2026 Public Safety Repairs Geotechnical Repor.pdf

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

Stair Settlement and Pavement Rehabilitation Duluth Public Safety Center Duluth, Georgia Geo-Hydro Project Number 253175.20

Prepared for POND February 17, 2026

400 Chastain Center Boulevard, Suite 430 • Kennesaw, Georgia 30144 o: 770.426.7100 • www.geohydro.com

Mr. Kevin Hendrix, P.E. February 17, 2026

Pond

55 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard

Suite 850

Atlanta, Georgia 30308

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

Stair Settlement and Pavement Rehabilitation Duluth Public Safety Center

Duluth, Georgia

Dear Mr. Hendrix:

Geo-Hydro Engineers, Inc. has completed the authorized subsurface exploration for the above referenced project. The scope of services for this project was outlined in proposal number 253175.P0 dated

December 30, 2025.

Project Information

The Duluth Public Safety Center is located at 3276 Buford Highway in Duluth, Georgia. Figure 1 in the

Appendix shows the approximate location of the facility.

The existing building is a one-story structure with a daylighted basement level. The northwest side of the building includes stairs, which appear to be settling relative to the first floor elevation, and some stairs have also tilted according to the information outlined in the Structural Site Observation Report produced by

Pond dated July 8, 2025.

The overall project will include stabilizing or rehabilitating the steps, and rehabilitation of the existing access drives and parking lots. The existing parking lots and access drives, including landscape islands and related curbing, occupy approximately

8,200 square yards. The documents provided to us indicate some noticeable deformations including settlement around a drop inlet, standing water due to localized subsidence, and a large crack between the drive aisle and the parking stalls. The annotated aerial photograph to the right shows the approximate property limits and current site conditions. The photographs on the following page show the condition of the stairs at the time of our field exploration as well as evidence of exterior floor slab subsidence at the building wall.

Stairs

Stair Settlement and Pavement Rehabilitation • Duluth Public Safety Center - Duluth, Georgia Project Number 253175.20

February 17, 2026 | 2

Exploratory Procedures

The subsurface exploration consisted of three hand auger borings within the stairs area and five hand auger borings within the parking lots and access drives. The borings were performed at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2 in the Appendix. The boring locations were selected based on visual observations of the stairs and pavement areas, and each test location was recorded using a handheld GPS unit.

Dynamic cone penetrometer testing (ASTM STP-399) was performed at select depths in the hand auger borings. Soil samples obtained from hand auger boring operation were examined and classified in general accordance with ASTM D2488 (Visual-Manual Procedure for Description of Soils). Soil classifications include the use of the Unified Soil Classification System described in ASTM D2487 (Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes). The soil classifications also include our evaluation of the geologic origin of the soils. Evaluations of geologic origin are based on our experience and interpretation and may be subject to some degree of error.

February 17, 2026 | 3

Descriptions of the soils encountered, groundwater conditions, penetration resistances, and other pertinent information are provided in the hand auger log included in the Appendix.

Regional Geology

The project site is located in the Southern Piedmont Geologic Province of Georgia. Soils in this area have been formed by the in-place weathering of the underlying crystalline rock, which accounts for their classification as “residual” soils. Residual soils near the ground surface that have experienced advanced weathering frequently consist of red brown clayey silt (ML) or silty clay (CL). The thickness of this surficial clayey zone may range up to roughly 6 feet. For various reasons, such as erosion or local variation of mineralization, the upper clayey zone is not always present.

With increased depth, the soil becomes less weathered, coarser grained, and the structural character of the underlying parent rock becomes more evident. These residual soils are typically classified as sandy micaceous silt (ML) or silty micaceous sand (SM). With a further increase in depth, the soil eventually becomes quite hard and take on an increasing resemblance to the underlying parent rock. When these materials have a standard penetration resistance of l00 blows per foot or greater, they are referred to as partially weathered rock. The transition from soil to partially weathered rock is usually a gradual one, and may occur at a wide range of depths. Lenses or layers of partially weathered rock are not unusual in the soil profile.

