SW1190801_65X-0079 (Leicester VFD) - Draft Report - Proposed Leicester Vol. Fire Stn., Alexander Road, Leicester, NC)_8/27/2019

Draft Report of Geotechnical Study
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
1561 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
Prepared For:
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department - Main Station
2852 New Leicester Highway
Leicester, North Carolina
By:
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
18 Woods Lake Road
Greenville, South Carolina 29607
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
April 16, 2019

SINCE FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Engineering Stability Since 1881
34 Redmond Drive, Unit F
Fletcher, North Carolina 28734
® T 828.274.0742
1881 NC License #F-0266
April 16, 2019
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Leicester Fire & Rescue Department
2852 New Leicester Highway
Leicester, North Carolina 28748
Attn: Mr. Chris Brown (District 1 Fire Chief),
Re: Draft Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
1561 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Brown:
The enclosed report presents the results of the subsurface exploration program and geotechnical
engineering evaluation undertaken by Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (F&R), in connection with the
proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station development located in the open grassy field west of
1561 Alexander Road in Leicester, North Carolina. Our services were performed in general
accordance with F&R Proposal No. 1965-00415G dated March 15, 2019.
The report presents our understanding of the project, reviews our exploration procedures,
describes the general subsurface conditions at the boring locations, and presents our evaluations
and recommendations.
Corporate HQ: 3015 Dumbarton Road Richmond, Virginia 23228 T 804.264.2701 F 804.264.1202 www.fandr.com
VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
A Minority -Owned Business

We have enjoyed working with you on this project, and we are prepared to assist you with the
recommended quality assurance monitoring and testing services during construction. Please
contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further service.
Sincerely,
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
CAR
�Essto•. -p
$�. 2019
. cL SEAL �
046722
r
GItdIE�
Benedictus K. Azumah, P.E. "��°!� ag'`
Geotechnical Services Manager r�11��i�101'\r
BKA/RTT
Ryne T. Turner, P.E.
Branch Manager
Ryne Turner
Apr 16 2019 1:18 PM
F:\Projects 65X\65X-0079 (Leicester Volunteer Fire Dept - Leicester Fire Dept)\Reports\Summary Reports\65X-0079 (Leicester VFD) - Final
Report - Proposed Leicester Vol. Fire Stn., Alexander Road, Leicester, NC).docx
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
1561 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Dncu5�t—
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 1
1.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICE.................................................................................... 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION............................................................................................... 3
2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION..................................................................................... 3
2.2 PROJECT INFORMATION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION........................................................ 3
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES........................................................................................ 4
3.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION............................................................................................. 4
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................................................... 5
4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................. 6
4.1 GENERAL.....................................................................................................................6
4.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY...................................................................................................... 6
4.3 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................. 7
4.3.1 Surficial Material.................................................................................................. 7
4.3.2 Residual Soils........................................................................................................ 7
4.4 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS............................................................................................. 8
4.5 GROUNDWATER DATA.................................................................................................... 8
5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................8
5.1 GENERAL.....................................................................................................................8
5.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN....................................................................................... 9
5.3 ESTIMATED FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT............................................................................... 9
5.4 SHRINK -SWELL, FROST DEPTH AND BEARING CONSIDERATIONS .............................................. 10
5.5 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE........................................................................................ 10
5.6 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................... 11
5.7 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION......................................................................................... 13
6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................... 13
6.1 GENERAL...................................................................................................................13
6.2 SITE PREPARATION...................................................................................................... 14
6.3 CONTROLLED STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION ............................................. 15
6.4 SHALLOW FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION........................................................................... 16
6.5 SURFACE WATER CONTROL............................................................................................ 17
6.6 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS....................................................................................... 17
6.7 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS......................................................................................... 18
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
1561 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page i of ii

6.8 EXCAVATIONS.............................................................................................................18
7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES..................................................................................... 19
8.0 LIMITATIONS..............................................................................................................19
appFNnirFS
APPENDIX I
Site Vicinity Map (Figure No. 1)
Test Location Plan (Figure No. 2)
APPENDIX II
Key to Soil Classification
Soil Classification Chart
Boring Logs B-01 through B-12 (12 Sheets)
Subsurface Profiles: Figures 3A and 3B (2 Sheets)
APPENDIX III
Laboratory Test Summary Sheet (Not included)
APPENDIX IV
GBA Publication
"Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report"
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
IS61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page ii of ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Executive Summary is provided as a brief overview of our geotechnical engineering
evaluation for the project and is not intended to replace more detailed information contained
elsewhere in this report. As an overview, this summary inherently omits details that could be
very important to the proper application of the provided geotechnical design
recommendations. This report should be read in its entirety prior to implementation into
design and construction.
• The site is located in a grassy field west of existing Leicester Public Library at 1561
Alexander Road in Leicester, North Carolina.
• Our subsurface exploration included twelve soil test borings to depths of 6 to 25 feet. The
test borings indicated the presence of residual soils generally classifying as firm to very
stiff Sandy Silt (ML), Sandy Lean Clay (CL), and loose to medium dense Silty Sand (SM) and
Clayey Sand (SC). Groundwater was not encountered during our after our subsurface
explorations and is therefore not anticipated during site grading and foundation
excavation.
• Based on the subsurface conditions at the site, we recommend that any shallow
foundations can be designed for a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000
pounds per square foot (psf) for foundations bearing in approved subgrade soils. The
recommended bearing pressure provides a factor of safety of at least 3 against general
bearing capacity failure. With proper foundation sizing, we estimate that foundation
settlement will be limited to less than 1-inch.
• Based on the subsurface conditions at the site, we anticipate the near -surface soils within
a depth of about 25 feet at the site can be excavated with backhoes, front-end loaders or
other similar equipment using conventional means and methods.
• Based on the available subsurface data from our exploration and in general accordance
with the 2015 International Building Code, a Seismic Site Class "D" should be used for
further evaluations relative to earthquake load design.
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
1561 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 1 of 19

1.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICE
The purpose of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation is to explore the
subsurface conditions in the area of the proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station development and
to provide subsurface soil conditions and geotechnical engineering recommendations. Froehling &
Robertson, Inc. (F&R) provided our Proposal No. 1965-00415G dated March 15, 2019, to Leicester
Fire and Rescue Department in response to their proposal request and the provided project details.
F&R's scope of services included the following:
• A site reconnaissance to observe existing surface conditions and layout proposed boring
locations.
• Coordination of public underground utility location with NC811.
• Review and summary of readily available geologic and subsurface information relative to the
project site.
• Completion of twelve SPT borings, designated as Borings B-01 through B-12, located within
the footprint of the proposed fire station, driveway and parking areas of the development.
The borings were advanced to termination depths of approximately 6 to 25 feet below the
existing ground surface. The exploration included making observations for the presence of
groundwater, dense soil strata, bedrock and obtaining their approximate depths below the
existing ground surface.
• Performing soil laboratory testing for classification purposes using wash No. 200 (ASTM
D1140, Atterberg limits test (ASTM D4318), natural water content determinations (ASTM
D2216), standard Proctor test (ASTM D698), and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests (ASTM
D1883).
• Evaluation of the Seismic Site Class in accordance with the 2015 International Building Code
and based on subsurface exploration and testing data obtained from the site.
• Preparation of this report summarizing our work on the project including recommendations
for shallow foundation design, floor slab design parameters, site excavation characteristics,
placement and compaction of load -bearing reusable on -site soils, and typical
recommendations for heavy-duty flexible, heavy-duty rigid, and light -duty flexible pavement
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
F&R Project No. 65X-0079 IS61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 2 of 19

