10102_2025159 KSU Monument Exploration Geotec.pdf

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE

EXPLORATION AND

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING

EVALUATION

KSU – Monument Exploration Kennesaw, Cobb County, Georgia

PREPARED FOR:

Page 100 Peachtree Street NW Mezzanine Atlanta, Georgia 30303

NOVA Project Number 10102-2025159 June 20, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 NAME AND LOCATION OF PROJECT

1.2 AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF STUDY

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PROJECT SITE

2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

3.1 AREA GEOLOGY

3.2 LOCAL EXPERIENCE

3.3 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.4 VISUAL SOIL CLASSIFICATION

3.5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SITE PREPARATION

5.2 FILL/BACKFILL PLACEMENT

5.3 FOUNDATIONS

5.4 SOIL SEISMIC SITE CLASS CLASSIFICATION .................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

5.5 SLAB-ON-GRADE ............................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

5.6 BASEMENT AND RETAINING WALLS

6.0 LIMITATIONS

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Figures and Maps Appendix B – Subsurface Data

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation June 20, 2025 KSU – Monument Exploration NOVA Project Number 10102-2025159

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 NAME AND LOCATION OF PROJECT

The Subject Property is located west of the intersection of Chastain Road NW, and Frey Road and southeast of the Kennesaw State University baseball stadium, in Kennesaw, Cobb County, Georgia. The Cobb County Tax Assessor’s Office maps the site as a 2.8123-acre parcel identified as 20013201270.

A Site Location Map depicting the location of the Subject Property is included as Figure 1 in Appendix A. The approximate land coordinates near the center of the Subject Property are 34.032943° north and 84.580964° west.

1.2 AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF STUDY

Our services were performed in general accordance with NOVA Proposal Number 10102-2025159, dated April 24, 2025, and AIA Document C404-2017 agreement form between Page and NOVA authorized by David A. Deis, AIA, LEED AP Vice President of Page Southerland Page, Inc. on April 29, 2025.

The primary objective of these services was to perform geotechnical exploration within the proposed structure’s footprint and to assess these findings as they relate to geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. The authorized geotechnical engineering services included a site reconnaissance, soil test borings (STBs), engineering evaluation of the field data, and the preparation of this report.

The assessment of the presence of wetlands, floodplains, or water classified as state waters was beyond the scope of this exploration. 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 exploration and evaluation.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

Our understanding of this project is based on conversations and email correspondence with Ms.

Rebecca Ross of Page during April 17th and 18th, 2025, review of the provided documents, a site reconnaissance during boring layout and our experience with similar projects.

We were provided with the following documents:

A map in the form of a PDF, showing where the new development will be constructed.

The PDF is titled “Kennesaw Campus: Monument Exploration – Concept 1 (Reuse Existing Sign Cabinet).”

A snip of the elevation view of the proposed development.

2.1 PROJECT SITE

The overall site is currently covered with grass. A KSU sign supported by 5 brick columns spaced about 15 feet apart along a curve is within the western quadrant of the intersection of Chastain and Frey Roads. The site is bordered by the following:

2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

If the following project information and/or presumptions are incorrect, NOVA should be afforded the opportunity to re-evaluate the scope of services detailed herein based on the correct information. Once the project design is complete, additional field and laboratory testing may be required to finalize the geotechnical exploration.

We understand the proposed construction consists of a KSU sign to replace the existing one, brick retaining walls and brick pillars. Structural loading information was not provided. We have therefore assumed that continuous wall and column will not exceed 3 kips per lineal foot (klf) and 25 kips, respectively. In addition, Proposed finished grades and finished floor elevations were not provided. However, we have presumed earthwork cuts and/or fills during site grading will not exceed 8 feet.

DIRECTION

LAND USE DESCRIPTION/OBSERVATIONS

NORTH KSU Baseball Stadium

EAST Frey Road

SOUTH Chastain Road NW

WEST Kennesaw State University Road

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

3.1 AREA GEOLOGY

The site is located in the Piedmont Geologic Region, a broad northeasterly trending province underlain by crystalline rocks more than 400 million years old. The Piedmont is bounded on the northwest by the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province, on the north by the Blue Ridge Range of the Appalachian Mountains, and on the southeast by the leading edge of Coastal Plain sediments, commonly referred to as the “Fall Line”.