Partially weathered rock represents the zone of transition between the soil and the indurated metamorphic rocks from which the soils are derived. The subsurface profile is, in fact, a history of the weathering process that the crystalline rock has undergone. The degree of weathering is most advanced at the ground surface, where fine-grained soil may be present. Conversely, the weathering process is in its early stages immediately above the surface of relatively sound rock, where partially weathered rock may be found.

The thickness of the zone of partially weathered rock and the depth to the rock surface have both been found to vary considerably over relatively short distances. The depth to the rock surface may frequently range from the ground surface to 80 feet or more. The thickness of partially weathered rock, which overlies the rock surface, may vary from only a few inches to as much as 40 feet or more.

Soil Test Boring Summary

Starting at the floor surface, hand auger borings HA-1, HA-2, and HA-3 encountered approximately 4¾ to

6¼ inches of concrete underlain by approximately 6 to 7½ inches of graded aggregate base (GAB). Hand auger borings HA-4 through HA-8 initially encountered approximately 2 to 3½ inches of asphalt underlain by approximately 3¼ to 7½ inches of GAB. Reinforcing steel was encountered within the layer of GAB in borings HA-1 and HA-2, resulting in a boring offset.

Beneath the surface materials, all hand auger borings encountered fill materials extending to depths ranging from approximately 1½ to greater than 10 feet. Boring HA-3 was terminated in fill at a depth of

10 feet, while borings HA,4, HA-5, and HA-6 were terminated in fill materials at depth of 4 feet. The fill

February 17, 2026 | 4 materials were classified as clayey sand and silty sand. Dynamic cone penetrometer resistances recorded in the fill ranged from 4 to 17 blows per increment.

Beneath the fill materials, hand auger borings HA-1, HA-2, HA-7, and HA-8 encountered residual soils typical for the Piedmont region. The residual soils were classified as silty sand with dynamic cone penetrometer resistances ranging from 9 to greater than 25 blows per increment.

At the time of the exploration, groundwater was not encountered in the hand auger borings. The borings were backfilled with soil cuttings after the groundwater check and patched with fresh concrete or cold patch asphalt as appropriate. It should be noted that groundwater levels will fluctuate depending on yearly and seasonal rainfall variations.

For more detailed descriptions of subsurface conditions, please refer to the hand auger logs included in the

Appendix.

Hand Auger Boring Summary

All Depths in this Summary Table are Approximate NE: Not Encountered GAB: Graded Aggregate Base

VISUAL PAVEMENT EVALUATION

Boring Concrete

Thickness (inches)

Asphalt Thickness (inches)

GAB

Thickness (inches)

Bottom of Fill (feet)

Depth to Hand Auger Refusal

(feet)

Hand Auger Termination Depth (feet)

Depth to Groundwater

(feet)

HA-1 6 NE 6 2 NE 4 NE

HA-2 6¼ NE 6½ 4 NE 6 NE

HA-3 4¾ NE 7½ >10 NE 10 NE

HA-4 NE 3½ 7½ >4 NE 4 NE

HA-5 NE 2¼ 3¼ >4 NE 4 NE

HA-6 NE 2 4½ >4 NE 4 NE

HA-7 NE 2¾ 6¾ 1½ NE 4 NE

HA-8 NE 3¼ 6¾ 1½ NE 4 NE

February 17, 2026 | 5

This pavement evaluation revealed the pavement on site to be degraded to varying levels. The asphalt thickness ranged from approximately 2 to 3½ inches. Beneath the asphalt, all pavement borings encountered 3¼ to 7½ inches of crushed stone base materials. Minimal to moderate longitudinal cracking and some alligator cracking were observed throughout the parking lot footprint. Longitudinal cracking is typically a function of age. Alligator cracking is mostly caused by repetitive loading, and generally indicates that the pavement has been overstressed either by heavy vehicle traffic (vehicles with a relatively high gross vehicle weight) or high frequency of traffic, often both. Furthermore, relatively thin asphalt pavement as sampled in the hand auger borings will have a shorter service life. An additional contributor to pavement distress involves a deteriorated or relatively weak soil subgrade.

