SW1191001_18-161 R-S Middle Geotech Report 05 05 2017_10/15/2019

PRELIMINARY
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING
REPORT
F3%
RUTHERFORDTON-SPINDALE
MIDDLE SCHOOL
Rutherford County, North Carolina
PREPARED FOR:
LS3P (for Rutherford County Schools)
227 W. Trade Street, Suite 700
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
NOVA Project Number: 10705-2017010
May 5, 2017
NOVA
PROFESSIONAL I PRACTICAL I PROVEN

N OVA
May 5, 2017
LS3P (FOR RUTHERFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS)
227 W. Trade Street
Suite 700
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Attention: Mr. David Bellamy, AIA, LEED AP
Architect, Studio Director
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
RUTH ERFORDTON-SPIN DALE MIDDLE SCHOOL
Rutherford County, North Carolina
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
Dear Mr. Bellamy:
NOVA Engineering and Environmental, Inc. (NOVA) has completed the authorized Preliminary
Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School located in
Rutherford County, North Carolina. The work was performed in general accordance with NOVA
Proposal Number 005-20166860 Revision 1, dated March 24, 2017. 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 preliminary 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.
1KHrTv
Alex Kuczero, E.I.
Project Professional
Michael Sabodish, Ph.D., P.E.
Project Engineer
NC P.E. License 029927
Copies Submitted: Addressee (electronic)
DRAF
David E. Penalva, P.E.
Senior Engineer
NC P.E. License 038693
PROFESSIONAL I PRACTICAL I PROVEN
5104 Reagan Drive, Suite 8, Charlotte, North Carolina 28226
t. 980.321.4100 / f. 980.321.4099 / usanova.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY......................................................................................................................1
1.1
GENERAL......................................................................................................................................1
1.2
SITE PREPARATION......................................................................................................................1
1.3
GROUNDWATER CONTROL..........................................................................................................1
1.4
FOUNDATIONS..............................................................................................................................2
1.5
SEISMIC........................................................................................................................................2
1.6
PAVEMENTS..................................................................................................................................2
1.7
SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY...............................................................................................................3
2.0
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................
4
2.1
PROJECT INFORMATION...............................................................................................................4
2.2
SCOPE OF WORK..........................................................................................................................5
3.0
SITE DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................
7
3.1
LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION..........................................................................................7
3.2
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND VICINITY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.............................................7
3.3
CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY...............................................................................................7
3.4
DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS........................................................................8
4.0
FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES.......................................................................
9
4.1
FIELD EXPLORATION....................................................................................................................9
4.2
LABORATORY TESTING..............................................................................................................10
5.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.........................................................................................12
5.1
GEOLOGY...................................................................................................................................12
5.2
SOILAND ROCK CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................13
5.3
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS..................................................................................................
14
6.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................15
6.1
SITE PREPARATION...................................................................................................................
15
6.2
FILL PLACEMENT.......................................................................................................................
17
6.3
GROUNDWATER CONTROL.......................................................................................................
18
6.4
FOUNDATIONS...........................................................................................................................18
6.5
SLAB-ON-GRADE........................................................................................................................20
6.6
PAVEMENT SECTIONS...............................................................................................................21
6.7
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL STUDY .................................................................................23
7.0
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS................................................................................25
7.1
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS.........................................................................................................
25
7.2
SUBGRADE................................................................................................................................
25
APPENDICES
Appendix A -
Figures and Maps
Appendix B -
Subsurface Data
Appendix C -
Laboratory Data
Appendix D -
Qualifications of Recommendations

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
1.0 SUMMARY
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
A brief summary of pertinent findings, conclusions, and preliminary 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 site is located in Rutherford County, North Carolina. Five (5) soil test borings
(B-1 through B-5) were drilled at the subject site during this exploration. Generally, the
borings encountered a surface veneer of topsoil and residual soils.
• Approximately 2 to 4 inches of topsoil was encountered in all borings performed
during this study. Topsoil thickness is frequently erratic and thicker zones of topsoil
should be anticipated.
• Residual soils were encountered in all borings beneath the topsoil. The residuum
consisted of clayey ELASTIC SILT, sandy SILT or silty SAND. Standard penetration
resistance values ranged from 7 to 16 bpf.
1.2 SITE PREPARATION
Elastic Silts: Based on the limited laboratory testing, elastic silts (Liquid Limits >50 and
Plasticity Index >25) were encountered during this exploration. Moisture sensitive soils
such as these are not considered suitable for the direct support of structural elements
due to the potential for volume change and loss of strength if exposed to changes in
moisture.
Provided moisture contents are maintained at or near optimum, the plastic soils may
be used as backfill in deep fill areas to elevations up to 3 feet below proposed finished
subgrade elevation or in non-structural areas. These soils are not suitable for use as
backfill within 3 feet below proposed finished subgrade elevations in the building
footprint and pavement areas.
1.3 GROUNDWATER CONTROL
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings performed during this study.
N D VA Page 1