sections for use on the project. Boring location plans, boring logs and subsurface profiles
are also included in this report.
F&R's geotechnical services did not include topographic or field surveying, development of
quantity estimates, preparation of plans and specifications, or the identification and evaluation
of wetlands or other environmental aspects of the project site.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Location and Description
The project site is a 10.2-acre± tract located west of the existing Leicester Public Library at 1561
Alexander Road in Leicester, North Carolina. The site is an open grass -covered farmland with a
rolling topography. Ground surface elevations range from approximately elevation (El.) 2,115 to
2,190 feet.
The site location is shown on the attached Figure No. 1 - Site Vicinity Map, included in Appendix
I. F&R obtained the site information from the project details including a Plat of Survey for
Leicester Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., by Vaughn and Melton, which we received from your
office on March 11, 2019. F&R also obtained site information through our review of available
aerial photography and during our site visits.
2.2 Project Information and Proposed Construction
A new fire station development is proposed at the site. Based on the provided information, the
new fire station will have a total finished floor area of 15,350 square feet and will include several
apparatus bays, sleeping quarters, office and training spaces, exercise rooms, mechanical, and
bathrooms. The remaining areas to be developed will include landscaped areas, an access
driveway with two parking areas for up to about 32 cars, and a stormwater retention pond area.
Based on the provided project details, the finished floor elevation of the new fire station will be
at El. 2,175. Complete construction drawings, building specifications and structural loading
information were not available at the time of preparing this report. However, F&R has assumed
that construction of the buildings will likely consist of concrete slab -on -grade, wood or metal
framing, brick veneer, fiber cement or vinyl siding, and asphalt shingle roofs. Construction of the
access driveway will be asphalt over a crushed stone base or concrete over a crushed stone base.
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
IS61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 3 of 19

Specific site grading details for the proposed construction were also not available. However, we
expect site grading to include less than 10 feet of cut and fill for the building, access roadway,
and stormwater retention pond areas. We estimate column foundation loads to be on the order
of 50 kips and less than 5 kips per linear foot for wall foundations.
As part of the project planning requirements, F&R was asked to perform a geotechnical exploration
at the site to evaluate the subsurface conditions within the planned building and pavement locations
for the proposed development.
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
3.1 Subsurface Exploration
The subsurface exploration was conducted by F&R drillers on April 11, 2019. A field
representative from F&R was onsite during drilling operations.
The drill rig used for this project was an ATV -mounted CME 550X drill rig equipped with an
automatic hammer. The test holes were advanced using 2.25" I.D. hollow stem augers. The
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed at the boring locations in general accordance
with ASTM D1586.
The subsurface exploration program consisted of twelve SPT borings, designated as Borings B-01
through B-12. The borings were located within the proposed building, pavement and stormwater
retention areas as described in the project description and were in general accordance with the
proposed boring location plan you submitted with your request for proposal.
Five SPTs were performed in the upper 10 feet of the 15 to 25-foot deep borings starting from
the ground surface. Thereafter, the boreholes were advanced further and SPT performed at
approximate 5-foot intervals to their termination depths of 15 to 25 feet below the existing
ground surface. Approximate boring locations are identified on Figure No. 2—Test Location Plan,
which is included in Appendix I of this report. Boring locations were staked at the site by F&R
personnel by measuring from existing site features. As such, the boring locations should be
considered approximate. Ground surface elevations were estimated from the provided Plat of
Survey for Leicester Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., as such, the ground surface elevations
shown of our boring logs should be considered approximate.
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
IS61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 4 of 19

Soil samples were obtained with a standard 2" O.D. and 30" long split -spoon sampler with each
SPT being driven with a 140-lb automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows
required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment of penetration was recorded and are shown
on the boring logs. The first six-inch increment is used to seat the sampler with the sum of the
second and third penetration increments being termed the SPT value, "N." The fourth six-inch
increment was obtained but not used. A representative portion of each disturbed split -spoon
sample was collected with each SPT, placed in a glass jar, and returned to our laboratory for
review.
The recovered split -spoon samples were visually classified by F&R engineers in general
accordance with the ASTM D2488. The boring logs and soil profiles provided in Appendix II show
the subsurface conditions encountered on the date and at the approximate locations indicated.
By the nature of the work performed, the drilling activities result in disturbances to the site. The
completed boreholes performed were backfilled with drilling spoils upon completion for safety.
The borehole backfill may subside at some time following our work. F&R assumes no
responsibility for borehole subsidence after completion of the field exploration and departing
the site. For continued safety, the boreholes should be occasionally observed by others with any
needed additional backfilling then being performed.
3.2 Laboratory Testing
For geotechnical considerations, select split -spoon and bulk soil samples from the soil test borings
were subjected to laboratory classification testing. This testing included wash No. 200 (ASTM
D1140), Atterberg limits test (ASTM D4318), natural water content determinations (ASTM
D2216), standard Proctor test (ASTM D698), and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests (ASTM D1883).
Based on the results of these tests, the soil samples were then classified in general accordance
with Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487).
Laboratory test results, once they become available, will be provided in Appendix III of our final
report.
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
1561 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 5 of 19

4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 General
The subsurface conditions discussed in the following paragraphs and those shown on the attached
boring logs represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the field
data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments. Subsurface profiles for the
project stratigraphy have been prepared for convenience only. Given the wide spacing between
boring locations, it is anticipated that subsurface conditions may vary between each boring
location.
Strata breaks designated on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries between soil
types. The transitions between different soil strata are usually less distinct than those shown on the
boring logs. Although individual soil test borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at
the boring locations on the dates shown, they are not necessarily indicative of subsurface conditions
at other locations or at other times. Data from the specific soil test borings are shown on the
individual boring logs included in Appendix II. Subsurface profiles in the area of the proposed
building also included in Appendix II.
4.2 Regional Geology
Based on our review of the Geologic Map of North Carolina (Brown, 1985), the project site is
located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The Blue Ridge Belt is
characterized by steep mountainous ridges and narrow valleys. Based upon available geologic
literature and maps, the project site is underlain by Biotite muscovite gneiss (Zatm) that is
described as being locally sulfidic; interlayered and gradational with mica schist, minor
amphibolite, and hornblende gneiss.
The Blue Ridge region is underlain by older crystalline (metamorphic and igneous) rock
formations that trend northeast -southwest and vary greatly in their resistance to weathering and
erosion. The major streams generally flow from northwest to southeast across these rock
structures without regard to their northeast -southwest tending structures.
The typical residual soil profile consists of fine-grained soils (clays/silts) near the surface, where
soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by more coarse -grained soils (sandy silts/silty sands)
with depth. The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined. This transitional zone,
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
IS61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 6 of 19

termed "partially weathered rock", is normally found overlying the parent bedrock. The degree
of weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints, and by the presence of less resistant rock types.
Consequently, the profile of the "partially weathered rock" and hard rock is quite irregular and
erratic, even over short, horizontal distances.
4.3 Generalized Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface data obtained from the soil borings are presented in the following paragraphs.
Complete boring logs are presented in Appendix II.
4.3.1 Surficial Material
The borings generally encountered approximately 6 inches of Surficial Soil at the ground surface.
Surficial Soil is typically a dark -colored soil material containing roots, fibrous matter, and or other
organic components, and is generally unsuitable for engineering purposes. F&R has not
performed any laboratory testing to determine the organic content or other horticultural
properties of the observed Surficial Soil materials. Therefore, the term Surficial Soil is not
intended to indicate suitability for landscaping and or other purposes.
The Surficial Soil depths provided in this report are based on driller observations and should be
considered approximate. We note that the transition from Surficial Soil to underlying materials
may be gradual, and therefore the observation and measurement of Surficial Soil depths is
subjective. Actual Surficial Soil depths should be expected to vary.
4.3.2 Residual Soils
Residual soils, formed by in -place weathering of the parent rock, were encountered in the borings
from below the surficial materials to depths of approximately 6 to 25 feet. Sampled fine-grained
residual soils were generally classified as firm to very stiff Sandy Lean Clay (CL) and Sandy Silt
(ML) containing varying amounts of root, mica and rock fragments. Sampled coarse -grained
residual soils were generally classified as loose to medium dense Silty Sand (SM) and Clayey Sand
(SC) containing varying amounts of mica and rock fragments. Standard penetration resistance
(N-value) in the residual soils generally ranged from 5 to 18 blows per foot (bpf).
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
1S61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 7 of 19

