SW3190506_Report_(Geotech)_20190701

GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING
REPORT
'7 -
I I
- I
's4 I
SEALAND OFFICE
501 NC Highway 24/27 W
Midland, Cabarrus County, North Carolina
PREPARED FOR:
Sealand Contractors Corp
1708 N. Caldwell Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28206
NOVA Project Number: 10705-2019012
March 14, 2019
NOVA
PROFESSIONAL I PRACTICAL I PROVEN

N OVA
March 20, 2019
SEALAND CONTRACTORS CORP
1708 N. Caldwell Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28206
Attention: Mr. Vincent J. DiProspero Jr.
Vice President
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report
SEALAND OFFICE
501 NC Highway 24/27 W
Midland, Cabarrus County, North Carolina
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
Dear Mr. DiProspero:
NOVA Engineering and Environmental, Inc. (NOVA) has completed the authorized Geotechnical
Engineering Report for the proposed Sealand Office site located at 501 NC Highway 24/27 W
in Midland, North Carolina. The work was performed in general accordance with NOVA Proposal
Number 005-20198843, dated February 14, 2019. This report briefly discusses our
understanding of the project at the time of the subsurface exploration, describes the
geotechnical consulting services provided by NOVA, and presents our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
We appreciate your selection of NOVA and the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you
have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
NOVA Engineering and Environmental, Inc.
Donald L. Anderson, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
NC P.E. License 047698
Copies Submitted: Addressee (electronic)
David Pehalva, F
Senior Technical
NC P.E. License
PROFESSIONAL I PRACTICAL I PROVEN
5104 Reagan Drive, Suite 8, Charlotte, North Carolina 28206
t. 980.321.4100 / f. 980.321.4099 / usanova.com
#`aese�rrt®ei®
e
L 3
�a
a'
�irlr,at+Rdt�
/df

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................1
1.1 GENERAL......................................................................................................................................1
1.2 SITE CONSIDERATIONS................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
1.3 DIFFICULT EXCAVATION...............................................................................................................2
1.4 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION AND SLAB SUPPORT RECOMENDATIONS....................................2
1.5 SEISMIC SITE CLASS....................................................................................................................2
2 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................
3
2.1 PROJECT INFORMATION...............................................................................................................3
2.2 SCOPE OF WORK..........................................................................................................................4
3 SITE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................
5
3.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION..........................................................................................5
3.2 SUBJECT PROPERTY ANDVICINITY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS .............................................5
3.3 CURRENTAND PREVIOUS USE OF THE PROPERTY.....................................................................6
4 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES...........................................................................
7
4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION....................................................................................................................7
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................................................................8
5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................................................10
5.1 GEOLOGY...................................................................................................................................10
5.2 SOI L AN D ROCK CON DITIONS ...................................................................................................10
5.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS..................................................................................................11
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................13
6.1 SITE PREPARATION...................................................................................................................
13
6.2 FILL PLACEMENT.......................................................................................................................
16
6.3 FOUNDATION RECOMENDATIONS............................................................................................
18
6.4 SLABS-ON-GRADE.....................................................................................................................
19
7 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS....................................................................................
21
7.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS.........................................................................................................
21
7.2 SUBGRADE................................................................................................................................
21
APPENDICES
Appendix - Figures and Maps
Appendix B - Subsurface Data
Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C - Qualifications of Recommendations

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
1 SUMMARY
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
A brief summary of pertinent findings, conclusions, and recommendations are presented below.
This information should not be utilized in design or construction without reading the report in its
entirety and paying particular attention to the recommendations presented in the text and
Appendix.
1.1 GENERAL
The project consists of developing the northern part of a larger 28.3-acre property at
501 NC Highway 24/27 W in Midland, North Carolina. The construction will include a
new office building, a shop building, two stormwater basins, and driveways and parking
areas.
Five (5) soil test borings (Borings B-1 through B-5) were drilled within the planned
building footprints. Grading of the site had begun when the fieldwork was performed
and the site had been stripped of topsoil, and shallow excavations had been made in
some areas. Generally, the borings encountered moderate to high consistency residual
soils underlain by relatively shallow partially weathered rock. Auger refusal materials
were encountered in the five borings.
• The site had recently been stripped and no topsoil or other surficial materials were
encountered at the boring locations.
• The borings encountered natural Piedmont residual soils at the ground surface.
Standard penetration resistances in the residual soils ranged from 16 to 20 blows
per foot (bpf) in upper 51/2 feet Boring B-1, but otherwise, ranged from 47 to 93
bpf.
• Partially weathered rock (PWR) was encountered 3 to 8 feet below the ground
surface when the borings were performed. PWR a transitional material between
soil and the underlying parent rock that is defined locally as materials that exhibit
a standard penetration resistance of at least 100 bpf.
• Auger refusal materials were encountered in the five borings at depths of about 11 to
181/2 feet. Auger refusal materials are any very hard or very dense material which
cannot be penetrated by a power auger. Auger refusal can represent the surface of
mass rock, or a large boulder, pinnacle or resistant ledge of rock.
N 0 VA Page 1

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
1.2 DIFFICULT EXCAVATION
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
Very high consistency soils were encountered at and near the ground surface in most
of the borings and partially weathered rock (PWR) was encountered 3 to 8 feet below
the ground surface when the borings were performed. As such, PWR and very high
consistency soils be expected to be encountered during excavations in most areas of
the site, and resistant rock layers are often present within PWR.
Further, auger refusal materials, which can represent a boulder, a rock ledge or the
surface of mass rock, were encountered at depths of about 11 to 181/2 feet in the borings.
In Boring B-3, the auger refusal materials were encountered within about 3 feet of
planned finished pad elevation.
Because the depth and occurrence of rock can vary significantly in the region of the site,
it is possible that materials requiring rock excavation techniques may be encountered
during site grading and underground utility installation in some areas of the site.
1.3 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION AND SLAB SUPPORT RECOMENDATIONS
We recommend that the proposed structure be supported by conventional shallow
foundations designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds
per square foot (psf). A modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 psi is recommended for
floor slab design.
1.4 SEISMIC SITE CLASS
In accordance with Section 1613.3.2 of the 2018 North Carolina Building Code, the
seismic Site Class was estimated using the standard penetration resistance values
obtained from the soil test borings performed during this study. Based upon this
analysis, and our knowledge of general subsurface conditions in the area, we believe
the soil profiles associated with a Site Class "C" are generally appropriate for this site.
N OVA Page 2