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
1.4 FOUNDATIONS
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
For preliminary design purposes, we recommend that a maximum allowable soil bearing
pressure of 2,000 to 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) be used.
We note that structural and site grading information was not available at the time of
this report. The preliminary design recommendations provided above should be re-
evaluated by NOVA once design plans are more advanced and structural and site
grading information are available.
1.5 SEISMIC
In accordance with Section 1613.3.2 of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC), 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 "E" are generally appropriate for this site.
We note that structural and site grading information was not available at the time of
this report. The preliminary design recommendations provided above should be re-
evaluated by NOVA once design plans are more advanced and structural and site
grading information are available.
1.6 PAVEMENTS
11
Based on subsurface conditions encountered at this site, the recommended site
preparation, an assumed CBR of 3 and the assumed traffic loading conditions and our
experience with similar soils, the following pavement sections are recommended:
1.6.1 Asphalt Pavement
Pavement Section
Standard Duty *
Heavy Duty **
Asphaltic Surface Course
(9.5 mm SuperPave, NCDOT approved
1 inch
2 inches
mix)
Asphaltic Base Course
(19 mm SuperPave, NCDOT approved
2 inches
2 inches
mix)
Graded Aggregate Base (GAB)
from an approved NCDOT source
6 inches
8 inches
N D VA Page 2

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
1.6.2 Concrete Pavement
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
Pavement Section
Heavy Duty **
NCDOT approved air -entrained
concrete mix
5.5 inches
Graded Aggregate Base (GAB)
from an approved NCDOT source
4 inches
Control Joint Spacing
(maximum)
10 feet X 10 feet
Saw -Cut Depth
(minimum)
1.5 inches
We note that vehicle loading conditions and site grading information was not available
at the time of this report. The preliminary design recommendations provided above
should be re-evaluated by NOVA once design plans are more advanced and structural
and site grading information are available.
1.7 SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY
Once design plans are more advanced, including column and wall loads, construction
locations and elevations, we believe it would be prudent to re -visit the geotechnical
data to assess whether or not modifications to the recommendations are necessary.
We also recommend a future design meeting between NOVA and other design team
members to address geotechnical concerns at specific locations. A final geotechnical
exploration should subsequently be performed to provide additional information with
regard to site preparation, foundation design recommendations, pavement design
recommendations and seismic site classification.
N D VA Page 3

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
2.1 PROJECT INFORMATION
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Our understanding of this project is based on discussions with Mr. David Bellamy with
LS3P, review of the provided site plans, a site reconnaissance performed during boring
layout, and our experience with similar projects.
2.1.1 Site Plans and Documents
We were furnished with the following plans and documents:
• Preliminary Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School Rendering
Prepared by: CLH Design, P.A. / LS3P
Dated: August 2016
2.1.2 Proposed Construction
The proposed construction will consist of a single -story middle school structure
consisting of a main building with four expandable wings. We anticipate the
structure to be masonry and light -gauge steel construction. Several parking lots
and driveways are proposed around the building. A football field, softball field
and a stormwater BMP are also proposed as part of the project. This preliminary
studywas limited to the proposed building footprint and a section of the proposed
parking and drives.
2.1.3 Maximum Loads
Structural loading conditions were not provided, however, based on our
experience with similar projects we anticipate that loads will be on the order of 2
to 4 kips per lineal foot for wall foundations and on the order of 100 kips for
column foundations for the masonry structure.
2.1.4 Floor Elevations / Site Grading
No site grading information was available during the time of this study.
However, we have assumed that cuts and fills of up to 15 feet will be required
within the building pad area based on existing grades.
N D VA Page 4

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
2.2 SCOPE OF WORK
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
LS3P engaged NOVA to provide preliminary geotechnica I engineering consulting services
for Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School. This report briefly discusses our
understanding of the project, describes our exploratory procedures, and presents our
findings, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations.
The primary objective of this study was to perform a geotechnical exploration within the
area 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-
20166860 Revision 1, dated March 24, 2017, 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.
➢ Pavement design recommendations for heavy and light duty flexible and rigid
pavement options based on provided traffic loading and design life expectancy.
➢ Slab -on -grade construction considerations based on the geotechnical findings,
including the need for a sub -slab vapor barrier or a capillary barrier.
➢ Preliminary Seismic site classification recommendations using correlation with SPT
N-values in accordance with the 2012 IBC.
N D VA Page 5

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
The assessment of the presence of wetlands, floodplains, or water classified as State
Waters of North Carolina 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. If desired by the client, NOVA can provide these services.
-1
N D VA Page 6