4.4 Laboratory Test Results
Laboratory tests results were not available at the time of submitting this draft report. Once
laboratory test results become available, we will include them in the final version of this report.
4.5 Groundwater Data
Groundwater was generally not observed during drilling. However, most of the recovered soil
samples were moist. The boring cave-in depths, after removal of drilling augers, ranged from
approximately 4 to 17.5 feet below the existing ground surface. After removal of drilling augers,
the boreholes were backfilled with drilling spoils for safety except for Boring B-01 were we
installed a 1.25-inch diameter hand -slotted PVC pipe to a depth of 15 feet below the ground
surface. We returned to the site to measure stabilized groundwater in the pipe, approximately
3.5 hours after pipe installation. The bottom of borehole was dry.
The presence of groundwater was evaluated at each boring location by visually judging the
moisture content of the recovered split -spoon soil samples and by dropping a weighted tape
measure down the borehole.
Groundwater levels fluctuate with seasonal changes, periods of heavy or little rainfall, stream
levels and other factors. Therefore, our evaluations of the groundwater level do not reveal the
actual year-round groundwater conditions.
5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General
The following findings and recommendations are based on our observations at the site,
interpretation of the field and laboratory data obtained during our subsurface exploration, and
our experience with similar subsurface conditions and projects. Soil penetration data has been
used to evaluate the subsurface conditions based on established correlations. Subsurface
conditions in unexplored locations may vary from those encountered. If the proposed Leicester
Volunteer Fire Station development footprint and anticipated grading plans are changed, F&R
requests that we be advised so that our recommendations can be re-evaluated.
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
1561 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 8 of 19

5.2 Shallow Foundation Design
The existing ground surface elevations at the fire station area ranges from about El. 2,173 feet to
about 2,182 feet. We anticipate site grading will include less than 10 feet of cut and or fill.
Therefore, we expect proposed foundation subgrade soils to consist of residual soils or new
compacted structural fill soils.
The proposed fire station may be supported on shallow foundation systems bearing on approved
natural soils, or newly placed controlled structural fill subgrades. Based on our assumed structural
loading and the encountered subsurface conditions, we recommend that the fire station building
foundations be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf)
for foundations bearing on approved subgrades. To reduce the possibility of localized shear failures,
spread and strip foundations should be a minimum of 2 feet and 1.5 feet wide, respectively.
We recommend the use of a friction factor of 0.30 between bearing elevations and foundations.
This factor considers that concrete foundation elements will be placed in direct contact with
suitable on -site soils.
5.3 Estimated Foundation Settlement
Based on the subsurface data, anticipated site grading and assumed structural loading conditions,
we estimate total foundation settlement would be less than 1-inch, with differential settlement of
of the estimated total settlement. The magnitude of differential settlements will be influenced
by the variability of underlying soils across the footprint of the structure and the variation of
foundation loads.
Our settlement analysis was performed based on an anticipated maximum structural column load
of 50 kips and maximum wall load of 5 kips per linear foot. The settlement analysis was based on a
conventional shallow foundation bearing at a depth of at least 2 feet below the anticipated finished
floor elevations and designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Actual settlements
experienced by the fire station building and the time required for these soils to settle will be
influenced by undetected variations in subsurface conditions, final structural loads, and the quality
of fill placement and foundation construction.
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
IS61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 9 of 19

5.4 Shrink -Swell, Frost Depth and Bearing Considerations
Based on our exploration, most of the residual soils encountered within foundation bearing
grades consist of coarse -grained and some fine-grained soils. We also anticipate that fill obtained
from on -site sources will meet the requirements for controlled structural fill specified in Section 6
of this report.
We recommend any near surface unsuitable soils at foundation bearing grades be removed and
replaced with suitable new controlled structural fill.
Based on our general experience in the project vicinity, we anticipate the fine-grained soils present
in foundation bearing grades to have a medium to high potential for
moisture -related volume change (shrink -swell behavior). Accordingly, we recommend that
exterior foundations be constructed at least 36 inches below adjacent grades in order to reduce the
effect of shrink -swell, frosting, and shear puncture. Alternatively, exterior foundation subgrades
consisting of high plasticity fine-grained soils may be undercut 2 feet and replaced with flowable fill,
or lean concrete.
In order to further reduce the potential of shrink -swell soil behavior, we recommend the ground
surface near the fire station building foundations be graded such that surface water does not
accumulate near the foundations. Roof drainage downspouts should be routed into appropriate
drainage channels directed away from the building.
5.5 Concrete Slabs -On -Grade
The floor slabs may be designed as a slab -on -grade supported on suitable undisturbed natural soil
or new controlled structural fill subgrades. Slab -on -grade support is contingent upon successful
completion of the subgrade evaluation process as described in the Site Preparation section of this
report (Section 6.2). A modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 100 pounds per square inch per inch
(psi/inch) may be used for design of the floor slab bearing on an approved subgrade.
A six-inch thick layer of North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) open graded
coarse aggregate No. 57 or No. 67 should be placed beneath the floor slab. This granular base
would function as a leveling and load distributing material as well as a capillary break beneath
the slab.
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
IS61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 10 of 19

A vapor retarder should be used beneath slabs that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet,
impermeable coatings, and or if other moisture -sensitive equipment or materials will be in
contact with the slab. However, the use of vapor retarders may result in excessive curling of
concrete slabs during curing. We refer the concrete slab designer to ACI 302.1R-15, Section 5.2,
for further discussion on vapor retarders, curling, and the means to lessen potential concrete
shrinkage and curling.
Proper jointing of the concrete slabs -on -grade is also essential to reduce cracking. ACI suggests
that unreinforced plain concrete slabs may be jointed at spacing of 24 to 36 times the slab
thickness, up to a maximum spacing of 15 feet. Slab construction should incorporate isolation
joints along walls and column locations (if applicable) to allow minor movements to occur
without damage. Utility or other construction excavations in the prepared subgrade should be
backfilled to a controlled structural fill criterion to provide uniform support.
5.6 Pavement Design Recommendations
The pavement design for the proposed access driveway, building apron, and parking lot areas
should consider whether the pavements will be subjected to light -duty or heavy-duty traffic. A
light -duty pavement section should be used where traffic is expected to primarily consist of autos
and occasional light service vehicles such as in parking spaces. A heavy-duty pavement section
should be used where the traffic will also consist of light and numerous heavy service vehicles
such as in access driveway and building apron areas. We understand that the parking lot and
driveways will be paved with asphalt and the building apron will be paved with concrete.
Pavement designs are normally based on a Design CBR (DCBR) value that may be calculated as Z/
of the soaked CBR value. The results of our laboratory CBR testing for this project were not
available at the time of submitting this draft report, however, based on the soils encountered
and our experience with similar type soils, we assume a CBR value of 5 for the site soils and
therefore the DCBR used for this project would be 3. We also considered a modulus of subgrade
reaction (k) of 100 psi/inch and an ADT loading of up to 500 cars including up to about 50
heavy-duty fire service trucks or other heavy vehicles. Our asphalt pavement design considers a
design period of 20 years. Please note that flexible pavement designed for a period of about 20
years should consider that periodic maintenance and repairs of cracks are performed on a regular
basis.
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
IS61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 11 of 19

