criteria;
• the structure's location and orientation on the site; and
• other planned or existing site improvements, such as
retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and
underground utilities.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
those that affect:
• the site's size or shape;
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's
changed from a parking garage to an office building, or
from a light -industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or
weight of the proposed structure;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their
impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical
engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise
would have considered.
This Report May Not Be Reliable
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a
portion of the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent
to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or
environmental remediation, or natural events like floods,
droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time,
because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified
codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your
geotechnical engineer has not indicated an `apply -by" date on the report,
ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis - if any is required at all - could prevent major problems.
Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report Are
Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site's
subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.
Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at
those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The
data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your
geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to
form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual
sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ - maybe significantly - from
those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your
geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to
project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly,
whenever needed.

This Report's Recommendations Are
Confirmation -Dependent
The recommendations included in this report - including any options
or alternatives - are confirmation -dependent. In other words, they are
not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied
heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer
can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your
geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist
actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming
no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared
this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation -
dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform
construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals' misinterpretation of geotechnical-
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the
design team, to:
• confer with other design -team members,
• help develop specifications,
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals'
plans and specifications, and
• be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering
guidance is needed.
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this
report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction
observation.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift
unanticipated -subsurface -conditions liability to constructors by limiting
the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent
the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments
or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note
conspicuously that you've included the material for informational
purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note
that "informational purposes" means constructors have no right to rely
on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in
the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific
times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that
constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements,
including options selected from the report, only from the design
drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may
perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough
time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position
to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring
them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming
from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction
conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do
not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured
unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays,
cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical
engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.
Sometimes labeled "limitations;' many of these provisions indicate
where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these
provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an
environmental study - e.g., a "phase -one" or "phase -two" environmental
site assessment - differ significantly from those used to perform
a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-
engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of
encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.
Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project
failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental
information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report
prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six
months old.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture
Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer's
services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled
migration of moisture - including water vapor - from the soil through
building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can
cause mold growth and material -performance deficiencies. Accordingly,
proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations
will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront
the risk of moisture infiltration by including building -envelope or mold
specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building -
envelope or mold specialists.
GEOPROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
SEA ASSOCIATION
Telephone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail] wwwgeoprofessional.org
Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly
prohibited, except with GBAs specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission
of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any
kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent

PHASE OF APPRENTICE PHASE II OF APPRENTICE
V /
ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL /\ \�\ ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL
FIRST FLOOR: 16,697 SF /2\\ 12,D40 SF
SECOND FLOOR: 13,616 SF1--
- \ TOTAL:32,513 SF Ya 237-2 \ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 1
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF �s \
16' JACKAN BORE UNDER — _ �-� t854 LF STACKING �\ m -wry\ \ I / PROPERTY LINE \
WEDDINGTON ROAD— t85M1 LF STACKING \\'\ I 237-1 -- 37-3, I I'I 1, "— / �� \l / / / F-F
TOTAL. 1,3<KI LF / I .. ' PROPOSED SIDEWALK(M.) `1 f t 1.516 LF STA(%ONG
t 1,528 LF STACKING
TOTAL:3,1 LF V � I v
PROPOSED �4
EXIT
L �2378
PHASE II PARKING qi�i PIW IPARKING / \ \ X�� —
APPROXIMATE LOCATIONt153 SPACES \ _ %� ffi63PACE3
OF EXISTING VDIP'
WATERLINE_\
STORMWATERR BASIN
l I AppgESg. x.,15WIDCINGfON �.4D, UNXM'NC
PROPOSED ROAD WIDENING — \ — / / ��� 30 LF WETLAND BUFFER
SCHOOLSF
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF R10.9E o: 12,OIOSF
PROPOSED l \ \ WERANDS I \ I I 1 \ I I BUFFEa3: AL M.6633F
_ ..ENTRANCE 1
DLARK -� —656 1111 - - =� ���� �� / '� PARaNG:53PACES rE1iGIHSROaN
�- ROAD "- PROPOSED ROAD WIDENING / J NEG.
"Ell: WSPAGES
— t} , � ( / I / NEG. (PIVSEIIk 1W SPACES
PROPOSED LEFTTURN LANE- / I _-1 �/ ' I I PaovIDEG: �I—.
- .. EXISTING CIRK R`OAD
NOOUNARES,OOPH,WEDS,NDSNOIONSAEARADOGG I R: &S
NONTNSYMMSlGIS1AOUNM DO GRHICNE ONGRADDMNSKKME WIDTH tiBLF BNWDW: 3MV
PERFDMEDTO EERMIIJE URE BOMMY, TOleANDuLan/
r
( IN FEET )
Pgefxvlmamaa
omws,mR
LEGEND
-Approx. Soil Boring
Location
-Approx. Test Pit
Location
Conceptual Site Plan for the
New Apprentice Academ.{y High SchoolBCC ,L,`ANcE
`�
in Union County, North Carolina CONSULTING ENGINEERS
PnpsN b/8'm DreIN, Bp•sa N:
SOUTHERN ENGINEERING REVISIONS
Consulting • Engineering • Construction Testing • Special Inspections
6120 Brookshire Blvd, Suite A, Charlotte, NC 28216 [phone]
APPRENTICE ACADEMY
BORING LOCATION PLAN
ALLIANCE CONSULTING ENGINEERS I November 20, 2018 1
REF I I Not Drawn To Scale I Proposal No.: 18-237

FIELD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOILS
Densi
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
NON -COHESIVE SOILS
(Silt, Sand, Gravel and Combinations)
Blows per Foot
- 4 or less
-4to 10
- 10 to 30
- 30 to 50
- 50 or more
Particle Size Identification
Boulders
Cobbles
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
COHESIVE SOILS
(Clay, Silt, and Combinations)
Consistency Blows per Foot
Very Soft
- 2 or less
Soft
-2to4
Medium Stiff
- 4 to 8
Stiff
- 8 to 15
Very Stiff
- 15 to 30
Hard
- 30 or more
Plasticity
- > 10 inches
- 3 to 10 inches
- Coarse: 3/4 to 3 in
Fine: 3/4 in to 4.75 mm
- Coarse: 4.75 to 2 mm
Medium: 2 to 425-µm
Fine: 475 to 75-µm
- < 75-µm
Dearee
PI
None to Slight
0 to 4
Slight
5 to 7
Medium
8 to 22
High
22 and over
Classification on records of subsurface exploration are made by visual inspection of samples.
Standard Penetration Test - A 2" O.D. (1 3/8" I.D.) sampler is driven a distance of one foot
into undisturbed soil with a 140 pound hammer free falling 30 inches. Southern Engineering
will customarily drive the spoon six inches to seat into undisturbed soil prior to performing
the test. The number of times the sampler is struck with the hammer is recorded for each six
inches of penetration on the drill log; e.g., 4-6-3. The `N' value can be calculated by adding
the last two numbers; e.g., 6+3=9. The procedure for the standard penetration test is defined
inASTM D1586-08.
Groundwater - The groundwater level is recorded during and after the drilling operations
and recorded on the drill log at the time indicated. The actual groundwater level may
fluctuate due to weather conditions, site topography, adjacent construction or changed land
use. Multiple groundwater levels exist; the groundwater level indicated on the log may be a
perched condition
SOUTHERNENGINEERINGAND TESTING, P. C.
6120-A Brookshire Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28216
[phone] Office • [phone] Office 2 • [phone] Fax