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property is located on the west side of the intersection of Westbrook Drive
and Hardin Road in Rutherfordton, Rutherford County, North Carolina.
The Subject Property consists of an approximately 93.6-acre site. According to the
Rutherford County Geographic Information System (GIS) Database, the Subject
Property is identified as Parcel Number 1604452.
A Site Location Plan depictingthe location of the Subject Property is included in Appendix
A (Figure 1). The approximate latitude and longitude coordinates of the subject site are
35.3995 ° north and 81.9744 ° west, respectively.
3.2 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND VICINITY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
The generally irregularly shaped Subject Property is located within the Rutherfordton
North, North Carolina, United States Geological Survey, 7.5-minute series topographic
quadrangle map. Topographically, the Subject Property slopes downward from a high
point of approximately 1070 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northern portion to
approximately 970 feet-MSL in the southern portion of the Subject Property. Grades in
the proposed building area generally slope downward from the east towards the west
from approximately 1054 feet-MSL to 1040 feet MSL.
The vicinity of the Subject Property is generally developed with residential land uses, and
is bordered by the following:
DIRECTION
LAND USE DESCRIPTION/OBSERVATIONS
NORTH
Residential / Agricultural Area
EAST
R-S High School / Agricultural Area
SOUTH
Residential / Agricultural Area
WEST
Residential / Agricultural Area
3.3 CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY
The Subject Property is currently mostly used as an area to raise livestock by
Rutherfordton-Spindale High School, which is adjacent to the site. The north side of
the property is currently used as a baseball field.
N D VA Page 7

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
3.4 DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
The Subject Property is currently mostly undeveloped wooded area. A small, open -
sided shed is located in the center of the site and is surrounded by livestock pens.
Majority of the wooded area is fenced and used to keep livestock. A baseball field with
a metal building occupy the north portion of the property.
7
N D VA Page 8

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES
4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
Boring locations were established in the field by NOVA personnel using the provided site
plan, a handheld GPS device and estimating/taping distances and angles from existing
site landmarks. The approximate locations are shown on Figure 2 in Appendix A. Boring
elevations were then interpolated from the topographical survey prepared by CLH
Design, P.A. and dated August 2016. Consequently, referenced boring locations and
elevations are approximate. If increased accuracy is desired by the client, NOVA
recommends that the boring locations and elevations be surveyed by a licensed North
Carolina Surveyor.
Our field exploration was conducted during the period April 4 to April 5, 2017 and
included:
• Five (5) soil test borings (B-1 through B-5) drilled to depths of 20.0 to 50.0 feet below
the existing ground surface.
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 show the 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, laboratory test data, 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: The groundwater levels, if encountered, reported on the Test Boring
Records represent measurements made at the completion of the soil test boring and 24
hours thereafter. The soil test borings were subsequently backfilled with the soil
cuttings.
N D VA Page 9

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
Laboratory testing was conducted to characterize materials encountered at the site using
split -barrel samples recovered from the site. The laboratory test data are presented in
Appendix C. Selected test data are presented on the Boring Records attached in
Appendix B. The specific tests 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 Records". The classification system discussed
above is primarily qualitative; laboratory testing is generally performed for
detailed soil classification. Usingthe test results, the soils were 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 classification and physical properties obtained are presented
in this report.
4.2.2 Moisture Content
The 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 four (4) moisture content
tests were performed in this study.
4.2.3 Sieve Analysis
The sieve analysis consists of passing a soil sample through a series of standard
sieve openings. The percentage of soil, by weight, passing the 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 test was
conducted in general accordance with ASTM Designation D 1140. A total of four
(4) sieve analysis tests were performed in this study.
N D VA Page 10

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
4.2.4 Atterberg Limits
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
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. Four (4) tests were performed in this study in accordance with ASTM
D4318 - Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity
Index of Soils.
Table 1: Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Boring
Depth
�ft)
Atterberg
%Fines
Natural
Moisture
USCS
LL
PL
PI
B-1
1.0
81
39
42
84.2
34.3%
MH
B-2
6.0
46
40
6
64.3
27.5%
ML
B-4
1.0
83
41
42
80.5
36.4%
MH
B-5
1.0
1 79
1 41
1 38
1 82.1
1 34.0%
1 MH
N D VA Page 11

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
5.1 GEOLOGY
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The site is located in the Inner Piedmont 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 Metavolcanic Rock. This
geologic formation typically consists of felsic metavolcanic and mafic metavolcanic rock
of the Cambrian and Late Proterozoic 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.
N D VA Page 12

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
5.2 SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
The following paragraphs provide generalized descriptions of the subsurface profiles and
soil conditions encountered by the borings conducted during this study.
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 Records represent the approximate interface
locations and elevation. The actual transition between strata may be gradual.
Groundwater levels shown on the Boring Records represent the conditions at the time
of drilling. It should be understood that soil conditions may vary between boring
locations.
5.2.1 Surface Materials
Topsoil: Approximately 2 to 4 inches of topsoil was encountered in all borings
performed during this study. Topsoil thickness is frequently erratic and thicker
zones of topsoil should be anticipated.
5.2.2 Residual Soils
Residual soils were encountered in all borings beneath the topsoil. The residuum
consisted of clayey ELASTIC SILT, sandy SILT or silty SAND. Standard penetration
resistance values ranged from 7 to 16 bpf.
5.2.3 Plastic Soils
Based on the limited laboratory testing, elastic silts (Liquid Limits >50 and
Plasticity Index >25) were encountered during this exploration at borings B-1, B-
2, B-4 and B-5 to depths of approximately 6.0 feet below existing grades. These
types of soils are not considered suitable for the direct support of structural
elements due to the potential for volume change and loss of strength if exposed
to changes in moisture.
Provided moisture contents are maintained at or near optimum, the plastic soils
may be used as backfill in deep fill areas to elevations up to 3 feet below
proposed finished subgrade elevation or in non-structural areas. These soils
are not suitable for use as backfill within 3 feet below proposed finished
subgrade elevations in the building footprint and pavement areas.
N D VA Page 13