We established our asphalt pavement design recommendations based on the AASHTO layer
coefficient method and our concrete pavement design using methods as outlined in the Guide for
Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots reported by ACI Committee 330 (ACI 330R-1).
Using the above referenced traffic loading conditions and the design CBR value, the following
light -duty and heavy-duty asphalt and heavy-duty concrete pavement sections are
recommended for the project:
Table 5.6.1: Pavement Section Design
Light -Duty
Heavy -Duty
Heavy -Duty
Asphalt
Asphalt
Concrete
Pavement Section
Pavement
Pavement
Pavement
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
S9.513 Bituminous Concrete Surface Mix
2
1.5
-
119.013 Bituminous Concrete Intermediate Mix
-
2.5
-
1325.013 Bituminous Concrete Intermediate Mix
-
3.0
-
Welded Wire Fabric Reinforced Concrete (PCC)
-
-
8
NCDOT ABC Stone Subbase
6
8.0
At least 6
Construction of the pavements should be performed in accordance with the latest edition of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures.
Concrete pavements are recommended to be reinforced with welded wire fabric (WWF).
Long-term performance of pavements is highly dependent on maintaining suitable drainage
conditions and preventing deterioration of the underlying subgrade materials. If the base
material remains saturated over an extended period of time, pavement distresses are much more
likely to occur. Subsurface drains are typically utilized beneath a pavement where water may
enter the pavement from below or above. Based on the results of the soil test borings, we do
not anticipate that sub drains will be required for this site. However, site drainage problems
revealed during construction may indicate a requirement for sub drainage installation.
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
IS61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 12 of 19

Proper drainage may be aided by grading the site such that surface water is directed away from
pavements and by construction of swales adjacent to the pavements. This will be required in
areas of this site were pavement subgrades will be in cut areas or areas where the ground surface
slopes towards the pavement. All pavements should be graded such that surface water is
directed towards the outer limits of the paved area or to catch basins located such that surface
water does not remain on the pavement.
It is recommended that any dumpsters be supported on a minimum 6-inch thick concrete pad on
a minimum 6-inch thick NCDOT ABC stone subbase. The pad should project horizontally in front
of the dumpster such that the front wheels of any service truck are supported by the concrete
pad during loading and unloading of the dumpster.
Concrete pavements should have a minimum 4,000-psi compressive strength and be air
entrained.
5.7 Seismic Site Classification
The seismic site class evaluations presented herein reference the International Building Code
(IBC) 2015, which entails an evaluation of the top 100 feet of the subsurface soil profile in order
to determine the seismic site class.
The deepest soil borings for this project were terminated at a depth of 25 feet for foundation
considerations. Based on the data we collected from our subsurface exploration and on our
experience in the area, a Soil Seismic Site Class D is recommended for this project site.
F&R notes that the recommended Site Class is based on information available at the time this
report was written. If this classification should be so onerous to the project cost that further
study is warranted, we can perform a site -specific geo-physical survey to attain sufficient detail
to further define the project's seismic Site Class definition. This additional testing would be
beyond the currently authorized scope of services for this project.
6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
The principal purpose of this section is to comment in general on the items related to earthwork
and associated geotechnical engineering aspects of construction that should be expected for this
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
IS61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 13 of 19

project. It is recommended that F&R's geotechnical engineer be retained to provide
soil -engineering services during the construction phases of the project and perform appropriate
evaluations to help assure that conditions encountered during construction are similar to
conditions encountered in the borings. The geotechnical engineer can also assist in
interpretation of differing subsurface conditions that may be encountered and recommend
remedial work, if needed.
6.2 Site Preparation
The entire construction area should be stripped of existing vegetation, surficial organic soils,
debris or any other deleterious materials to a minimum of 5 feet outside the proposed building
construction areas and 2 feet behind the curb lines for paved areas. Depressions or low areas
resulting from stripping operations should be backfilled with approved soil and compacted in
accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. Existing buried utilities and
deleterious materials should be completely removed from within the footprint of the proposed
new structures and replaced with approved soil.
During grading operations, hidden features in the substratum, such as organic laden soils, or
other deleterious materials may be encountered within the proposed construction area.
Generally, such features will require removal. Details regarding the removal of deleterious
materials should be determined on a case -by -case basis and; therefore, contract documents
should include a contingency cost for the removal of such subsurface features.
We recommend site preparation be monitored by the geotechnical engineer or his
representative to verify that the recommendations presented herein are implemented. Prior to
fill placement and or at -grade construction, areas to provide support for foundations, floor slabs,
pavements and structural fills should be proofrolled under the supervision of the geotechnical
engineer or his representative.
Proofrolling should be performed with a fully loaded tandem -axle dump truck or similar piece of
rubber -tired equipment with a minimum loaded weight of 20 tons. The purpose of the
proofrolling is to detect the existence of any soft, very loose, or wet, near -surface materials or
unsuitable soils that may require undercutting. Areas that deflect, rut, or pump excessively
during proofrolling, and which cannot be densified in -place by further rolling, should be
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
1S61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 14 of 19

remediated as directed by the geotechnical engineer or his representative and approved by the
Owner.
Some localized undercutting and or recompaction should be anticipated and; therefore, contract
documents should include a contingency cost for localized undercutting and recompaction.
6.3 Controlled Structural Fill Placement and Compaction
Prior to fill placement, representative samples of each engineered fill material should be
collected and tested by F&R to determine the material's moisture -density characteristics
(including, the maximum dry density, optimum water content, gradation and Atterberg limits).
These tests are needed for quality control of the controlled structural fill and to determine if the
fill material meets project specification requirements.
Controlled structural fill in structural areas should be free of organics, roots, or other deleterious
materials; should not contain more than five percent (by weight) organic material; should not
have a plasticity index (PI) greater than 25; or have a maximum dry density less than 90 pounds
per cubic foot. Soils not meeting these criteria may be used in landscaped or non-structural
areas. Compacted structural fill should consist of material classified as CL, ML, SC or SM per ASTM
D2487, or others as approved by the geotechnical engineer. CH and MH materials are generally
not recommended for use as structural fill due to their low strength characteristics and moisture
sensitivity, but may be approved on a case -by -case basis. Soils imported from off -site sources
should also meet similar classification requirements and be approved by the geotechnical
engineer prior to use. Successful reuse of the excavated, on -site soils as controlled structural fill
will depend on the water content and the plasticity of the soils encountered during excavation.
Once fill placement begins, a qualified soils technician should perform field density tests to
document the degree of compaction being obtained in the field. Structural fills should be placed
in thin (8- to 10-inch) loose lifts and compacted to the following recommendations:
• Upper 18 inches below the final subgrade elevation:
■ 100% of the soil's standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method
D698) at or near optimum water content: maximum deviation of ±3 percentage
points of optimum water content.
• Depths below 18 inches:
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
1561 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 15 of 19

■ 95% of the soil's standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method
D698) at or near optimum water content: maximum deviation of ±3 percentage
points of optimum water content.
Some manipulation of the water content (such as wetting or drying) may be required during the
filling operation to obtain the required degree of compaction. The manipulation of the water
content is highly dependent on weather conditions and site drainage conditions. Therefore, the
grading contractor should be prepared to both dry and wet the fill materials to obtain the
specified compaction during grading. Regular one -point Proctor tests should be conducted in an
attempt to verify that the most representative Proctor curve is being selected. Sufficient density
tests should be performed to confirm the required compaction of the fill material.
The contractor should exercise care after these soils have been compacted. If water is allowed
to stand on the surface, these soils may become saturated. Movement of construction traffic on
saturated subgrades can cause rutting that may destroy the fill's integrity. Once the integrity of
the subgrade is destroyed, mobility of construction traffic becomes difficult or impossible.
Therefore, the fill surface should be sloped to achieve positive drainage and to minimize water
from ponding on the surface.
If the surface becomes excessively wet, fill operations should be halted and our geotechnical
engineer consulted for guidance. Testing of the fill material and compaction monitoring by our
engineering technician is recommended during fill placement operations.
6.4 Shallow Foundation Construction
To document suitable bearing within the actual foundation excavation, we recommend that the
near -surface bearing soils be evaluated by performing hand auger borings with DCP testing
equipment or other suitable methods prior to foundation installation. Any unsuitable soils
detected during this evaluation should be undercut and remediated as directed by the
geotechnical engineer. Depending on final design grades, some localized undercutting and or
recompaction should be anticipated.
We recommend that individual foundations be concreted as soon after the evaluation as possible
to minimize the potential disturbance of the bearing soils. If the foundation excavation subgrade
soils must remain exposed overnight or during inclement weather, we recommend that a 2- to
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
IS61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 16 of 19