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROJECT INFORMATION
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
Our understanding of the project is based on based on information furnished by Mr.
Vincent DiProspero with Sealand Contractors Crop which included a Civil Plan set, a
site reconnaissance and NOVA's previous experience with similar projects and
knowledge of the local geology.
2.1.1 Site Plans and Documents
We were furnished with the following documents:
• Civil Plan Set, which included a Grading Plan (Sheet C-400) prepared by
Cardno, dated December 7, 2018.
2.1.2 Proposed Construction
We understand the project consists of developing the northern part of a larger
28.3-acre property at 501 NC Highway 24/27 W in Midland, North Carolina. The
construction will include a new office building, a shop building, stormwater
basins, and driveways and parking areas.
2.1.3 Maximum Loads
We understand the office structure will be single -story and wood -framed, and
the proposed shop structure will be a prefabricated engineered metal building.
Specific loading information has not been provided; however, based on our
experience with similar projects, we anticipate maximum column loads will not
exceed 150 kips and wall loads will not exceed 3 kips per lineal foot (klf). We
assume the buildings will have slab -on -grade floors.
2.1.4 Floor Elevations / Site Grading
The proposed pad elevations in the office and shop building pads are 701.70
and 698.10 feet MSL, respectively. Based on the provided grading plans,
excavations and fills of up to 11 feet and 1 foot, respectively, will be required
in the office pad and 12 feet and 6 feet, respectively, in the shop pad.
Excavations of up to 6 feet and 18 feet are proposed in the areas of stormwater
Basin #1 and #2, respectively. Deep excavations are also planned along some
of the utility line alignments.
N OVA Page 3

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
i� IM9%]249]-ATiTISIV 1
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
Sealand Contractors Corp engaged NOVA to provide geotechnical engineering
consulting services for the Sealand Office project. This report briefly discusses our
understanding of the project, describes our exploratory procedures, and presents our
findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
The primary objective of this study was to perform a geotechnical exploration within the
areas of the proposed construction and to assess these findings as they relate to
geotechnical aspects of the planned site development. The authorized geotechnical
engineering services included a site reconnaissance, a soil test boring and sampling
program, laboratory testing, engineering evaluation of the field and laboratory data, and
the preparation of this report.
The services were performed substantially as outlined in our Proposal Number 005-
20198843, dated revised February 14, 2019 and in general accordance with industry
standards. As authorized per the above referenced proposal, the completed
geotechnical report was to include:
• A description of the site, fieldwork, laboratory testing and general soil conditions
encountered, as well as a Boring Location Plan, and individual Boring Records.
• Discussion on potential design/construction issues indicated by the exploration,
such as old fills, materials that would require difficult excavation techniques,
potentially expansive materials, shallow groundwater table, etc.
• Recommended quality control measures (i.e. sampling, testing, and inspection
requirements) for site grading and foundation construction, including soil
compaction requirements.
• Recommendations for controlling groundwater and/or run-off during construction
and, the need for permanent de -watering systems based on the anticipated post
construction groundwater levels.
• Suitability of on -site soils for re -use as structural fill and backfill. Additionally, the
criteria for suitable fill materials will be provided.
• Foundation system recommendations for the proposed structures including
allowable bearing capacities and recommended bearing depths.
The assessment of the presence of wetlands, floodplains, or water classified as State
Waters of North Carolina or Waters of the US was beyond the scope of this study.
Additionally, the assessment of site environmental conditions, including the detection of
pollutants in the soil, rock, or groundwater, at the site was also beyond the scope of this
geotechnical study.
N OVA Page 4

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
3 SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The project site encompasses the northern approximately half of a larger 28.3-acre
property at 501 NC Highway 24/27 W in Midland, North Carolina. The 28.3-acre
property is identified with the Cabarrus County property identification number 2-032-
00.17.
A legal description of the Subject Property was not provided to NOVA.
Site Location Plan depicting the location of the site is include in Appendix A (Figure 1).
The approximate latitude and longitude coordinates of the site are 35.2462 ° north and
80.58120 west, respectively.
3.2 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND VICINITY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
The project site is currently being graded but was previously undeveloped and mostly
wooded. Topographically, the site slopes downward from the eastern and western
boundaries to a draw that extends north to south through the center portion of the site.
Elevations within the area of planned construction generally range from about 718 feet
MSL along the western site boundary to about 675 feet MSL along the southern part of
the draw.
The vicinity of the site is generally developed with agricultural, residential and small
commercial/light manufacturing and agricultural land uses, and is bordered by the
following:
DIRECTION
LAND USE DESCRIPTION/OBSERVATIONS
NORTH
Highway 24/27 W , light manufacturing/commercial and
residential
EAST
Storage facility and possible metals recycling facility
SOUTH
Undeveloped Woodland
WEST
Agricultural field
N 0 VA Page 5

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
3.3 CURRENT AND PREVIOUS USE OF THE PROPERTY
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
The site is currently being graded for the planned construction. Historical areal images
show parts of the site were once agricultural field. After re -forestation, the site was
undeveloped and mostly wooded.
N OVA Page 6

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
4 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES
4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
Boring locations were established in the field by NOVA personnel using the furnished
Grading Plan and a handheld GPS device. The approximate locations are shown on
Figure 2 in Appendix A. Boring elevations were obtained from the GPS device. The
referenced boring locations and elevations should be considered approximate. If
increased accuracy is desired by the client, NOVA recommends that the boring locations
and elevations be surveyed.
Our field exploration was conducted on February 27, 2019 and included:
• A site reconnaissance; and,
• Five soil test borings (B-1 through B-5) drilled to auger refusal at of 11.2 to 18.5 feet
below the ground surface elevation (at the time of our exploration).
Soil Test Borings: The soil test borings were performed using the guidelines of ASTM
Designation D-1586, "Penetration Test and Split -Barrel Sampling of Soils". A hollow stem
auger drilling process was used to advance the borings. At regular intervals, soil samples
were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2.0-inch O.D., split -tube sampler. The
sampler was first seated six inches and then driven an additional foot with blows of a
140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive
the sampler the final foot is designated the "Penetration Resistance". The penetration
resistance, when properly interpreted, is an index to the soil strength and density.
Representative portions of the soil samples, obtained from the sampler, were placed in
glass jars and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and laboratory testing.
Test Boring Records in Appendix B showthe standard penetration test (SPT) resistances,
or "N-values", and present the soil conditions encountered in the borings. These records
represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on the field exploration
data, visual examination of the split -barrel samples and generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices. The stratification lines and depth designations represent
approximate boundaries between various subsurface strata. Actual transitions between
materials may be gradual.
Groundwater: Groundwater levels, if encountered, represent measurements soon after
the completion of drilling. The soil test borings were subsequently backfilled with the
soil cuttings.
N OVA Page 7

