SW6110105_Calculations/Geotechnical Report_20110307

Stormwater Narrative
Fort Bragg SOF Operations Additions
This project is located on Lamont Road, near MCKellars Road, in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The project
consists of constructing three new additions to existing Building0-1900-M. No new parking will be
added except for 2 handicapped parking spaces. The area is currently developed and landscaped. All
disturbed areas will be seeded or sodded to establish a permanent vegetative grass cover.
This project falls in the category of a high -density project. The site is divided into three independent
drainage basins. The drainage from two of the drainage areas will be routed to an underground
infiltration trenches using roof drain collection, catch basins, curb and gutter, curb inlets, and storm
drainage piping. The design of the infiltration trenches are to capture the 1" storm and fully infiltrate it
into the ground; therefore, 100%treatment of the TSS load will be accomplished, as well as reducing the
post -developed discharge of this volume to 0 cfs. The infiltration trenches have drawdown times of 18
hours or less. The third drainage basin is currently 100%impervious and will claim exemption from
adding new stormwater BMPs to satisfy Session Law requirements.
The application form for this project contains some areas that are not applicable to this project site.
This site is located on federally owned property within a military installation. Section VI Item 2 — there
are no deed restrictions or protective covenants required, as this is on a military installation. Section VI
Item 8c — NCSR numbers are not assigned to roads within the Fort Bragg military installation. Section VI
Item 8h and Item 8m — there are no surface waters or wetlands on this project site. Section VI Item 8i —
there are no property lines on Fort Bragg; a limits of construction line is included on the drawings
graphically only. Section VI Item 8p—vegetative buffers are not required for this project. Section VI
Item 9 — soils borings were conducted in the area of the infiltration trenches for the purpose of locating
the SHWT; no water or evidence of the SHWT was encountered in the shallow excavations except for
movement around a localize rock. Several other borings were conducted around the site and only one
encountered water at a depth of 35' below existing grade. SHWT elevation is set at 35' below existing
grade based on these findings. Section IV Item 10—there is no property deed, as this project is on Fort
Bragg military installation. Section IV Item 11—the property is owned by the federal government, not
an LLC. Section VII does not apply. Section IX does not apply, as this land is owned by the federal
government.

}�Cypress Creek—���^�,�
1
IL
1,3
���,r{jrryy r
,Is
r�•y, �+ Ly{r.,,g_•�%.'.x � Ir,... 1•y '!'-,l^r:. 1� 4-' .� r'� �� '"ir,i� r"C'7 .,�t��_,� ^J
rA
`-• � �'�..F� f 4 � r-+: 1 ram% y - �. a,b !,�1� '.1 f.� ,•„wi _ �~�! �X r ,1.
tir :l • � r J 4: � /•
` •'ter �., y �. �.� C�� �� � T �� _ � �� r
I i e j j

tea.,,.: •., ��
\
\
``M9�5
94Q \
\

Fort Bragg - SOTF Operations Bldg. Addition
Inlet Design, AE#2009-030
Catch Basin Capacity: (from TM 5-820-4)
From Figure 3-3, Q/L = 0.7 cfs/ft for head=0.4'.
The grate size is 2.75' x 2'.
The functional perimeter of the grate = 2(2.75') + 2(number of grates)(2').
Number
of Grates
Functional
Perimeter
L ft
Q/L
(cfs/ft)
Q
(cfs)
50%
Clogging
cfs
1
9.50
0.7
6.65
3.33
2
13.50
0.7
9.45
4.73
3
17.50
0.7
12.5
6.13
4
21.50
0.7
15.05
7.53
5
25.50
0.7
17.85
8.93
Catch Basin # I has Q = 0.60 cfs; therefore, use I grate.
Catch Basin #5 has Q = 0.20 cfs; therefore, use I grate.
Catch Basin #6 has Q = 0.56 cfs; therefore, use I grate.
Catch Basin #7 has Q = 0.08 cfs; therefore, use I grate.
Catch Basin #9 has Q = 0.34 cfs; therefore, use I grate.
Catch Basin # 10 has Q = 0.34 cfs; therefore, use 1 grate.
Catch Basin # I I has Q = 0.50 cfs; therefore, use 1 grate.
Storm Drainage Design:
The storm drainage design is per the standard Savannah standards utilizing Forms
1178, 1155, and 1156. The design incorporates a retention basin between
Manholes 7A and 7B and Catch Basin 7 and a retention basin between Catch
Basins 9 and 10. The detention basin segments are omitted from the above
mentioned Forms and are calculated below. Pipe segment from Manhole 3 to
Manhole 8 are a relocation of an existing storm drainage system and duplicates
the existing condition.
Stormwater Treatment Design:
Manholes 7A and 7B along with Catch Basin 7 are connected by 270' of 48"
diameter retention basin. The 48' pipe is perforated and surrounded by gravel to
allow water to escape the pipe and infiltrate into the ground. The exit from the
pipe at Catch Basin 7 is through a 24" pipe whose crest is aligned with the crest of
the 48"; therefore, only the lower half of the 48" pipe can be considered to capture
stormwater for infiltration. In addition, 1.5' of gravel on each side of the pipe and
below the pipe will capture stormwater in its 40% void space. The site requires

the first 1" of rainwater be captured and treated for removal of 85% of the Total
Suspended Solids (TSS). The captured water must be released at no more than
the pre -development runoff rate. The captured water will be infiltrated into the
ground, which qualifies for 100% removal of TSS and reduces the post -
development discharge for this volume to 0 cfs.
Simple Method for Volume Required
R=0.05+0.9*1A=0.05+0.9*0.406=0.42
V = 3630 * Ro * Rv * A = 3630 * 1.0" * 0.42 * 0.84ac = 1281 cf
Since using infiltration trench without a bypass or overflow discharge onto a
vegetative buffer, 2.5 times the calculated volume requirement will be provided.
Adjusted Volume required = 1281 cf * 2.5 = 3203 cf.
Volume in pipe = [(21)2 7r x 270']/2 = 1696 cf.
Volume in gravel = 0.40(270'xTx3.5' — 1696 cf) = 1968 cf
Total Volume = 1696 cf+ 1968 cf= 3664 cf. > 3203 cf. OK
Infiltration rate in area 4.5 in/hr.
Drawdown = depth/rate = 3.5' x (12 in/ft) / 4.5 in/hr = 9.3 hrs. < 120 hrs. OK.
Predevelopment I-yr discharge
Q = CIA = 0.4(0.13 in/hr)(0.84ac) = 0.04 cfs
Manholes 9 and 10 are connected by 40' of 2-60" diameter retention basin. The
2-60' pipes are perforated and surrounded by gravel to allow water to escape the
pipe and infiltrate into the ground. The exit from the pipe at Catch Basin 10 is
through a 12" pipe whose crest is aligned with the crest of the 2-60"; therefore,
only the lower 4' of the 2-60" pipes can be considered to capture stormwater for
infiltration. In addition, 2.5' of gravel on each side of the pipes and below the
pipes will capture stormwater in its 40% void space. The site requires the first 1"
of rainwater be captured and treated for removal of 85% of the Total Suspended
Solids (TSS). The captured water must be released at no more than the pre -
development runoff rate. The captured water will be infiltrated into the ground,
which qualifies for 100% removal of TSS and reduces the post -development
discharge for this volume to 0 cfs.
Simple Method for Volume Required
R=0.05+0.9*1A=0.05+0.9*1.0=0.95
V=3630*Rn*Rv*A=3630* 1.0" * 0.95 * 0.3 lac = 1069 cf

Since using infiltration trench without a bypass or overflow discharge onto a
vegetative buffer, 2.5 times the calculated volume requirement will be provided.
Adjusted Volume required = 1069 cf * 2.5 = 2673 cf.
Volume in pipes = 2 x [(2.5')' a x 40']0.82 = 1335 cf.
Volume in gravel = 0.40(40'x20'x6.5' — 1335 co = 1442 cf
Total Volume = 1335 cf+ 1442 cf= 2777 cf. > 2673 cf. OK
Infiltration rate in area 6.5 in/hr.
Drawdown = depth/rate = 6.5' x (12 in/ft) / 4.5 in/hr = 17.33 hrs. < 120 hrs. OK.
Predevelopment 1-yrdischarge
Q = CIA = 0.67(0.13in/hr)(0.3 I ac) = 0.03 cfs

Sheet 1 of 4 Date: 12/14/2009
Designed by:
John Peterson, PE
Table I Drainage (Roadways and Built -Over Areas)
Drain -Inlet Capacities
Drainage Section:
Project: SOTF Ops Bldg. Additio
A = Area (Acres)
O = CIA C = Imperviousness Factor
I = Intensity (In./Hr.)
Design Storm: 10 yr. (Intensity -Duration Curve) 2.8 In./Hr.
Location: Ft.Bragg
Checked by:
Scott Martin, PE
Division Office:
District Office: Savannah, GA
Inlet
No.
Drainage Area (DA.)
In Acres
Total
A C
Average
Rough-
ness
Factor
"n.,
Average
Slope "S'
in
Percent
Length L (Feet)
Drain -Inlet Capacity
Critical Contribution to System
Remarks
Actual
or
Effective
LengN
Feet
Equivalen
L For
n = 0.40
And
S = 1
Adopted
L For t�
Computatio
Critical
Time, I.
Min.
Storm
Intensity
(1)
Rate of
Supply
c.f.s.
Critical
Time, I.
Min.
Storm
Intensity
(1)
Rate of
Supply
c.f.s.
Paved
Unpavetl
Bare
Turf
C=1.0
C=0.6
C=0.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1A
0.29
0.29
0.01
5
8.0
2.32
10
6.7
1.94
Roof Drain
1
0.09
0.09
0.01
0.0
65
16
16
10
1 6.7
0.60
1
Catch Basin
2
Existing Catch Basin
5
0.10
0.04
0.40
9.0
112
37
37
20
5.0
0.20
Catch Basin
6
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.40
10.0
35
11
11
20
5.0
0.56
Catch BasJBasin
7BB
0.11
0.11
0.01
5
8.0
0.88
10
6.7
0.74
Roof Drai
78A
0.12
0.12
001
5
8.0
0.96
10
6.7
0.80
Roof Drai
7B
Manhole
7AA
0.03
0.03
0.01
5
8.0
0.24
10
6.7
0.20
Roof Drai
7A
Manhole
7
0.04
0.02
0.40
5.0
54
24
24
20
5.0
0.08
Catch Bas
e
-ExistingCatch
Gt5A5 Farm 1178
Oct 1987
Note: "Full Size" copies furnished on request to District Project Manager.