4-inch thick "mud -mat" of lean concrete be placed on the bearing soils, taking care to maintain
the required thickness of foundation concrete and the design top of footing elevation.
The foundation bearing area should be free of any very loose or soft material, standing water,
and debris at the time of concrete placement. Concrete should not be placed on soils that have
been softened by precipitation or frost heave. Exposure of the subgrade materials to the
environment may weaken these soils at the foundation bearing level. If the foundation
excavations remain open for long periods of time, or during inclement weather, re-evaluation of
the subgrade materials by the geotechnical engineer or his representative should be performed
prior to steel, concrete, or stone placement.
6.5 Surface Water Control
If free water is allowed to stand on stable subgrade soils, these soils can absorb water, swell, and
experience a reduction in their support capability. As a result, we recommend that the subgrade
surface be graded to provide positive drainage away from the construction areas and towards
suitable drainage handling areas, such as a perimeter ditch, French drain, culvert, or retention
pond.
Due to the presence of moisture -sensitive soils, trapped or perched water conditions could
develop during periods of inclement weather and during seasonally wet periods. Such conditions
could cause seepage into excavations and deeper cuts. Therefore, grading of the project should
be performed in such a manner to prevent ponding of water and promote runoff away from
construction areas. In addition, if site grading is performed during the seasonally wet months or
after extended periods of inclement weather, wet and water softened near surface soil
conditions should be expected.
6.6 Excavation Characteristics
We anticipate the near -surface soils at the site can be excavated with backhoes, front-end loaders
or other similar equipment using conventional means and methods. Typically, material with an
N-value of 50 blows per 3 to 6 inches of penetration can be excavated with moderate to heavy effort
using appropriately sized equipment, such as a large track -hoe (e.g., Caterpillar 330 with rock teeth).
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
1S61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 17 of 19

6.7 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater for the purposes of this report is defined as water encountered below the existing
ground surface. Based on the data obtained during our exploration program, groundwater was
not encountered in our soil test borings. Therefore, it is unlikely that groundwater would be
encountered during site grading and foundation excavation; however, a perched groundwater
condition may be encountered. The contractor should be prepared to dewater locations where
surface water or a perched water condition is encountered. The contractor should be responsible
for the design and installation of any dewatering systems required for this project.
Groundwater levels tend to fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variations as well as with some
types of construction operations. Generally, the highest groundwater levels occur in late winter
and early spring and the lowest levels occur in late summer and early fall. Depending on time of
construction, groundwater may be encountered at shallower depths and locations not explored
during this study. If encountered during construction, engineering personnel from our office
should be notified immediately.
6.8 Excavations
Mass excavations and other excavations required for construction of this project must be
performed in accordance with the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines (29 CFR 1926, Subpart P, Excavations) or other
applicable jurisdictional codes for permissible temporary side -slope ratios and or shoring
requirements. The OSHA guidelines require daily inspections of excavations, adjacent areas and
protective systems by a "competent person" for evidence of situations that could result in
cave-ins, indications of failure of a protective system, or other hazardous conditions.
Excavated soils, equipment, building supplies, etc., should be placed away from the edges of the
excavation at a distance equaling or exceeding the depth of the excavation. F&R cautions that
the actual excavation slopes will need to be evaluated frequently each day by the "competent
person" and flatter slopes or the use of shoring may be required to maintain a safe excavation
depending upon excavation specific circumstances. The contractor is responsible for providing
the "competent person" and all aspects of site excavation safety. F&R can evaluate specific
excavation slope situations if we are informed and requested by the owner, designer or
contractor's "competent person."
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
IS61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 18 of 19

7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES
F&R recommends that we be retained for professional and construction materials testing
services during construction of the project. Our continued involvement on the project helps
provide continuity for proper implementation of the recommendations discussed herein.
Additionally, we request the opportunity to review the final grading plans, foundation plans and
project specifications when these construction documents approach completion. This review
evaluates whether the recommendations and comments provided herein have been understood
and properly implemented. The above listed services are not part of the currently authorized
scope of services.
8.0 LIMITATIONS
There are important limitations to this and all geotechnical studies. Some of these limitations
are discussed in the information prepared by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA),
which is included in Appendix IV. We recommend that you review the GBA information.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by Leicester Fire and Rescue Department or
their agents, for specific application to the proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
development near 1561 Alexander Road in Leicester, North Carolina, in accordance with
generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, express or
implied, is made. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on project information
furnished to us at the time the work was performed, and generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices. The findings and recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface
conditions, which could exist in unexplored areas of the site. In areas where variations from the
available subsurface data become apparent during construction, it will be necessary to
re-evaluate our conclusions and recommendations based upon on -site observations of the
conditions.
In the event that changes are made in the design or location of the proposed cuts at the proposed
development, the recommendations presented in this report shall not be considered valid unless
the changes are reviewed by our firm and conclusions of this report modified and or verified in
writing. If this report is copied or transmitted to a third party, it must be copied or transmitted
in its entirety, including text, attachments, and enclosures. Interpretations based on only a part
of this report may not be valid.
Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
F&R Project No. 65X-0079
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
IS61 Alexander Road
Leicester, North Carolina
April 16, 2019
Page 19 of 19

Site Vicinity Map (Figure No. 1)
Test Location Plan (Figure No. 2)

»41
rasa
707
z63
Site Location
u
18d9 751
s
Alexander
f7ln
lam laa�
1 rat
lazz
,�z5 ,g�4
,sTg '4%,M561
Alexander Road
Leicester
Z
91
�►
lsa�
r
� tb5z
1-7
1377
14C2
1
, 0
83
r 75
•'
F '.1' 1769�
0' 1 mi. 2 mi.
L31�
1338
Image obtained from Google Maps
F R O E H L I N G & R O B E RTS O N, INC.
Site Vicinity Map
Job No.:
65X-0079
Scale: 1" = 1 mil
Fgc
R
Engineering Stability Since 1881
Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
Date:
04/09/2019
Drawn By: R. French
v 18 Woods Lake Road, Greenville, SC 29607 1 USA
Near Alexander Road
SINCE 1881 T 864.271.2840 1 F 864.271.8124
Leicester, North Carolina
Figure No.: 1
Checked By: B. Azumah

Drawing Legend:
Approx. Boring Loc.
J +�
} III Ff w
_ • `, �
B-02
a
..a
-}004�
uM r13
B-05 B
`BJ07
A m
Proposed Fire Station
a
lw'%f oln
i3'I-ce-vta�
.'rr
_---__---- Rsw V Pane
Oil
-- ------
----
-----------------
+ti °�� ��`t} ri''�• \�•i�.
M y-- ��. =�
``--`----- ---r� s-
,. _
�'ar rr�'yr'. �rrf rrrrrr,rri•-rt� ��. k `�'�'e :r+ +- -_-..'�-
r�rr • r r�r �-��.•`�11~a Z s; •�. � � .. •^r �_��tititi_+r�__rr^���.^-.--:�-��
rr -.+r- r��r`+��:rr�fr ..:�1 - '..�y��•.r•rrr; �_-.-+. ►__.r-�r ter':-r--'r y.-�-.y`�^a`.• ',l z
• r r r-- ,j '..��... rr .--+ r r �_....^ rrr .��_-\' ,.i'•
r rr r `�rii +rri rr' -. �--r• ••��--ram'-r^\vim«-^rr r--'"-�errr � r
- !'-,' .. rri �•��� r..r,,. - ,� s �'a+o `._ �=���"`-_•..--:,••ter--_-- ,� . ,, rr—�` . ' � �■
r-'rrrr�rr':rffrrffi rrr•• .^s Sti �\.�t--_---�_•_'-���..��:��=�.•���..- 9rs'414-7lra
- r i:!�ir%fffr rrrr•r+ii r� ��.� ��`• ��� ``,`a ''s ^-"����r•�-r.o---'���-^`
T el/Io r�frr/r'Fr/vr�•�.. • i ,,y �� ''—n—�.±�r ~^ A.M1— _
0' 100,
nwe,as rr
Cid! ��[,IYF7Ti '36
E�]$rlltl!
a
A
d
r
nry aea
416�-A%
F F R O E H L I N G & R O B E RTS O N, INC. Test Location Plan Job No.: 65X-0079 Scale: 1": 100'
Engineering Stability Since 1881 Proposed Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
18 Woods Lake Road, Greenville, SC 29607 1 USA Near Alexander Road Date: 04/09/2019 Drawn By: R. French
SINCE 1881 T 864.271.2840 1 F 864.271.8124 Leicester, North Carolina Figure No.: 2 Checked By: B. Azumah