C7
0
c�
m
Q
J
rn
0
z
Z
Cn
0
0
w
Y
KEY TO SYMBOLS
7 Southern Engineering and Testing,
SO £' TIER E Ri.vG
P.C.
.,%'GiA 6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
C—do n •Eafisrrra; •C—nrcra Tr-� •9p-W Iwpr—
Charlotte, NC 28216
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
LITHOLOGIC SYMBOLS
SAMPLER SYMBOLS
(Unified Soil Classification System)
Standard Penetration Test
ML: USCS Silt
PWR: Partially Weathered Rock
SM: USCS Silty Sand
TOPSOIL: Topsoil
WELL CONSTRUCTION SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
LL
LIQUID LIMIT (%)
TV-TORVANE
PI
PLASTIC INDEX (%)
PID PHOTOIONIZATION DETECTOR
W
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
DID
DRY DENSITY (PCF)
ppm PARTS PER MILLION
NP
NON PLASTIC
Water Level at Time
-200
PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
Drilling, or as Shown
PP
POCKET PENETROMETER (TSF)
Water Level at End of
1
Drilling, or as Shown
Water Level After 24
Hours, or as Shown

BORING NUMBER 237-1
Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C. PAGE 1 OF 2
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG
6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
-EZi.«�-C--6-r�_�•sP-Wr-P«—
Charlotte, NC 28216
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
DATE STARTED 11/16/18 COMPLETED 11/16/18 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SE&T GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD 2 1/4-in HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
LOGGED BY WEL CHECKED BY WEL AT END OF DRILLING ---
NOTES ATV-CME 45B SAFETY HAMMER AFTER DRILLING ---
w
o
z
�
A SPT N VALUE A
U
Cc
o
>-
U) w
w
20 40 60 80
�^
=0
~w
Mo~�
a
�^
o
PL MC LL
ow
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J
> C7
0¢
w 4
z
0�80
o
oaCJ
a=)
0—
m0>
v
}
20 4�
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
0<
z
�
U z
0
o
0.0
1
20 40 60 80
(OL) TOPSOIL (Approximately 3 inches)
-------------
(SM) Tan and orange, moist, medium dense to dense, silty SAND
(SM) (RESIDUUM)
SPT
100
6-8810
.............. :.............. :.......
( )
2.5
............ .:.............. :.......
(SM) Tan and red, moist, very dense, silty SAND (SM)
SPT
100
13-21-29
� .......................... .
2
(50)
5.0
.......:...............................
SPT
67
13-18-23
3
(41)
7.5
......
SST
33
20-333-37
()
10.0
.......................................
• »
.......................................
12.5
SPT
5
111
44-50/3"
(SM) Partially weathered rock (PWR-SM) sampled as silty SAND
15.0
(Continued Next Page)

Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C.
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG -EZi.«�•c--Ei-T_j•sP,EWr-P«— 6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28216
BORING NUMBER 237-1
PAGE 2OF2
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
w
o
A SPT N VALUE A
0
} Cc
>
U) w
w
20 40 60 80
~m
(r _
�z�
a—
~
PL MC LL
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J g
> C1
0¢
w 4
Z"
o
oaCJ
a=)
0°C
m0>
v"
}
20 4� 0�80
�Z
0
UZ
<
LU
0
cc
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
o
(SM) Partially weathered rock (PWR-SM) sampled as silty SAND
(continued)
Refusal at 18.6 feet.
Bottom of borehole at 18.6 feet.