Sheet 2 of 4 Date: 12J1412009
Designed by:
John Peterson, PE
Table I Drainage (Roadways and Built -Over Areas)
Drain -Inlet Capacities
Drainage Section:
Project: SOTF Ops Bldg. Addilio
A = Area (Acres)
O = CIA C = Imperviousness Factor
I = Intensity (In./Hr.)
Design Storm: 10 yr. (Intensity -Duration Curve) 2.8 In./Hr.
Location: FLBragg
Checked by:
Scott Martin, PE
Division Office:
District Office: Savannah, CA
Inlet
No.
Drainage Area (DA.)
In Acres
Total
A C
Average
Rough-
ness
Factor
.W.
Average
Slope "S"
in
Percent
Length L (Feet)
Drain
-Inlet Capacity
Critical Contribution to System
Remarks
Actual
or
Effective
Length
Feet
Equivalen
L For
n = 0.40
And
S = 1
Adopted
L For 16
Computation
Critical
Time, to
Min.
Storm
Intensity
(1)
Rate of
Supply
c.f.s.
Critical
Time, t�
Min.
Storm
Intensity
(1)
Rate of
Supply
c.f.s.
Paved
Unpaved
Bare
Turf
C=1.0
C=0.6
C=0.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
9A
0.05
0.05
0.01
5
8.0
0.40
10
6.7
0.34
Roof Drain
9T
0.02
0.02
0.01
2.0
5
0
0
1 10
6.7
0.13
Trench Drain
9
0.05
0.05
0.01
1 7
35
1
1
10
6.7
0.34
Catch Basin
108
0.06
0.06
0.01
5
8.0
0.48
10
6.7
0.40
Roof Drain
10A
0.06
0.06
0.01
5
8.0
0.48
10
5.7
0.40
Root Drain
10T
0.02
0.02
0.01
2.0
5
0
0
10
6.7
0.13
Trench Drain
10
0.05
0.05
0.01
1.7
35
1
1
10
6.7
0.34
Catch Basin
11
0.02
0.20
0.10
0.40
3.5
100
53
53
20
5.0
0.50
Existing Catch Basin
ULSAS Form 11 /6
Oct 1987
Note: "Full Size" copies furnished on request to District Project Manager.

tantrim ff.
For Airfields - Suppl,r Canot, Nos. (Based on Design
For Tuned Areas: 2-Yr. Ste=)
m1111mor
Ommm
oum
©©o©0000mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®
mmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm•
ammam�mmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmm®
ammamammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®
mmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
mmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.,
ammmmammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.,
�mmo��mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm�.
mmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.'
mmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
mmmmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
mmmmmammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
mm®mmammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
mmmm��mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm�
SAS Foon 1155
on. ea Previous emeon is obsolete.
Note, 'Full Size- copies furnished on request to District Project Manager.

Sheet 4 of 4
Designetl by:
John Peterson, PE
Table III, Airfield Drainage, Roads & Builtover Areas
Size and Profile of Underground Storm Drains
Drainage Section
Prolech SOTF Ops Bldg. Addition
Date: 12/14I2009
Location: FLBragg
Computed by: John Petersen. PE
Checked by:
Scott Martin, PE
Division Office:
Checked by: Scott Martin, PE
District Office: Savannah, GA
Pipe'n' = 0.012
Inlet or
Junction
Numbers
Distance
Between
Design
Points,
in Feel,
Measured
to G.L. of
Inlet or
Junction
Hydraulic
Design Data on Underground Storm Drains
Construction
Data
Notes
Design
Discharge
Capacity,
In c.f.s.
Trail Design
Adapted Design
Length
of Pipe
Between
Design
Point,
In
Feet
Elevator, of
Invert at
Design Points,
(Col. 2) In Feet
Pip.
Slope
Beoveen
Design
Points,
FIJFt.
Mean
Velocity
of Design
Discharge
In
FUSec.
Required
Size of
Pipe,
In
Inches
Selected
Size o/
Pipe,
In
Inches
Hydraulic Grade Line
Thru Pie Length
Heart Loss at Change
in Section
Elevation
Hydraulic
Grade Line,
Col. 11, Plus
Heart Loss,
Col. 15
TT
Velocity
of Inflow,
M
In
FUSec.
Velocity
Head
N
2g
Loss
CoefFF
cient,
K
Heart
Loss,
In Feet,
=KN
2g
Pipe
Slope
In
Hht.
Rise
In
Feet
Elevation
at C.L. of
Upstream
Design
Point
Incoming
Pipe
Outgoing
Pipe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
1
50
2.55
0.003
3.1
15
15
0.003
0.15
283A0
3.1
0.15
0.80
0.12
283.52
50
282A5
11
10
57
2.08
0.030
8.5
12
12
0.030
1.71
296.71
8.5
1.13
0.40
O45
297.16
57
295.71FF
SAS Farm 1156
Oct. 84 Previous edition Is obsolete.
Note:'Full Size' copies furnished on request to District Project Manager.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED SOF OPERATIONS ADDITIONS
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
S&ME Project No. 1031-09-121
Prepared for:
Cromwell Architects Engineers
101 S. Spring Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Prepared By:
409 Chicago Drive #116
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28306
October 29, 2009

-I 11W, , ,., . ,, �, . - ,..., , n
t1n raj 1,1.
October 29, 2009
Cromwell Architects Engineers
101 S. Spring Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Attention: Mr. Joe Hilliard, P.E.
Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed SOF Operations Additions
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1031-09-121
Dear Mr. Hilliard:
S&ME, Inc, is pleased to submit this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed new
additions to the existing building located at SOF Operations complex at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Our exploration was performed in general accordance with our proposal No. FAY-159-09, dated
May 21, 2009.
The purpose of this exploration was to explore general subsurface conditions at the site and
evaluate those conditions with regard to site preparation and foundation support for the new
building additions. This report presents a summary of pertinent project information, results of our
field and laboratory testing, and our geotechnical recommendations and conclusions.
Authorization to proceed with this exploration and report was provided through your execution of
our "Agreement for Services" Form AS-071 which was incorporated into our proposal.
S&ME, Inc. appreciates this opportunity to be of service to you. Please call if you have questions
concerning this report or any of our services.
Respectfully submitted,
S&ME, Inc.
�
ll ��,.�9/
M. N. Khan..... ' '
w
John R. Browning, P.E.
Staff Professional J
Senior Engineer
�Sant.
Kea r, 2u .=
Project Geo chnicai
NC Registration No 239,>6,b' vt`,
S&ME Inc. NC PE Finn License No. F-0176 Y
Attachments
N:\1031UtEPORTS\2009\1031-09-121 SOF Operations Addition\1031-09-121 SOFOpernlions Additions FINALdoc
S&ME, INC. / 409 Chicago Drive, Suite 116 / Fayetteville, NO 28306 / p 910.323.1091 f9l0.323.3499/ww%v.srneinc.com

Geotechnical Engineering Report SBME Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Additions,
Fort Braqq, North Carolina October 29. 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................... 3
2. GEOLOGY.................................................................................................................3
3. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES........................................................................... 3
4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................. 4
4.1
Surface Conditions..............................................................................................
5
4.2
Fill.......................................................................................................................
5
4.3
Natural Soils........................................................................................................
5
4.4
Subsurface Water................................................................................................
5
4.5
Laboratory Test Results......................................................................................
5
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................. 6
5.1
Limitation of Report...........................................................................................
6
5.2
General Assessment............................................................................................
6
5.3
Foundation Recommendations............................................................................
7
5.3.1 Shallow Foundations...........................................................................
7
5.3.2 Foundation Alternatives......................................................................
8
5.3.3 Anticipated Settlements....................................................................
10
5.3.4 Foundation Evaluation......................................................................
10
5.3.5 Slabs..................................................................................................11
5.4
Below -Grade Wall Design Considerations.......................................................
11
5.5
Seismic Considerations.....................................................................................
13
5.5.1 Site Class...........................................................................................
13
5.5.2 Potential Liquefaction.......................................................................
13
5.6
Construction Considerations.............................................................................
13
5.6.1 Site Preparation.................................................................................
13
5.6.2 Subgrade Evaluations........................................................................
14
5.6.3 Excavations.......................................................................................14
5.6.4 Use of on -Site Soils..........................................................................
14
5.6.5 Structural Fill....................................................................................
15
5.6.6 Materials Testing During Construction ............................................
15
2

Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Additions,
Fort Braqq, North Carolina October 29. 2009
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located on Fort Bragg at the northeast comer of McKellers and Lamont
Roads. Based upon the information provided and gathered during the site visits, the
project is expected to include construction of two one-story additions (Gym and Dining
Areas) to the existing building on the north-west side and a two story infill building
addition (CDD/Signal Area) between existing buildings on the north-east side. Estimated
total building area additions are in the range of 61,000 square feet. Besides the building
additions the project also includes stormwater retention areas. S&ME, Inc.'s Stormwater
Testing Services Report was submitted on October 8, 2009.
The planned buildings will consist of load bearing masonry walls with slab -on -grades and
elevated slabs. Structural loading information for the building additions were provided
by Cromwell Architects Engineers. Maximum column loadings of 100 kips for the
dining facility, 110 kips for the gym, and 160 kips for the CDD/Signal buildings are
planned. The infill building will consist of continuous footings constructed adjacent to
existing building foundations with maximum wall loads of 6 kips per linear foot. Site
grading information was not available; however, based upon the planned construction, we
assume that there will be grade changes of less than 2 feet.
2. GEOLOGY
The site is located on the southwestern edge of the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province
of North Carolina. The Coastal Plain Province is typically characterized by marine and
eolian sediments that were deposited during the transgressive and regressive depositional
sequences of the oceans moving into and out of North Carolina. As such, the Coastal
Plain Province is characterized by subdued topographic features and flat, low-lying
terrain. Near surface soils often consist of more recent undifferential deposits of
interbedded sands, silts and clays. Deeper deposits also consist of sand, silts and clays
but can not be defined as particular formations with distinguishable characteristics and
engineering properties.
K1111111111[*A 1541:7� � L91 1J -Illiq 4 Dili:T*9
S&ME, Inc. drilled eight (8) soil test borings (designated B-1 through B-8) to obtain
subsurface information within the proposed building addition footprints. Boring
locations were selected and located in the field by S&ME personnel by measuring
distances from the existing site features. Since the borings were established without
survey control, their locations should be considered approximate. The approximate
boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Figure 1 in the Appendix of this
report.

Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Additions,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina October 29, 2009
The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 10 to 50 feet below existing grades.
Borings were performed using 3 Y<-inch hollow stem augers and mud rotary drilling
procedures with a CME-750 drill rig equipped with a hydraulic automatic hammer.
Samples of subsurface soils were obtained at 2.5-foot intervals above a depth of 10 feet
and at 5-foot intervals below 10 feet using a split spoon sampler. Standard penetration
testing (SPT) was performed in conjunction with split -spoon sampling in general
accordance with ASTM D 1586. Split -spoon samples obtained from standard penetration
testing were transported to our laboratory and visually classified in general accordance
with Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) guidelines.
Standard penetration tests were performed with the attached autohammer and not with a
traditional rope, cathead and safety hammer. Research has shown that the standard
penetration resistance (N-value) determined by the autohammer is different than the N-
value determined by the safety hammer method. Most correlations that are published in
the technical literature are based on the N-value determined by the safety hammer
method. This is commonly termed N6o as the rope and cathead with a safety hammer
delivers about 60 percent of the theoretical energy delivered by a 140 pound hammer
falling 30 inches. Several researches have proposed correction factors for the use of
hammers other than the safety hammer. The correction is made by the following
equation:
N6o = Nfield *CE
Nfidd is the value recorded in the field and N60 is the value to be used in correlation. CE is
the energy correction factor for the hammer used. A correction factor of 1.3 is typically
used for the autchammer used during drilling.
The boreholes were backfilled using auger cuttings after completion of field operations
and after a selected waiting period. Generalized Subsurface Profile drawing (Figure 2)
and Boring Logs presenting specific subsurface information from the borings are
included in the Appendix. Stratification lines shown on the Boring Logs and profile are
intended to represent approximate depths of changes in soil types. Natural transitional
changes in soil types are often gradual and vary in both the horizontal and vertical
directions. Since ground surface elevations were not available, the test boring depths are
referenced from the existing ground surface.
4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Details of subsurface conditions encountered in borings are presented on the Boring Logs
in the Appendix, and represent our interpretation of subsurface conditions encountered
based upon visual examination of split -spoon samples. General subsurface conditions are
discussed in the following paragraphs.

Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Additions,
Fort Braqq, North Carolina October 29, 2009
4.1 Surface Conditions
Approximately 3 to 9 inches of topsoil was present at the surface of borings B-1 to B-6.
Approximately 7 to 10 inches of concrete was encountered at the surface of borings B-7
and B-8.
4.2 Fill
Fill was encountered below topsoil in boring B-5, and below concrete in borings B-7 and
B-8 and extended to depths ranging from approximately 3 to 8 feet. In boring B-5 the fill
consists of medium dense silty and clayey sands (classified as SM, SC-SM and SC). In
borings B-7 and B-8, the fill consists of loose to medium dense silty sands (classified as
SP-SM). Standard penetration test (SPT) "N-values" in the fill ranged from 4 to 24
blows per foot (bpf). The SPT N-values at B-5 and B-7 indicate the fill is well compacted
whereas at B-8, where about 3 feet of fill exists, these soils appear poorly compacted.
Fill soils were typically damp to moist.
4.3 Natural Soils
Natural soils were encountered below the topsoil and fill and extend to the boring
termination depths. In general, the natural soils consisted of inter -bedded layers of silty
and clayey sands (classified as SM, SP, SP-SM, SP-SC, SC-SM and SC). Standard
penetration test (SPT) N-values ranged from 7 to 45 blows per foot (bpf) in the sands
indicating loose to very dense relative density. Sandy and silty clays (classified as CL
and CH) were encountered in borings B-3, B-5, B-7, and B-8 at depths below 27 to 37
feet. The SPT N-values in clays ranged from 5 to 58 bpf, indicating firm to very hard
consistency. Natural soils were dry to wet.
4.4 Subsurface Water
At the time of boring completion, groundwater was not observed in the borings. Most
boreholes had to be backfilled immediately after drilling due to safety concerns. A
temporary PVC pipe was inserted into the borehole at B-3 and the water level was
measured at 37.5 feet below ground surface after 8 days.
It is important to realize that water levels will fluctuate due to such things as season,
weather conditions and near -by construction activities. In addition, there is the potential
for "perched" water conditions at the ground surface or in the near -surface sand layers
because of the underlying less permeable materials (silty or clayey soils), especially after
rainfall. Long term monitoring of water levels requires installation of piezometers
(temporary groundwater monitoring wells) which was beyond the scope of our report.
4.5 Laboratory Test Results
Laboratory testing included natural moisture content and pI-I/resistivity testing on split -
spoon samples, and modified Proctor compaction testing on a bulk sample obtained from
boring B-6 from an approximate depth of about 1 to 10 feet beneath the existing ground
surface. The test results were used to confirm our field classifications and provide index

Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Additions,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina October 29, 2009
and engineering properties for use in our engineering evaluation.
The results of the modified Proctor compaction test indicate a maximum dry density of
119 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with optimum moisture content 9.4 percent.
Laboratory testing of bulk soil samples indicates resistivity values ranging from about
5,733 to 8,229 ohm -centimeters and pH values ranging from 6.2 to 6.9. It has been our
experience that soils with the above resistivity and pH values are generally considered to
have a slight corrosion potential. As such, it is our opinion that any underground metal
pipes will not require cathodic protection.
All laboratory testing was performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM
standards and results are attached in the Appendix.
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Limitation of Report
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice
for specific application to this project. Any wetland, environmental, or contaminant
assessment efforts are beyond the scope of this geotechnical exploration; and therefore,
those issues are not addressed in this geotechnical exploration report. The
recommendations contained in this report are based on the applicable standards of our
profession at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is
made.
Analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the geotechnical exploration, our engineering analysis and our understanding of the
proposed construction. The nature and extent of variations between and outside of the
boring locations may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident,
then it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. In the event
that the assumptions presented in this report regarding site grades, structural loads, or
location of the proposed structures are incorrect, the recommendations contained in this
report should be reviewed and modified or verified in writing.
We strongly recommend S&ME be provided the opportunity to review the final design
plans and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations are
properly interpreted and implemented. The recommendations in this report are
contingent on S&ME, Inc.'s observation and monitoring of grading and construction
activities.
5.2 General Assessment
The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon a review of test boring
and laboratory data, our understanding of planned construction, our engineering analysis

Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Additions,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina October 29. 2009
and experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions in the Fort Bragg area. If
structural loads or design grades change significantly from those presented in this report,
we should be contacted to confirm or modify recommendations as necessary.
Additionally, if subsurface conditions different than those indicated by this report are
encountered during construction, these differences should be reported to us for review
and comment.
In general, the subsurface conditions at this site appear suitable for support of the
proposed one and two story building additions, however, loose fill soils exist at B-8. These
soils will require repair (undercut and replacement) prior to slab construction. Based on
the test boring data, the existing fill appears to be generally free of debris and organics
and has received adequate compaction, except at B-8, for support of this structure. If
necessary, excavated fill soils can be reused as structural fill. Structural fill placed on site
should be placed in 8 to 10 inch lifts and compacted to at least 95% of the soil's modified
Proctor maximum dry density. The Geotechnical Engineer should verify prior to concrete
placement whether the exposed foundation bearing soils are suitable for the design soil
bearing pressure.
When reviewing our recommendations, please note that the site has been previously
developed (fill has been placed and numerous utility lines installed). Based on our
experience, unexpected conditions often exist at previously developed sites. Unexpected
conditions may consist of low -consistency fill soils (which exist at B-8), debris -laden fill,
active or abandoned utilities, and other conditions. Any unexpected conditions
encountered on site can be addressed by engineering evaluations during construction.
Our recommendations regarding site preparation, subgrade repair, field evaluations, and
foundation support are presented in the following sections of this report.
5.3 Foundation Recommendations
5.3.1 Shallow Foundations
The proposed structures may be supported on shallow foundations bearing in approved
existing fill soils, natural soils, or new well compacted fill soils. Footings may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf).
Continuous wall footings should be a minimum of 18 inches wide and column footings
should be at least 24 inches wide to help prevent localized or "punching" shear failure
which can occur with very narrow footings. Foundations should be embedded at least 18
inches below finished grades to provide adequate embedment against frost penetration.
New foundations should be designed with sufficient separation from the existing building
foundations so as not to undermine them during excavation or cause foundation stress
overlap. If foundation stress overlap cannot be avoided then the affected existing
foundations should be evaluated for additional settlement. Also if significant fill loading
will occur adjacent to existing structures the effect of this loading on the structure should
be evaluated.

Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Additions,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina October 29. 2009
If perched water or groundwater collects in foundation excavations, it should be removed
promptly to help prevent softening of foundation supporting soils. To further reduce the
potential for deterioration of bearing soils, we recommend that foundation excavation and
placement of concrete be conducted on the same day if practical.
5.3.2 Foundation Alternatives
We understand that at the gym addition, the existing foundations and finished floor
elevations are about 8 to 10 feet below the final grades for the new gym addition. We
understand the existing grades in the new gym addition area are close to the proposed
final grade. An existing foundation wall allows this grade separation. In order to prevent
additional loading on the existing lower footings, a system of grade beams supported by a
deep foundation will be constructed along the column lines closest to the existing
structure. A deep foundation system capable of supporting the column's axial and
bending moment loads will be required to transfer loads below the lower foundation wall
footings. Helical piers and drilled shafts are acceptable alternatives to support these
cantilevered columns. Due to vibration concerns we did not consider a driven pile
solution.
Helical piers have been proposed beneath wall footings at the CDD/Signal addition
building. The helical piers will help transfer loads to a deeper bearing stratum without
imposing additional loads onto the existing footings. It is our opinion, that helical piers
can support the adequate design loads in this area.
It is our opinion the drilled shafts and helical piers will create a stiff foundation (assumed
negligible settlement) relative to the new surrounding shallow spread footings.
Therefore, new surrounding shallow spread footings adjacent to shaft or pier supported
footings may experience greater than 1/2 inch of differential settlement. The structural
engineer should determine if these magnitudes of settlement are acceptable for the
planned structure.
5.3.2.1 Helical Piers
Helical piers are installed by turning a steel pier with a helical tip to a depth where
competent bearing soils exist. Once the pier is installed to suitable bearing materials, it is
mechanically attached to the footing. Design and installation of helical piers is typically
a design -build component, with the installer detenn fining the number of piers, allowable
capacity and depth of installation.
It is our understanding that specified helical piers can be hydraulically turned into the
dense or stiff soils with sufficient torque to develop design capacities ranging from
approximately 5 to 10 kips. Helical piers would need to be installed to depths of at least
15 to 20 feet below existing grades in the areas of borings B-7 and B-8 to bear in dense to
very dense soils (CDD/Signal addition) . The piers should be spaced accordingly
depending on the actual structural loading per linear foot of wall.

Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Additions,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina October 29, 2009
5.3.2.2 Drilled Shafts
Drilled shaft design parameters are presented in the following sections. Because of the
concern of ground loss and reduction of foundation soil support for the lower gym wall
footing, we recommend that the drilled shaft be cased the entire length during the drilling
and concreting operations.
Axial Capacity
Based on encountered subsurface conditions, allowable resistance values in the following
table may be used in designing the drilled shaft foundation system for axial loads. These
values include a factor of safety of at least 2.0.
DEPTH
SIDE FRICTIONAL
ALLOWABLE END
(feet)
SOIL TYPE
CS US ;
RESISTANCE
BEARING'
CLASS
(kst)
{ksf)
0-10
Clayey Sands.
SC
N/A
N/A
10 - 17
Silty Sands
SM
0.75
N/A
17 - 32
Fine Sands
SP
1.2
10
32 — 41
Sandy Clay
CL
0.2
3
41 - 50
Fine Sands
SP
1.0
10
We recommend that the upper ten feet of depth be neglected in the side frictional
resistance calculations due to the potential disturbance of the upper soils during the
construction process. Also installation of a drilled shaft deeper than about 32 feet may
encounter groundwater which will require in addition to the steel casing a drilling fluid be
used so that unbalanced hydrostatic forces do not disturb the bearing soils.
Lateral Resistance
The following design values are intended to be used with the MILE 4.0 plus
computer program for the analysis of drilled shafts subjected to lateral loading. We
recommend that a groundwater level corresponding to a depth of 32 feet below the
existing ground surface be used in the analysis.

Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Additions,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina October 29, 2009
S0D'
De 0t feet
TYPE'
uses
J
LPILE SOIL
COHESION
,F.gNG EN �,
��
vCLASS
,TYPE
�(Ps>)
t de eesvtip
WEIGHT
W'(pc�'
n t
/
-',
IAI.Lti
Clayey
0-10
Sands
SC
Sand
0
30
115
60
--
silty
10— 17
Sands
SM
Sand
0
28
120
20
--
Fine
17-32
SP
Sand
0
35
120
125
—
Sands
32-41
Cl yy
CL
Clay*
750
0
110
too
0.01
Fine
41-50
SP
Sand
0
32
120
125
—
Sands
* Stiff Clay with Free Water
** K refers to modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction used in LPILE plus computer
code and assumes "static' loading as described by LPILE user manual.
5.3.3 Anticipated Settlements
Our settlement analysis indicates that total settlement due to the anticipated structural
loads (i.e., 100 to 160-kip columns, <6-kips/foot walls) and a design soil bearing pressure
of 2,500 psf will be about 1 inch or less. Differential settlements within the new structure
are estimated at 1/2 inch or less. However if the new building will be structurally
connected to the existing structure, differential settlement between the two structures
could approach the total settlement value. Also as mentioned above with the new gym
wall adjacent to the existing wall being supported on a deep foundation, the differential
settlement of surrounding new shallow foundations and this wall could approach the total
settlement value. The above settlements assume that footings are evaluated in the field
and uniform and adequate bearing conditions exist. The structural engineer should
determine if these magnitudes of settlement are acceptable for the planned structure.
5.3.4 Foundation Evaluation
We recommend that the project Geotechnical Engineer or his representative observe the
foundation bearing conditions prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. This
evaluation should include the performance of shallow hand auger borings with dynamic
cone penetrometer (DCP) testing to depths of 3 to 4 feet to evaluate the suitability of
underlying soils for foundation support. Evaluation of all foundation bearing soils is
strongly recommended since many of the footings may bear in existing fill soils.
Foundation excavation or exposure to the environment will cause the bearing surface
soils to loosen or soften. Softened/loosened soils at the foundation surface bearing
should be removed or densified in -place with acceptable compaction equipment such as a
"jumping jack" or vibratory plate compactor. Any excessively loose/soft soils or other
10

Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Additions,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina October 29, 2009
unsuitable materials should be repaired prior to concrete placement. Repairs are typically
performed by undercutting loose/soft soils and backfilling with washed stone (NCDOT
No. 57 stone).
Monitoring of the installation of helical piers and drilled shafts should be performed by
the project Geotechnical engineer to verify that the intent of the design plans and
specifications has been met.
5.3.5 Slabs
Slabs may be supported on suitable in -place soils as determined by a geotechnical
engineer in the field, or on properly placed and compacted new fill, provided the site
preparation and fill placement procedures outlined in this report are implemented.
Provided that the subgrade preparation and fill placement recommendations described
herein are implemented, a modulus of subgrade reaction value of 120 psi/inch may be
used to design the at -grade slabs. The slab should be separated from continuous wall and
interior column footings to allow for relative displacement. Any "thickened slab" areas
or "turned down" edges should be considered part of a shallow foundation system.
We recommend that a minimum 4 inch layer of compacted NCDOT crushed aggregate
base course (ABC stone) be placed beneath floor slabs as soon as possible after grading
of the building pad. The ABC stone layer will provide a more stable and durable
construction surface and greater uniformity in slab support.
Exposure to the enviromnent and construction activities will weaken the subgrade soils.
Therefore, we recommend that subgrade soils in slab areas be evaluated prior to ABC
stone placement. If deterioration of the soils has occurred, in place densification or
undercutting may be necessary.
5.4 Below -Grade Wall Design Considerations
The location and depths of below -grade walls with respect to our borings are not known
at the time of this report. Once additional information is available, we should be
contacted for any additions or revisions to our recommendations that may be appropriate.
The site's below -grade walls should be designed to withstand loading from lateral earth
pressures from surrounding soil and surcharge loads from nearby footings or slabs. The
lateral earth pressures presented below assume the walls will not be subjected to
hydrostatic loading conditions, that is, water will not be present behind the walls due to
surface water or groundwater. Recommended parameters for design of below -grade walls
are given in the table below.
11

Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Additions,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina October 29, 2009
Design Parameters for Below Grade Walls
Parameter
Value
Soil Friction Angle (�) for On Site Sandy Soils
300
At -Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ka)
0.50
Active Coefficient Earth Pressure (Ka)
0.33
Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient (Kp)
3.00
Moist Unit Weight ofBackfill
125 pcf
Friction Coefficient b/w Foundation and Bearing Soil
0.35
Based on the parameters given above, fixed walls (such as basement walls) that are not
allowed to rotate (at -rest condition) should be designed using a triangular earth pressure
distribution having an equivalent fluid weight of 63 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) per foot
of wall height, assuming full wall drainage is provided. For walls that will be allowed to
rotate (i.e. retaining walls), then the equivalent fluid weight would be 41 pcf. Retaining
walls should have adequate factors of safety against overturning, sliding, and global failure.
The structural engineer should select the appropriate loading condition based on the
below -grade wall configuration. Lateral pressures from any surcharge loads (traffic,
adjacent foundation elements) should be added as a uniform rectangular soil pressure
equal to 50% the vertical pressure applied over the full height of the wall.
The lateral earth pressure distribution presented above assumes no wall friction between
the wall and soil backfill (S = 0 degrees), the backfill soils consist of on site sandy soils
(SM, SP, SC), the backfill is level and has been properly placed and compacted, and that
water is not allowed to accumulate behind foundation walls. Exterior grades should
promote rapid drainage away from the structure. Free draining clean stone backfill (such
as NCDOT No. 57) should be placed behind the wall (separated from the backfill soils
with a nonwoven geotextile fabric) or prefabricated drainage panel should be applied to
the back of the wall to prevent the build up of hydrostatic pressures (utility break, long
rainfall event, etc.). The wall should have an internal drainage system or have weep
holes that allows any collected water to drain away from the wall.
Backfill soils placed behind below ground walls should be granular and compacted to at
least 95% of the soil's modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) and within
2% of the optimum moisture content. Operating heavy compaction equipment within 5
feet of the walls can create lateral earth pressures in excess of those recommended for
design. As such, hand -operated equipment should be used within 5 feet of below -grade
walls.
12

Geotechnical Engineering Report SBME Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Additions,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina October 29, 2009
5.5 Seismic Considerations
5.5.1 Site Class
A Seismic Site Class was determined based on the soil conditions encountered by the
borings and in accordance with the 2006 Intemational Building Code. Based on the soil
strength information (Standard Penetration Test (SPT) "N-value") obtained at boring B-3,
a `Site Class D' is recommended for the design of the structure.
5.5.2 Potential Liquefaction
The liquefaction] susceptibility of the on -site soils was evaluated using the 2006
International Building Code design earthquake.2 Liquefaction is the loss of a soil's shear
strength due to the increase in pore -water pressure resulting from seismic vibrations.
Soils most susceptible to liquefaction generally consist of saturated, loose, "clean" (i.e.,
plasticity indices less than 5), fine (10% size ranging from 0.07 to 0.25 mm) sands. The
results of the liquefaction analysis indicate that the sands at this site have a relatively low
potential for liquefaction due to the design earthquake.
5.6 Construction Considerations
If during foundation excavation subsurface conditions are encountered that are different
from our boring exploration, we recommend that S&ME be informed of such conditions.
This information will help us in making recommendations regarding such options as
densification and/or additional localized undercutting at the foundation bearing level.
Prior to any additional fill placement or construction of the slabs on grade, we
recommend the subgrades be proofirolled with a loaded dump truck to identify any
unstable areas that may require repair. The proofroller should make at least two complete
passes over the subgrade areas at walking speed. Surface repair could include
undercutting and replacement, drying and recompaction, or other measures recommended
by the geotechnical engineer.
5.6.1 Site Preparation
Site preparation should begin with the removal of all existing concrete walkways,
existing concrete slabs, trees, vegetation, topsoil and other unsuitable surface materials
within the proposed construction limits. Stripping should occur for a minimum of 10 feet
beyond building footprints. Topsoil may be stockpiled on site and reused in landscaped
areas.
Any voids created from the removal of underground objects should be backfilled with
compacted structural fill. Experience indicates that backfill associated with existing
Liquefaction is the loss of a soil's shear strength due to the increase in pore water pressure resulting from
seismic vibrations.
2 The 2006 IBC design earthquake has a 93 % probability of non-cxcecdancc in 50 years. Our liquefaction
analysis was based on an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.3 and ground surface acceleration of 0.13g
13

Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Additions,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina October 29, 2009
utilities is often poorly compacted. Also, cracked or deteriorated pipes can collapse or
serve as conduits for subsurface erosion, either of which can result in excessive
settlement and damage to structures. We recommend that existing utilities located within
the proposed building areas be removed and the trenches properly backfilled with suitable
compacted structural fill. Utilities that will remain in -place should be evaluated on a
case -by -case basis. This evaluation should include assessment of backfill, conduit type,
future loading, and the proximity of utilities to the new building.
5.6.2 Subgrade Evaluations
After the site clearing, grabbing and topsoil stripping operations are completed, and prior
to new fill placement and slab on grade construction, exposed subgrades should be
evaluated by the project Geotechnical Engineer. This evaluation helps to reveal the
presence of any unstable or otherwise unsuitable near -surface materials. This evaluation
should consist of proofrolling of the building area using a loaded tandem -axle dump
truck. Any areas which are observed to rut, pump or deflect excessively during
proofrolling will require undercutting and replacement or subgrade repair. Specific
recommendations regarding subgrade repair are best given in the field by the
Geotechnical Engineer at the time of evaluation. Because of the very loose fill soils found
at B-8 to a depth of about 3 feet, undercut and replacement of these soils will be required.
5.6.3 Excavations
Difficult to excavate materials were not encountered within the depths of the borings.
Our experience indicates that the on site soils can likely be excavated using conventional
grading equipment. During foundation and utility excavations, excavation sidewalls will
likely remain stable for only a brief period of time. Backfilling of undercut foundations
(if necessary) should be conducted as soon as practical to limit sidewall caving and any
groundwater infiltration into the excavation. Any material that caves into the design
undercut should be removed prior to backfilling. Foundation undercut should be
performed in sections or one at a time, and NCDOT No. 57 stone should be stockpiled at
the site for immediate backfilling in an effort to prevent sidewall sloughing. Forming
may also be required.
All excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and federal
regulations, including OSHA (29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards.
The contractor is solely responsible for site safety. This information is provided only as a
service, and under no circumstances should S&ME be assumed to be responsible for
construction site safety.
5.6.4 Use of on -Site Soils
The on -site natural and clean existing fill soils should be suitable for reuse as structural
fill provided the soil moisture contents can be properly controlled during placement and
compaction and that soils are relatively free of organics (less than 3%). Some moisture
conditioning may be required to achieve adequate compaction. Drying can normally be
accomplished by aerating the soils during favorable weather conditions (i.e. sun and
wind).
14

Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Additions,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina October 29, 2009
5.6.5 Structural Fill
If any off -site structural fill is required to be placed within the building additions,
it should have a low plasticity (plasticity index less than 20%), be free of debris, and
relatively free of organics (less than 3% by dry weight). Structural fill should have a
minimum dry density of 100 pounds per cubic foot based on the laboratory modified
Proctor (ASTM D1557) test. We recommend the fill soils have Unified Soil
classifications of SP, SW, SM or SC.
All structural fill should be placed in 8 to 10-inch loose lifts and compacted to at least 95
percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). Soil moisture
should be maintained within two (2) percent of the optimum moisture content during
compaction.
Site preparation including fill placement and compaction should be observed by the
project Geotechnical Engineer or a qualified soils technician. A sufficient number of
density tests should be conducted on each soil lift to evaluate whether adequate
compaction has been achieved prior to additional fill placement or foundation
construction.
5.6.6 Materials Testing During Construction
Field evaluations and testing will be very important during construction. It is
recommended that a soils technician working under the direction of the project
Geotechnical Engineer be present during subgrade preparation, additional fill placement
and foundation installation. During the fill placement activities, it is recommended that
the soils technician perform field density tests to confirm compaction of fill soils is
achieved. It is recommended that all foundation bearing surfaces be evaluated by the
project Geotechnical Engineer or senior engineering technician under his direction prior
to concrete placement.
15

October 8, 2009
Cromwell Architects Engineers
101 South Spring Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Attention: Mr. Joe Hilliard, P.E.
Reference: Stormwater Testing Services
Proposed SOF Operations Addition
Ft. Bragg, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1031-09-121
Dear Mr. Hilliard:
S&ME, Inc. is pleased to provide this report for stormwater testing services at the above -
referenced site. S&ME was requested by you to perform these services in preparation for
the planned site improvements. S&ME has conducted these services in general
accordance with S&ME Proposal No. FAY-169-09 dated May 21, 2009.
Project Background
The project site is located on the existing SOF campus located in the western portion of
Fort Bragg. We understand an expansion to the facility is planned. The new site work
will include additional buildings, and stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP)
facilities planned in three areas of the site.
Two of the test areas are located in landscaped areas, and the third is located between to
sections of the existing building and was covered with concrete at the time of our
evaluation. Concrete coring was, performed at this location to access the underlying soil.
Apparent grading activities have occurred at the campus, the extent of which is not
known.
Findings
Seasonal High Water Table Evaluations and In -Situ Soil Permeability
Testing
The seasonal high water table evaluations were performed on October 1, 2009 by
advancing hand auger borings to depths ranging from approximately 72 to 96 inches
below the existing ground surface at the approximate locations, B-1, B-6 and B-7/B-8, as
shown on Figure 1.
S&ME, INC. / 409 Chicago Drive, Suite 116 / Fayetteville. NC 28306 1 p 910.323.1091 / 910.323.3499 / www.smeinc.com

Stormwater Testing Services S&ME Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Addition, Ft. Bragg NC October B. 2009
Soils were evaluated under the guidance of a Licensed Soil Scientist for evidence of
seasonal high water table influence. This evaluation involved looking at the actual
moisture content in the soil and observing the matrix and mottle colors. Depending on
the soil texture, the soil color will indicate processes that are driven by seasonally high
water table fluctuations, such as iron reduction and oxidation and organic matter staining.
A hand auger boring profile sheet that provides a description of the observed soil
horizons and the determined seasonal high water tables has been included with this
report.
The soils at the test locations were observed to range from fine sand to clay. Apparent
fill material was encountered at location B-7 where the upper approximately 44 inches
appeared to be fill material. Topsoil/fill material was encountered at locations 13-1 and
B-6, and rock was encountered at B-1 preventing evaluation of the soils below 6 feet.
The seasonal high water table was determined to be greater than 8 feet below the existing
ground surface at locations B-6 and 13-7/13-8, respectively. The seasonal high water table
was not encountered above the rock at location B-1; however, soil wetness conditions
were encountered in the soil above the rock. A large rock outcropping was observed at
the ground surface approximately 20 feet south-southeast of B-1. See Table I below for
the seasonal high water table depth at each test location.
S&ME performed the in -situ soil hydraulic conductivity testing by using a compact
constant head permeameter at the test locations. Hand auger borings were advanced to
depths ranging from approximately 48 to 72 inches below the existing ground surface
with a 2-inch diameter bucket. A planer auger was used to clean the bottoms of the holes
and give them a cylindrical shape. The water dissipating unit was lowered to the bottom
of each hole, and water was dispensed from the permeameter. The water was allowed to
move through the unit until steady-state flow was achieved, and then flow rates were
recorded. The last three measurements at each location were averaged to achieve the
most representative value to express the saturated hydraulic conductivity. The depth
interval of the test corresponded to a layer of material approximately 6 inches thick at the
selected testing depth. The permeability rates were calculated as ranging from 0 to 8.83
inches per hour. See the Table 1 below for the hydraulic conductivity rates for each test
location.
Please note that due to the presence of concrete at locations B-7 and B-8 and our efforts
to reduce number of cores, the seasonal high water table evaluation was performed at B-7
and the hydraulic conductivity testing was performed at B-8.
TABLE 1
TEST. „
LOCATION
. TESTING
INTERVAL
inches below surface)
SEASONAL HIGH
WATER TABLE
inches below surface
HYDRAULIC
CONDUCTIVITY
RATE
B-1
42 to 48 inches
> 6 feet
0.00 inches/hour
0.01 cin/hour
B-6
54 to 60 inches
> 8 feel
8.83 inches/hour
I3-7/13-8
66 to 72 inches
> 8 feet
4.58 inchesihour
3

Stormwater Testing Services SWE Project No. 1031-09-121
Proposed SOF Operations Addition, Ft. Bragg, NC October B 2009
See Figure 1 (attached) for the approximate test locations.
The presence of rock encountered at approximately 6 feet below the existing ground
surface at location B-1 could be resulting in perched water above the rock, thus resulting
in a low hydraulic conductivity rate. Excavation of the rock in this area could be a
possibility; however, North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) design and citing
requirements for specific BMPs should be reviewed prior to soil improvement activities
in order to maintain compliance with the requirements.
Please note that these seasonal high water table evaluations are based on secondary
evidence and not on direct groundwater level measurements. Groundwater levels
fluctuate for numerous reasons, and these findings do not indicate that groundwater levels
have not or will not rise above the noted depths.
Closing
S&ME appreciates the opportunity to provide these services to you. If you have any
questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
Paul Masten
Staff Professional
Senior Review by: Robert P. Willcox, Jr., L.S.S.
PAM:RPW/jns
A�—
Brian D. Keaney, P.E.
Project Engineer
Attachments: Figure 1 — Approximate Test Location Sketch
Soil Boring Profiles

y --I I.._. I i
r - �I N
j B-7
i'11, Arai® B-8 �
ArAIM4 14-I'AFY >.'ro r. [I'll
-AV'=''+Iz✓ URC. R!->JL '470 WATAF.." Yll ' A•,u u,+n ra - . F:l'Y NEO )LO'T H
V'AK IX%Vl,:1 W',II J-CY LI:C , •y -O-T FFtSr I
1
.G II118l1i I 1Y`_I i= t
3_I:1I4C Y4 aHi 2' 1 I fll n t:X a+.YITIRY I F T
li` + Approximate
I`
Location of
+ Rock Outcrop -
,.
t
I + g -A I
!%
I>, Nclf skITASy II ,
ilsr B�
._. .. �r ..,�—:._�.. .: , �I o I J i it .. I.
---'�77—, - � --.;9.-�'?.� -•� ---_ � I , i - +a,l o t s�tral.,. Ir,l i,
+ I � ..cam i yry Ill1's\tI , I ...... • r..._.-.<`-----w..—a���—.
!i
I.S. �:: I 11`\\,j �V� - � ✓ 1 i ,�
IC15 T, IIlIII Iii.� `II tl r p +
1. �i • / '.:� FIW C LOT%B'�'t i` Lt:.!.i,171 I u•I r�.... ttY,' t, Y i sli >• ,,_
N:.IdME
TIER UIN—VI. SAk 1..,u` 111.1
Note: Drawing provided to S&ME by Cromwell Architects and Engineers personnel.
LEGEND SCALE: UNKNOWN STORMWATER TESTING LOCATION SKETCH FIGURE
CHECKED BY: PAM SOF OPERATIONS ADDITION NUMBER
® Approximate *S&ME1
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
Test Location DRAWN BY: JNS
DATE: 105-09 1 S&ME PROJECT NUMBER: 1031-09-121

.as
Seasonal High Water Table Evaluations
Soil Descriptions
SOF Operations Addition
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1031-09-121
Matrix Mottle
Depth HucNalue HucNalue
Location Horizon(Inches) /Chroma /Chroma Texture/Structure
B-I Ap 0-3 1 OYR 4/2 Loamy sand, granular
Bw 3-72+ 7/5YR 4/6 Sandy loam, weak sub -angular
blocky
R 72+ Rock
Seasonal High Water Table not determined due to presence of rock at 72 inches. Soil wetness
observed in the Bw horizon above the rock.
B-6 Fill
0-6
1 OYR 3/1
Fill, topsoil
Fill
6-17
5YR 4/6
Apparent fill
E
17-26
2.5Y 6/6
Fine sand, single grain
EB
26-56
l0YR 5/6
Loamy sand, granular
Btl
56-96+
5YR 4/6
Sandy clay loam, moderate blocky
Seasonal High Water Table > 8' below the existing ground surface.
B-7/B-8 Fill
0-36
2.5Y 5/3
Fill
36-44
2.5Y 616
Btl
44-63
7.5YR 4/6
Bt2
63-92
7.5YR 4/6
Bt3
92-96+
5 YR 3/4
10YR 4/2 Fill
10YR 5/6
1 OYR 4/2 Fill
Sandy clay loam, moderate blocky
7.5YR 5/8 Clay, strong blocky
Sandy clay loam, moderate blocky
Seasonal High Water Table > 8' below the existing ground surface.

BORING LOCATION PLAN
SOF Operations Additions
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Job No.
Scale:
Figure No.
Prepared by
1031-09-121
Not Shown
mnk

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS
SOIL TYPES
(Shown in Graphic Log)
Fill
Asphalt
Concrete
Topsoil
Gravel
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
CONSISTENCY
BLOWS/FOOT
Very Soft
0 to 2
Soft
3 to 4
Firm
5 to 8
Stiff
9 to 15
Very Stiff
16 to 30
Hard
31 to 50
Very Hard
Over 50
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS
Sand RELATIVE DENSITY
Very Loose
Silt Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Clay Very Dense
Organic
Silty Sand
Clayey Sand
Sandy Silt
Clayey Silt
Sandy Clay
Silty Clay
Partially Weathered
Rock
Cored Rock
WATER LEVELS
(Shown in Water Level Column)
SL = Water Level At Termination of Boring
7_ = Water Level Taken After 24 Hours
� = Loss of Drilling Water
HC = Hole Cave
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
BLOWS/FOOT
0to4
5to10
11 to 30
31 to 50
Over 50
SAMPLER TYPES
(Shown in Samples Column)
Shelby Tube
m Split Spoon
m Rock Core
No Recovery
TERMS
Standard - The Number of Blows of 140 lb. Hammer Falling
Penetration 30 in. Required to Drive 1.4 in. I.D. Split Spoon
Resistance Sampler 1 Foot. As Specified in ASTM D-1586.
REC - Total Length of Rock Recovered in the Core
Barrel Divided by the Total Length of the Core Run
Times 100%.
RQD - Total Length of Sound Rock Segments Recovered
that are Longer Than or Equal to 4" (mechanical
breaks excluded) Divided by the Total Length of
the Core Run Times 100%.
*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

0
5
10
15
20
n 25
x
a
w 30
0
35
40
45
50
55
B-1
N
15
B-2
N
15
7
83
N
13
B-4
N
�'I 13
B-5
N
15
B-6
N
18
B-7
N
16
B-8
N
4
�' I
��
.,.
11
22
.12
9
24
' 8
�1
9
HC
HC-
13
8
15
12
19
9
20
9
14
15
33�-
24
21
�'
18
25
28
BT@10'
-�
_.�
3T@10'
' 35
_.'�
17
-' 27
12
17
36
i
-' 19
'�,'.
41
14
'� 21
11
' 11
10
27
12
12
6
.': 18
BT @ 30'
BT @ 30'
BT @ 30'
5
7
18
1
10
6
58
BT@40'
BT@40'
19
20
BT@50'
® Topsoil '. �'�:_ SM, Silty Sand FA SC, Cayey Sand SC/SM, Clayey Sand
❑�'' SP/SM, Poorly -graded Sand with Silt ® CL, Low Plasticity Clay SP/SC, Poorly -graded Sand with Clay ® Fill
SP, Poorly -graded Sand Concrete ® CH, High Plasticity Clay
N = Standard Penetration Test resistance value (blows per foot). The depicted stratigraphy is shown for illustrative purposes only. The actual subsurface conditions will vary between boring locations.
JOB NO: 1031-09-121 Generalized Subsurface Profile
409 Chicago Drive, Suite 116
S&MEProject: SOFOperationsAddition Figure 2
- - Fayetteville, NC 28306
DATE: 10/28/09 Location: Fort bragg, NC

PROJECT: SOF Operations Addition
Fort bragg, NC
BORING LOG B-1
SBME Project No. 1031-09-121
DATE DRILLED: 9/29109
ELEVATION:
NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 750
BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft
DRILLER: Jason White
WATER LEVEL:
HAMMER TYPE: Auto
LOGGED BY: M. Khan
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
NORTHING
FASTING:
DRILLING METHOD: TA" H.SA.
w
-> w
BLOW COUNT
O
>
Z 9 o-
ICORE DATA
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
w
w
o
w
a s
o(Nwsm)_
>
o
w
w --
/REMARKS
c7
¢
w
N
E
Z
3
E
10 20 30 6080
TOPSOIL
SILTY SAND (SM)
1
6
7
6
15
medium dense, orange -red with brown, fine to
medium, moist
2
6
6
5
5
HC
_
3
5
5
6
13
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
medium dense, re -orange, fine, damp
-
q
6
6
8
14
10
Boring terminated at 10 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLYBE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2 BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE
WTM A�TMD-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
0. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORAT/ONAND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: SOF Operations Addition
Fort bragg, NC BORING LOG B-2
S&ME Project No. 1031-09-121
WATER LEVEL:
NORTHING: I EASTING:
U
>
p
-> w
z c>
BLOW COUN I
CORE DATA
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
F=
L7
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
m
w ti 1-
x
z �' o
(blowslk)
o
a
W
a a
REMAR s
z
3
0 h
e A_ ,E,
10 20 30 6080
TOPSOIL
CLAYEY SAND (SCSM)
7
1
5
7
8
is
medium dense, red -brown, with silt, trace gravel,
damp .
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
2
6
10
12
22
medium dense to loose, red -orange, with silt,
j
trace gravel, fine, damp
3
3
5
8
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
medium dense, red, fine, damp
4
a
7
8
15
10
j
SILTY SAND (SM)
medium dense, red -brown, some clay, fine to
coarse, moist
5
4
4
7
11
15
SAND (SPSM)
dense, red, with silt, fine to coarse, poorly graded,
moist
6
11
17
18
35
)
f.
SAND(SPSM)
medium dense, yellow -tan, with silt, and clay
lenses, fine to medium, poorly graded, damp
7
5
9
10
19
25
;.{. i.
SILTY SAND (SCSM)
medium dense, yellow -tan, with clay, fine to
medium, moist
8
3
5
5
: :
10
30
Boring terminated at 30 feet
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUSTONLYBE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2 BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE
WRH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOTEXACT.
G. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATIONAND WILL VARY.
Page 7 Or 7

PROJECT: SOF Operations Addition
Fort bragg, NC
BORING LOG B-3
SBME Project No. 1031-09-121
DATE DRILLED: 9I29/09
ELEVATION:
NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 750
BORING DEPTH: 50.0 ft
DRILLER: Jason White
WATER LEVEL: 37.5 feet after 8 days
HAMMER TYPE: Auto
LOGGED BY: M. Khan
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
NORTHING:
FASTING:
DRILLING METHOD: 3'/." H.SA.
j
-- w
O
BLOW COUNT
/CORE DATA
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
w
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w>
m
a W
-
>
❑
W
a
REMARKS
0N
3
w
Q F 2
0 y
Z
10 20 30 6080
TOPSOIL
SILTY SAND ISM)
1
4
4
9
13
.�.:.
medium dense, brown -red, with clay, fine, damp
CLAYEY SAND (SCSM)
medium dense, brown -red, with silt, fine, moist
2
5
5
7
12
5
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
medium dense, red, with silt, fine, &mP
3
6
7
B
15
.:.:,
SILTY SAND (SM)
..I
.
dense to loose, brown -orange, trace clay, fine to
4
7
75
18
33
t0
medium, moist
5
3
3
4
7
15
L:.
SAND (SPSM)
medium dense to very dense, red -orange, with
}
silt, fine to coarse, poorly graded, moist
5
4
7
10
!
17
20
. a. {..
} e.
7
16
22
19
41
25
{.
`I
..
SAND (SPSM)
}'!
dense, red -orange, with silt, fine to medium,
poorly graded, moist
B
9
12
15
27
30
..{. �.
SANDY CLAY (CL)
firm to stiff, light gray, with silt, moist
-
9
2
2
3
5
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG /S ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2 BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA/N GENERAL ACCORDANCE
WRH AS�TM PIW6.
1 STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOTEXACT.
s. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATIONAND WILL VARY.
krU
Page 1 of 2

PROJECT: SOF Operations Addition
Fort bragg, NC BORING LOG B-3
S&ME Project No. 1031-09-121
NOTES:
CME 750
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SANDY CLAY (CL)
firm to stiff, light gray, with silt, moist (continued)
40
SAND (SPSC1
medium dense, orange -yellow, with silty r,10y, fine
to coarse, poorly graded, wet
45'
SAND (SPSM)
medium dense, orange -yellow, with silt, fine,
`}.}. poorly graded, wet
50
Boring terminated at 50 feet
1. MIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECTAND MUST ONLYBE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2 BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TESTDATA IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE
WO
A$TM D-1596.
1 STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4 WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
after 8
NORTHING: I EASTING:
i
^ W
a-
bLUW WUfVI
ICORE DATA
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
'j
r
w
U
cl m
(NoasRt)
3
Q m
W W
J O
aW
m
¢
/REMARKS
W
a
z
3
0
In y
4 2
10 20 30 6080
i
10
3
2
8
10
5
9
10
19
12
5
10
10
.:
20
Page 2 of 2

PROJECT: SOF Operations Addition
Fort bragg, NC
BORING LOG B-4
SBME Project No. 1031-09-121
DATE DRILLED: 9/30/09
ELEVATION:
NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 750
BORING DEPTH: 30.0 ft
DRILLER: Jason White
WATER LEVEL:
HAMMER TYPE: Auto
LOGGED BY: M. Khan
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
NORTHING:
EASTING:
DRILLING METHOD: 3%" H.SA.
w
-. w
BLOW COUNT
O
>
e-
ICORE DATA
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
F
x L7
i-
w [i
z c� o
w
(blons10)
. v
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
>
Ja
a
a
REMARKS
>
0a
3
w
< a
N ul y
:�
42 _ „E,
10 20 30 6080
z
L, I.
TOPSOIL
SAND (SPSM)
1
4
6
7
13
}
medium dense, brown, with silt, fine to medium,
_
poorly graded, damp
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
j f
2
4
4
5
9
5
medium dense, red, fine to medium, damp
CLAYEY SAND (SCSM)
T.
5
6
6
medium dense, red -brown, with silt. Sra to
3
12
'
j.
medium, damp
SAND (SPSM)
1.
9
12
12
10
.7..}'.
dense, brown -tan, with silt, fine to medium, poorly
4
24
graded, damp to moist
T.
SILTY SAND ISM)
loose, red -brown, fine to medium, moist
5
3
4
4
e
5
-
SAND (SPSM)
dense, red -orange, with silty clay, fine to coarse,
poorly graded, moist
6
6
11
16
!
27
SILTY SAND (SM)
medium dense, red -orange to orange -tan, fine,
moist
7
6
6
8
14
25
B
4
6
6
2
30
Boring terminated at 30 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORTPREPARED rOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUSTONLYBE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2 BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE
WRH AS�TM D.1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4, WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OFEXPLORAPONAND WILL VARY.
•
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: SOF Operations Addition
Fort bragg, NC
BORING LOG B-5
SBME Project No. 1031-09-121
-
DATE DRILLED: 9130109
ELEVATION:
NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 750
BORING DEPTH: 40.0 ft
DRILLER: Jason White
WATER LEVEL:
HAMMER TYPE: Auto
LOGGED BY: M. Khan
SAMPLING METHOD: Split sn
NORTHING:
FASTING:
DRILLING METHOD: Wash Borin
w
-- w
BLOW COUNT
U
>
0 .9 e-
ICORE DATA
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
^
= 0
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
�- .
>
w Li
u W
z O
(blvxs10)
w
w
W v
a
REMAR S
>
3
w
¢ H:R
N y
s=`
F a
10 20 30 6080
Z
</
TOPSOIL
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC)
1
5
7
8
15
medium dense, brown -orange, with silt, fine to
medium, damp
FILL: SILTY SAND (SM)
2
10
12
12
24
5
dense, orange -tan with dark gray, some clay, fine,
moist
3
6
9
70
I
19
FILL: CLY SAND (SCMI
AY=S
medium dense, brown -gray, with silt, fine to
medium, moist
10
4
7
9
12
21
SILTY SAND ISM)
medium dense, brown -red, some clay, fine, damp
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
medium dense, red, fine to medium, moist to
damp
4
4
5
5
9
15
3
5
7
12
20
6
SAND (SIP)
medium dense, yellow -white, with silt, fine to
medium, poorly graded, damp
7
7
9
12
21
25
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
j
medium dense, light gray, fine, moist
30
j
B
4
5
7
2
SILTY CLAY (CL)
stiff to firm, brown -tan to light gray, damp
y
3
3
a
7
NOTES:
I. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORTPREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLYSE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2 BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE
WRH ASTM D 1686.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 2

PROJECT: SOF Operations Addition
Fort bragg, NC
BORING LOG B-5
SBME Project No. 1031-09-121
DATE DRILLED: 9/30109
ELEVATION:
NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 750
BORING DEPTH: 40.0 ft
DRILLER: Jason White
WATER LEVEL:
HAMMER TYPE: Auto
LOGGED BY: M. Khan
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
NORTHING:
EASTING:
DRILLING
METHOD: Wash Boring
BLOW COUNT
U
j
p
DATA ICORE
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
_
U
puwSlfl)w
j
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
a
wo
REMAR S
>
7
C
w
<
z
3
E
10 20 30 6080
SILTY CLAY (CL)
stiff to firm, brown -tan to light gray, damp
(continued)
0
2
2
4
s
40
Boring terminated at 40 feet
i
NUILS:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLYBE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2 BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TESTDATA IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE
W/TH ASTM D-IM6.
1 STRATIFICAT/ONAND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOTEXACT.
d. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
IRA
Page 2 of 2

PROJECT: SOF Operations Addition
Fort bragg, NC
BORING LOG B$
SBME Project No. 1031-09-121
DATE DRILLED: 9130I09
ELEVATION:
NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 750
BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft
DRILLER: Jason White
WATER LEVEL: Dry at TOB
HAMMER TYPE: Auto
LOGGED BY: M. Khan
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
NORTHING:
EASTING:
DRILLING
METHOD: 3%" H.S.A.
W
-- w
BLOW COUNT
o
j
0
0 `c
1CORE DATA
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
w 0
z o
(blowslft)
o-
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
r
< v
w
0
J
J—
4
(REMARKS
Z
0
4
w
a
a
3
m ran
10 20 30 6080
TOPSOIL
SAND(SPSM)
1
5
10
8
18
medium dense to loose, tan to orange -brown,
with silt, fine to medium, poorly graded, dry to
damp
4
4
4
2
8
SAND (SC)
I
jCLAYEY
medium dense, red, fine, damp
r+c
3
4
a
5
9
1/4
6
9
9
8
10
Boring terminated at 10 feet
NOIhs:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUSTONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2 BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TESTDATA IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE
WITH AS�TM D.1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
<. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OFEXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1
M-7
"i., gg 4 i 3 i.ts ww

PROJECT: SOF Operations Addition
Fort bragg, NC
BORING LOG B-7
SBME Project No. 1031-09-121
DATE DRILLED: 1011/09
ELEVATION:
NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 750
BORING DEPTH: 30.0 ft
DRILLER: Jason White
WATER LEVEL:
HAMMER TYPE: Auto
LOGGED BY: M. Khan
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
NORTHING:
EASTING:
DRILLING
METHOD: 31/." H.S.A.
U
j
O0
-mow
Z
BLOWCOUNT
/CORE DATA
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
w
Q_ o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
d
a W
a
w<
z
REMARKS
>
z
3
Vl to
10 20 306080
CONCRETE
1
5
9
7
16
FILL: SAND (SPSM)
medium dense, tan to dark gray, with silt, fine to
6
10
11
...I
medium, poorly graded, damp
-
2
21
5
3
5
4
3
7
//
�:
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
loose to dense, brown -orange to red -brown, with
10/
silt, fine to medium, damp to dry
3
e
12
4
?
20
5
9
12
13
25
10
j
..J... j,
SAND (SPSM)
very dense, brown -red, with silty clay, fine to
f
coarse, poorly graded, moist
4
21
24
B
45
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
20
j
medium dense, tan -light gray, fine, damp
7
4
8
9
17
i
SAND (SC)
jCLAYEY
medium dense, tan -pink, with silt, and clay
B I
6
5
6
11
25
OR,lenses,
fine to medium, moist
CLAY (CH)
firm, gray, damp
9
3
2
4
6
30—
Boring terminated at 30 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUSTONLYBE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2 BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA/N GENERAL ACCORDANCE
WRH AS�TM D1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTNS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OFEXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: SOF Operations Addition
Fort bragg, NC
BORING LOG B-8
SBME Project No. 1031-09-121
DATE DRILLED: 1011109
ELEVATION:
NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 750
BORING DEPTH: 40.0 ft
DRILLER: Jason White
WATER LEVEL:
HAMMER TYPE: Auto
LOGGED BY: M. Khan
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
NORTHING:
EASTING:
DRILLING
METHOD: 3'/." H.S.A.
p>
w
0O
-,w
BLOW COUNT
I CORE DATA
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
C7
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
r^
°�
w ti
z
(blmslft)
Q
w
w
Of a
REMARKS
>
U'
h
w
Q
m
Z
uQj
10 20 30 6080
..,I
CONCRETE
FILL: SAND (SPSM)
.I
1
2
2
2
4
loose, brown -gray, with silt, fine to medium, poorly
graded, damp
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
Amedium
2
3
3
6
9
5
dense, red -orange, with silt, fine, dry
SILTY SAND ISM)
medium dense. tan -brown, fine, damp
3
3
4
5
9
CLAYEY SAND (SCSM)
dense, red -brown, with silt, fine to medium, moist
4
11
13
15
26
0
to—.
SILTY SAND ISM)
medium dense to dense, brown -orange, trace
clay, fine, moist
8
9
13
15
6
22
6
10
15
21
36
20
SILTY SAND ISM)
medium dense, brown -pink, fine to medium, wet
7
5
5
6
25
-
.J
SAND(SPSM)
medium dense, tan to gray -brown, with silt, trace
clay, fine to medium, poorly graded, wet
. '�.{.
B
6
9
9
18
30
�f.
9
5
7
11
: :::::
18
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORTPREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2 BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TESTDATA IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE
WITH AS�TV D-1586.
3.. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4 WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OFEXPLORAPON AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 2

PROJECT: SOF Operations Addition
Fort bragg, NC
BORING LOG B$
SB,ME Project No. 1031-09-121
DATE DRILLED: 1011109
ELEVATION:
NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 750
BORING DEPTH: 40.0 ft
DRILLER: Jason White
WATER LEVEL:
HAMMER TYPE: Auto
LOGGED BY: M. Khan
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
NORTHING:
EASTING:
DRILLING
METHOD:
31/.'• H.SA.
w
--w
BLOWCOUNT
p
z `
1 CORE DATA
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
r^=
c0
r^
w U
z o
(Noaslfi)
w0
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
W
m
REMAR S
>
(7
�
J
w
Q !-
w 0
e e
E E
Z
10 20 30 6080
is
SILTY CLAY (CL)
very hard, light gray -white, dry
-
10
12
21
37
40—
I
Boring terminated at 40 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUSTONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2 BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TESTDATA IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE
WRHASTM D-1586.
J. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATERLEVELISATTIMEOFEXPLORATIONANDWILL VARY.
Page 2 of 2

Fora No. TR-D698-2
Revision No.: 0
-�
a NMI E
Moisture -Density Report
IS
Revision Date: 11121107
Quality Assurance
. ;.. S&ME, Inc. 409 Chicago Dr.,;Suite 116, Fayetteville,
NC 28306
S&ME Project #:
1031-09-121
Report Date:
10/15/09
Project Name:
SOF Operations Addition
Test Date(s):
10/7-10/14/09
Client Name:
Cromwell Architects Addition
Client Address:
101 South Spring St., Little Rock, AR 72201
Boring #: 6
Sample #: 1
Sample Date:
10/5/2009
Location: Not Applicable Offset: Not Applicable
Depth:
1'-10,
Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve px 3/8 inch Sieve ❑ 3/4 inch Sieve ❑
Mechanical Rammer ❑ Manual Rammer NI Moist Preparation ❑ Dry Preparation O
ReferencesYConuuents7Devmtionsi. ND.Not Determined �^ ^
ASTM D 221G Labor t6ry Duemiinutiou of Water (Nlotsture) Content of Soil and Rork by Mass r 4
ASTM D,1557: Laboratory Comuaction Charaeterisnes of Soil Usne Modified Effrnf
David B. Carver. E.T. Branch Manager
Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date
This report shall not be reproduced, emept in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
S&ME,lnc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road B-6 mod Prociorx(s
Raleigh, NC 27616 Page I of I