The pictures above, facing the southwest corner of the parking lot, show minor pavement distress (left), and alligator cracking typical of pavement overstress and failure (right). The pavement distress patterns throughout the facility suggest a combination of thin asphaltic concrete and localized traffic concentration as the main causes of distress. The absence of noticeable pavement rutting or potholes are indicators of a relatively stable subgrade.

Evaluations and Recommendations

The following evaluations and recommendations are based on the information available on the existing construction, the data obtained from the hand auger borings, our observations on site, and our experience with soils and subsurface conditions similar to those encountered at this site. Because the borings represent a statistically small sampling of subsurface conditions, it is possible that conditions may be encountered during supplemental exploration or during repairs/grouting that are substantially different from those indicated by the test borings. In these instances, adjustments to the remedial work may be necessary.

• All hand auger borings encountered fill materials extending to depths ranging from approximately 1½ feet to greater than 10 feet. Boring HA-3 was terminated in fill at a depth of 10 feet, while borings

HA,4, HA-5, and HA-6 were terminated in fill materials at depth of 4 feet. The fill underlaying the concrete stairs varies in depth and consistency, ranging from about 2 feet to greater than 10 feet, and from loose to moderately firm.

• The Structural Site Observation Report by Pond notes that noticeable differential settlement can be observed between the stairway slab and the building structure located in proximity of boring HA-3.

Boring HA-3 encountered relatively deeper and looser soils in comparison with borings HA-1 and

HA-2.

• Historic, publicly available aerial photos from Google Earth show that the Public Safety Center was constructed in 2005. It is our opinion that the slow rate of differential settlement along the stair-on-grade slab is likely the result of ground subsidence caused by consolidation of the fill underlying the slab. Differential settlement between the building and the entrance floor slabs and elements supported at grade is aggravated by the fact that the building is supported at a greater depth, and its settlement/deformation patterns are different from those experienced by the fill materials at grade matching the first floor level, which is elevated.

February 17, 2026 | 6

• A formal grouting program intended to improve the fill materials underlying the stairway slab may be considered to address the root cause and provide long-term stability. It is imperative to acknowledge that variations will exist in the quantity of grout needed and the number of injection points required across different areas. Geo-Hydro emphasizes the importance of entrusting these decisions to a competent firm such as Gibson’s Pressure Grouting Service, Jensen’s Pressure Grouting Services, or other experienced specialty contractor. Engaging a company well-versed in the intricacies of the specific site conditions and the principles of effective grouting aligns with industry best practices, and will ensure a tailored application of grouting to achieve reliable rehabilitation and longevity.

• Other options concerning removal and replacement of concrete panels and subgrade stabilization, or crack sealing as described in Pond’s report are viable for rehabilitation purposes. For this project, the invasiveness and cost of the intervention is likely to be commensurate with the longevity of the repair.

• Our pavement evaluation revealed the pavement on site to be degraded to varying levels. The asphalt thickness ranged from approximately 2 to 3½ inches. Beneath the asphalt, all pavement borings encountered 3¼ to 7½ inches of crushed stone base materials. Minimal to moderate longitudinal cracking and some alligator cracking were observed throughout the parking lot footprint.

• The more intense pavement distress patterns throughout the facility suggest a combination of thin asphaltic concrete and localized traffic concentration as the main causes of distress. In areas where only longitudinal cracks are present, it is likely that the pavement distress is mostly age-related. The absence of noticeable pavement rutting or potholes are indicators of a relatively stable subgrade.

• Based on the results of the pavement coring, hand auger borings, and our observations, we recommend implementing full-depth reclamation (FDR) to rehabilitate the pavements. FDR using Portland cement is a favorable option for pavement rehabilitation/reconstruction. FDR involves pulverizing the existing asphalt pavement, crushed stone base materials, and some soil subgrade, applying a predetermined amount of Portland cement and water, and shaping and compacting the mixture into a stable base course. A new asphalt wearing course can then be placed on the stabilized FDR section.

The following sections provide general recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical aspects of the project.

Existing Fill Materials

Fill materials were encountered in all hand auger borings extending to depths ranging from approximately

1½ to greater than 10 feet. There are several important facts that should be considered regarding existing fill materials and the limitations of subsurface exploration.

• The quality of existing fill materials can be highly variable, and test borings are often not able to detect all of the zones or layers of poor-quality fill materials.

February 17, 2026 | 7

• The interface between existing fill materials and the original ground surface may include a layer of organic material that was not properly stripped off during the original grading. If such organic layers are encountered during construction, it may be necessary to “chase out” the organic layer by excavating the layer along with overlying soils.

• Subsurface exploration is simply not capable of disclosing all conditions that may require remediation.

Suitability of Excavated Material for Reuse as Structural Fill

Based on the results of test borings and our observations, residual soils and fill materials on site appear to be suitable for reuse as structural fill. Soft, unstable fill soils free of deleterious materials may be reusable after routine moisture adjustment.

It is important to establish as part of the construction contract whether soils having elevated moisture content will be considered suitable for reuse. We often find this issue to be a point of contention and a source of delays and change orders. From a technical standpoint, soils with moisture contents wet of optimum as determined by the standard Proctor test (ASTM D698) can be reused provided that the moisture is properly adjusted to within the workable range. From a practical standpoint, wet soils can be very difficult to dry in small or congested sites, and such difficulties should be considered during planning and budgeting. A clear understanding by the general contractor and grading subcontractor regarding the reuse of excavated soils will be important to avoid delays and unexpected cost overruns.

Structural Fill

We offer the following recommendations for any fill or backfill that may be required for the project.

Materials selected for use as structural fill should be free of organic debris, waste construction debris, and other deleterious materials. The material should not contain rocks having a diameter over 4 inches. It is our opinion that the following soils represented by their USCS group symbols will typically be suitable for use as structural fill and are usually found in abundance in the Piedmont: (SM), (ML), and (CL). The following soil types are typically suitable but are not abundant in the Piedmont: (SW), (SP), (SC), (SP-SM), and (SP-SC). The following soil types are considered unsuitable: (MH), (CH), (OL), (OH), and (Pt).

Laboratory Proctor compaction tests and classification tests should be performed on representative samples obtained from the proposed borrow material to provide data necessary to determine acceptability and for quality control. The moisture content of suitable borrow soils should generally be no more than 3 percentage points below or above optimum at the time of compaction. Tighter moisture limits may be necessary with certain soils.

Suitable fill material should be placed in thin lifts. Lift thickness depends on the type of compaction equipment, but a maximum loose-lift thickness of 8 inches is generally recommended. The soil should be compacted by a self-propelled sheepsfoot roller. Within small excavations such as in utility trenches, we recommend the use of “wacker packers” or “Rammax” compactors to achieve the specified compaction.

Loose lift thicknesses of 4 to 6 inches are recommended in small area fills.

February 17, 2026 | 8

We recommend that structural fill be compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698). The upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698). Additionally, the maximum dry density of structural fill should be no less than 90 pcf. Geo-Hydro should perform density tests during fill placement.

Earth Slopes

Temporary construction slopes should be designed in strict compliance with OSHA regulations. The exploratory borings indicate that most soils at the site are Type B and Type C as defined in 29 CFR 1926

Subpart P. This dictates that temporary construction slopes in fill materials, or any soil type below the groundwater level, for excavation depths of 20 feet or less should be no steeper than 1.5H:1V. Excavations in residual soils above the groundwater level should be no steeper than 1H:1V. Temporary construction slopes should be closely observed on a daily basis by the contractor’s “competent person” for signs of mass movement: tension cracks near the crest, bulging at the toe of the slope, etc. The responsibility for excavation safety and stability of construction slopes should lie solely with the contractor.

We recommend that extreme caution be observed in trench excavations. Several cases of loss of life due to trench collapses in Georgia point out the lack of attention given to excavation safety on some projects.

We recommend that applicable local and federal regulations regarding temporary slopes, and shoring and bracing of trench excavations be closely followed.

Formal analysis of slope stability was beyond the scope of work for this project. Based on our experience, permanent cut or fill slopes should be no steeper than 2H:1V to maintain long term stability and to provide ease of maintenance. The crest or toe of cut or fill slopes should be no closer than 10 feet to any foundation or to the edge of any pavement that will support truck traffic. The crest or toe should be no closer than 5 feet to the edge of any pavements supporting cars or light truck traffic or parking. Erosion protection of slopes during construction and during establishment of vegetation should be considered an essential part of construction.

Pavement Rehabilitation - Full-Depth Reclamation

Full-depth reclamation (FDR) using Portland cement is a viable option for pavement rehabilitation/reconstruction. FDR involves pulverizing the existing asphalt pavement, crushed stone base materials, and some soil subgrade, applying a predetermined amount of Portland cement and water, and shaping and compacting the mixture into a stable base course.

FDR has several advantages and benefits including recycling the existing pavement materials to reduce waste, relatively short construction schedule, and a high-quality base material for support of the new asphalt pavement.

February 17, 2026 | 9

The disadvantages of FDR include the need to engage a qualified and experienced specialty contractor with experienced personnel and the appropriate equipment capable of performing the work. Also, dust is created during the addition of cement to the pulverized material.

We recommend obtaining pricing information to perform FDR by blending Type I Portland cement at a rate of 60 pounds per square yard for a mix depth of 10 inches. This amendment rate is based on incorporating the asphalt and crushed stone base into the reclaimed mix base.

We recommend that the depth of underground utilities be verified in areas where utility lines may be located within the proposed 10-inch thick FDR treatment zone. Where the utilities are shallow enough to be affected by the FDR process, the utilities should be exposed, and the conditions should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Non-structural shrinkage cracking of the FDR base will likely occur and some of this shrinkage cracking may reflect through to the asphalt surface. To reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking of the FDR base to reflect back through the finished surface, we recommend pre-cracking (microcracking) the finished surface in accordance with the Portland Cement Association Guide to FDR with Cement by running a vibratory compactor across the surface after initial curing and prior to asphalt placement.

We recommend that you engage us to perform verification testing of the cement application rate prior to implementation of FDR. This is an integral part of the FDR construction process which will allow adjustments to the cement application rate based on actual samples of treated materials from the site. It is likely that cement application rate lower than 60 pounds per square yard will be viable, which would reduce the overall cost of FDR construction. High rates of cement application will exacerbate shrinkage cracking.

Additionally, field testing of the FDR treated zone should be performed to verify thickness and compaction.

At your request, we can provide a detailed proposal outlining our recommended laboratory and field testing services for FDR, and associated costs.

For planning purposes, we recommend the following FDR sections:

Parking Stalls and Automobile Traffic Only

Material Thickness (inches) Asphaltic Concrete 9.5mm (Type II) Superpave 2

FDR mix (Asphalt, Crushed Stone, and Subgrade) Approximately 6% Portland cement by weight

Main Traffic Lanes and Areas Subject to Truck/Bus Traffic

Asphaltic Concrete 9.5mm (Type II) Superpave 1½

Asphaltic Concrete 19mm Superpave 2

FDR mix (Asphalt, Crushed Stone, and Subgrade) Approximately 6% Portland cement by weight

February 17, 2026 | 10

Localized Pavement Reconstruction

In certain areas of the project it may be necessary to install a completely new pavement structure.

Reconstruction will require the complete removal of all existing asphalt and crushed stone base materials.

Once the existing pavement structure has been removed, the exposed soil subgrade can be evaluated and reworked/stabilized as needed. We anticipate that some subgrade areas will require treatment beyond scarification and recompaction.

The extent of unstable subgrade areas and specific approaches required to treat unstable subgrade areas cannot be ascertained based on the results of the hand auger borings. However, to facilitate evaluation and budgeting, we suggest assuming that 15 percent of any areas designated for reconstruction will require excavation and replacement extending to a depth of 2 feet below subgrade elevation. The suggested approach is intended only as a tool to estimate a cost associated with managing unstable subgrade conditions. Ground stabilization may be accomplished by in-place densification, treatment with geosynthetics (grid or fabric) and crushed stone, or a combination of methods. The need for, extent of, location, and optimal method of stabilization should be determined by Geo-Hydro at the time of construction based on actual site conditions.

Once subgrade preparation is completed, we recommend the following pavement sections:

Main Traffic Lanes and Areas Subject to Truck/Bus Traffic

Asphaltic Concrete 9.5mm Superpave Type II 1½

Asphaltic Concrete 19mm Superpave 2

Graded Aggregate Base (GAB) (Base Course) 8

Subgrade compacted to at least 100% standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698)

Parking Stalls and Automobile Traffic Only

Asphaltic Concrete 9.5mm Superpave Type II 2

Graded Aggregate Base (GAB) (Base Course) 6

Subgrade compacted to at least 100% standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698)

The top 12 inches of pavement subgrade soils must be compacted to at least 100 percent of the standard

Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698). Scarification and moisture adjustment will likely be required to achieve the recommended subgrade compaction level. Allowances for pavement subgrade preparation should be considered for budgeting and scheduling.

GAB must be compacted to at least 100 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density

(ASTM D1557).

February 17, 2026 | 11

Pavement Design Limitations

The pavement sections discussed above are based on our experience with similar type facilities. After traffic information has been developed, we recommend that you allow us to review the traffic data and revise our recommendations, as necessary.

For reference and independent evaluation purposes, we recommend using a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 5 and a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 140 pci for a soil subgrade prepared in accordance with the requirements outlined above. For an FDR subgrade, we recommend using a CBR of 40 and a modulus of subgrade reaction of 220 pci.

All pavement construction (FDR, Asphaltic Concrete Replacement, or Localized Pavement Reconstruction) should be performed in general accordance with Georgia DOT specifications. Proper subgrade compaction, adherence to Georgia DOT specifications, and compliance with project plans and specifications, will be critical to the performance of the constructed pavement.

Pavement Materials Testing

To aid in verifying that the pavement system is installed in general accordance with the design considerations, the following materials testing services are recommended:

• Field verification of cement application rate, mixing procedures, and treatment depth.

• Density testing of FDR treated layer.

• Proofrolling of FDR treated layer.

• Density testing of asphalt wearing course.

• Coring of the pavement to verify thickness and density of the asphalt wearing course.

We appreciate the opportunity to serve as your geotechnical consultant for this project, and are prepared to provide any additional services you may require. If you have any questions concerning this report or any of our services, please call us.

Sincerely, GEO-HYDRO ENGINEERS, INC.

Austin J. Kuehler, E.I.T. Luis E. Babler, P.E

Staff Engineer Chief Engineer akuehler@geohydro.com luis@geohydro.com

AJK/LEB/253175.20 - Stair and Pavement Rehabilitation - Duluth Public Safety Geotech Report up leb.docx

APPENDIX

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Approximate Scale, Miles

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5

Stair and Settlement Rehabilitation Duluth Public Safety Center Duluth, Georgia

Site

HA-3

HA-2

HA-1

HA-7

HA-8

HA-6

HA-5

HA-4

Buford Highway

Approximate Scale: 1"=60'

Stair and Settlement Rehabilitation Duluth Public Safety Center Duluth, Georgia Geo-Hydro Project Number 253175.20

Figure 2: Boring Location Plan

30 60 120 180

LEGEND: Soil Test Boring

Concrete (Approximately 6 inches) Graded Aggregate Base (Approximately 6 inches) Purple and brown silty fine to medium sand (SM) (FILL) Tan-brown silty fine sand (SM) (RESIDUUM)

Hand Auger Terminated at 4 feet Groundwater Not Encountered

Reinforcing Steel Initially Encountered in the Graded Aggregate Base Layer. Boring was Offset.

Equipment: Hand Auger & Penetrometer

Date Performed: 1/23/26

Elevation(ft):

G

R A

P H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f ee t)

LA

B

T E

S T

S

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T pc f)

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

P E

N

R E

S

IS

T

S A

M P

LE

HAND AUGER LOG HA-1

Logged by: BGS

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Penetration resistance was evaluated in accordance with ASTM STP-399.

The penetration resistance is the number of blows of a hammer weighing 15 lbs. falling 20 inches to drive a 1.5 inch diameter cone 1.75 inches.

Stair Settlement and Pavement Rehabilitation

Duluth Public Safety Center, Duluth, Georgia

253175.20

H A

N D

A U

G E

R L

O G

S .G

P J

L O

G A

G N

N N

.G

D

2/

/2

Concrete (Approximately 6 1/4 inches) Graded Aggregate Base (Approximately 6 1/2 inches) Orange and tan clayey fine to medium sand (SC) (FILL)

Gray and brown silty fine to medium sand (SM) with rock fragments

(FILL)

Gray and brown silty fine sand (SM) (RESIDUUM)

Hand Auger Terminated at 6 feet Groundwater Not Encountered

Reinforcing Steel Initially Encountered in the Graded Aggregate Base Layer. Boring was Offset.

25<

25<

Equipment: Hand Auger & Penetrometer

Date Performed: 1/23/26

Elevation(ft):

G

R A

P H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f ee t)

LA

B

T E

S T

S

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T pc f)

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

P E

N

R E

S

IS

T

S A

M P

LE

HAND AUGER LOG HA-2

Logged by: BGS

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Penetration resistance was evaluated in accordance with ASTM STP-399.

The penetration resistance is the number of blows of a hammer weighing 15 lbs. falling 20 inches to drive a 1.5 inch diameter cone 1.75 inches.

Stair Settlement and Pavement Rehabilitation

Duluth Public Safety Center, Duluth, Georgia

253175.20

H A

N D

A U

G E

R L

O G

S .G

P J

L O

G A

G N

N N

.G

/2

Concrete (Approximately 4 3/4 inches) Graded Aggregate Base (Approximately 7 1/2 inches) Orange and tan clayey fine to medium sand (SC) (FILL)

Hand Auger Terminated at 10 feet Groundwater Not Encountered

Equipment: Hand Auger & Penetrometer

Date Performed: 1/23/26

Elevation(ft):

G

R A

P H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f ee t)

LA

B

T E

S T

S

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T pc f)

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

P E

N

R E

S

IS

T

S A

M P

LE

HAND AUGER LOG HA-3

Logged by: BGS

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Penetration resistance was evaluated in accordance with ASTM STP-399.

The penetration resistance is the number of blows of a hammer weighing 15 lbs. falling 20 inches to drive a 1.5 inch diameter cone 1.75 inches.

Stair Settlement and Pavement Rehabilitation

Duluth Public Safety Center, Duluth, Georgia

253175.20

H A

N D

A U

G E

R L

O G

S .G

P J

L O

G A

G N

N N

.G

6/

Asphalt (Approximately 3 1/2 inches) Graded Aggregate Base (Approximately 7 1/2 inches) Red-brown and tan clayey fine to medium sand (SC) (FILL)

Hand Auger Terminated at 4 feet Groundwater Not Encountered

Equipment: Hand Auger & Penetrometer

Date Performed: 1/23/26

Elevation(ft):

G

R A

P H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f ee t)

LA

B

T E

S T

S

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T pc f)

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

P E

N

R E

S

IS

T

S A

M P

LE

HAND AUGER LOG HA-4

Logged by: BGS

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Penetration resistance was evaluated in accordance with ASTM STP-399.

The penetration resistance is the number of blows of a hammer weighing 15 lbs. falling 20 inches to drive a 1.5 inch diameter cone 1.75 inches.

Stair Settlement and Pavement Rehabilitation

Duluth Public Safety Center, Duluth, Georgia

253175.20

H A

N D

A U

G E

R L

O G

S .G

P J

L O

G A

G N

N N

.G akuehler Image

Asphalt (Approximately 2 1/4 inches) Graded Aggregate Base (Approximately 3 1/4 inches) Red-brown to tan-brown clayey fine to medium sand (SC) (FILL)

Hand Auger Terminated at 4 feet Groundwater Not Encountered

Equipment: Hand Auger & Penetrometer

Date Performed: 1/23/26

Elevation(ft):

G

R A

P H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f ee t)

LA

B

T E

S T

S

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T pc f)

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

P E

N

R E

S

IS

T

S A

M P

LE

HAND AUGER LOG HA-5

Logged by: BGS

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Penetration resistance was evaluated in accordance with ASTM STP-399.

The penetration resistance is the number of blows of a hammer weighing 15 lbs. falling 20 inches to drive a 1.5 inch diameter cone 1.75 inches.

Stair Settlement and Pavement Rehabilitation

Duluth Public Safety Center, Duluth, Georgia

253175.20

H A

N D

A U

G E

R L

O G

S .G

P J

L O

G A

G N

N N

.G

Asphalt (Approximately 2 inches) Graded Aggregate Base (Approximately 4 1/2 inches) Red-brown and tan clayey fine to medium sand (SC) (FILL)

Red and tan silty fine to medium sand (SM) (FILL)

Hand Auger Terminated at 4 feet Groundwater Not Encountered

Equipment: Hand Auger & Penetrometer

Date Performed: 1/23/26

Elevation(ft):

G

R A

P H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f ee t)

LA

B

T E

S T

S

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T pc f)

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

P E

N

R E

S

IS

T

S A

M P

LE

HAND AUGER LOG HA-6

Logged by: BGS

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Penetration resistance was evaluated in accordance with ASTM STP-399.

The penetration resistance is the number of blows of a hammer weighing 15 lbs. falling 20 inches to drive a 1.5 inch diameter cone 1.75 inches.

Stair Settlement and Pavement Rehabilitation

Duluth Public Safety Center, Duluth, Georgia

253175.20

H A

N D

A U

G E

R L

O G

S .G

P J

L O

G A

G N

N N

.G

Asphalt (Approximately 2 3/4 inches) Graded Aggregate Base (Approximately 6 3/4 inches) Orange and brown silty fine to medium sand (SM) (FILL) Tan-brown and black silty fine sand (SM) (RESIDUUM))

Hand Auger Terminated at 4 feet Groundwater Not Encountered

Equipment: Hand Auger & Penetrometer

Date Performed: 1/23/26

Elevation(ft):

G

R A

P H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f ee t)

LA

B

T E

S T

S

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T pc f)

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

P E

N

R E

S

IS

T

S A

M P

LE

HAND AUGER LOG HA-7

Logged by: BGS

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Penetration resistance was evaluated in accordance with ASTM STP-399.

The penetration resistance is the number of blows of a hammer weighing 15 lbs. falling 20 inches to drive a 1.5 inch diameter cone 1.75 inches.

Stair Settlement and Pavement Rehabilitation

Duluth Public Safety Center, Duluth, Georgia

253175.20

H A

N D

A U

G E

R L

O G

S .G

P J

L O

G A

G N

N N

.G

Asphalt (Approximately 3 1/4 inches) Graded Aggregate Base (Approximately 6 3/4 inches) Orange and red silty fine to medium sand (SM) (FILL) Red, tan, and white silty fine sand (SM) (RESIDUUM))

Hand Auger Terminated at 4 feet Groundwater Not Encountered

Equipment: Hand Auger & Penetrometer

Date Performed: 1/23/26

Elevation(ft):

G

R A

P H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f ee t)

LA

B

T E

S T

S

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T pc f)

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

P E

N

R E

S

IS

T

S A

M P

LE

HAND AUGER LOG HA-8

Logged by: BGS

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Penetration resistance was evaluated in accordance with ASTM STP-399.

The penetration resistance is the number of blows of a hammer weighing 15 lbs. falling 20 inches to drive a 1.5 inch diameter cone 1.75 inches.

Stair Settlement and Pavement Rehabilitation

Duluth Public Safety Center, Duluth, Georgia

253175.20

H A

N D

A U

G E

R L

O G

S .G

P J

L O

G A

G N

N N

.G