BORING NUMBER 237-2
Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C. PAGE 1 OF 2
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG
6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
-EZi.«�-C--6-r�_�•sP-Wr-P«—
Charlotte, NC 28216
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
DATE STARTED 11/17/18 COMPLETED 11/17/18 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SE&T GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD 2 1/4-in HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
LOGGED BY WEL CHECKED BY WEL AT END OF DRILLING ---
NOTES ATV-CME 45B SAFETY HAMMER AFTER DRILLING ---
w
o
z
�
A SPT N VALUE A
U
Cc
o
>-
U) w
w
20 40 60 80
�^
=0
~w
Mo~�
a
�^
o
PL MC LL
ow
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J
> C7
0¢
w 4
z
o
oaCJ
a=)
0—
m0>
v
}
20 4� 0�80
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
0<
z
�
U z
0
o
0.0
1
20 40 60 80
(OL) TOPSOIL (Approximately 2 inches)
(ML) Yellow, moist, very stiff, sandy SILT (ML)(RESIDUUM)
SPT
100
6 5
23
( )
....................................
2.5
.......:...... :.......:.......:.......
(SM) Yellow and red, moist, very dense, silty SAND (SM)
SPT
89
15-24-29
:
2
(53)
5.0
(SM) Red and orange, moist, very dense, silty SAND (SM)
SPT
78
15-30-40
.............. :......................
3
(70)
7.5
SPT
56
23-34-50.....
(8)
10.0
(SM) Partially weathered rock (PW R-SM) sampled as silty SAND
12.5
.............. :.............. :.......
• . >>
SPT
140
50/5"
5
...............
15.0
(Continued Next Page)

Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C.
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG -EZi.«�•c--Ei-T_j•sP,EWr-P«— 6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28216
BORING NUMBER 237-2
PAGE 2OF2
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
w
o
A SPT N VALUE A
0
} Cc
>
U) w
w
20 40 60 80
~m
(r _
�z�
a—
~
PL MC LL
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J g
> C1
0¢
w 4
Z"
o
oaCJ
a=)
0°C
m0>
v"
}
20 4� 0�80
�Z
0
UZ
<
LU
0
cc
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
o
(SM) Partially weathered rock (PWR-SM) sampled as silty SAND
(continued)
Refusal at 18.6 feet. SPT
Bottom of borehole at 18.6 feet. 6

BORING NUMBER 237-3
Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C. PAGE 1 OF 2
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG
6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
-EZi.«�-C--6-r�_�•sP-Wr-P«—
Charlotte, NC 28216
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
DATE STARTED 11/16/18 COMPLETED 11/16/18 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SE&T GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD 2 1/4-in HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
LOGGED BY WEL CHECKED BY WEL AT END OF DRILLING ---
NOTES ATV-CME 45B SAFETY HAMMER AFTER DRILLING ---
w
o
z
�
A SPT N VALUE A
U
Cc
o
>-
U) w
w
20 40 60 80
�^
=0
~w
Mo~�
a
�^
o
PL MC LL
ow
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J
> C7
0¢
w 4
z
o
oaCJ
a=)
0—
m0>
v
}
20 4� 0�80
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
0<
z
�
U z
0
o
0.0
1
20 40 60 80
(OL) TOPSOIL (Approximately 3 inches)
-------------
(ML) Red, moist, very stiff, sandy SILT (ML) (RESIDUUM)
.......................................
SPT
100
8-1 -15
�.....
()
.......................................
2.5
.......:.... ..:.......:...............
(ML) Orange and yellow, moist, very stiff, sandy SILT (ML)
SPT
100
10-17-21
2
(38)
5.0
(SM) Red and orange, moist, medium dense, silty SAND (SM)
SPT
100
11-18-24
❑
3
(42)
7.5
+....
S4T
100
6
2112
( )
10.0
.:
�.....
12.5
S5T
100
4-7-9
( )
15.0
* '
L
(Continued Next Page)

Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C.
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG -EZi.«�•c--Ei-T_j•sP,EWr-P«— 6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28216
BORING NUMBER 237-3
PAGE 2OF2
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
w
o
A SPT N VALUE A
0
} Cc
>
U) w
w
20 40 60 80
~m
(r _
�z�
a—
~
PL MC LL
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J g
> C1
0¢
w 4
Z"
o
oaCJ
a=)
0°C
m0>
v"
}
20 4� 0�80
�Z
0
UZ
<
LU
0
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
o
17.5 (SM) Red and orange, moist, medium dense, silty SAND (SM)
(continued)
SPT 8-11-13
(SM) Tan and orange, moist, medium dense silty SAND (SM) 100 •
6 (24)
20.0
Bottom of borehole at 20.0 feet.