Form No: TR-D2216-T265-2 �\
Revision No. 0 _'®
Revision Date: 02122108 Laboratory Determination of Water Content ��ii��
ASTM D 2216 ❑ AASHTO T 265 ❑ Quality Assurance
S&ME; Inc: Raleigh '3201 Spring Forest Road; Raleigh, North Car6lina-27616
Project #: 1031-09-121 Report Date: 10/8/09
Project Name: SOF Operations Additions
Test Date(s): 10/7 - 10/8/09
Client Name:
Client Address:
I
Sample by: S&ME, hie.
Sample Date(s): 10/1/09
Sampling Method: Boreholes
Drill Rig: NA
Method:. A %) ❑ B(O1% ❑, Bp/ancelD,';_ I024. Ca1GbrahonDate=;,-,;11112108
'
Boring No.
K} `
Sample
No
'Samples'
= „Depth .. ;
�
Tare#
t. r.. s
��°
Tare Weight
�+ ' v
TareWt+
Wet Wt
TareWt+�+I,;iWater
y
DrySWt ,
-
t� : Welght
Percent
t Moisture '
ft or m '
grams.z
grain's
grams a
r :x grams'
B-1
S-1
I- 8 ft.
30
111.90
165.55
160.33
5.22
10.8%
B,
S-2
1 - loft.
34
114.96
2C5.71
203.71
2.00
2.3%
B-7/8
S-3
6 -10 ft.
24
118.47
164.62
1 158.01
6.61
16.7%
Notes /Deviations /References
AASHTO T 265: Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content of Soils
ASTM D _2216 Laboratory Deterinmahon of� Water (Moisture)'Content of Soil and Rock tiyMasst��' ,,a =;< <,?` 5 ?"' ' ---;;
.. _._. .. .r, - ,
Mal Kraian NA
Technician Name Signature Certification Type/No. Date
Mal Kraian Laboratory Manager
Technical Responsdality Signata'e Position Date
'!'his report shall not be reproduced, except in full, wilhout the written approval ofS&ME, Inc.
S&ME, Ina - Corporale 3201 Spring Forest Road Moisture Table.xls
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of I

Form No: TR-D4972-1
Revision No. 0
Revision Date: 07110108
pH of Soil
ASTM D 4972 Method A Quality Assurance
S&ME, Inc; Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Raod, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 1 `.
Project #: 1031-09-121 Report Date: 10/8/09
Project Name: SOF Operations Additions Test Date(s): 10/7 - 10/8/09
Client Name: Cromwell Architects
Client Address:
Boring: B-1 Sample #: S-1 Sample Date: 10/1/09
Location: Site -Borehole Offset: NA Depth (fit): 1 - 8 ft.
pHMeter Calibration
Buffer Solution
Results
pH buffer 7.0
Z 03
pH buffer 4.01
4.02
pH buffer 10.0
10.03
Buffer Temperature. 0 C
23.4
Measuring pH of Soil
Measurements
Weigtht of Air Dry Soil (g)
30.11
Distilled Water (ml)
30
Temperature 0C
23.7
pH Readings
6.64
Notes /Deviations /References: ASTM D 4972: Standard Test Method for pH of Soils
Mal Kraian
Technician Name Date Signature Level/Certi�calion
Mal Kraian
Technical Responsibility
Signaha'e
Laboratory Manager
Position Dote
This report shall not be reproduced, except in fidt, without the written approval ofS&ME, Inc.
S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road B-1 S-1 (1 - 8f) pH.xhs
Raleigh, NC.. 27616 Page 1 of I

Pane No: TR-G57-2
Revision No. 0
Revision Date: 07111108
Soil Resistivity
- ASTM G 57
QualityAssurance
S&ME, Inc ..- Ralatgh; 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616
Project #:
1031-09-121
Report Date:
10/9/09
Project Name:
SOF Operations Additions
Test Date(s):
10/7 - 10/9/09
Client Name:
Cromwell Architects
Client Address:
Boring:
B-1 Sample #: S-1
Sample Date:
10/1/09
Location:
Site -Borehole Offset: NA
Depth (ft):
1 - 8 ft.
Brown Siltv SAND
Moisture Content Determination
As Received Condition
10.8%
After 24-hr Condition
19.2%
Resistivity (ohms - cm)
As Received Condition
25800
After 24-hr Condition
8133
Notes /Deviations /References:
ASTM G 57: Field Measurements of Soil Resistivity Using the Wenner Four -Electrode Method
Mal Kraian
Technical Responsibility
Signature
Labotatory Manager
Position Date
This +'eport shall not be reproduced, except in full, wi0mut the wrilten approval ofS&ME. Inc.
S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road B-1 S-1 (I - 8 ft) Resisliviry.sls
Raleigh, NC.. 27616 Page I of I

Fonn No: TR-D4972-1
Revision No. 0
Revision Date: 07110108
pH of Soil
ASTM D 4972 Method A
Quality Assurance
S&AH, Inc. Raleigh, 3201 Sprang Forest Raod, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616
-
Project #:
1031-09-121
Report Date:
10/8/09
Project Name:
SOF Operations Additions
Test Date(s):
10/7 - 10/8/09
Client Name:
Cromwell Architects
Client Address:
Boring:
B-6 Sample #: S-2
Sample Date:
10/1/09
Location:
Site -Borehole Offset: NA
Denth (ft):
1 - loft.
pHMeter Calibration
Buffer Solution
Results
pH buffer 7.0
7.03
pH buffer 4.01
4.02
pH buffer 10.0
10.03
Buffer Temperature °C
23.4
Measuring pH of Soil
Measurements
Weigtht of Air Dry Soil (g)
30.04
Distilled Water (ml)
30
Temperature °C
23.3
pH Readings
6.24
Notes /Deviations /References: ASTM D 4972: Standard Test Method for pH of Soils
Mal Kraian
Technician Name
Mal Kral an
Technical Responsibility
Date
signature
Signaeve
Laboratory Manager
Position
This report shall not be reproduced, except in fill, wilhma the written approval ofS&ME, Inc.
Level/Cerliifcation
Date
E&MF, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road R-6 9-2 (1 - 10 fi) plI.xls
Raleigh, NC.. 27616 Page 1 of I

Form No: TR-G57-2
Revision No. 0
Revision Date: 07111108
Soil Resistivity
ASTM G 57 Quality Assurance
S&ME, Inc. - Ralaigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616
Project #: 1031-09-121 Report Date: 10/9/09
Project Name: SOF Operations Additions Test Date(s): 10/7 - 10/9/09
Client Name: Cromwell Architects
Client Address:
Boring: B-6 Sample #: S-2 Sample Date: 10/1/09
Location: Site -Borehole Offset: NA Depth (ft): 1 - loft.
Sample Description: Tan -Brown Silty SAND (Visual)
Moisture Content Determination
As Received Condition
2.4%
After 24-hr Condition
19.1 %
Resistivity (ohms - CM)
As Received Condition
37500
After 24-hr Condition
5733
Notes /Deviations /References:
ASTM G 57: Field Measurements of Soil Resistivity Using the Wenner Four -Electrode Method
Mal Kraian
Teehnienl Responsibility
Labotatory Manager
Signature Position Date
This report shall not be reproduced, except in fill, without the written approval ofS&ME, Inc.
S&ME, Inc. -Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Roar! B-6S-2 (I - I Off) Resistivity.xls
Raleigh, NC., 27616 Page 1 of I

Form No: TR-D4972-1
Revision No. 0
Revision Date: 07110108
pH of Soil
ASTM D 4972 Method A QualityAssurance
S&ME, Inc. Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Raod, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616
Project #: 1031-09-121 Report Date: 1018/09
Project Name: SOF Operations Additions Test Date(s): 10/7 - 10/8/09
Client Name: Cromwell Architects
Client Address:
Boring: B-7/8 Sample #: S-3 Sample Date: 10/1/09
Location: Site -Borehole Offset: NA Depth (ft): 6 - 10 ft.
Sample Description: Red -Brown Silty Clayey SAND (Visual)
pH Meter f'e/ibration
Buffer Solution
Results
pH buffer 7.0
Z 03
pH buffer 4.01
4.02
pH buffer 10.0
10.03
Buffer Temperature oC
23.4
Measuring pH of Soil
Measurements
Weigtht of Air Dry Soil (g)
29.98
Distilled Water (ml)
30
Temperature 0C
23.4
pH Readings
6.86
Notes/Deviations/References: ASTM D 4972: Standard Test Method for pH of Soils
Mal Kraian
Technician Name
Mal Kraian
Technical Responsibility
Date
Eignnlnre
signature
Laboratory Manager
Position
This repor! shall not be reproduced, except in fill, without the wrillen approval of S&ME. Inc.
Level/Cernfication
Date
S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road R-7&8 S-3 (6 - ]Oft) pH.xls
Raleigh, NC.. 27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No: TR-G57-2
Revision No. 0
Revision Date: 07111108
Soil Resistivity
ASTM G 57 Quality Assurance
S&1VIE, Inc. - Ralaigti,3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 '
Project #: 1031-09-121 Report Date: 10/9/09
Project Name: SOF Operations Additions Test Date(s): 10/7 - 10/9/09
Client Name: Cromwell Architects
Client Address:
Boring: B-7/8 Sample #: S-3 Sample Date: 10/1/09
Location: Site -Borehole Offset: NA Depth (ft): 6 - 10 ft.
Sample Description: Red -Brown Silty Clayey SAND (Visual)
Moisture Content Determination
As Received Condition
16.7%
After 24-hr Condition
135.5%
Resistivity (ohms - cm)
As Received Condition
26000
After 24-hr Condition
1 8229
Notes /Deviations /References:
0
ASTM G 57: Field Measurements of Soil Resistivity Using the Wenner Four -Electrode Method
Mal Kraian
Technical Responsibility
signaau'e
Labotatory Manager
Position Date
This report shall not be reproduced, except in jdl, without the written approval ofS&ME, Inc.
S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road R-7&8 S-3 (6 - 10 fl), Resislivity.xls
Raleigh, NC.. 27616 Page I of I