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
5.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
5.3.1 General
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
Groundwater in the Piedmont 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 can affect
groundwater conditions. The groundwater table in the Piedmont is expected to
be a subdued replica of the original surface topography.
Groundwater levels vary with changes in season and rainfall, construction
activity, surface water runoff, and other site -specific factors. Groundwater levels
in the Rutherford County area are typically lowest in the late summer -early fall
and highest in the late winter -early spring, with annual groundwater fluctuations
of 4 to 8 feet; consequently, the water table may vary at times.
5.3.2 Soil Test Boring Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings performed during this
study. Boring B-3 caved upon retrieval of the augers at a depth of approximately
42 feet below existing grade. Caved depths may be indicative of groundwater
levels and have been included on the Test Boring Records in Appendix B.
N D VA Page 14

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report May 5, 2017
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
6.0 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.
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, or if
project development plans are changed, we request the opportunity to review the changes and
amend our recommendations, if necessary.
As previously noted, boring locations were established by estimating distances and angles from
site landmarks. If increased accuracy is desired by the client, we recommend that the boring
locations and elevations be surveyed by a licensed North Carolina Surveyor.
6.1 SITE PREPARATION
6.1.1 General
Prior to proceedingwith construction; vegetation, root systems, topsoil, and other
deleterious non -soil materials should be stripped from proposed construction
areas. Clean topsoil may be stockpiled and subsequently re -used in landscaped
areas. Debris -laden materials should be excavated, transported, and disposed
of off -site in accordance with appropriate solid waste rules and regulations. All
existing utility locations should be reviewed to assess their impact on the
proposed construction and relocated/grouted in -place as appropriate.
After clearing and stripping, areas, which are at grade or will receive fill 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 unstable materials, such as soft, weak,
or excessively wet fill or residual soils present at the time of construction.
Unstable materials observed during the evaluation and proof -rolling operations
should be undercut and replaced with structural fill or stabilized in -place by
scarifying and re-densifying.
N D VA Page 15

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
In the event that low consistency and/or debris laden fill materials are
encountered during construction, typical recommendations would include
undercutting and backfilling with structural fill 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.
6.1.2 Plastic Soils
Plastic silts were encountered in four (4) of the borings drilled in this study to
depths of 6.0 feet below existing grade. We note that the current geotechnical
investigation consisted of widely spaced borings and limited laboratory testing.
Expansive soils should be expected at other areas across the site.
Plastic soils are expansive and will swell or shrink upon increasing or
decreasing moisture content, respectively, leading to potential structural
damages. In addition, these soils have the potential to lose some of their
strength when exposed to the combination of wet weather and construction
traffic. The severity of these potential problems depends to a great extent on
the weather conditions during construction. Aconcerted effort should be made
to control construction traffic and surface water while subgrade soils are
exposed.
Soils with a high plasticity are not considered suitable for the direct support of
structural elements due to the potential for swell and loss of strength if exposed
to changes in moisture. Therefore, if encountered within the building footprint
or pavement areas, we recommend a limited undercutting program at the site
as described below:
• Undercutting subgrade soils to provide 3 feet of separation from
foundations, slabs or pavements;
• Provided moisture contents are maintained at or near optimum, the plastic
soils may be used as backfill in deep fill areas to elevations up to 3 feet
below proposed finished subgrade elevation or in non-structural areas.
These soils are not suitable for use as backfill within 3 feet below proposed
finished subgrade elevations in the building footprint and pavement areas.
N D VA Page 16

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
• Following undercutting, densification (compaction) of the subsequently
exposed soils should be performed. Compaction should be performed under
the observation and assessment of NOVA's geotechnical engineer who will
document that proper densification has been achieved.
• After the in -place densification is completed, non -plastic soils can be used
as structural backfill. The soils should be placed in 8 to 10-inch loose lifts
and compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the soil's modified Proctor
maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). NOVA's representative should be on
site during backfilling to perform field density tests to confirm that the
required compaction is achieved.
Other options, such as the addition of lime or cement, may be feasible for
stabilizing the plastic soils. The impact of plastic soils and possible stabilization
methods should be reviewed once site plans are more developed.
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 and limited laboratory testing, the existing residual
soils, except for the elastic silt soils, encountered during this exploration
generally appear suitable for re -use as structural fill, provided they are placed at
a moisture content suitable to achieve proper compaction.
All materials to be used for backfill or compacted 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.
Organic and/or debris -laden material is not suitable for re -use as structural fill.
Topsoil, mulch, and similar organic materials can be wasted in architectural
areas. Debris -laden materials should be excavated, transported, and disposed
of off -site in accordance with appropriate solid waste rules and regulations.
6.2.2 Soil Compaction
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 12 inches of soil beneath pavements and slab-on-
N D VA Page 17