Numerous episodes of crystal deformation have produced varying degrees of metamorphism, folding and shearing in the underlying rock. The resulting metamorphic rock types in this area of the Piedmont are predominantly a series of Precambrian age schists and gneisses, with scattered granitic or quartzite intrusions.

According to the “Geology of the Greater Atlanta Region” by McConnell and Abrams, 1984, the site is generally underlain by the Powers Ferry Formation (pfu) which typically consists of undifferentiated biotite-quartz-plagioclase gneiss (meta-greywacke), mica schist and amphibolite, shown in Figure 3 in Appendix A.

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 locally as 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.

3.2 LOCAL EXPERIENCE

NOVA has previously performed a limited subsurface investigation at the Subject Site.

The exploration included 10 Hand Auger Borings (HABs) that were performed at the existing brick columns holding the KSU sign, located in the southeastern portion of the site. NOVA has issued a limited subsurface exploration and geotechnical report (NOVA project number 10102-2023230) dated November 17, 2023.

3.3 FIELD EXPLORATION

Our current field exploration was performed on June 05, 2025, and included 5 STBs (numbered B-1 through B-5) extended to depths of 20 and 25 feet below the existing grade.

Boring locations were established in the field by NOVA personnel by use of a handheld GPS device. The approximate test locations are shown in Figure 4 in Appendix A. If increased accuracy is desired, test locations and elevations should be surveyed.

3.4 VISUAL SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Following completion of the field services, soil samples obtained in the field were returned to our office for visual classification. The purpose of the testing was to stratify the subsurface materials in general accordance with the Unified Classification System.

The soil samples collected will be discarded upon submittal of this report, unless you request otherwise in writing.

3.5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The following paragraphs provide generalized descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered by the borings conducted during this exploration.

3.5.1 Surface Materials (Topsoil)

Based on our visual observations, all STBs encountered approximately 3 inches of topsoil.

3.5.2 Fill

Fill soils were encountered in all of the STBs at depths of up to 20 feet (Approx.

Elev of 1027.5 feet NAVD 88) from beneath the existing ground surface. The fill soils were described as silty sand, and sandy silt with standard penetration resistances ranging from 0 to 16 blows per foot (bpf). Some organics/debris were also found in the fill soils.

3.5.3 Residual Soils

Residual soils were encountered in all STBs beneath the fill soils. The residual soils were typically described as silty sands. Standard penetration resistance values ranged from 10 to 68 bpf.

3.5.4 Partially Weathered Rock Lens

Partially weathered rock (PWR) is a transitional material between soil and the underlying parent rock that is defined locally as materials that exhibit a standard penetration resistance exceeding 100 bpf.

A lens of partially weathered rock was encountered in STB B-3 at the depth of 6 to 8 feet (approx. elev. 1038 to 1040 feet NAVD 88).

3.5.5 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was not encountered in the STBs at the time of drilling.

Groundwater in the Piedmont geology 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 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 Atlanta, Georgia area are generally 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 be different than measured during this study at other times.

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

The following assessment is based on our understanding of the proposed construction, site observations, our evaluation and interpretation of the field data obtained during this exploration, our experience with similar subsurface conditions, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and local practices.

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the STB locations, the conditions were deemed favorable for the proposed development. We not that all five borings performed for this exploration encountered old fill of variable composition and consistency. At two boring locations (B-2 and B-5), organic material and debris were encountered within the fill. Some remedial earthwork measures, including undercutting and replacement of poor-quality old fill, should be anticipated during construction.

It should be noted that subsurface conditions in unexplored locations and at deeper depths may be different from those encountered at the actual test locations and depths drilled. 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.