APPENDIX II
Key to Soil Classification
Soil Classification Chart
Boring Logs B-01 through B-12
Subsurface Soil Profiles — Building and Pavement Areas (Figure Nos. 3A and 3B)

SINCE
186i
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Correlation of Penetration Resistance with
Relative Density and Consistency
Sands and Gravels
Silts and Clays
No. of
Relative
No. of
Relative
Blows, N
DMLity
Blows, N
Densi
0 - 4
Very loose
0 - 2
Very soft
5 - 10
Loose
3- 4
Soft
11 - 30
Medium dense
5 - 8
Firm
31 -50
Dense
9 - 15
Stiff
Over 50
Very dense
16 - 30
Very stiff
31 - 50
Hard
Over 50
Very hard
Particle Size Identification
(Unified Classification System)
Boulders:
Diameter exceeds 8 inches
Cobbles:
3 to 8 inches diameter
Gravel:
Coarse - 3/4 to 3 inches diameter
Fine - 4.76 mm to 3/4 inch diameter
Sand:
Coarse - 2.0 mm to 4.76 mm diameter
Medium - 0.42 mm to 2.0 mm diameter
Fine - 0.074 mm to 0.42 mm diameter
Silt and Clay: Less than 0.07 mm (particles cannot be seen with naked eye)
Modifiers
The modifiers provide our estimate of the amount of silt, clay or sand size particles in the soil
sample.
Approximate
Content
Modifiers
<_ 5%:
Trace
5% to 12%:
Slightly silty, slightly clayey,
slightly sandy
12% to 30%:
Silty, clayey, sandy
30% to 50%:
Very silty, very clayey, very
sand
Field Moisture
Description
Saturated:
Usually liquid; very wet, usually
from below the groundwater table
Wet:
Semisolid; requires drying to attain
optimum moisture
Moist:
Solid; at or near optimum moisture
Dry:
Requires additional water to attain
optimum moisture

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MAJOR DIVISIONS
SYMBOLS
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
GRAPH
LETTER
GRAVEL
AND
CLEAN
GRAVELS
�•�
I. r k
GW
WELL —GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL —
SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
�'. ,'.
�•�
�. •�.
GP
POORLY —GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL — SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
GRAVELLY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
•
'' �'
•
'
GM
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL — SAND —
SILT MIXTURES
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
r±�+
GC
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL — SAND —
CLAY MIXTURES
SAND
AND
CLEAN SANDS
eeeeeeeee
SW
WELL —GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN
SANDY
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
Sp
POORLY —GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SANDS WITH
FINES
-
—
—
—
-
`SM
SILTY SANDS, SAND — SILT
MIXTURES
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
_
—
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
_ — —
— —
�r
sc
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND — CLAY
MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
M L
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
CL
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY
CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS
AND LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50
CLAYS
OL
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
M H
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SILTY SOILS
SIZE
SILTS
AND LIQUID LIMIT
CLAYS GREATER THAN 50
CH
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
OH
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
L ` i`',
PT
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

c
c
c
SINCE
�& Froehling & Robertson, Inc. BORING LOG
Boring: B 01 (1 of 1)
1861
Project No: 65X-0079 Elevation: 2167.5 ± Drilling Method: HSA
Client: Leicester Fire and Rescue Department Total Depth: 15.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: Leicester Volunteer Fire Station Boring Location: See Test Location Plan Date Drilled: 4/11/19
City/State: 1561 Alexander Road, Leicester, NC Driller: F&R, Inc.
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
et
N-Value
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
eeth
(blows/ft)
2167.0
0.5
6 inches SURFICIAL SOIL
2-4-5
U
Groundwater was not
RESIDUUM: Loose, Reddish -Brown, Coarse to
-7
9
encountered during
Fine Clayey SAND (SC), moist
drilling
2165.5
2.0
2.0
Medium Dense, Reddish -Brown, Coarse to Fine
5-6-7
Silty SAND (SM), moist
-11
13
4.0
5-5-6
-7
11
2161.5
6.0
Medium Dense to Loose, Red, Yellowish -Black,
6.0
4-6-5
Coarse to Fine Silty SAND (SM), moist
-6
11
8.0
10-4-5
-6
9
10.0
13.0
3-3-4
7
2152.5
15.0
Boring terminated at 15 feet and temporary
water observation well installed for stabilized
groundwater measurement.
ivumDer oT Diows requires Tor a 14u io nammer aropping su to arive L u.u., i.u. sampler a toiai oT iu incnes in inree o increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

c
c
c
SINCE
�& Froehling & Robertson, Inc. BORING LOG
Boring: B 02 (1 of 1)
1861
Project No: 65X-0079 Elevation: 2180 ± Drilling Method: HSA
Client: Leicester Fire and Rescue Department Total Depth: 10.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: Leicester Volunteer Fire Station Boring Location: See Test Location Plan Date Drilled: 4/11/19
City/State: 1561 Alexander Road, Leicester, NC Driller: F&R, Inc.
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
et
N-Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
eeth
2179.5
0.5
6 inches SURFICIAL SOIL
3-3-5
Groundwater was not
RESIDUUM: Loose, Reddish -Brown, Coarse to
-7
8
encountered during
Fine Clayey SAND (SC), moist
drilling
2178.0
2.0
2.0
Medium Dense, Reddish -Brown, Coarse to Fine
3-5-9
Silty SAND with some Clay (SM) , moist
-6
14
2176.0
4.0
Medium Dense, Reddish -Brown, Coarse to Fine
4.0
3-5-8
Silty SAND with some Clay (SM) , moist
-10
13
6.0
3-6-7
-10
13
8.0
3-4-8
-10
12
2170.0
10.0
Boring terminated at 10 feet and backfilled with
auger cuttings (soil) after completion.
ivumDer oT Diows requires Tor a lvu iD nammer aropping ju to arive L u.u., i.u. sampler a toiai oT iu incnes in inree o increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

c
c
c
SINCE
�& Froehling & Robertson, Inc. BORING LOG
Boring: B 03 (1 of 1)
1861
Project No: 65X-0079 Elevation: 2175 ± Drilling Method: HSA
Client: Leicester Fire and Rescue Department Total Depth: 6.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: Leicester Volunteer Fire Station Boring Location: See Test Location Plan Date Drilled: 4/11/19
City/State: 1561 Alexander Road, Leicester, NC Driller: F&R, Inc.
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
et
N-Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
eeth
2174.5
0.5
6 inches SURFICIAL SOIL
3.63-5
Groundwater was not
8
encountered during
RESIDUUM: Firm to very Stiff, Reddish -Brown,
Sandy SILT with some Clay (ML), moist
drilling.
2.0
3-7-11
-13
18
2171.0
4.0
11
4.0
Loose, Reddish -Brown, Coarse to Fine Silty SAND
3-4-6
(SM), moist
-9
10
2169.0
6.0
6.0
Boring terminated at 6 feet and backfilled with
auger cuttings (soil) after completion.
ivumDer oT Diows requires Tor a lvu iD nammer aropping ju to arive L u.u., i.u. sampler a toiai oT iu incnes in inree o increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