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
The laboratory testing program included visual classification of the recovered split -spoon
soil samples. The visual classifications are presented on the Data Sheets and Boring
Logs attached in the Appendix C. The specific laboratory procedures are briefly described
below.
It should be noted that all soil samples would be properly disposed of 30 days following
the submittal of this NOVA subsurface exploration report unless you request otherwise.
4.2.1 Soil Classification
Soil classification provides a general guide to the engineering properties of
various soil types and enable the engineer to apply past experience to current
problems. In our explorations, samples obtained during drilling operations are
observed in our laboratory and visually classified by an engineer. The soils are
classified according to consistency (based on number of blows from standard
penetration tests), color and texture. These classification descriptions are
included on our "Test Boring Logs". The classification system discussed above
is primarily qualitative; laboratory testing is generally performed for detailed soil
classification. Using the test results, the soils are classified using the Unified
Soil Classification Systems. This classification system and the in -place physical
soil properties provide an index for estimating the soil's behavior. The soil
classifications are presented in this report.
4.2.2 Moisture Content
Moisture content is the ratio expressed as a percentage of the weight of water in
a given mass of soil to the weight of the solid particles. This test was conducted
in general accordance with ASTM D 2216. A total of three moisture content tests
were performed in this study.
4.2.3 Sive Analysis
The sieve analysis consists of passing a soil sample through a series of standard
sieve openings. The percentage of soil, by weight, passingthe individual sieves is
then recorded and generally presented in a graphical format. The percentage of
fines passing through the No. 200 sieve is generally considered to represent the
amount of silt and clay of the tested soil sample. The sieve analysis testing was
conducted in general accordance with ASTM Designation D 1140. Atotal of three
sieve analysis tests were performed for this study.
N OVA Page 8

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
4.2.4 Atterberg Limits
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
The Atterberg Limits are different descriptions of the moisture content of fine-
grained soils as it transitions between a solid to a liquid -state. For classification
purposes the two primary Atterberg Limits used are the plastic limit (PL) and
the liquid limit (LL). The plastic index (PI) is also calculated for soil classification.
The plastic limit (PL) is the moisture content at which a soil transitions from
being in a semisolid state to a plastic state. The liquid limit (LL) is defined as
the moisture content at which a soil transitions from a plastic state to a liquid
state. Three tests were performed in this study in accordance with ASTM D4318
- Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of
Soils.
4.2.5 Proctor Test
Three Standard Proctor compaction tests were performed in accordance with
ASTM D 698 - Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction of Soil Using
Standard Effort to determine the relationship between the soils' maximum dry
unit weight and various moisture contents for use in controlling fill placement.
N OVA Page 9

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
5.1 GEOLOGY
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The site is located in the Charlotte Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Provence, a broad
northeasterly trending province underlain by crystalline rocks up to 600 million years old.
The Piedmont is bounded on the northwest by the Blue Ridge Range of the Appalachian
Mountains, and on the southeast by the Coastal Plain.
According to the "Geologic Map of North Carolina: Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Division of Land Resources, and the NC Geological Survey" by
Rhodes and Conrad, 1985, the site is generally underlain by interbedded felsic to mafic
tuffs and flowrock of the Later Proterzoic-Paleozoic era.
Residual soils in the region are primarily the product of in -situ chemical decomposition of
the parent rock. The extent of the weathering is influenced by the mineral composition
of the rock and defects such as fissures, faults and fractures. The residual profile can
generally be divided into three zones:
• An upper zone near the ground surface consisting of red clays and clayey silts
which have undergone the most advanced weathering,
• An intermediate zone of less weathered micaceous sandy silts and silty sands,
frequently described as "saprolite", whose mineralogy, texture and banded
appearance reflects the structure of the original rock, and
• A transitional zone between soil and rock termed partially weathered rock
(PWR). Partially weathered rock is defined locally by standard penetration
resistances exceeding 100 blows per foot.
The boundaries between zones of soil, partially weathered rock, and bedrock are
erratic and poorly defined. Weathering is often more advanced next to fractures and
joints that transmit water, and in mineral bands that are more susceptible to
decomposition. Boulders and rock lenses are sometimes encountered within the
overlying PWR or soil matrix. Consequently, significant fluctuations in depths to
materials requiring difficult excavation techniques may occur over short horizontal
distances.
5.2 SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS
The following paragraphs provide generalized descriptions of the subsurface profiles and
soil conditions encountered by the borings conducted during this study.
N OVA Page 10

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
The Test Boring Records in Appendix B should be reviewed to provide more detailed
descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered at each boring location. These
records represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on the field logs
and visual observations of samples by an engineer. The lines designating the interface
between various strata on the Boring Logs represent the approximate interface locations
and elevation. The actual transition between strata may be gradual. Groundwater levels
represent the conditions in the boreholes just after drilling. It should be understood that
soil conditions may vary between boring locations.
5.2.1 Surface Materials
The site had recently been striped and no topsoil or other surficial materials
were encountered at the boring locations.
5.2.2 Residual Soils
The borings encountered natural Piedmont residual soils at the ground surface.
Standard penetration resistances in the residual soils ranged from 16 to 20 bpf
in upper 51/2 feet Boring B-1, but otherwise, ranged from 47 to 93 bpf in the
other residual soils.
5.2.3 Partially Weathered Rock and Auger Refusal Materials
Partially weathered rock (PWR) was encountered 3 to 8 feet below the ground
surface (approximate Elevations 681.5 to 695 feet MSL) when the borings
were performed. PWR a transitional material between soil and the underlying
parent rock that is defined locally as materials that exhibit a standard
penetration resistance of at least 100 bpf.
Auger refusal materials were encountered in the five borings at depths of about
11 to 181/2 feet. Auger refusal materials are any very hard or very dense material
which cannot be penetrated by a power auger. Auger refusal can represent the
surface of mass rock, or a large boulder, pinnacle or resistant ledge of rock.
5.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
5.3.1 General
Groundwater in the Piedmont region typically occurs as an unconfined or semi -
confined aquifer condition. Recharge is provided by the infiltration of rainfall and
surface water through the soil overburden. More permeable zones in the soil
matrix, as well as fractures, joints and discontinuities in the underlying bedrock
N OVA Page 11