The following sections present our recommendations for site preparation and for the design of foundations.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SITE PREPARATION

Prior to proceeding with construction, all topsoil and other deleterious non-soil materials should be stripped from proposed construction areas. Debris-laden materials, if present, 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 that are at grade or which will receive fill should be carefully evaluated by a NOVA geotechnical engineer.

Should low consistency/relative density and/or debris laden fill materials be encountered during construction, remedial recommendations can best be determined by the geotechnical engineer in the field at the time of construction.

5.2 FILL/BACKFILL PLACEMENT

5.2.1 Fill/Backfill Suitability

If fill or backfill is required, all materials to be used should be evaluated and, if necessary, tested by NOVA prior to placement to determine if they are suitable for the intended use. In general, based upon the exploration results, the soils encountered can be used as structural fill and backfill, provided that the soils are free of rubble, rock fragments greater than 3 inches in any dimension, include less than 4 percent (by weight) fibrous, organic matter and have Liquid and Plastic Indices less than 50 and 30 percent, respectively. 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 or backfill. Debris-laden materials should be excavated, transported, and disposed of off-site in accordance with appropriate solid waste rules and regulations.

5.2.2 Soil Compaction

Fill and backfill 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). 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. We recommend that the grading contractor have equipment on site during earthwork for both drying and wetting fill soils. Moisture control may be difficult during rainy weather.

Filling operations should be observed by a NOVA soils technician, who can confirm suitability of material used and uniformity and appropriateness of compaction efforts. The technician can also document compliance with the specifications by performing field density tests using the drive cylinder, nuclear, or sand cone testing methods (ASTM D2937, D6938, or D1556, respectively).

One test per 400 cubic yards and every 2 feet 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.

5.3 FOUNDATIONS

5.3.1 Shallow Foundation Design

After the recommended site and subgrade preparation and fill placement, we recommend that the proposed structures be supported by conventional shallow foundations. Foundations bearing on undisturbed residual soils and/or compacted structural fill may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf).

It should be noted that low consistency/relative density or debris-laden fill materials were present in some of the STBs. Undercutting and backfilling with crushed stone or structural fill may be required and if necessary, tested by a NOVA engineer before installing the foundations.

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.

Foundation excavations should be evaluated by the NOVA geotechnical engineer prior to reinforcing steel placement to observe foundation subgrade preparation and confirm bearing pressure capacity.

Foundation excavations should be level and free of debris, ponded water, mud, and loose, frozen, or water-softened soils. Concrete should be placed as soon as is practical after the foundation is excavated and the subgrade evaluated.

Foundation concrete should not be placed on frozen or saturated soil. If a foundation excavation remains open overnight, or if rain or snow is imminent, a 3 to 4-inch thick "mud mat" of lean concrete should be placed in the bottom of the foundation to protect the bearing soils until reinforcing steel and concrete can be placed.

5.3.2 Shallow Foundation Settlement

Settlements for spread foundations were assessed using SPT values to estimate elastic moduli, based on published correlations and our experience with similar subsurface conditions. Generalized profiles deemed representative of the subsurface conditions encountered were developed for the settlement analyses herein.

Based on the previously assumed foundation loads, the recommended soil bearing capacity and the presumed foundation elevations as discussed above, we estimate primary, post-construction total settlement beneath individual foundations to be on the order of 1 inch or less.

The amount of differential settlement is difficult to predict at this time because of the variable subsurface conditions across the site. However, we anticipate differential settlement between adjacent new foundations to be half of the post-construction total settlement. The final deflected shape of the structure will be dependent on actual foundation locations and loading.

5.4 RETAINING WALLS

The magnitude and distribution of earth pressures against retaining and basement walls depends on the deformation condition (rotation) of the wall, soil properties and water conditions. When the soil behind the wall is prevented from lateral strain as in the case of basement walls, the resulting force is known as the at-rest earth pressure (KO). If the retaining structure can move away from the soil mass, the earth pressure decreases with the increasing lateral expansion until a minimum pressure, known as the active earth pressure (KA), is reached. If the wall is forced into the soil mass, the earth pressure increases until a maximum pressure, known as the passive earth pressure (KP), is obtained.

Free-standing retaining walls are usually designed for active earth pressures. Rigid basement walls are typically designed for at-rest earth pressures. If basement walls are backfilled before they are braced by the floor slabs, they should also be designed to withstand active earth pressures as self-supporting cantilever walls. However, the earth pressures must be compatible with the wall rotation, which is limited by the wall rigidity, foundation support conditions and connections to adjoining structures. If active earth pressure development requires horizontal wall movements that cannot occur, or which are architecturally undesirable, walls should be designed for an intermediate pressure based on restraint conditions.

Laboratory analysis to determine actual soil shear strength properties was beyond the authorized scope of services. Based on our experience with similar soils and construction, we have provided the earth pressure estimates shown in the following table:

EARTH

PRESSURE

CONDITION

EARTH

PRESSURE

COEFFICIENT

EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE (PCF)

ABOVE WATER

TABLE

BELOW WATER

TABLE

Active (Ka) 0.33 40 81 At-Rest (Ko) 0.50 60 91 Passive (Kp) 3.00 150* TBD**

* Passive earth pressure is frequently used in retaining wall design to resist active earth pressures. Wall movements required to develop full passive earth pressures are significantly greater than movements necessary for active earth pressures.

Consequently, this passive pressure value has been reduced by at least 50% for wall design

** Passive earth pressure for submerged wall design shall be determined on a case-by-case basis.

We recommend a value of 0.35 as the coefficient of friction (sliding resistance) between wall foundations and the underlying residual or fill soils. This design value does not contain a safety factor.

Our lateral earth pressure recommendations assume that:

The ground surface adjacent to the wall is level, Residual soils will be reused for wall backfill, compacted between

95% to 98% of the standard proctor maximum dry density, Soil backfill weight is a maximum of 120 pcf, Heavy construction equipment does not operate within 5 feet of the walls, A constantly functioning drainage system is installed between the wall and the soil backfill to prevent hydrostatic pressures from acting on the wall, Foundations or other significant surcharge loads are located outside the wall a distance at least equal to the wall height, For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements of about 0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height, For passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance.

6.0 LIMITATIONS

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 services and should not be relied on to represent conditions at significantly 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 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 test locations will differ from those encountered at specific test 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.

This report is intended for the sole use of Page, Inc for the above noted project. The scope of services performed during this study 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 Georgia. This warranty is in lieu of all other statements or warranties, either expressed or implied.

APPENDIX A

Figures and Maps

FIGURE 1

SITE LOCATION MAP

SOURCE: Google maps

DATE: Accessed 06/09/2025 SCALES: As Shown

PAGE

KSU – Monument Exploration

Kennesaw, Cobb County, Georgia NOVA Project Number 10102-

2025159

Approximate Subject Property Boundary

Subject Property

Subject Property

FIGURE 2

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

SOURCE: USGS Topography Map

PAGE

Kennesaw, Cobb County, Georgia NOVA Project Number

10102-2025159

Subject Site

FIGURE 3

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

SOURCE: McConnell and Abrams, 1984

Kennesaw, Cobb County, Georgia

Subject Site

FIGURE 4

BORING LOCATION PLAN

SCALE: NTS

SOURCE: Kennesaw Campus: Monument Exploration - Concept 1

(reuse Existing Sign Cabinet)

Kennesaw, Cobb County, Georgia

APPENDIX B

Subsurface Data

1050 1050

1045 1045

1040 1040

1035 1035

1030 1030

1025 1025

1020 1020

1015 1015

1010 1010

Fill (made ground)

Partially Weathered Rock

Topsoil USCS Silty Sand

Water table during drilling

Water table at boring completion

Depth to caving

AR - Auger Refusal

BT - Boring Termination

Page KSU-Monument Exploration Kennesaw, Cobb County, GA

NOVA Project Number:10102-2025159 Section A-A'

B-3

BT

Ō.

100/5"

B-4

BT

Ō.

B-1

BT

Ō.

B-5

BT

Ō.

B-2

BT

Ō.

KEY TO SYMBOLS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

DRILLING SYMBOLS

100/2”

NX, NQ

REC

RQD

MC

N/E

N/M

C

Standard Penetration Testing Sample

Undisturbed Sample (UD)

Auger without Sampling Rock Core Sample

Standard Penetration Resistance (ASTM D1586)

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Resistance Water Table at least 24 Hours after drilling

Water Table one (1) Hour or less after drilling

Number of Blows (100) to Drive the Spoon a Number of Inches (2)

Core Barrel Sizes: 2⅛- and 2-Inch Diameter Rock Core, Respectively

Percentage of Rock Core Recovered

Rock Quality Designation - Percentage of Recovered Core Segments 4 or more Inches Long

Loss of Drilling Water

Moisture Content Test Performed

Not Encountered

Not Measured

Caving

STRATA SYMBOLS

Silt - ML

Low Plasticity

Clay - CL

High Plasticity

Paving

Gravel / Graded

Aggregate Base

Fill

Topsoil

Alluvium

Poorly Graded

Sand - SP

Well Graded

Sand - SW

Clay - CH

Partially Weathered

Rock (PWR)

Rock

Elastic Silt - MHSilty Sand - SM

Clayey Sand - SC

Poorly graded silty, clayey sand - SM/SC

Clayey Sand and Gravel - SC/GC

Silty Sand and Gravel - SM/GM

�Z/>>/E'�WZK���hZ�^

^Žŝů� ƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐ� ĂŶĚ� ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ� ƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ� ƚĞƐƚŝŶŐ� ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚ� ŝŶ� ĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞ� ǁŝƚŚ� �^dD� �ϭϱϴϲͲϲϳ͘� dŚĞ� ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ� ƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ�ƌĞƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ�ŝƐ�ƚŚĞ�ŶƵŵďĞƌ�ŽĨ�ďůŽǁƐ�ŽĨ�Ă�ϭϰϬ�ƉŽƵŶĚ�ŚĂŵŵĞƌ�ĨĂůůŝŶŐ�ϯϬ�ŝŶĐŚĞƐ�ƚŽ�ĚƌŝǀĞ�Ă�ϮͲŝŶĐŚ�K͘�͕͘�ϭбͲ ŝŶĐŚ� /͘�͘� ƐƉůŝƚ� ƐƉŽŽŶ� ƐĂŵƉůĞƌ� ŽŶĞ� ĨŽŽƚ͘� �ŽƌĞ� ĚƌŝůůŝŶŐ�ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚ�ŝŶ� ĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞ� ǁŝƚŚ� �^dD� �ϮϭϭϯͲϬϴ͘� dŚĞ� ƵŶĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚ� ƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐ�ƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞ� ŝƐ�ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚ�ďLJ��^dD��ϭϱϴϳͲϬϴ� ;ϮϬϭϮͿ͘�hŶůĞƐƐ�ŽƚŚĞƌ�ĂƌƌĂŶŐĞŵĞŶƚƐ� ĂƌĞ�ŵĂĚĞ͕� EKs��ǁŝůů�ĚŝƐƉŽƐĞ�ŽĨ�Ăůů�ƐŽŝů�ĂŶĚ�ƌŽĐŬ�ƐĂŵƉůĞƐ�ƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐ�Ăƚ�ƚŚĞ�ƚŝŵĞ�ŽĨ�ƌĞƉŽƌƚ�submission͘

�KZZ�>�d/KE�K&�W�E�dZ�d/KE�Z�^/^d�E���t/d,�Z�>�d/s����E^/dz��E���KE^/^d�E�z

EƵŵďĞƌ�ŽĨ��ůŽǁƐ͕�͞E͟ �ƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞ ZĞůĂƚŝǀĞ��ĞŶƐŝƚLJ

^�E�^

Ϭ�ʹ ϰ ϱ�ʹ ϭϬ ϭϭ�ʹ ϯϬ ϯϭ�ʹ ϱϬ KǀĞƌ�ϱϬ sĞƌLJ�>ŽŽƐĞ

>ŽŽƐĞ

DĞĚŝƵŵ��ĞŶƐĞ

�ĞŶƐĞ

sĞƌLJ��ĞŶƐĞ

EƵŵďĞƌ�ŽĨ��ůŽǁƐ͕�͞E͟ �ƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞ �ŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐLJ

^/>d^

ĂŶĚ

�>�z^

Ϭ�ʹ Ϯ sĞƌLJ�^ŽĨƚ ϯ�ʹ ϰ ^ŽĨƚ ϱ�ʹ ϴ &ŝƌŵ ϵ�ʹ ϭϱ ^ƚŝĨĨ ϭϲ�ʹ ϯϬ sĞƌLJ�^ƚŝĨĨ ϯϭ�ʹ ϱϬ ,ĂƌĚ KǀĞƌ�ϱϬ sĞƌLJ�,ĂƌĚ

^K/>��>�^^/&/��d/KE��,�Zd�

�K�Z^��'Z�/E�� ^K/>^

'Z�s�>^ �ůĞĂŶ�'ƌĂǀĞů ůĞƐƐ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϱй�ĨŝŶĞƐ

't tĞůů�ŐƌĂĚĞĚ�ŐƌĂǀĞů 'W WŽŽƌůLJ�ŐƌĂĚĞĚ�ŐƌĂǀĞů

'ƌĂǀĞůƐ�ǁŝƚŚ�&ŝŶĞƐ ŵŽƌĞ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϭϮй�ĨŝŶĞƐ

'D ^ŝůƚLJ�ŐƌĂǀĞů '� �ůĂLJĞLJ�ŐƌĂǀĞů

^�E�^ �ůĞĂŶ�^ĂŶĚ ůĞƐƐ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϱй�ĨŝŶĞƐ

^t tĞůů�ŐƌĂĚĞĚ�ƐĂŶĚ ^W WŽŽƌůLJ�ŐƌĂĚĞĚ�ƐĂŶĚ

^ĂŶĚƐ�ǁŝƚŚ�&ŝŶĞƐ ŵŽƌĞ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϭϮй�ĨŝŶĞƐ

^D ^ŝůƚLJ�ƐĂŶĚ ^� �ůĂLJĞLJ�ƐĂŶĚ

&/E��'Z�/E�� ^K/>^

^/>d^��E���>�z^ >ŝƋƵŝĚ >ŝŵŝƚ ůĞƐƐ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϱϬ

/ŶŽƌŐĂŶŝĐ �> >ĞĂŶ�ĐůĂLJ D> ^ŝůƚ

KƌŐĂŶŝĐ K> KƌŐĂŶŝĐ�ĐůĂLJ�ĂŶĚ�Ɛŝůƚ ^/>d^��E���>�z^

>ŝƋƵŝĚ�>ŝŵŝƚ ϱϬ�Žƌ�ŵŽƌĞ

/ŶŽƌŐĂŶŝĐ �, &Ăƚ�ĐůĂLJ D, �ůĂƐƚŝĐ�Ɛŝůƚ

KƌŐĂŶŝĐ K, KƌŐĂŶŝĐ�ĐůĂLJ�ĂŶĚ�Ɛŝůƚ ,/',>z�KZ'�E/��

^K/>^ KƌŐĂŶŝĐ�ŵĂƚƚĞƌ͕�ĚĂƌŬ� ĐŽůŽƌ͕�ŽƌŐĂŶŝĐ�ŽĚŽƌ Wd WĞĂƚ

W�Zd/�>��^/���/��Ed/&/��d/KE�

'Z�s�>^ �ŽĂƌƐĞ в�ŝŶĐŚ�ƚŽ�ϯ�ŝŶĐŚĞƐ &ŝŶĞ EŽ͘�ϰ�ƚŽ�в�ŝŶĐŚ

^�E�^ �ŽĂƌƐĞ EŽ͘�ϭϬ�ƚŽ�EŽ͘�ϰ DĞĚŝƵŵ EŽ͘�ϰϬ�ƚŽ�EŽ͘�ϭϬ &ŝŶĞ EŽ͘�ϮϬϬ�ƚŽ�EŽ͘�ϰϬ

^/>d^��E���>�z^ WĂƐƐŝŶŐ�EŽ͘�ϮϬϬ

El ev at io n (ft

)-N

AV

D

D

EP

TH

(f t)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

TOPSOIL: 3 INCHES

FILL: Loose to medium dense brown silty medium to fine SAND

RESIDUUM: Medium dense to dense gray tan silty medium to fine SAND

Boring Terminated at 20.0 ft.

G R

AP

H

IC

LO

G

G R

O U

N D

W

AT

ER

(f t)

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

BL

O

W C

O U

N

TS

(U N

C O

R R

EC

TE

N

VA

LU

E)

6-3-6 (9)

5-6-6 (12)

6-5-6 (11)

4-5-7 (12)

5-9-12 (21)

16-20-12 (32)

TEST BORING

RECORD

B-1

PROJECT NAME: KSU-Monument Exploration

CLIENT: Page

PROJECT LOCATION: Kennesaw, Cobb County, GA

LOCATION: Kennesaw State University

DRILLER: Auger Tech Drilling, Inc

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: N/E AFTER HOURS:

PROJECT NO.:

LATITUDE

LONGITUDE

ELEVATION:

LOGGED BY:

10102-2025159

34.032942°

-84.580983°

1047.6 FT - NAVD 88

Billy Rushema

DATE: 06/05/2025

N/M CAVING>

NOTES: Existing elevations were interpolated from Topographic Survey by Columbia Engineering dated April 10th 2019

Page1 of 1 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site.

N Value Moisture Content (%) Plastic/Liquid Limit (%) Fines Content (%)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 at io n (ft

)-N

D

EP

TH

(f t)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

TOPSOIL: 3 INCHES

FILL: Very loose brown tan to gray micaceous silty fine organic SAND

RESIDUUM: Medium dense brown tan silty fine SAND

Boring Terminated at 20.0 ft.

G R

AP

H

IC

LO

G

G R

O U

N D

W

AT

ER

(f t)

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

BL

O

W C

O U

N

TS

(U N

C O

R R

EC

TE

E)

2-2-2 (4)

2-1-2 (3)

2-1-2 (3)

2-1-2 (3)

3-5-7 (12)

7-9-11 (20)

TEST BORING

RECORD

B-2

PROJECT NAME: KSU-Monument Exploration

CLIENT: Page

PROJECT LOCATION: Kennesaw, Cobb County, GA

LOCATION: Kennesaw State University

DRILLER: Auger Tech Drilling, Inc

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: N/E AFTER HOURS:

PROJECT NO.:

LATITUDE

LONGITUDE

ELEVATION:

LOGGED BY:

10102-2025159

34.033303°

-84.580411°

1049.0 FT - NAVD 88

Billy Rushema

DATE: 06/05/2025

N/M CAVING>

NOTES: Existing elevations were interpolated from Topographic Survey by Columbia Engineering dated April 10th 2019

Page1 of 1 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site.

N Value Moisture Content (%) Plastic/Liquid Limit (%) at io n (ft

)-N

D

EP

TH

(f t)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

TOPSOIL: 3 INCHES

FILL: Medium dense brown silty fine SAND

RESIDUUM: Dense gray silty medium SAND

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK(LENS): Sampled as very dense gray silty medium SAND

RESIDUUM: Medium dense gray silty medium SAND

Very dense gray silty medium SAND

Medium dense gray silty medium SAND

Boring Terminated at 20.0 ft.

G R

AP

H

IC

LO

G

G R

O U

N D

W

AT

ER

(f t)

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

BL

O

W C

O U

N

TS

(U N

C O

R R

EC

TE

E)

3-5-11 (16)

21-26-24 (50)

50/5"

11-15-11 (26)

12-24-44 (68)

8-8-21 (29)

TEST BORING

RECORD

B-3

PROJECT NAME: KSU-Monument Exploration

CLIENT: Page

PROJECT LOCATION: Kennesaw, Cobb County, GA

LOCATION: Kennesaw State University

DRILLER: Auger Tech Drilling, Inc

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: N/E AFTER HOURS:

PROJECT NO.:

LATITUDE

LONGITUDE

ELEVATION:

LOGGED BY:

10102-2025159

34.032431°

-84.580989°

1046.0 FT - NAVD 88

Billy Rushema

DATE: 06/05/2025

N/M CAVING>

NOTES: Existing elevations were interpolated from Topographic Survey by Columbia Engineering dated April 10th 2019

Page1 of 1 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site.

N Value Moisture Content (%) Plastic/Liquid Limit (%) at io n (ft

)-N

D

EP

TH

(f t)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

TOPSOIL: 3 INCHES

FILL: Very loose brown silty fine SAND

Very soft red brown fine sandy SILT

RESIDUUM: Medium dense tan silty fine SAND

Boring Terminated at 25.0 ft.

G R

AP

H

IC

LO

G

G R

O U

N D

W

AT

ER

(f t)

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

BL

O

W C

O U

N

TS

(U N

C O

R R

EC

TE

E)

2-2-2 (4)

1-2-2 (4)

1-2-2 (4)

3-2-2 (4)

2-2-1 (3)

0-0-0 (0)

6-9-12 (21)

TEST BORING

RECORD

B-4

PROJECT NAME: KSU-Monument Exploration

CLIENT: Page

PROJECT LOCATION: Kennesaw, Cobb County, GA

LOCATION: Kennesaw State University

DRILLER: Auger Tech Drilling, Inc

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: N/E AFTER HOURS:

PROJECT NO.:

LATITUDE

LONGITUDE

ELEVATION:

LOGGED BY:

10102-2025159

34.032722°

-84.580664°

1047.5 FT - NAVD 88

Billy Rushema

DATE: 06/05/2025

N/M CAVING>

NOTES: Existing elevations were interpolated from Topographic Survey by Columbia Engineering dated April 10th 2019

Page1 of 1 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site.

N Value Moisture Content (%) Plastic/Liquid Limit (%) at io n (ft

)-N

D

EP

TH

(f t)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

TOPSOIL: 3 INCHES

FILL: Loose brown to gray micaceous silty fine SAND

Loose gray clayey fine SAND with debris

Very loose to loose brown clayey fine SAND

RESIDUUM: Loose tan silty fine SAND

Boring Terminated at 25.0 ft.

G R

AP

H

IC

LO

G

G R

O U

N D

W

AT

ER

(f t)

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

BL

O

W C

O U

N

TS

(U N

C O

R R

EC

TE

E)

2-3-4 (7)

4-3-4 (7)

2-3-3 (6)

2-3-2 (5)

2-2-2 (4)

5-4-5 (9)

4-5-5 (10)

TEST BORING

RECORD

B-5

PROJECT NAME: KSU-Monument Exploration

CLIENT: Page

PROJECT LOCATION: Kennesaw, Cobb County, GA

LOCATION: Kennesaw State University

DRILLER: Auger Tech Drilling, Inc

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: N/E AFTER HOURS:

PROJECT NO.:

LATITUDE

LONGITUDE

ELEVATION:

LOGGED BY:

10102-2025159

34.033053°

-84.580333°

1046.7 FT - NAVD 88

Billy Rushema

DATE: 06/05/2025

N/M CAVING>

NOTES: Existing elevations were interpolated from Topographic Survey by Columbia Engineering dated April 10th 2019

Page1 of 1 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site.

N Value Moisture Content (%) Plastic/Liquid Limit (%)

Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.

Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.

Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this Report Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities.

The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations.

Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific Times Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.

Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical-engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.

Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:

the original site); or

• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;

e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.

Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:

function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria;

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to:

specifications; and

• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.

You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction-phase observations.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions.

Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance.

Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.

Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team.

Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.

Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with 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 or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind.

Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org