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report May 5, 2017
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
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 95
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. Based on limited laboratory testing, moisture conditioning of
the onsite soil may be required prior to being placed as structural fill. We
recommend that the grading contractor have equipment on site during earthwork
for both drying and wetting the fill soils. Moisture control may be difficult during
rainy weather.
Fill placement and compaction 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. `
6.3 GROUNDWATER CONTROL •
Groundwater was not encountered during this exploration in any of the borings above
boring termination depths of 30.0 to 50.0 feet. Based on the assumed cuts necessary
to reach design subgrades, we do not anticipate significant groundwater control
problems during mass grading operations.
6.4 FOUNDATIONS
Preliminary Design: After the recommended site and subgrade preparation and fill
placement, we recommend that the proposed structure 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
2,000 to 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The aforementioned bearing pressure is
based on the foundation bottoms being compacted to 95% of the Modified Proctor
maximum dry density to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the foundation bearing
surface.
N D VA Page 18

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
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 loadings, soil bearing capacities and the presumed
foundation elevations as discussed above, we expect primary total settlement beneath
individual foundations to be on the order of 1 to 11/2 inches.
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 vary from 1/2 to 3/4
inch. The final deflected shape of the structure will be dependent on actual foundation
locations and loading.
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.
We note that structural information was not available at the time of this report The
preliminary design recommendations provided above should be re-evaluated by NOVA
once design plans are more advanced and structural and site grading information are
available. The above recommendations and settlement estimates should be
considered preliminary.
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
N D VA Page 19

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
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 SLAB -ON -GRADE
6.5.1 General
The conditions exposed at subgrade levels will vary across the site and may
include structural fill or residual soils. Slabs -on -grade may be adequately
supported on these subgrade conditions subject to the recommendations in this
report. Slabs -on -grade should be jointed around columns and along walls to
reduce cracking due to differential movement.
An underdrain system is not required. 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.
The plastic soils encountered on the site are not suitable for the direct support
of structural elements due to the potential for swell and loss of strength if
exposed to changes in moisture. Should these soils be encountered at or near
proposed finished grade elevations some over excavation and replacement
should be anticipated to maintain a separation of 3 feet between the expansive
soils and slabs. If these materials are encountered, a geotechnical engineer
should evaluate the soils for unstable conditions.
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
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 by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to slab-on-
N D VA Page 20

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
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.
We note that structural loading and site grading information was not available
at the time of this report. The preliminary design recommendations provided
above should be re-evaluated by NOVA once design plans are more advanced
and structural and site grading information are available.
6.6 PAVEMENT SECTIONS
6.6.1 Flexible Pavement
At the time of this report, traffic loading conditions have not been provided. For
preliminary design purposes the following traffic loading conditions have been
assumed based on the proposed number of parking spaces:
• Standard Duty: 500 automobiles per day for 7 days per week with the
occasional delivery truck.
• Heavy Duty: 500 automobiles and 25 buses per day for 7 days per week
with the occasional delivery truck.
Based on subsurface conditions encountered at this site, the recommended site
preparation, an assumed CBR of 3 and the assumed traffic loading conditions
and our experience with similar soils, the following flexible pavement sections
are recommended:
Pavement Section
Standard Duty *
Heavy Duty **
Asphaltic Surface Course
(9.5 mm SuperPave, NCDOT approved
1 inch
2 inches
mix)
Asphaltic Base Course
(19 mm SuperPave, NCDOT approved
2 inches
2 inches
mix)
Graded Aggregate Base (GAB)
from an approved NCDOT source
6 inches
9 inches
* Standard Duty - Driveways and parking lots restricted to automobile traffic
** Heavy Duty -Driveways and parking lots subject to automobile and truck traffic
N D VA Page 21

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
We recommend a minimum compaction of 100 percent of the maximum dry
density for the crushed stone material Graded Aggregate Base (GAB) as
determined by the modified Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 1557, Method D).
The crushed stone should conform to applicable sections of the current NCDOT
Standard Specifications. All asphalt material and paving operations should meet
applicable specifications of the Asphalt Institute and NCDOT. A NOVA technician
should observe placement and compaction activities and perform density testing
of the base course material and asphalt.
6.6.2 Rigid Pavement
Based on the subsurface conditions at the site, assumed traffic loading
conditions and an estimated subgrade modulus (k) of 125 psi/inch for traffic or
wheel loading, our recommended rigid pavement design in the dumpster area
and areas of heavy breaking or turning is as follows:
Pavement Section
Heavy Duty **
NCDOT approved air -entrained
concrete mix
5.5 inches
Graded Aggregate Base (GAB)
from an approved NCDOT source
4 inches
Control Joint Spacing
(maximum)
10 feet X 10 feet
Saw -Cut Depth
(minimum)
1.5 inches
MEM
** Heavy Duty -Driveways and parking lots subject to automobile and truck traffic
All concrete materials and placement should conform to applicable NCDOT
specifications. We recommend that a non -woven geotextile (about 3 feet wide)
be placed beneath the construction joints to prevent upward "pumping'
movement of soil fines through the joints.
We recommend using concrete with a minimum compressive strength of 4000
psi and a minimum 28-day flexural strength (modulus of rupture) of at least 600
pounds per square inch, based on 3rd point loading of concrete beam test
samples. Layout of the saw -cut control joints should form square panels, and
the depth of saw -cut joint should be approximately 1/4 of the concrete slab
thickness. The joints should be sawed within six (6) hours of concrete placement
N D VA Page 22

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
or as soon as the concrete has developed sufficient strength to support workers
and equipment.
We recommend allowing NOVA to review and comment on the final concrete
pavement design, including section and joint details (type of joints, joint spacing,
etc.), prior to the start of construction. For further details on concrete pavement
construction, please reference the "Guide to Jointing on Non -Reinforced
Concrete Pavements" published by the Florida Concrete and Products
Associates, Inc., and "Building Quality Concrete Parking Areas", published by the
Portland Cement Association.
Please note that the recommended pavement sections are based on assumed post -
construction traffic loadings. If the pavement is to be constructed and utilized by
construction traffic, the above pavement sections will likely prove insufficient for heavy
truck traffic, such as concrete trucks or tractor -trailers used for construction delivery.
Unexpected distress, reduced pavement life and /or pre -mature failure of the pavement
section could result if subjected to heavy construction traffic and the owner should be
made aware of this risk. If the assumed traffic loading stated herein is not correct, NOVA
should review actual pavement loading conditions to determine if revisions to these
recommendations are warranted.
We note that vehicle loading conditions and site grading information was not available
at the time of this report. The preliminary design recommendations provided above
should be re-evaluated by NOVA once design plans are more advanced and structural
and site grading information are available.
6.7 SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
Once design plans are more advanced, including column and wall loads, construction
locations and elevations, we believe it would be prudent to re -visit the geotechnical
data to assess whether or not modifications to the recommendations are necessary.
We also recommend a future design meeting between NOVA and other design team
members to address geotechnical concerns at specific locations. A final geotechnical
exploration should subsequently be performed to provide additional information with
regard to site preparation, excavation, groundwater conditions, and foundation design
recommendations.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings performed for this
study, it may be prudent to provide a seismic site class through in -situ shear -wave
velocity profiling. Shear -wave velocity profiles can be obtained utilizing a geophone
array spread across the ground surface. Ambient seismic "noise", also known as
microtremors, is constantly created by cultural and natural noise. These microtremors
are recorded using the geophone array. Several noise records are obtained during the
N D VA Page 23

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
survey. The wavefield transformation of the noise record is obtained from
commercially available software. The shear -wave dispersion curve is manually
"picked" from the wavefield transformation, and the picks are modeled to determine
the shear -wave velocity profile.
N D VA Page 24

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
May 5, 2017
NOVA Project Number 10705-2017010
7.0 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 SUBGRADE
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 D VA Page 25

APPENDIX A
Figures and Maps
41

-N
f
EM to
ki
t4P,
oil
v
uth
T
z
4w T
Np,.Ie
ON
u o dt
4.1
PA

SOURCE: Preliminary "Rutherford-Spindale Middle
School" Rendering prepared by CLH Design, P.A. / LS3P
Locations were approximated in the field using a
hand-held GPS and taping/pacingfrom existingsite
landmarks
SCALE: Not to Scale
Figure 2: Boring Location Plan
Rutherford-Spindale Middle School
VA
Rutherford County, North Carolina
N 13NOVA Project Number: 10705-2017010

APPENDIX B
Subsurface Data
Ifts

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
Q 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: 2Y8- 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
01 Loss of Drilling Water
MC Moisture Content Test Performed
CORRELATION OF PENETRATION RESISTANCE WITH RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY
Number of Blows,
"N"
Approximate Relative Density
0-4
Very Loose
5 —10
Loose
SANDS
11-30
Medium Dense
31— 50
Dense
Over 50
Very Dense
Number of Blows,
"N"
Approximate Consistency
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., I% -
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

N OVA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B_1
PROJECT: Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School PROJECT NO.: 2017010
CLIENT: LS3P for Rutherford County Schools
PROJECT LOCATION: Rutherfordton, North Carolina
LOCATION: Proposed Parking Lot ELEVATION: 1047 ft-MSL+/
DRILLER: FST LOGGED BY: A.Kuczero
DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 HSA DATE: 4/5/2017
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s DRY AFTER 24 HOURS: s DRY CAVING> -L N/A
c
O J
w
Description
U
�_
O
2
N
T
z
Graphic
Depiction
• BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
104
104
103
103
102
102
101
Topsoil (4 inches)
4-5-�
4-
3-4-4
3-6-6
4-3-5
30
40
12
12
•
i
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, reddish brown, micaceous, clayey
ELASTIC SILT (MH) with some fine sand
5
8
11
Moist, stiff, reddish brown, micaceous, fine sandy SILT (ML)
Moist, loose to medium dense, orange and brown,
micaceous, siltyfine to medium SAND (SM)
10
12
15
8
20
Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet
25
30
35
Page 1 of 1

a)
N
H
N OVA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B-2
c
O J
>�
0
104(
5
103!
10
103
PROJECT: Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School PROJECT NO.: 2017010
CLIENT: LS3P for Rutherford County Schools
PROJECT LOCATION: Rutherfordton, North Carolina
LOCATION: Proposed Building Pad ELEVATION: 1043 ft-MSL +/
DRILLER: FST LOGGED BY: A.Kuczero
DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 HSA DATE: 4/5/2017
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s DRY AFTER 24 HOURS: s DRY CAVING> -L N/A
Graphic Depiction
Description
�_ E T BLOW COUNT
P '
� o NATURAL MOISTURE
cD PLASTIC LIMIT ILIQUID LIMIT
10 20 30 40 60 10
Topsoil (3 inches) _
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, reddish brown, micaceous, fine
sandy ELASTIC SILT (MH) with some clay
Moist, firm, orange and brown, highly micaceous, fine sandy
SILT (ML)
Moist, loose to medium dense, red and brown, highly
micaceous, siltyfine to medium SAND (SM)
102
102
101
101
Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet
If
9
3-4-5
4
8
3-4-4
0
7
3-3-4
0
9
3-4-5 41
12
5-6-6 0

N OVA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B_3
PROJECT: Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School PROJECT NO.: 2017010
CLIENT: LS3P for Rutherford County Schools
PROJECT LOCATION: Rutherfordton, North Carolina
LOCATION: Proposed Building Pad ELEVATION: 1050ft-MSL+/
DRILLER: FST LOGGED BY: A.Kuczero
DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 HSA DATE: 4/5/2017
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s DRY AFTER 24 HOURS: = DRY CAVING> -L 42.0'
c
O J
w
Description
U
�_
O
2
N
T
z
Graphic
Depiction
• BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
0
105
104E
104C
103
103
102
102
101
Topsoil (2 inches)
4-5-7
4-4-5
3-4-4
3-4-4
4-5-6
4-5-6
3-4-4
2-4-6
5-8-8
30
40
9
•
12
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff to firm, reddish brown, micaceous,
fine sandy SILT (ML)
Moist, firm, tan and brown, highly micaceous, fine sandy
SILT (ML)
5
8
0
8
10
11
15
11
20
8
25
0
Moist, loose to medium dense, brown, highly micaceous,
silty fine SAND (SM)
30
16
35
Page 1 of 2

N OVA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B_3
PROJECT: Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School PROJECT NO.: 2017010
CLIENT: LS3P for Rutherford County Schools
PROJECT LOCATION: Rutherfordton, North Carolina
LOCATION: Proposed Building Pad ELEVATION: 1050ft-MSL+/
DRILLER: FST LOGGED BY: A.Kuczero
DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 HSA DATE: 4/5/2017
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s DRY AFTER 24 HOURS: = DRY CAVING> -L 42.0'
c
O J
w
Description
U
�_
O
2
N
T
z
Graphic
Depiction
• BLOW
. NATURAL
PLASTIC
10
COUNT
MOISTURE
LIMIT
20
LIQUID
60
LIMIT
10
101
100
100c,
995
990
985
980
Moist, medium dense, tan and brown, micaceous, siltyfine
to medium SAND (SM)
Moist, loose to medium dense, brown, highly micaceous,
silty fine SAND SM
I
3-5-7
4-6-6
4-6-10
30
40
12
40
12
45
16
50
Boring Terminated at 50.0 feet
00
55
60
65
70
Page 2 of 2

N OVA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B-4
c
O J
>�
0
104!
5
104(
10
103
PROJECT: Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School PROJECT NO.: 2017010
CLIENT: LS3P for Rutherford County Schools
PROJECT LOCATION: Rutherfordton, North Carolina
LOCATION: Proposed Building Pad ELEVATION: 1048 ft-MSL +/
DRILLER: FST LOGGED BY: A.Kuczero
DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 HSA DATE: 4/5/2017
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s DRY AFTER 24 HOURS: s DRY CAVING> -L N/A
Graphic Depiction
Description
�_ E T BLOW COUNT
P '
� o NATURAL MOISTURE
PLASTIC LIMIT ILIQUID LIMIT
10 20 30 40 60 10
Topsoil (4 inches) i _
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, reddish brown, micaceous, clayey
ELASTIC SILT (MH) with some fine sand
Moist, firm, red and brown, highly micaceous, fine sandy
SILT (ML)
Moist, loose, orange and brown, micaceous, siltyfine to
medium SAND (SM)
_ r
103 1
Moist, firm, red and brown, highly micaceous, fine sandy
SILT (ML)
Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet
102
102
101
3-5-6
4-6-9
9
4-4-5
,
8
3-4-4
0
7
3-3-4 0
3-4-5
E
15

N OVA
TEST BORING
RECORD
B-5
5
104(
10
103
15
103
20
102
25
102
30
101
35
101
PROJECT: Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School PROJECT NO.: 2017010
CLIENT: LS3P for Rutherford County Schools
PROJECT LOCATION: Rutherfordton, North Carolina
LOCATION: Proposed Building Pad ELEVATION: 1045 ft-MSL +/
DRILLER: FST LOGGED BY: A.Kuczero
DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 HSA DATE: 4/5/2017
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: s DRY AFTER 24 HOURS: s DRY CAVING> -L N/A
Graphic Depiction
Description
�_ E T BLOW COUNT
P '
� o NATURAL MOISTURE
PLASTIC LIMIT ILIQUID LIMIT
10 20 30 40 60 10
Topsoil (4 inches)
RESIDUUM: Moist, stiff, reddish brown, micaceous, clayey
ELASTIC SILT (MH) with some fine sand
Moist, stiff, reddish brown, micaceous, clayey SILT (ML) with
some fine sand
------------------------
Moist, stiff, orange and brown, micaceous, fine sandy SILT
(M L)
Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet
3-5-7
12
16
4-7-9
0
14
5-7-7
9
3-4-5
4
8
3-4-4
9
4-4-5
4

APPENDIX C
Laboratory Data

60
50
X 40
w
0
z
!z: 30
0
H
Q
J
a 20
10
0
0
92
90
88
86
z
w 84
z
0 82
w
Q 80
78
76
74
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
GX\ of O�
•
Off'
G`-ot
ML or OL
mmhMH or OH
l U zu 3u 4o bU 6U /U Wuu UU 1 UU "I l U
LIQUID LIMIT
NUMBER OF BLOWS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL
Moist, stiff, reddish brown, micaceous, clayey ELASTIC SILT 81 39
(MI) with some fine sand
Project No. 2017010 Client: LS31? for Rutherford County Schools
Project: Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 1.0
Nova Engineering & Environmental
Charlotte NC
Tested By: AK Checked By: DP
PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
42 84.2 MIT
Remarks:
*Natural Moisture: 34.3%

60
50
X 40
w
0
z
!z: 30
0
H
Q
J
a 20
10
0
0
53
52
51
50
z
w 49
z
0 48
w
Q 47
46
45
44
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
Off'
GX\ of O�
G`-ot
ML or OL
mmhMH or OH
l U zu 3u 4o bU 6U /U Wuu UU 1 UU "I l U
LIQUID LIMIT
NUMBER OF BLOWS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL
Moist, firm, orange and brown, highly micaceous, fine sandy 46 40
SILT (ML)
Project No. 2017010 Client: LS31? for Rutherford County Schools
Project: Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
Source of Sample: B-2 Depth: 6.0
Nova Engineering & Environmental
Charlotte NC
Tested By: AK Checked By: DP
PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
6 64.3 ML
Remarks:
Natural Moisture: 27.5%

60
50
X 40
w
0
z
!z: 30
0
H
Q
J
a 20
10
0
0
87
86
85
84
z
w 83
z
0 82
w
Q 81
80
79
78
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
GX\ of O�
•
Off'
G`-ot
ML or OL
mmhMH or OH
l U zu 3u 4o bU 6U /U Wuu UU 1 UU "I l U
LIQUID LIMIT
NUMBER OF BLOWS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL
Moist, stiff, reddish brown, micaceous, clayey ELASTIC SILT 83 41
(MI) with some fine sand
Project No. 2017010 Client: LS31? for Rutherford County Schools
Project: Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
Source of Sample: B-4 Depth: 1.0
Nova Engineering & Environmental
Charlotte NC
Tested By: AK Checked By: DP
PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
42 80.5 MIT
Remarks:
*Natural Moisture: 36.4%

60
50
X 40
w
0
z
!z: 30
0
H
Q
J
a 20
10
0
0
90
88
86
84
z
w 82
z
Oo 80
w
Q 78
76
74
72
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
GX\ of O�
•
Off'
G`-ot
ML or OL
mmhMH or OH
l U zu 3u 4o bU 6U /U Wuu UU 1 UU "I l U
LIQUID LIMIT
NUMBER OF BLOWS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL
Moist, stiff, reddish brown, micaceous, clayey ELASTIC SILT 79 41
(MI) with some fine sand
Project No. 2017010 Client: LS31? for Rutherford County Schools
Project: Rutherfordton-Spindale Middle School
Source of Sample: B-5 Depth: 1.0
Nova Engineering & Environmental
Charlotte NC
Tested By: AK Checked By: DP
PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
38 82.1 MIT
Remarks:
*Natural Moisture: 34.0%

APPENDIX D
Qualifications of Recommendations
Ifts

QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
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.

Geotechnical-Engineering Report
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 readselected
elements only. Agftk
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
,fhb A�morount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
oblems.
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
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.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal
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 limit
encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer
who prepared the report (a modest fee maybe 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 fro icipated conditions.
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 report prepared for
someone else.
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
Ir the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the
recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be
su ficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure
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
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
411�oftheGeopwfessiannlBmin—A..s cation
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 commifing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.