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
can affect groundwater conditions. The groundwater table in the Piedmont is
expected to be a subdued replica of the original surface. Also, groundwater will
typically be present near creeks and ponds near or slightly above the water
surface in the creek or pond.
Groundwater levels vary with changes in season and rainfall, construction
activity, surface water runoff, and other site -specific factors. Groundwater levels
in the area are typically lowest in the late summer -early fall and highest in the
late winter -early spring, with annual groundwater fluctuations on the order of 4
to 8 feet; consequently, the water table may vary at times.
5.3.2 Soil Test Boring Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was not observed in the borings at the time of the field exploration.
However, groundwater levels will fluctuate and may, in the future, rise above the
levels inferred by the exploration data.
N O VA Page 12

Geotechnical Engineering Report March 20, 2019
Sealand Office NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations are based on our understanding of the
proposed construction, site observations, our evaluation and interpretation of the field and
laboratory data obtained during this exploration, our experience with similar subsurface
conditions, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. It should
be noted that the site was being graded at the time of this report.
Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations or at other times may vary from those
encountered at specific boring locations. If such variations are noted during construction and
as more detailed project plans are developed, we request the opportunityto review the changes
and amend our recommendations.
As previously noted, boring locations were established using a hand-held GPS device. If
increased accuracy is desired by the client, we recommend that the boring locations and
elevations be surveyed.
6.1 SITE PREPARATION
6.1.1 General
Prior to proceeding with construction, we recommend that any remaining
vegetation, root systems, topsoil, and other deleterious non -soil materials be
stripped from proposed construction areas. Clean topsoil may be stockpiled and
subsequently re -used in landscaped areas. Any debris -laden materials should be
excavated, transported and disposed of off -site in accordance with appropriate
solid waste rules and regulations.
After clearing and stripping, areas which are at grade or will receive fill or other
overlaying construction should be carefully evaluated by a NOVA geotechnical
engineer. The engineer will require proofrolling of the subgrade with multiple
passes of a 20 to 30-ton loaded truck, a 10 to 12-ton vibratory roller, or other
vehicle of similar size and weight. Vibratory compaction should be turned off
and static rolling should be performed if yielding conditions appear.
The purpose of the proofrolling is to locate soft, weak, or excessively wet soils
present at the time of construction. Unstable materials observed during the
evaluation and proofrolling operations should be undercut and replaced with
structural fill or stabilized in -place by scarifying and re-densifying.
If low consistency soils are encountered during construction, typical
recommendations would include undercutting and backfilling with structural fill
N OVA Page 13

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
and/or stabilizing in -place with fabric, stone, and/or other remedial techniques.
Actual remedial recommendations can best be determined by the geotechnical
engineer in the field at the time of construction.
The site should be graded during construction such that positive drainage is
maintained away from the construction areas, to prevent ponding of storm water
on the site during and shortly following significant rain events. The construction
areas should also be sealed and crowned with a smooth roller to minimize
ponding water from storm events at the end of each day of work. The types of
soils encountered during this study have a tendency to lose strength when
exposed to changes in moisture and construction traffic. A concerted effort
should be made to control construction traffic and surface water while subgrade
soils are exposed.
6.1.2 Low -Laying Areas
It is possible that water softened soils may exist in the bottoms of draws and
swales, in other low-lying or poorly drained areas of the site. Prior to fill
placement or other overlaying construction, a geotechnical engineer should
carefully evaluate subgrade conditions in these areas. If unstable soils are
present, typical recommendations would include undercutting and replacing
with structural fill/stone or stabilizing in -place with fabric and stone, as
described below. A temporary dewatering system will be required if
groundwater exists at or near finished subgrade levels.
Stabilization of soft, water -softened subgrade will likely consist of placement of a
woven geotextile overlain by 1 to 2 feet of surge stone capped with 6 to 12 inches
of #57 stone or compacted graded aggregate base (GAB). In deep fill areas (+6
feet) beneath planned pavements, the use of soil "bridging' lifts may also be
possible to provide a stable base upon which to subsequently compact structural
fill. The actual extent and nature of the required remedial measures can best be
determined in the field at the time of construction.
6.1.3 Difficult Excavation
Very high consistency soils were encountered at and near the ground surface
in most of the borings and partially weathered rock (PWR) was encountered 3
to 8 feet below the ground surface when the borings were performed. As such,
PWR and very high consistency soils be expected to be encountered during
excavations in most areas of the site, and resistant rock layers are often
present within PWR.
N OVA Page 14

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
Further, auger refusal materials, which can represent a boulder, a rock ledge or
the surface of mass rock, were encountered at depths of about 11 to 181h feet in
the borings. In Boring B-3, the auger refusal materials were encountered within
about 3 feet of planned finished pad elevation. As previously discussed, the
weathering process is erratic and variations in the PWR or rock profile can occur
in small lateral distances. Therefore, it is possible that rock pinnacles or ledges
requiring difficult excavation techniques may be encountered at shallower depths
in areas intermediate of our boring locations. The potential for encountering rock
will increase with increasing excavation depth.
Because very dense/hard soils, PWR and possibly rock will be encountered, the
following excavation methods may be needed.
Ripping: Mass excavation of very hard or very dense soils and PWR will likely
require looseningthe material with a large single -toothed ripper or track -mounted
backhoe before removal with conventional earthmoving equipment. In confined
areas, such as utility trenches and foundations, excavations of very hard or very
dense soils (> 50 bpf) and PWR, may require either the use of pneumatic tools
or light blasting.
Blasting: Some light blasting could be required for isolated pockets of very dense
material for efficient excavation. Blasting will likely be required to loosen refusal
materials in mass and confined excavations.
Rock Definition: The definition of rock can be source of conflict during
construction. The following definitions have been incorporated into classified
excavation specifications on other projects and are provided for your general
guidance.
We recommend that the determination and confirmation of difficult excavation
materials be performed by the NOVA geotechnical engineer in accordance with
the project specifications. Measurement of the quantities of difficult excavation
materials should be performed by the project surveyor.
N OVA Page 15

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
GENERAL
EXCAVATION
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
Blast Rock Any material which cannot be excavated with a single -
tooth ripper mounted on a crawler tractor having a
minimum draw bar pull rated at not less than 56,000
pounds (Caterpillar D-8K or equivalent) or by a
Caterpillar 977 front-end loader or equivalent and
occupying an original volume of at least one (1) cubic
yard.
TRENCH
EXCAVATION
Trench Rock Any material which cannot be excavated with a backhoe
having a bucket curling force rated at not less than
25,700 pounds (Caterpillar Model 225 or equivalent)
and occupying an original volume of at least one-half
(1/2) cubic yard.
6.2 FILL PLACEMENT
6.2.1 Fill Suitability
Fill materials should be low plasticity soil (Plasticity Index less than 30), free of
non -soil materials and rock fragments larger than 3 inches in any one dimension.
Based on visual examination, the existing residual soils encountered during this
exploration generally appear suitable for re -use as structural fill. Some soils may
require moisture conditioning before placement. Prior to construction, bulk
samples of the proposed fill materials should be laboratory -tested to confirm
their suitability.
Organic and/or debris laden material is not suitable for re -use as structural fill.
Topsoil and other organic materials can be wasted in architectural areas.
N OVA Page 16

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
Debris -laden materials should be excavated, transported and disposed of off -
site in accordance with appropriate solid waste rules and regulations.
If encountered, PWR can typically be used as structural fill provided it is
pulverized to a suitable gradation during compaction. If rock is excavated, it
should typically be placed in non-structural areas (and suitable "choked" with
soil) or wasted off site. NOVA can offer additional recommendations if excavated
rock must be used as fill in structural areas.
All materials to be used for backfill or compacted structural fill construction
should be evaluated and, if necessary, tested by NOVA prior to placement to
determine if they are suitable for the intended use. Any off -site materials used
as fill should be approved by NOVA prior to acquisition.
6.2.2 Soil Compaction
Structural fill should be placed in thin, horizontal loose lifts (maximum 8-inch)
and compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry
density (ASTM D 698). The upper 8 inches of soil beneath pavements and
slabs -on -grade should be compacted to at least 98 percent. In confined areas,
such as utility trenches or behind retaining walls, portable compaction
equipment and thinner fill lifts (3 to 4 inches) may be necessary. Fill materials
used in structural areas should have a target maximum dry density of at least
90 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If lighter weight fill materials are used, the NOVA
geotechnical engineer should be consulted to assess the impact on design
recommendations.
Soil moisture content should be maintained within 3 percent of the optimum
moisture content. We recommend that the grading contractor have equipment
on site during earthwork for both drying and wetting fill soils. Moisture control
may be difficult during rainy weather.
Filling operations should be observed by a NOVA soils technician, who can
confirm suitability of material used and uniformity and appropriateness of
compaction efforts. He/she can also document compliance with the
specifications by performing field density tests using thin -walled tube, nuclear,
or sand cone testing methods (ASTM D 2937, D 2922, or D 1556, respectively).
One test per 400 cubic yards and every 1 foot of placed fill is recommended,
with test locations well distributed throughout the fill mass. When filling in small
areas, at least one test per day per area should be performed.
N OVA Page 17

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
[-11QK"i:T9111►
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
Groundwater was not observed in the borings. As such, for the planned excavations
necessary to reach design subgrades, we do not anticipate significant groundwater
control problems during mass grading operations. However, more shallow
groundwater could be present in the bottoms of draws.
As previously noted, groundwater levels are subject to seasonal, climatic and other
variations and may be different at other times and locations. The need for temporary
dewatering in excavations or the need for permanent underdrains beneath slabs or
pavements, or foundation drains along below grade walls should be based on actual
groundwater conditions at the time of construction.
6.4 FOUNDATION RECOMENDATIONS
Design: After the recommended site and subgrade preparation and fill placement, we
recommend that the proposed structures be supported by conventional shallow
foundations. Foundations bearing on undisturbed residual soils and/or compacted
structural fill may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,500
pounds per square foot (psf). The aforementioned bearing pressure is based on the
foundation bottoms being compacted to 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry
density to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the foundation bearing surface.
We recommend minimum foundation widths of 24 inches for ease of construction and
to reduce the possibility of localized shear failures. Exterior foundation bottoms should
be at least 18 inches below exterior grades for protection against frost damage.
Settlement: Settlements for spread foundations bearing on residual materials were
assessed usingSPTvalues to estimate elastic modulus, based on published correlations
and previous NOVA experience. We note that the settlements presented are based on
random field data and an assumed subsoil profile. Conditions may be better or worse
in other areas, however, we believe the estimated settlements are reasonably
conservative.
Based on assumed column and wall loadings, soil bearing capacities and the presumed
foundation elevations as discussed above, we expect primary total settlement beneath
individual foundations to be less than 1 inch.
The amount of differential settlement is difficult to predict because the subsurface and
foundation loading conditions can vary considerably across the site. However, we
anticipate differential settlement between adjacent foundations could varyfrom 1/4 to 1/2
inch. The final deflected shape of the structure will be dependent on actual foundation
locations and loading.
N OVA Page 18

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
To reduce the differential settlement if lower consistency materials are encountered,
a lower bearing capacity should be used or the foundations should be extended to
more competent materials. In addition, foundation subgrades which are excavated
into dense materials may need to be slightly undercut with controlled structural fill
placed between the dense materials and the bottom of the foundation to produce
some settlement of the foundation, thus reducing differential settlements with nearby
foundations bearing on less dense material. We anticipate that timely communication
between the geotechnical engineer and the structural engineer, as well as other design
and construction team members, will be required.
Construction: Foundation excavations should be evaluated by the NOVA geotechnical
engineer prior to reinforcing steel placement to observe foundation subgrade
preparation and confirm bearing pressure capacity.
Foundation excavations should be level and free of debris, ponded water, mud, and
loose, frozen, or water -softened soils. Concrete should be placed as soon as is
practical after the foundation is excavated, and the subgrade evaluated. Foundation
concrete should not be placed on frozen or saturated soil. If a foundation excavation
remains open overnight, or if rain or snow is imminent, a 3 to 4-inch thick "mud mat"
of lean concrete should be placed in the bottom of the excavation to protect the
bearing soils until reinforcing steel and concrete can be placed.
6.5 SLABS -ON -GRADE
6.5.1 General
At this time, an underdrain system is not recommended; however, we
recommend a minimum of 6-inches of graded aggregate base (GAB) beneath the
slabs to:
• Reduce non -uniform support conditions
• Provide a stable base to support construction traffic
• Provide a base material that can be fine graded to design tolerances.
GAB should be compacted to 98 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined by the modified Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 1557) and
overlain by a conventional plastic vapor barrier.
Once grading is completed, the subgrade is usually exposed to adverse
construction activities and weather conditions during the period of sub -slab
utility installation. The subgrade should be well -drained to prevent the
N OVA Page 19

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
accumulation of water. If the exposed subgrade becomes saturated or frozen,
the geotechnical engineer should be consulted.
After utilities have been installed and backfilled, a final subgrade evaluation
should be performed bythe geotechnical engineer immediately priorto slab -on -
grade placement. If practical, proofrolling may be used to redensify the surface
and to detect any soil that has become excessively wet or otherwise loosened.
6.5.2 Subgrade Modulus
A coefficient of subgrade reaction (k) of 100 pci (psi per inch) may be used for
design of conventional slabs where slabs bear upon subgrades prepared in
accordance with previous recommendations.
Please note that this magnitude of k is intended to reflect the elastic response
of soil beneath a typical floor slab under light loads with a small load contact
area often measured in square inches, such as loads from forklifts,
automobile/truck traffic or lightly loaded storage racks. The recommended
coefficient of subgrade reaction (k) of 100 pci is not applicable for heavy slab
loads caused by bulk storage or tall storage racks, or for mat foundation design.
Several design methods are applicable for conventional slab design. We have
assumed that the slab designer will utilize the methods discussed in the
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 360 report, "Guide to Design of
Slabs -on -Ground, (ACI 360R-10). Specifically, the Portland Cement Association
(PCA) or the Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) slab thickness design methods
should be utilized.
6.6 SEISMIC
In accordance with Section 1613.3.2 of the 2018 North Carolina Building Code, the
seismic Site Class was estimated using the standard penetration resistance values
obtained from the soil test borings performed duringthis study. Based upon this analysis,
and our knowledge of general subsurface conditions in the area, we believe the soil
profiles associated with a Site Class "C" are generally appropriate for this site
N OVA Page 20

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Sealand Office
March 20, 2019
NOVA Project Number 10705-2019012
7 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
7.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Foundation excavations should be level and free of debris, ponded water, mud, and
loose, frozen or water -softened soils. All foundation excavations should be evaluated by
the NOVA geotechnical engineer prior to reinforcing steel placement to observe
foundation subgrade preparation and confirm bearing pressure capacity. Due to
variable site subsurface and construction conditions, some adjustments in isolated
foundation bearing pressures, depth of foundations or undercutting and replacement
with controlled structural fill may be necessary.
7.2 SUEGRADE
Once site grading is completed, the subgrade may be exposed to adverse construction
activities and weather conditions. The subgrade should be well -drained to prevent the
accumulation of water. If the exposed subgrade becomes saturated or frozen, the
NOVA geotechnical engineer should be consulted.
A final subgrade evaluation should be performed by the NOVA geotechnical engineer
immediately prior to pavements or slab -on -grade placement. If practical, proofrolling
may be used to re-densify the surface and to detect any soil, which has become
excessively wet or otherwise loosened.
N OVA Page 21

APPENDIX A
Figures and Maps

t
Of
lk
'T i
ktdo
IA
L ; !I
--- M�idland
Allen ! r
:OF
LIP
jr
s' r
A65 ■r am % *;' r NOS-0
0

- c
i I
-------------
_ - _ -�.�: r.«�_ �-
crag-
x
_ - - - _ - �. tom-, = _ _ _� _ -r �` � yam" _ _ � '�� � i I / ✓I I l / II
T_
I I I � '. I I, I II 1 1 � I I ��� � � � � •� � � � I � I I \s.`� �<5 � — � �,—�
i g
Y I
-J
D E—
A�_-
,I
/
>D9 I a
/ r
��- -
Le end
/
/
Approximate
i
Sampling
lin
1 v.I
g ,Cc:
Locations - --- - —
SOURCE: Grading Plan (C-400) prepared by Cardno
dated December 7, 2018 Figure 2: Boring Location Plan
Sealand Office
Boring locations were established in the field by OVA
Midland, North Carolina
taping from site landmarks NOVA Project Number: 10705-2019012
SCALE: Graphic

APPENDIX B
Subsurface Data

KEY TO SYMBOLS AND CLASSIFICATIONS
DRILLING SYMBOLS
Split Spoon Sample
a Undisturbed Sample (UD)
Standard Penetration Resistance (ASTM D1586)
1 Water Table at least 24 Hours after Drilling
SZ Water Table 1 Hour or less after Drilling
100/2" Number of Blows (100) to Drive the Spoon a Number of Inches (2)
NX, NQ Core Barrel Sizes: 2%8- and 2-Inch Diameter Rock Core, Respectively
REC Percentage of Rock Core Recovered
RQD Rock Quality Designation — Percentage of Recovered Core Segments 4 or more Inches Long
100, Loss of Drilling Water
MC Moisture Content Test Performed
CORRELATION OF PENETRATION RESISTANCE WITH RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY
Number of Blows, "N"
Approximate Relative Dens
0-4
Very Loose
5 —10
Loose
SANDS
11— 30
Medium Dense
31— 50
Dense
Over 50
Very Dense
Number of Blows, "N"
Approximate Consistenc`
0-2
Very Soft
3-4
Soft
SILTS
5-8
Firm
and
9 —15
Stiff
CLAYS
16 — 30
Very Stiff
31— 50
Hard
Over 50
Very Hard
DRILLING PROCEDURES
Soil sampling and standard penetration testing performed in accordance with ASTM D1586. The standard
penetration resistance is the number of blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1%-
inch I.D. split spoon sampler one foot. Core drilling performed in accordance with ASTM D2113. The undisturbed
sampling procedure is described by ASTM D1587. Soil and rock samples will be discarded 30 days after the date of
the final report unless otherwise directed.
N ❑ VA

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
COARSE GRAINED
SOILS
GRAVELS
Clean Gravel
less than 5% fines
GW
Well graded gravel
GP
Poorly graded gravel
Gravels with Fines
more than 12% fines
GM
Silty gravel
GC
Clayey gravel
SANDS
Clean Sand
less than 5% fines
SW
Well graded sand
SP
Poorly graded sand
Sands with Fines
more than 12% fines
SM
Silty sand
SC
Clayey sand
FINE GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit
less than 50
Inorganic
CL
Lean clay
ML
Silt
Organic
OL
Organic clay and silt
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit
50 or more
Inorganic
CH
Fat clay
MH
Elastic silt
Organic
OH
Organic clay and silt
HIGHLY ORGANIC
SOILS
Organic matter, dark
color, organic odor
PT
Peat
PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION
GRAVELS
Coarse
% inch to 3 inches
Fine
No. 4 to % inch
SANDS
Coarse
No. 10 to No. 4
Medium
No. 40 to No. 10
Fine
No. 200 to No. 40
SILTS AND CLAYS
Passing No. 200
N ❑ VA

PROJECT: Sealand Office
PROJECT NO.:
10705-2019012
N OVA
CLIENT: Sealand Contractors Corp.
PROJECT LOCATION: Midland, North Carolina
TEST BORING
LOCATION: Proposed Office Building
ELEVATION:
709ft-MSL+/
DRILLER: FST
LOGGED BY:
A.Kuczero
RECORD
DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D50 HSA
DATE:
2/27/19
B_1
I DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s DRY
AFTER 24 HOURS: s DRY CAVING> -L N/A
�
Graphic Depiction
•
BLOW COUNT
a�
— J
7>
Description
U
L
�:
Q N
T
w
o
~
z
.
NATURAL MOISTURE
PLASTIC
LIMIT ILIQUID LIMIT
10 20 30 40 60 10
0
705
5
700
10
695
15
3-6-10 16
16
2
8-9-11
6
0-35-32 41
23-50/3
10
0 50/3 41
01
690 Auger Refusal at 18.5 feet 50/0.5
20
685
25
680
30
675
35
Page 1 of 1
RESIDUUM: Moist, very stiff, orangish brown and gray, fine
sandy SILT (ML) with some clay
------------------------
Dry, very hard, gray and brown, SILT (ML) with trace clay
and fine sand
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: Sampled as dry, gray and
brown, SILT (ML) with trace clay and fine sand

N OVA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B_'Z
PROJECT: Sealand Office PROJECT NO.: 10705-2019012
CLIENT: Sealand Contractors Corp.
PROJECT LOCATION: Midland, North Carolina
LOCATION: Proposed Office Building ELEVATION: 7OOft-MSL+/-
DRILLER: FST LOGGED BY: A.Kuczero
DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D5O HSA DATE: 2/27/19
I DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s DRY AFTER 24 HOURS: s DRY CAVING> -L N/A
a�
�
— J
�;
w
Description
U
L
�:
o
cD
Q N
T
~
z
Graphic
Depiction
• BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
700
695
690
685
680
675
670
665
0
12-20-27
27-50/5
31-50/4
21-50/5
50/4
50/0.5
30
40
RESIDUUM: Dry, very hard, fine sandy CLAY (CL)
1
4
4
10
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: Sampled as dry, brown,
SILT (ML) with some fine sand and clay
5
Ll
Sampled as dry, brown, fine sandy CLAY (CL) with some silt
Sampled as dry, brown, fine sandy SILT (ML) with some
clay
10
101
Sampled as dry, brown, clayey fine to medium SAND (SC)
with rock fragments
15
01
Auger Refusal at 18.5 feet
20
25
30
35
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: Sealand Office
PROJECT NO.:
10705-2019012
N OVA
CLIENT: Sealand Contractors Corp.
PROJECT LOCATION: Midland, North Carolina
TEST BORING
LOCATION: Proposed Building
ELEVATION:
7O6ft-MSL+/-
DRILLER: FST
LOGGED BY:
A.Kuczero
RECORD
DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D5O HSA
DATE:
2/27/19
B_3
I DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL- s DRY
AFTER 24 HOURS: s DRY CAVING> -L N/A
�
Graphic Depiction
•
BLOW COUNT
a�
— J
�;
Description
U
L
�:
Q N
T
w
o
~
z
.
NATURAL MOISTURE
PLASTIC
LIMIT ILIQUID LIMIT
10 20 30 40 60 10
0
705
5
700
10
695
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: Sampled as dry, light
brown, clayey SILT (ML) with some fine sand
RESIDUUM: Dry, very hard, brown, fine to medium sandy
SILT (ML) with some clay and rock fragments
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: Sampled as dry, brown, fin
to medium sandy SILT (ML) with some clay and rock
fragments
Rock Fragments
0
15-35-50
0-37-4
14-50/3
50/1.5
101
Auger Refusal at 11.2 feet 50/0
15
690
20
685
25
680
30
675
35
Page 1 of 1

N OVA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B_4
PROJECT: Sealand Office PROJECT NO.: 10705-2019012
CLIENT: Sealand Contractors Corp.
PROJECT LOCATION: Midland, North Carolina
LOCATION: Proposed Building ELEVATION: 7O5ft-MSL+/-
DRILLER: FST LOGGED BY: A.Kuczero
DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D5O HSA DATE: 2/27/19
I DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL- s DRY AFTER 24 HOURS: s DRY CAVING> -L N/A
a�
�
— J
�;
w
Description
U
L
�:
o
cD
Q N
T
~
z
Graphic
Depiction
• BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
705
700
695
690
685
680
675
670
0
0
19-27-3
12-18-3
31-50/6
50/4
50/4
50/0.5
30
40
RESIDUUM: Dry, very hard, light brown, fine sandy CLAY
(CL)
1
4
Dry, very hard, light brown and gray, clayey SILT (ML) with
some fine sand
5
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: Sampled as dry, grayish
brown, fine sandy SILT (ML) with some clay and rock
fragments
10
LO
41
Sampled as rock fragments with dry, gray and brown, silty
fine to medium SAND (SM)
.
15
Auger Refusal at 16.5 feet
20
25
30
35
Page 1 of 1

N OVA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B_5
PROJECT: Sealand Office PROJECT NO.: 10705-2019012
CLIENT: Sealand Contractors Corp.
PROJECT LOCATION: Midland, North Carolina
LOCATION: Proposed Building ELEVATION: 696ft-MSL+/-
DRILLER: FST LOGGED BY: A.Kuczero
DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D5O HSA DATE: 2/27/19
I DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL- s DRY AFTER 24 HOURS: s DRY CAVING> -L N/A
a�
�
— J
�;
w
Description
U
L
�:
o
cD
Q N
T
~
z
Graphic
Depiction
• BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
695
690
685
680
675
670
665
0
0
5-43-50
17-27-33
50/5
50/2
50/0
30
40
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: Sampled as dry, gray and
brown, clayey fine to medium SAND (SC) with some rock
fragments
0
41,
RESIDUUM: Dry, very hard, brown, SILT (ML) with trace fine
sand and clay
5
Ll
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: Sampled as dry, brown,
SILT (ML) with trace fine sand and clay
10
LO
Auger Refusal at 13.5 feet
15
20
25
30
35
Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results

COMPACTION TEST REPORT
Project No.: 10705-1019014
Project: Sealand Office Building CMT
Client: Sealand Contractors Corporation
Sample Number: 62564
Remarks: Manual hammer
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Description: Tan brown silty SAND (SM)
Classifications - USCS: SM AASHTO:
Nat. Moist. = 12.4 % Sp.G. =
Liquid Limit = NV Plasticity Index = NP
% < No.200 = 33.9 %
140
130
120
.8
m
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density = 106.0 pcf
Optimum moisture = 17.6 %
Date: 2/21/2019
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Water content, %
Figure
Nova Engineering & Environmental

APPENDIX D
Qualifications of Recommendations
QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

r— Geolechnical-EngineePing RePOPI --)
Geotechnical 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 civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of
a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study
is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique,
prepared solely for the client. No one except you 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 the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on
a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do
not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected
elements only.
Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on
a Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project -specific
factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors
include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk -management
preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its
size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the
site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless
the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically
indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report that was:
• not prepared for you;
• not prepared for your project;
• not prepared for the specific site explored; or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing
geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect:
• 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. Geotechnical engineers cannot
accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because
their reports do not consider developments of which they were
not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that
existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the
study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose
adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;
man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the
site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes,
or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer
before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A
minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory
data and then apply their professional judgment to render
an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes
significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining
the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to
provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most
effective method of managing the risks associated with
unanticipated conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the confirmation -dependent
recommendations included in your report. Confirmation -
dependent recommendations are not final, because
geotechnical engineers develop them principally from
judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize
their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume
responsibility or liability for the report's confirmation -dependent
recommendations if that engineer does not perform the
geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the
recommendations' applicability.
A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject
to Misinterpretation
Other design -team members' misinterpretation of
geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly

problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical
engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team
after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical
engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's
plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret
a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and
preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical
construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs
based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn
for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only
photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but
recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they
can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface
conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.
To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with
a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise
constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes
of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited;
encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer
who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/
or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of
information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also
be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform
additional study. Only then might you be in a position to
give constructors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to
recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding
has created unrealistic expectations that have led to
disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include
a variety of 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.
Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform
an environmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical 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 environmental
problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not
yet obtained your own environmental information,
ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal
with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,
construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent
significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.
To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for
the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a
comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a
professional mold -prevention consultant. Because just a small
amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of
severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies
focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater,
water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed
as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in
charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;
none of the services performed in connection with the
geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for
the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the
recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be
sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure
involved.
Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer
for Additional Assistance
Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of 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. Confer with you GBC-Member
geotechnical engineer for more information.
GErmGEOTECHNICAL
BUSINESS COUNCIL
41
oftheGeoprnfe imalBmin—Assadntion
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:[phone] Facsimile:301/589-2017
e-mail: [e-mail] www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part,
by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA's 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 as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without
being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report represent our
professional opinions concerning subsurface conditions at the site. The opinions presented
are relative to the dates of our site work and should not be relied on to represent conditions
at later dates or at locations not explored. The opinions included herein are based on
information provided to us, the data obtained at specific locations during the study and our
past experience. If additional information becomes available that might impact our
geotechnical opinions, it will be necessary for NOVA to review the information, reassess the
potential concerns, and re-evaluate our conclusions and recommendations.
Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical exploration, there is the possibility that
conditions between borings will differ from those encountered at specific boring locations,
that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers and/or the contractors, or that either
natural events or the construction process have altered the subsurface conditions. These
variations are an inherent risk associated with subsurface conditions in this region and the
approximate methods used to obtain the data. These variations may not be apparent until
construction.
The professional opinions presented in this geotechnical report are not final. Field observations
and foundation installation monitoring by the geotechnical engineer, as well as soil density
testing and other quality assurance functions associated with site earthwork and foundation
construction, are an extension of this report. Therefore, NOVA should be retained by the owner
to observe all earthwork and foundation construction to document that the conditions
anticipated in this study actually exist, and to finalize or amend our conclusions and
recommendations. NOVA is not responsible or liable for the conclusions and recommendations
presented in this report if NOVA does not perform these observation and testing services.
This report is intended for the sole use of CLIENT only. The scope of work performed during this
study was developed for purposes specifically intended by CLIENT and may not satisfy other
users' requirements. Use of this report or the findings, conclusions or recommendations by
others will be at the sole risk of the user. NOVA is not responsible or liable for the interpretation
by others of the data in this report, nor their conclusions, recommendations or opinions.
Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, our conclusions derived
and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in the State of North Carolina. This warranty is in lieu of all
other statements or warranties, either expressed or implied.