BORING NUMBER 237-4
Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C. PAGE 1 OF 2
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG
6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
-EZi.«�-C--6-r�_�•sP-Wr-P«—
Charlotte, NC 28216
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
DATE STARTED 11/17/18 COMPLETED 11/17/18 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SE&T GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD 2 1/4-in HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
LOGGED BY WEL CHECKED BY WEL AT END OF DRILLING ---
NOTES ATV-CME 45B SAFETY HAMMER AFTER DRILLING ---
w
o
z
�
A SPT N VALUE A
U
Cc
o
>-
U) w
w
20 40 60 80
�^
=0
~w
Mo~�
a
�^
o
PL MC LL
ow
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J
> C7
0¢
w 4
z
0�80
o
oaCJ
a=)
0—
m0>
v
}
20 4�
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
0<
z
�
U z
0
o
0.0
1
20 40 60 80
(OL) TOPSOIL (Approximately 3 inches)
-------------
(ML) Red and yellow, moist, hard, sandy SILT (ML)(RESIDUUM)
.......................................
SPT
94
11-13-18
.........................
1
(31)
2.5
........:.............:.......
SPT
100
14-22-34
2
(56)
5.0
.......:.......:......:.......:.......
SPT
83
17-18-23
3
(41)
......................................
7.5
(SM) Red, moist, very dense, silty SAND (SM)
SPT
59
15-32-
• »
4
50/5"
10.0
(SM) Partially weathered rock (PW R-SM) sampled as silty SAND
12.5
.............. :.............. :.......
• >>
SPT
100
50/5"
5
...............
15.0
(Continued Next Page)

Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C.
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG -EZi.«�•c--Ei-T_j•sP,EWr-P«— 6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28216
BORING NUMBER 237-4
PAGE 2OF2
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
w
o
A SPT N VALUE A
0
} Cc
>
U) w
w
20 40 60 80
~m
(r _
�z�
a—
~
PL MC LL
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J g
> C1
0¢
w 4
Z"
o
oaCJ
a=)
0°C
m0>
v"
}
20 4� 0�80
�Z
0
UZ
<
LU
0
cc
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
o
(SM) Partially weathered rock (PWR-SM) sampled as silty SAND
(continued)
6
Refusal at 19.3 feet.
Bottom of borehole at 19.3 feet.
140 1 50/5"
...........................
•

BORING NUMBER 237-5
Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C. PAGE 1 OF 2
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG
6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
-EZi.«�-C--6-r�_�•sP-Wr-P«—
Charlotte, NC 28216
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
DATE STARTED 11/16/18 COMPLETED 11/16/18 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SE&T GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD 2 1/4-in HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
LOGGED BY WEL CHECKED BY WEL AT END OF DRILLING ---
NOTES ATV-CME 45B SAFETY HAMMER AFTER DRILLING ---
w
o
z
�
A SPT N VALUE A
U
Cc
o
>-
U) w
w
20 40 60 80
�^
=0
~w
Mo
~�
a
�^
o
PL MC LL
ow
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J
> C7
0¢
w 4
z
0�80
o
oaCJ
a=)
0—
m0>
v
}
20 4�
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
0<
z
�
U z
0
o
0.0
1
20 40 60 80
(OL) TOPSOIL (Approximately 3 inches)
-------------
(SM) Tan and orange, moist, dense, silty SAND (SM)(RESIDUUM)
�.......................
SPT
100
8-13-26
2.5
::
1
(39)
.............. :............. .......
.............. :... .......... :.......
(SM) Orange and tan, moist, very dense, silty SAND (SM)
S2T
100
21 43
.. ............................
72
( )
5.0
.......:...............................
SPT
56
13-26-30
3
(56)
.............. ......... ...... :.......
7.5
>>
SPT
82
23 38
(SM) Orange and tan, moist, very dense, silty SAND (SM)
4
50/5"
10.0
12.5
........
S5T
56
24-73-35
( )
15.0
(Continued Next Page)

Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C.
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG -EZi.«�•c--Ei-T_j•sP,EWr-P«— 6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28216
BORING NUMBER 237-5
PAGE 2OF2
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
w
o
A SPT N VALUE A
0
} Cc
>
U) w
w
20 40 60 80
~m
(r _
�z�
a—
~
PL MC LL
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J g
> C1
0¢
w 4
Z"
o
oaCJ
a=)
0°C
m0>
v"
}
20 4� 0�80
�Z
0
UZ
<
LU
0
cc
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
o
(SM) Orange and tan, moist, very dense, silty SAND (SM)
(continued)
(SM) Partially weathered rock (PW R-SM) sampled as silty SAND
6
Refusal at 19.3 feet.
Bottom of borehole at 19.3 feet.
120 1 50/5"
............................
•

BORING NUMBER 237-6
Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C. PAGE 1 OF 2
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG -EZi.«�-C--6-r�_�•sP-Wr-P«— 6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28216
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
DATE STARTED 11/17/18 COMPLETED 11/17/18 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SE&T GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD 2 1/4-in HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
LOGGED BY WEL CHECKED BY WEL AT END OF DRILLING ---
NOTES ATV-CME 45B SAFETY HAMMER AFTER DRILLING ---
�^
ow
o
0.0
U
=0
0
oaCJ
0<
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
Cc
~w
J
a=)
z
o
o
>-
Mo~�
> C7
0—
�
U) w
0¢
m0>
U z
z
w
a
w 4
v
0
�
�^
z o
}
o
1
A SPT N VALUE A
20 40 60 80
PL MC LL
20 4� 0�80
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
20 40 60 80
(OL) TOPSOIL (Approximately 3 inches)
-------------
(ML) Red and yellow, moist, stiff, sandy SILT (ML)(RESIDUUM)
.......................................
�......+o................
SPT
1
100
6-5-9
(14)
2.5
..... ........ .............. .......
........ ...... :.............. :.......
(SM) Red and orange, moist, dense, silty SAND (SM)
SPT
2
100
10-16-19
(35)
5.0
(SM) Red, moist, very dense silty SAND (SM)
SPT
3
78
16-21-31
(52)
.............. :... .......... :.......
7.5
F4PT
32-50/5"
(SM) Partially Weathered Rock (PWR-SM) sampled as silty SAND91
10.0
.............. :.............. :.......
•. >>
.......:...............................
12.5
SPT
5
200
50/5"
15.0
(Continued Next Page)

Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C.
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG -EZi.«�•c--Ei-T_j•sP,EWr-P«— 6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28216
BORING NUMBER 237-6
PAGE 2OF2
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
w
o
A SPT N VALUE A
0
} Cc
>
U) w
w
20 40 60 80
~m
(r _
�z�
a—
~
PL MC LL
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J g
> C1
0¢
w 4
Z"
o
oaCJ
a=)
0°C
m0>
v"
}
20 4� 0�80
�Z
0
UZ
<
Lu
0
cc
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
o
(SM) Partially Weathered Rock (PWR-SM) sampled as silty SAND
(continued)
Refusal at 18.5 feet. SPT
Bottom of borehole at 18.5 feet. 6

Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C.
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG -EZi.«�•c--Ei-T_j•sP,EWr-P«— 6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28216
BORING NUMBER 237-7
PAGE 1 OF 1
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
DATE STARTED 11/14/18 COMPLETED 11/14/18 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SE&T GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD 2 1/4-in HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
LOGGED BY WEL CHECKED BY WEL AT END OF DRILLING ---
NOTES ATV-CME 45B SAFETY HAMMER AFTER DRILLING ---
w
o
z
�
A SPT N VALUE A
U
Cc
o
>-
cn w
w
20 40 60 80
T-^
=0
~w
(r
�^
PL MC LL
0—
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J 2i
>
0 ¢
w
z
o
oaCJ
a�
or
0—
m0>
v
}
20 4� 0�80
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
C7
< z
�
U z
0
o
0.0
20 40 60 80
(OL) TOPSOIL (Approximately 3 inches)
(ML) Tan, wet, hard, sandy SILT (ML)(RESIDUUM)
-
.......................................
(SM) Paritally weathered rock (PW R-SM) sampled as silty SAND
SPT
1
109
19-50/5"
.......:.•............ :........... »
2.5
.......:.......:.......:.......:.......
• »
SPT
300
50/4"
2
.......:..............................
5.0
............... : .......:.......:.......
• »
SPT
300
50/4"
Refusal at 6.7 feet. •
Bottom of borehole at 6.7 feet.

Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C.
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG -EZi.«�•c--Ei-T_j•sP,EWr-P«— 6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28216
BORING NUMBER 237-8
PAGE 1 OF 1
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers
PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237
PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
DATE STARTED 11/14/18 COMPLETED 11/14/18
GROUND ELEVATION
HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SE&T
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD 2 1/4-in HSA
AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
LOGGED BY WEL CHECKED BY WEL
AT END OF DRILLING ---
NOTES ATV-CME 45B SAFETY HAMMER
AFTER DRILLING ---
w
o
z
�
A SPT N VALUE A
U
Cc
o
>-
cn w
w
20 40 60
80
T-^
=0
~w
(r
�^
PL MC
LL
0—
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J 2i
>
0 ¢
w
Z"
o
oaCJ
a�
or
0—
m0>
v
}
20 4� 0�80
2Z
0
UZ
<
Lu
0
El FINES CONTENT
(%) El
o
-
-
2.5
:: ..:
(OL) TOPSOIL (Approximately 3 inches)
.................................
.............. :.............. .......
.....
....................................
.............. .......... ..... :.......
.............. ............... ........
• »
.....................................
...• ......... .:.............. :...��.
(SM) Orange and tan, moist, dense, silty SAND (SM)(RESIDUUM)
SPT
1
100
7-10-31
(41)
5.0
S2T
100
21 46 29
( )
7.5
(SM) Tan and red, moist, very dense, silty SAND (SM) with rock
fragments
SPT
3
67
23-25-32
(57)
_
_
10.0
(SM) Partially weathered rock (PWR-SM) sampled as silty SAND
Tj
SPT
4
114
27 50/1"
12.5
SPT
5
400
50/2"
Refusal at 13.8 feet.
Bottom of borehole at 13.8 feet.

BORING NUMBER 237-9
Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C. PAGE 1 OF 2
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG
6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
-EZi.«�-C--6-r�_�•sP-Wr-P«—
Charlotte, NC 28216
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
DATE STARTED 11/17/18 COMPLETED 11/17/18 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SE&T GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD 2 1/4-in HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
LOGGED BY WEL CHECKED BY WEL AT END OF DRILLING ---
NOTES ATV-CME 45B SAFETY HAMMER AFTER DRILLING ---
w
o
z
�
A SPT N VALUE A
U
Cc
o
>-
U) w
w
20 40 60 80
�^
=0
~w
Mo~�
a
�^
o
PL MC LL
ow
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J
> C7
0¢
w 4
z
0�80
o
oaCJ
a=)
0—
m0>
v
}
20 4�
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
0<
z
�
U z
0
o
0.0
1
20 40 60 80
(OL) TOPSOIL (Approximately 2 inches)
(ML) Red and orange, moist, stiff, sandy SILT (ML)(RESIDUUM)
�......................
SPT
100
5-7-7
2.5
1
(14)
..... ........ .............. .......
....... :...... :.............. :.......
(ML) Red and orange, moist, hard, sandy SILT (ML)
SPT
100
8-15-20
0.......
2
(35)
5.0
.............
F.
(SM) Red and brown, moist, dense, silty SAND (SM)
SPT
89
46-31-46
.............. :........... ..:.......
3
(77)
7.5
..........:.......:.......:...».
SPT
59
17 31
4
50/5"
10.0
.......................................
(SM) Partially weathered rock (PW R-SM) sampled as silty SAND
12.5
.......................................
S >>
SPT
5
144
32-50/3"
15.0
(Continued Next Page)

Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C.
SOUTHERNENGiAwEREvG -EZi.«�•c--Ei-T_j•sP,EWr-P«— 6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28216
BORING NUMBER 237-9
PAGE 2OF2
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
w
o
A SPT N VALUE A
0
} Cc
>
U) w
w
20 40 60 80
~m
(r _
�z�
a—
~
PL MC LL
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J g
> C1
0¢
w 4
Z"
o
oaCJ
a=)
0°C
m0>
v"
}
20 4� 0�80
�Z
0
UZ
<
Lu
0
cc
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
o
(SM) Partially weathered rock (PWR-SM) sampled as silty SAND
(continued)
Refusal at 18.5 feet. SPT
Bottom of borehole at 18.5 feet. 6

BORING NUMBER 237-10
SOUTTHERN ENGINEERS VG Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C. PAGE 1 OF 2
•EZi ... �iq-C--6-r—i.1•sP-Wr-P«d— 6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28216
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
DATE STARTED 11/19/18 COMPLETED 11/19/18 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SE&T GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD 2 1/4-in HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING ---
LOGGED BY WEL CHECKED BY WEL AT END OF DRILLING ---
NOTES ATV-CME 45B SAFETY HAMMER AFTER DRILLING ---
�^
ow
o
0.0
U
=0
0
oaCJ
0<
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
Cc
~w
J
a=)
z
o
o
>-
Mo~�
> C7
0—
�
U) w
0¢
m0>
U z
z
w
a
w 4
v
0
�
�^
z
}
o
1
A SPT N VALUE A
20 40 60 80
PL MC LL
20 4� 0�80
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
20 40 60 80
(OL) TOPSOIL (Approximately 3 inches)
-------------
(ML) Red and yellow, moist, very stiff, sandy SILT
.......................................
(ML)(RESIDUUM)
SPT
72
6-8-8
( )
• .....
.....................................
2.5
(SM) Red and gray, moist, dense, silty SAND (SM)
S2T
100
15-2233-23
()
....
5.0
(SM) Partially weathered rock (PWR-SM) sampled as silty SAND
SPT
3
106
17-43-
50/5"
...................................».
7.5
�...........................>>.
SPT
133
50/3"
4
.......................................
10.0
.............. :.............. :.......
• : >>
.......:...............................
12.5
SPT
5
140
50/5"
15.0
(Continued Next Page)

BORING NUMBER 237-10
SOUTHERNf 2VC 21FEE3�IlVG Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C. PAGE 2 OF 2
r�,�•E�zi �«•c�«�r�_�•sP��r�P« 6120-A Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28216
CLIENT Alliance Consulting Engineers PROJECT NAME Apprentice Academy High School
PROJECT NUMBER 18-237 PROJECT LOCATION Monroe, North Carolina
w
o
A SPT N VALUE A
0
} Cc
>
U) w
w
20 40 60 80
~m
(r _
�z�
a-
~
PL MC LL
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
J g
> C1
0¢
w 4
Z"
o
oaCJ
a=)
0°C
m0>
v"
}
20 4� 0�80
�Z
0
UZ
<
Lu
0
cc
El FINES CONTENT (%) El
o
(SM) Partially weathered rock (PWR-SM) sampled as silty SAND
(continued)
Refusal at 18.5 feet. SPT
Bottom of borehole at 18.5 feet. 6