c
c
c
SINCE
�& Froehling & Robertson, Inc. BORING LOG
Boring: B 04 (1 of 1)
1861
Project No: 65X-0079 Elevation: 2178 ± Drilling Method: HSA
Client: Leicester Fire and Rescue Department Total Depth: 10.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: Leicester Volunteer Fire Station Boring Location: See Test Location Plan Date Drilled: 4/11/19
City/State: 1561 Alexander Road, Leicester, NC Driller: F&R, Inc.
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
et
N-Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
eeth
2177.5
0.5
6 inches SURFICIAL SOIL
2-4-5
6 5
Groundwater was not
9
encountered during
RESIDUUM: Stiff, Dark Reddish -Brown, Sandy
SILT with some Clay (ML), moist
drilling
2.0
3-3-6
-9
9
2174.0
4.0
Stiff, Reddish -Brown, Sandy SILT with some Clay
4.0
4-6-7
(ML), moist
-10
13
6.0
4-4-5
-7
9
8.0
4-5-7
-9
12
2168.0
10.0
Boring terminated at 10 feet and backfilled with
auger cuttings (soil) after completion.
ivumDer oT Diows requires Tor a lvu iD nammer aropping ju to arive L u.u., i.u. sampler a toiai oT iu incnes in inree o increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

c
c
c
SINCE
�& Froehling & Robertson, Inc. BORING LOG
Boring: B 05 (1 of 1)
1861
Project No: 65X-0079 Elevation: 2179 ± Drilling Method: HSA
Client: Leicester Fire and Rescue Department Total Depth: 20.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: Leicester Volunteer Fire Station Boring Location: See Test Location Plan Date Drilled: 4/11/19
City/State: 1561 Alexander Road, Leicester, NC Driller: F&R, Inc.
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
et
N-Value
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
eeth
(blows/ft)
2178.5
0.5
6 inches SURFICIAL SOIL
2 -65
Groundwater was not
RESIDUUM: Loose to Medium Dense,
9
encountered during
Reddish -Brown, Coarse to Fine Clayey SAND (SC),
drilling
moist
2.0
2-5-6
-10
11
2175.0
4.0
4.0
Medium Dense, Reddish -Brown, Coarse to Fine
3-5-6
Silty SAND (SM), moist
-8
11
2173.0
6.0
Loose, Red and Gray, Coarse to Fine Silty SAND
6.0
3-4-6
(SM), moist
-8
10
2171.0
8.0
Medium Dense, Red, Yellow and Black, Coarse to
8.0
3-5-7
Fine Silty SAND (SM), moist
-10
12
10.0
13.5
4-6-8
14
15.0
18.5
3-5-8
13
2159.0
20.0
Boring terminated at 20 feet and backfilled with
auger cuttings (soil) after completion.
ivumDer oT Diows requires Tor a 14u iD nammer aropping su to arive L u.u., i.u. sampler a toiai oT iu incnes in inree o increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

c
c
c
SINCE
�& Froehling & Robertson, Inc. BORING LOG
Boring: B 06 (1 of 1)
1861
Project No: 65X-0079 Elevation: 2172.5 ± Drilling Method: HSA
Client: Leicester Fire and Rescue Department Total Depth: 10.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: Leicester Volunteer Fire Station Boring Location: See Test Location Plan Date Drilled: 4/11/19
City/State: 1561 Alexander Road, Leicester, NC Driller: F&R, Inc.
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
et
N-Value
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
eeth
(blows/ft)
2172.0
0.5
6 inches SURFICIAL SOIL
2 -53
Groundwater was not
RESIDUUM: Loose to Medium Dense,
5
encountered during
Reddish -Brown, Coarse to Fine Clayey SAND (SC),
drilling
moist
2.0
4-6-9
-14
15
4.0
3-6-10
-11
16
6.0
3-5-8
-10
13
2164.5
8.0
8.0
Medium Dense, Reddish -Brown, Coarse to Fine
3-4-7
Silty SAND (SM), moist
-9
11
2162.5
10.0
Boring terminated at 10 feet and backfilled with
auger cuttings (soil) after completion.
ivumDer oT Diows requires Tor a lvu iD nammer aropping ju to arive L u.u., i.u. sampler a toiai oT iu incnes in inree o increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

c
c
c
SINCE
�& Froehling & Robertson, Inc. BORING LOG
Boring: B 07 (1 of 1)
1861
Project No: 65X-0079 Elevation: 2171.5 ± Drilling Method: HSA
Client: Leicester Fire and Rescue Department Total Depth: 25.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: Leicester Volunteer Fire Station Boring Location: See Test Location Plan Date Drilled: 4/11/19
City/State: 1561 Alexander Road, Leicester, NC Driller: F&R, Inc.
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
et
N-Value
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
eeth
(blows/ft)
2171.0
0.5
6 inches SURFICIAL SOIL
2-2-3
Groundwater was not
RESIDUUM: Loose, Reddish -Brown, Coarse to
-4
5
encountered during
Fine Clayey SAND (SC), moist
drilling
2.0
2-4-6
-7
10
2167.5
4.0
4.0
Loose, Reddish -Brown, Coarse to Fine Silty SAND
2-5-5
(SM), moist
-6
10
2165.5
6.0
Loose, Red, Yellow and White, Coarse to Fine
6.0
2-4-4
Silty SAND (SM), moist
-4
8
8.0
4-3-3
-5
6
10.0
2158.0
13.5
13.5
Stiff, Grayish -Brown, Sandy SILT (ML), contains
4-9-6
mica, moist
15
15.0
2153.0
18.5 17
Firm, Grayish -Brown with white, Sandy SILT (ML),
18.5
3-2-4
contains mica, moist
6
20.0
2148.0
23.5
23.5
Loose, Light Grayish -Brown, Coarse to Fine Silty
2-2-5
SAND (SM), moist
7
2146.5
25.0
Boring terminated at 25 feet and backfilled with
auger cuttings (soil) after completion.
ivumDer oT Diows requires Tor a lvu io nammer aropping su to arive L u.u., i.u. sampler a toiai oT iu incnes in inree o increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

c
c
c
SINCE
�& Froehling & Robertson, Inc. BORING LOG
Boring: B 08 (1 of 1)
1861
Project No: 65X-0079 Elevation: 2177.5 ± Drilling Method: HSA
Client: Leicester Fire and Rescue Department Total Depth: 20.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: Leicester Volunteer Fire Station Boring Location: See Test Location Plan Date Drilled: 4/11/19
City/State: 1561 Alexander Road, Leicester, NC Driller: F&R, Inc.
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
et
N-Value
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
eeth
(blows/ft)
2177.0
0.5
6 inches SURFICIAL SOIL
2-3-5
6 5
Groundwater was not
-
8
encountered during
RESIDUUM: Firm, Reddish -Brown, Sandy SILT
with some Clay (MIL), moist
drilling
2175.5
2.0
2.0
Loose to Medium Dense, Reddish -Brown, Coarse
3-3-7
to Fine Silty SAND (SM), moist
-8
10
4.0
3-5-7
-9
12
2171.5
6.0
Loose to Medium Dense, Light Reddish -Brown,
6.0
3-4-6
Coarse to Fine Silty SAND (SM), moist
-7
10
8.0
3-4-5
-6
9
10.0
13.5
3-4-7
11
15.0
2159.0
18.5
Loose, Grayish -Brown, Coarse to Fine Silty SAND
18.5
2-4-4
(SM), moist
8
2157.5
20.0
Boring terminated at 20 feet and backfilled with
auger cuttings (soil) after completion.
ivumDer oT Diows requires Tor a 14u io nammer aropping su to arive L u.u., i.u. sampler a toiai oT iu incnes in inree o increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

c
c
c
SINCE
�& Froehling & Robertson, Inc. BORING LOG
Boring: B 09 (1 of 1)
1861
Project No: 65X-0079 Elevation: 2175 ± Drilling Method: HSA
Client: Leicester Fire and Rescue Department Total Depth: 25.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: Leicester Volunteer Fire Station Boring Location: See Test Location Plan Date Drilled: 4/11/19
City/State: 1561 Alexander Road, Leicester, NC Driller: F&R, Inc.
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
et
N-Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
eeth
2174.5
0.5
6 inches SURFICIAL SOIL
2 6
Groundwater was not
RESIDUUM: Loose to Medium Dense,
-8
9
encountered during
Reddish -Brown, Coarse to Fine Clayey SAND (SC),
drilling
moist
2.0
2-5-6
-10
11
2171.0
4.0
Medium Dense, Reddish -Brown, Coarse to Fine
4.0
3-6-6
Clayey SAND (SC) with rock fragments, moist
-8
12
2169.0
6.0
6.0
Loose, Reddish -Brown, Coarse to Fine Silty SAND
3-4-6
(SM), moist
-7
10
2167.0
8.0
Medium Dense, Yellowish -Brown, Black and
8.0
3-4-8
White, Coarse to Fine Silty SAND (SM), moist
-10
12
10.0
2161.5
13.5
Medium Dense to Loose, Yellowish -Brown,
13.5
3-5-9
Coarse to Fine Silty SAND (SM) with rock
14
fragments, moist
15.0
18.5
3-5-5
10
20.0
2151.5
23.5
Medium Dense, Red, Black and Yellow, Coarse to
23.5
5-8-10
Fine Silty SAND (SM), moist
18
2150.0
25.0
Boring terminated at 25 feet and backfilled with
auger cuttings (soil) after completion.
ivumDer oT Diows requires Tor a lvu iD nammer aropping su to arive L u.u., i.u. sampler a toiai oT iu incnes in inree o increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

c
c
c
SINCE
�& Froehling & Robertson, Inc. BORING LOG
Boring: B 10 (1 of 1)
1861
Project No: 65X-0079 Elevation: 2165 ± Drilling Method: HSA
Client: Leicester Fire and Rescue Department Total Depth: 10.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: Leicester Volunteer Fire Station Boring Location: See Test Location Plan Date Drilled: 4/11/19
City/State: 1561 Alexander Road, Leicester, NC Driller: F&R, Inc.
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
et
N-Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
eeth
2164.5
0.5
6 inches SURFICIAL SOIL
2.4 2
Groundwater was not
RESIDUUM: Very Loose to Loose,
4
encountered during
Reddish -Brown, Coarse to Fine Clayey SAND (SC),
drilling
moist
2.0
2-4-5
-7
9
2161.0
4.0
4.0
Medium Dense, Reddish -Brown, Coarse to Fine
4-6-7
Silty SAND (SM), moist
-8
13
2159.0
6.0
J.
Medium Dense, Reddish -Brown, Yellow and
6.0
3-5-7
Black, Coarse to Fine Silty SAND (SM), moist
-10
12
8.0
4-6-8
-10
14
2155.0
10.0
Boring terminated at 10 feet and backfilled with
auger cuttings (soil) after completion.
ivumDer oT Diows requires Tor a lvu iD nammer aropping ju to arive L u.u., i.u. sampler a toiai oT iu incnes in inree o increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

c
c
c
SINCE
�& Froehling & Robertson, Inc. BORING LOG
Boring: B 11 (1 of 1)
1861
Project No: 65X-0079 Elevation: 2180 ± Drilling Method: HSA
Client: Leicester Fire and Rescue Department Total Depth: 6.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: Leicester Volunteer Fire Station Boring Location: See Test Location Plan Date Drilled: 4/11/19
City/State: 1561 Alexander Road, Leicester, NC Driller: F&R, Inc.
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
et
N-Value
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
eeth
(blows/ft)
2179.5
0.5
6 inches SURFICIAL SOIL
2-2-4
Groundwater was not
RESIDUUM: Firm to Stiff, Reddish -Brown, Sandy
-7
6
encountered during
Lean CLAY (CL), moist
drilling
2.0
2-5-8
-10
13
4.0
4-7-8
-10
15
2174.0
6.0
6.0
Boring terminated at 6.1 feet and backfilled with
auger cuttings (soil) after completion.
ivumDer oT Diows requires Tor a lvu iD nammer aropping ju to arive L u.u., i.u. sampler a toiai oT iu incnes in inree o increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

c
c
c
SINCE
�& Froehling & Robertson, Inc. BORING LOG
Boring: B 12 (1 of 1)
1861
Project No: 65X-0079 Elevation: 2172.5 ± Drilling Method: HSA
Client: Leicester Fire and Rescue Department Total Depth: 10.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: Leicester Volunteer Fire Station Boring Location: See Test Location Plan Date Drilled: 4/11/19
City/State: 1561 Alexander Road, Leicester, NC Driller: F&R, Inc.
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
* Sample
Sample
et
N-Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
(Classification)
Blows
eeth
2172.0
0.5
6 inches SURFICIAL SOIL
2 -65
Groundwater was not
RESIDUUM: Firm to Very Stiff, Reddish -Brown,
7
encountered during
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), moist
drilling
2.0
2-5-7
-10
12
4.0
3-7-11
-16
18
2166.5
6.0
6.0
Medium Dense, Red and Yellow, Coarse to Fine
4-6-8
Silty SAND (SM), moist
-10
14
8.0
4-5-7
-10
12
2162.5
10.0
Boring terminated at 10 feet and backfilled with
auger cuttings (soil) after completion.
ivumDer oT Diows requires Tor a lvu iD nammer aropping ju to arive L u.u., i.u. sampler a toiai oT iu incnes in inree o increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

SINCE
�& Froehl ing & Robertson, Inc.
Project No: 65X-0079
Client: Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
Project: Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
City/State: 1561 Alexander Road, Leicester, NC
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Plot Based on Elevation
Profile Name: Building and Pavement Areas
2,180
B-05
B-04
9
9
11
B 03
B-09
2,175
............
\a
.......... ...............
...................
.9 ..........
:...............:...............:...............
:..........
.\`
8
11
9
13
18
10
B 07
11
9
2,170
............
,::10
.......:...............:...................
............
..:..1.2..;
...............
:..............
.
............ ...............:.........
...
12...........................
........... ............
12
10
0
10
10
12
B.1.......
o 2,165
............ :...............................
:............... :................ ....
...........
14
:. ..........
...
............................
g
........
............ ............
...........
I @
4
o >
w
6
z
9
0
0
14
w 2,160
..............................................................................
...........
13
..........
......... ...........
........
............ ............
...........
1.3.....
12
z
15
1.............
1
4...
2,155
............ :............... :...............
:............... :................ :...............
:.............
:. ..........
......... ...........
:..
........
............
...........
U
0
0
6
18
2,150
X
W
..........................................:...............:................:...............:.
........... ............
........... ............
a
0
7
Z
a 2,145

SINCE
�& Froehl ing & Robertson, Inc.
Project No: 65X-0079
Client: Leicester Fire and Rescue Department
Project: Leicester Volunteer Fire Station
City/State: 1561 Alexander Road, Leicester, NC
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Plot Based on Elevation
Profile Name: Building and Pavement Areas
2,185
B-02
B*11
2,180
.............
. . .................
................................ .......................................................
......................................................
.A 7.
........................
8
6
9
-
B08
....14
8
13
11
2,175
1.3...................
......................
........................... ..................
. .7
..... ........................... ........................... .............
15 ..............
11
10:
13
..10
B-07
12:
12
A I
5
10
2,170
......
......................•
12 ....................................
....... ..................
........................... ...................................................... ...........................
10
.9
0
o >
2,165
............
...........................
.
. ......................................
..............
..................
........................... ........................... ........................... ...........................
14
8
-.6
2,160
........................................
....
....... ..................
..
........................... ....................................................... ...........................
LJJJ
13.......................................
>
15
2,155
............
...........................
...........................
................
.... ...........................
........................... ........................... ...........................
6
2,150
.......................................
. ......................
........................................... ...................................... ...........................
27
2,145

APPENDIX III
Laboratory Test Summary Sheet (Not Included)

APPENDIX IV
GBA Publication
"Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report"

-- 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

SINCE
Im
HQ: 3015 DUMBARTON ROAD RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23228 T 804.264.2701 F 804.264.1202 www.fandr.com
VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA