013.5 - Geotechnical Engineering Report.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT,

REVISION 01

F-16 Mission Training Center Atlantic City Air National Guard Base Atlantic City International Airport, New Jersey Contract AQRC189015

BV Contract # 23-0022-43353 Schnabel Reference 23140043.000

Revised May 14, 2025

Project 23140043.000 Page i Schnabel Engineering, LLC May 14, 2025 ©2025 All Rights Reserved

Revised May 14, 2025

Mr. Douglas K. Adams, R.A.*, PMP, LEED AP Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.

6100 Sprint Parkway Third Floor Overland Park, KS 66211

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report, Revision 01, F-16 Mission Training Center, Atlantic City ANG Base, New Jersey, Contract AQRC189015; (BV Contract # 23- 0022-43353) (Schnabel Reference 23140043.000)

Dear Mr. Adams:

SCHNABEL ENGINEERING, LLC (Schnabel) is pleased to submit our revised geotechnical engineering report for this project. This study was performed in accordance with our Subcontract Agreement dated June 14, 2023, and in general accordance with the project requirements detailed in the Scope of Work and the Statement of Work for Architect – Engineer Services, AQRC189015, F-16 Mission Training Center, Atlantic City ANG Base, NJ dated March 3, 2022. We have revised this report to include the results of additional explorations performed in May 2025, in accordance with our agreement dated April 30, 2025.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service for this project. Please call us if you have any questions regarding this report.

Sincerely, SCHNABEL ENGINEERING, LLC

David MacGregor, PE Principal

Professional Certification. I hereby certify that these documents were prepared or approved by me, and that I am a duly licensed professional engineer under the laws of the State of Maryland. License No. 56484, Expiration Date: 6/22/25

Jeffrey Sewell, PE (MD) Principal

EB:SWF:ka:jdb

O:\BALTIMORE\2023\23140043.000 F-16 TRAINING ATLANTIC CITY\03-SE PRODUCTS\03-REPORTS\2025 SUBMISSION\SCHNABEL REPORT FOR ANG F-16.DOCX

Black and Veatch F-16 Mission Training Center, Atlantic City ANG Base, New Jersey

Project 23140043.000 Page i Schnabel Engineering, LLC

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT, REVISION 01

F-16 MISSION TRAINING CENTER

ATLANTIC CITY ANG BASE, NEW JERSEY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

3.1 Subsurface Exploration and Field Testing

3.2 Soil Laboratory Testing

4.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Site Geology

4.2 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

4.3 Groundwater

4.4 Expansive Soils

4.5 Soil Corrosivity

4.6 Seismic Site Classification

5.0 SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK

5.1 Compacted Fill Subgrades

5.2 Compacted Fill

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Spread Footings

6.2 Horizontal Resistance of Spread Footings

6.3 Floor Slabs

7.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Pavement Subgrades

7.2 Pavement Design

7.3 Concrete Pavement

7.4 General Pavement Considerations

8.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

8.1 Soils Textures

9.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

9.1 Site Grading and Earthwork

9.2 Spread Footings

9.3 Construction Dewatering

9.4 Engineering Services During Construction

10.0 GENERAL SPECIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Project 23140043.000 Page ii Schnabel Engineering, LLC August 31, 2023 ©2025 All Rights Reserved

11.0 LIMITATIONS

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Location Plan Figure 3: Footing Undercut Detail

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Water Level Readings Table 2: Seismic Design Parameters Table 3: Pavement Section Recommendations Table 4: Permeability Tests

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Subsurface Exploration Data Appendix B: In Situ Resistivity Test Results Appendix C: Soil Geotechnical Laboratory Test Data Appendix D: Soil Chemical Laboratory Test Data Appendix E: Permeability Test Results

Project 23140043.000 Page 1 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The Statement of Work dated June 1, 2023 in our agreement defines the scope of services for this project.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the planned construction. This report presents the results of subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, resistivity tests, geotechnical engineering analysis, and our geotechnical recommendations regarding the design of foundations, earthwork, pavements, and stormwater management (SWM) structures for the project.

The scope of services was modified by our agreement dated April 30, 2025 to include additional subsurface exploration at the planned stormwater management structures, laboratory testing, and the revision of this report.

This study was conducted under the supervision of a Professional Engineer.

Project 23140043.000 Page 2 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

A new F-16 Mission Training Center (MTC) is planned at the Atlantic City Air National Guard Base in New Jersey to house four simulator bays, training rooms, administrative support areas, storage, and latrine space. The building will be 15,000 sf in plan area and the project will also include associated parking, utilities, and stormwater management structures. The building will be single story with a floor slab on grade at about EL 59.5 ft. The facility will be designed as permanent construction in accordance with the DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-01, General Building Requirements and UFC 1-200-02, High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements. The maximum assumed column loads are 90 kips.

New parking lots will surround the building on the east, south and west sides.

A Vicinity Map is included as Figure 1. The project site is about six acres and currently consists of a parking lot with a grass area to the north, a 120 ft wide gravel area to the east, several buildings to the west, and Earhart Drive to the south. A fence separating the site from the airport bounds the site to the north and east. An unused, single-story building is located on the gravel area and the grass area to the north of the parking lot previously housed temporary trailers. The existing site grade slopes gently down from south to north with ground surface elevations between EL 62 ft and EL 57 ft. There are existing electric and communication lines buried at the site as well as buried water and sanitation pipes.

The existing site grades are within 2 to 3 ft of the planned floor grade for the new building. Thus, we have assumed that final site grading will be within 3-ft of the existing grades.

Schnabel obtained the site and project information through our site visits, our discussions, and from the Scope of Work and the Statement of Work for Architect – Engineer Services, AQRC189015, F-16 Mission Training Center, Atlantic City ANG Base, NJ dated March 3, 2022.

Project 23140043.000 Page 3 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

We performed a subsurface exploration and field-testing program to identify the subsurface stratigraphy underlying the site and to evaluate the geotechnical properties of the materials encountered. This program included test borings for foundations, pavements, earthwork, and stormwater management structures. We also performed three in situ permeameter tests at select boring locations to further investigate the hydraulic properties with regards to stormwater management structures. Exploration methods used are discussed below. The appendices to this report contain the results of our exploration.

3.1 Subsurface Exploration and Field Testing

3.1.1 Test Borings

Schnabel’s subcontractor, Uni-Tech Drilling Co., Inc. drilled eight test borings to depths of 16 ft to 80 ft under our observation between July 12 and July 18, 2023. Uni-Tech Drilling performed three additional test borings to a depth of 18 ft under our observation on May 1, 2025. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed at select depths in the borings. Appendix A includes specific observations, remarks, and logs for the borings; classification criteria; drilling methods; and sampling protocols. Figure 2, included at the end of this report, indicates the approximate test boring locations. We will retain soil samples up from our 2025 exploration 90 days beyond the issuance of this report, unless you request other disposition.

The SPT samples were obtained using a hydraulically driven automatic trip hammer (ATH). Most correlations with SPT data are based on N-values collected with a safety hammer. The energy applied to the split-spoon sampler using the ATH is about 33 percent greater than that applied using the safety hammer, resulting in lower N-values. The hammer blows shown on the boring logs are uncorrected for the higher energy. However, we corrected SPT N-values for the higher energy when using N-values in our analyses.

3.1.2 Infiltration Testing

In addition to the SPTs performed in the test borings, we performed in-situ permeameter tests at the selected test boring locations to further establish the subsurface characteristics for the design of stormwater management structures.

We performed six permeameter tests in general accordance with the guidelines in the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2022 New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual near the test borings SWM-1 through SWM-6. Details of the test results are included in Appendix E and are summarized in Section 8.0 of this report.

3.1.3 Field Resistivity Testing

Schnabel personnel performed field resistivity soundings at the site on July 11, 2023. The resistivity measurements were made using the Wenner four-pin array method in general accordance with ASTM G57 Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using the Wenner Four-Electrode Method, and ANSI/IEEE 81 Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground Impedance, and Earth Surface Potentials of a Grounding System.

Project 23140043.000 Page 4 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Resistivity soundings were conducted at two locations, and at each location data was collected along two perpendicular arrays, centered at a common location. We recorded the locations of the traverses using a submeter GPS and they are included on Figure 2, Location Plan. The locations were chosen to avoid pavements and known utility locations. We collected data using “a” spacings of 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 ft, and we recorded multiple measurements at each location to confirm repeatability, and therefore quality; a 13 foot “a” spacing was also conducted on Line 2A because of an unknown obstruction encountered during data collection of the 15 foot “a” spacing that resulted in an invalid reading. We expect this buried obstruction may have been due to unknown utility or buried debris.

Results from the soil resistivity surveys show that the subsurface resistivity values range from about 2,400 to 85,600 ohm-cm (24 to 856 ohm-m), and the values are lower in the Line 2 area. The results of the measurements are provided in Appendix B.

3.2 Soil Laboratory Testing

Our subcontracted laboratories performed tests on select samples collected during the supplemental subsurface exploration. The testing aided in the classification of materials encountered in the subsurface exploration and provided data for use in the development of recommendations for design of foundations, pavements, earthwork, and stormwater management structures. The results of the laboratory tests are included in Appendix C and are summarized in Section 4.2 of this report. Selected test results are also shown on the boring logs in Appendix A.

3.2.1 Index Testing

We performed index testing on soil samples collected as part of the exploration to provide soil classifications and to provide parameters for use with published correlations with soil properties. Index testing included performing natural moisture content, Atterberg Limit, gradation, and USDA classification tests on selected split spoon samples and two bulk sample of soils representing Strata A and B. The results are presented in Appendix C and are summarized in Section 4.2.

3.2.2 Compaction and CBR Testing

We performed a Modified Proctor Compaction test per ASTM D1557, and a CBR test on two bulk samples to evaluate compaction characteristics and to provide soil parameters for pavement design. The tests were performed on samples from borings PB-01 and SWM-3 collected from depths of 0.5 to 5-ft below ground, mostly representing the Stratum A Existing Fill soils.

3.2.3 Strength and Consolidation Testing

We performed two direct shear tests on shelby tube samples of soils representing Stratum B to evaluate the shear strength of these materials. We also performed a one-dimensional consolidation test on shelby tube sample of soils representing Stratum B to evaluate the compressibility characteristics of these soils.

3.2.4 Corrosivity Testing

We performed tests for pH, sulfides, redox potential, and resistivity testing on three samples. The test results are presented in Appendix C and are summarized in Section 4.5.

Project 23140043.000 Page 5 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

3.2.5 Chemical Testing

Based on SPT recoveries, grab soil samples were collected for chemical laboratory analysis from approximately the 3 ft and 6 ft depth intervals from select geotechnical borings (B-01, PB-01, SWM-1, and SMW-3). Two soil samples from SMW-3 were also collected for laboratory analysis from the intervals (12 ft and 15 ft) near the groundwater table. No petroleum odors or staining were observed during advancement of the geotechnical borings.

Portions of the samples from the SPTs were placed in laboratory-supplied jars for potential laboratory analysis and placed in a cooler on ice. Samples were shipped under a chain of custody to Phase Separation Science, Inc. (Phase) by Schnabel personnel. Ten soil samples were analyzed for RCRA-8 metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) – diesel range organics (DRO), and TPH – gasoline range organics (GRO). The laboratory analytical report including certificates of analysis and chain of custody is provided in Appendix D.

VOCs and TPH-GRO were not detected in the soil samples.

With the exception of a TCLP barium detection of 0.33 mg/L in sample HA-2, TCLP metals were not detected in the soil samples. The TCLP barium concentration is below the hazardous waste threshold of 100 mg/L. Various total metals were detected in the soils, however based on the TCLP analysis, the elevated concentrations of metals do not require hazardous waste disposal considerations.

TPH-DRO was detected in the 6 ft soil sample from boring PB-1 at a concentration 13 mg/kg. TPH-DRO was not detected in the remaining soil samples.

Low-level detections of arsenic, barium, lead, and chromium were detected in the soil samples. These detected concentrations are believed to be naturally occurring.

Based on the results of the limited environmental sampling, soil generated during construction may be petroleum impacted and require offsite disposal at a facility such as Clean Earth or Soil Safe, Inc.

However, the results of the testing do not indicate levels that would require soil disposal at a facility that accepts hazardous waste.

Representative soil and water samples should be collected during construction and tested to determine the actual requirements and facilities that are required for disposal.

During our 2025 exploration, we screened soil samples with a Photo-Ionization Detector (PID) to assist in identifying any volatile organic compounds or hydrocarbon vapors. No volatile organics were detected during our 2025 exploration based on the PID readings, which can be seen on the test boring logs SWM- 4 to SWM-6.

Project 23140043.000 Page 6 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

4.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Site Geology

As part of the subsurface exploration study, we reviewed existing geologic data, the test borings performed at the project site, and information in our files. We characterized the following generalized subsurface stratigraphy based on the exploration and laboratory test data included in the appendices.

Based on this review, the site is generally underlain by existing fill soils and Cohansey Formation soils, which are middle Miocene aged coastal plain sediments. The fill soils encountered were likely placed during site grading and utility construction for the facilities that previously or currently occupy the site.

The Cohansey Formation is predominantly quartz sand, white to yellow, medium to coarse grained, cross bedded, local clay, gravel, and ironstone beds. The maximum thickness of this formation was observed at 78 ft, which was at the termination depth of 80-ft in B-04. A copy of a section of the map showing the project site is included in Plate 1 below.

Plate 1: Section of Geologic Map Showing the Project Site

Reference: Dalton, R.F. (2014).

“Bedrock Geologic Map of New Jersey”, New Jersey Geological and Water Survey

4.2 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

We characterized the following generalized subsurface stratigraphy based on the exploration and laboratory test data included in the appendices.

4.2.1 Ground Cover

Topsoil depths of 1 to 9 inches were encountered in the test borings performed in the grass areas.

Borings B-4 and PB-1, performed in the existing parking lot, encountered 1 and 3 inches of asphalt, respectively. Boring B-5, which was performed in the gravel area, encountered 2 inches of what we visually estimated to be No. 57 stone.

Project Site Region

Project 23140043.000 Page 7 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

4.2.2 Stratum A: Existing Fill

Existing fill soils of Stratum A were encountered in all of the test borings at depths of 2.0 to 5.2 ft, below the existing ground surface. The fill generally consisted of brown and orangish brown, Clayey Sand with varying amounts of gravel, Silty Clayey Sand and Poorly Graded Sand. Smaller amounts of Sandy Lean Clay were encountered in two test borings (SWM-5 and SWM-6). The measured N values of the fill soils ranged from 4 bpf to 49 bpf, indicating very loose to very dense.

Six split spoon samples and two composite bulk samples were tested within this stratum. Index tests on the samples resulted in the following properties:

• Moisture Content: 5.0 to 12.9 %

• Liquid Limit: 19 to 32

• Plasticity Index: 5 to 15

• % Passing No. 200 Sieve: 24.7 to 37.8

We performed two Modified Proctor Compaction tests and two CBR tests on composite bulk samples, representing mostly Stratum A soils. The samples were Clayey Sand with Gravel, classified as SC, and Silty Clayey Sand, classified as SC-SM, in accordance with the ASTM D2487 classification system. The compaction tests resulted in maximum dry densities of 137.3 pcf and 139.7 when corrected for oversized materials. The optimum moisture contents were 5.4 and 5.9 percent, respectively. Samples were compacted at 131.0 pcf and 133.9 pcf and were submerged for four days. Neither sample swelled during soaking. The laboratory CBR values were 84.2 and 102.4, respectively.

4.2.3 Stratum B: Cohansey Formation

Cohansey Formation soils of Stratum B were encountered beneath the Stratum A fills, to the maximum depths drilled, up to 80 ft below the existing ground surface. The Stratum B soils generally consisted of orangish brown and light gray, Poorly Graded Sand with various amounts of Silt and Clay (SP, SP-SM, SP-SC), Clayey Sand (SC), Silty Sand (SM), or Lean Clay with various amounts of sand (CL). The measured N values of the granular soils ranged from 2 bpf to over 100 bpf, indicating densities of very loose to very dense; and the measured N values of the fine-grained soils were 2 bpf, indicating soft consistency. The N values of the granular soils were lower in some cases (2 to 3 bpf) at the water table to about 10 ft below the water table. Outside of this zone, the N values of the granular soils were generally higher ranging from 11 bpf to over 100 bpf.

16 samples were tested within this stratum. Index tests on the samples resulted in the following properties:

• Moisture Content: 4.2 to 29.7 %

• Liquid Limit: Non plastic to 35

• Plasticity Index: Non plastic to 18

• % Passing No. 200 Sieve: 5.4 to 74.3

• pH = 4.43 to 7.74

• Saturated Resistivity = 651 ohm-cm to 46,200 ohm-cm

Project 23140043.000 Page 8 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Two Drained Direct Shear tests and one consolidation tests were performed on samples from the stratum.

The results are in Appendix C.

4.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was observed in test borings B-1, B-2, B-4, B-5, SWM-1, SWM-4, SWM-5, and SWM-6 during drilling at depths ranging from 13.5 ft to 20.0 ft (about EL 44.5 to 40.0 ft). Borings B-1, B-2, B-4, and B-5 were drilled utilizing the mud rotary method and grouted upon completion. Therefore, only encountered water depths were recorded. The test boring logs in Appendix A include groundwater observations obtained during our subsurface exploration. This data includes depths to groundwater encountered during drilling, upon drilling completion, and following completion of the boring. A summary of water level readings is included in Table 1: .

Table 1: Summary of Water Level Readings

Boring Number

Estimated Encountered Water

Level

Depth (ft) EL (ft)

B-1 18.0 40.0

B-2 18.0 40.0

B-4 18.0 40.0

B-5 20.0 40.0

PB-1 dry dry

SWM-1 15.5 41.5

SWM-2 dry dry

SWM-3 15.5 43.5

SWM-4 16.0 41.5

SWM-5

13.5

(16.5 After Drilling)

44.5 (41.5 After

Drilling)

SWM-6

15.0

(16.0 After Drilling)

43.0 (42.0 After

Drilling)

The groundwater levels on the logs indicate our estimate of the hydrostatic water table at the time of our subsurface exploration. The final design should anticipate the fluctuation of the hydrostatic water table depending on variations in precipitation, surface runoff, pumping, tidal action, evaporation, leaking utilities, and similar factors.

Based on our groundwater observations, we expect the hydrostatic groundwater level to be at between approximately EL 40 and EL 44.5 ft at the site. Based on our understanding of the proposed construction, we do not expect groundwater to be encountered in the excavations for foundations.

Project 23140043.000 Page 9 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

4.4 Expansive Soils

The surficial soils encountered in the top 10-ft depth within the test borings were mostly classified as sands, with a maximum of 38 percent fine grained soils. The highest Liquid limit was 32 and the highest Plasticity Index was 16. The CBR samples did not swell, when submerged for four days. Based on the laboratory test results and our observations in the test borings, we believe the on-site surficial soils have a low risk of expansion due to changes in their moisture contents.

4.5 Soil Corrosivity

Laboratory testing performed on three samples from borings B-01, B-05 and PB-01, to evaluate the corrosivity of the Stratum A soils resulted in:

• pH = 4.97 to 6.82

• Redox Potential = 263 mV to 296 mV,

• Saturated Resistivity = 10,500 ohm-cm to 42,800 ohm-cm

• Sulfides=negative

• Chloride ion= 5 to 7 PPM

• Sulfate ion = 11 to 21 PPM

Based on these test results, the soils of Stratum A are considered to be non-corrosive for buried metallic structures in accordance with AWWA standards and a low degree of corrosivity for sulfate attack on concrete according to ACI standards.

Results from the in-situ soil resistivity surveys show that the subsurface resistivity values range from about 2,400 to 85,600 ohm-cm (24 to 856 ohm-m), and the values are lower in the Line 2 area. The results of the measurements are provided in Appendix B.

Table 2.1 of the Unified Facilities Criteria for Cathodic Protection, (UFC-3-570-02A), indicates that soils with resistivities from 2,000 to 10,000 have a “moderate to severe risk” for corrosion. Soils with resistivities above 30,000 are “not likely” to have a risk for corrosion.

4.6 Seismic Site Classification

We evaluated the Seismic Site Class and Seismic Site Coefficients for this project according to ASCE 7- 16 for use in building design based on an extrapolation of data collected in the subsurface exploration.

We assumed a structure Risk Category of II and III, and our analysis indicates Site Class D for this location.

This Site Class was evaluated based on corrected SPT values, extrapolated to a depth of 100 ft. The seismic design parameters that are calculated based on the recommended site class and project location are summarized in Table 2. The parameters are the same for Risk Category II and III.

Table 2: Seismic Design Parameters

Period Mapped

Acceleration Parameters

Site Coefficient

Adjusted Maximum Spectral Response

Acceleration Parameters

Design Spectral Response

Project 23140043.000 Page 10 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Acceleration Parameters

Short Ss = 0.129 g Fa = 1.6 g Sms = 0.207 g Sds = 0.138 g

1 Second S1 = 0.041 g Fv = 2.4 g Sm1 = 0.098 g Sd1 = 0.066 g

Project 23140043.000 Page 11 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

5.0 SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK

We have assumed that the proposed building and site grades will require cuts and fills of up to about 3 ft.

Recommendations for compacted fill subgrade preparation, fill soil requirements, placement, and compaction criteria are presented in subsequent sections.

5.1 Compacted Fill Subgrades

Subgrades to receive compacted structural fill for building or pavement support should be stripped of vegetation, topsoil, and organic matter. Our subsurface exploration indicated topsoil to depths of 1 to 6 inches below the ground surface. We recommend a stripping depth of 6- inches be assumed for the site design. The test borings indicate the approximate depth of topsoil based on our visual identification procedures. The depth of stripping needed to provide a suitable base for placement and compaction of earthwork or for pavement subgrade preparation may include topsoil and other softer surficial layers, with or without organic matter.

Compacted structural fill subgrades should consist of firm existing fil soils of Stratum A or suitable natural soils of Stratum B. These soils are expected to be encountered at shallow depths beneath the topsoil and pavements.

There are structures on the site. Additionally, there may be previous structures that have been demolished. Therefore, buried foundations and other associated debris may be encountered during grading activities and at the fill subgrades. Existing foundations should be completely removed from below the proposed building footprint. Existing foundations and walls in the proposed pavement areas should be removed to at least 1 ft below the design pavement subgrade level. Existing utilities and drainage structures within the building footprint should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill.

The Geotechnical Engineer should evaluate the suitability of the fill subgrades. To evaluate the subgrade suitability for support of the compacted structural fill prior to any undercutting or initiation of fill placement, the stripped subgrades should be proofrolled with a loaded dump truck. Areas that exhibit excessive pumping, weaving, or rutting should be scarified, dried and recompacted, or undercut and replaced with compacted structural fill as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Subgrade evaluation techniques complementary to proofrolling could include a combination of probing with a penetrometer, drilling hand augers, and/or observing test pits.

When excavation of unsuitable materials is required, it should be performed in a manner to limit disturbance of the underlying suitable material. To evaluate required excavation depths, the excavation should be performed under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer.

Compacted structural fill subgrades should be kept free of ponded water. If springs or other flowing water is present at the compacted structural fill subgrade level, the Contractor should direct water to discharge beyond the fill limits. Recommendations for discharging springs should be provided by the Geotechnical Engineer.

Project 23140043.000 Page 12 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Compacted structural fill subgrades should be free of snow, ice, and frozen soils. If snow, ice, or frozen soils are present at subgrade levels, these materials should be removed as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer.

Compacted structural fill subgrades should not be steeper than about 4H:1V. If steeper slopes are present, subgrades should be benched to permit placement of horizontal lifts of fill.

5.2 Compacted Fill

Compacted structural fill and backfill should consist of non-organic on-site and off-site soils that are classified as SC, SM, SP, SW, GC, GM, GP, or GW according to ASTM D2487. The fill materials should not contain particles larger than 3 inches, and must be free of organics, debris, and other unsuitable materials. The Geotechnical Engineer should test and approve the fill materials.

We believe that most of the near-surface on-site soils will meet this criterion. However, some selective excavation will be required to separate these materials from the fine-grained materials also found on-site.

Fill material in non-structural “green” areas may consist of materials classified as CL, ML, and MH in addition to the soils described above.

Compacted structural fill should be placed in maximum 8-inch thick horizontal, loose lifts. Fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). Soil moisture contents at the time of compaction should be within 3 percent of the soil’s optimum moisture content. Fills placed in green areas where vehicular or aircraft traffic is not expected may be placed and compacted to at least 85 percent of maximum dry density per ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor).

Backfill placed in excavations, trenches, and other areas that large compaction equipment cannot access should be placed in maximum 6-inch-thick lifts. Backfill should meet the material, placement, and compaction requirements outlined above.

Successful re-use of the excavated, on-site soils as compacted structural fill will depend on their natural moisture contents during excavation. Laboratory test results indicate the moisture contents of the surficial soils are from about 5 to 13 percent, which are up to 8 percent above the optimum moisture content for compaction. Thus, scarifying and drying of these soils should be anticipated to achieve the recommended compaction. Drying of these soils will likely result in some delays, and may not be possible during cooler, wetter weather. We recommend that the earthwork be performed during the warmer, drier times of the year.

Project 23140043.000 Page 13 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

We based our geotechnical engineering analysis on the information developed from our subsurface exploration and soil laboratory testing, along with the project development plans, site plans, and structural loading furnished to our office. We recommend shallow spread footings for support of the proposed building based on our analysis. The following sections of the report provide our detailed recommendations.

6.1 Spread Footings

We consider spread footings suitable for support of the proposed structure. Footings should be founded on suitable natural soils of Stratum B or on new compacted structural fill. Compacted structural fill should meet the requirements outlined in Section 5.2 Compacted Fill section of this report. We recommend footings supported on these materials be designed for a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,500 psf.

Column and wall footings should be at least 24 and 12 inches wide, respectively, for shear considerations. Exterior footings should be founded at least 2.5 ft below final exterior grades for frost protection. Interior footings may be founded at nominal depths below the floor slabs. Where bearing grades between adjacent footings vary, the slope between the bottom edges of adjacent footings should not be steeper than 45 degrees (1H:1V). This bearing pressure provides a factor of safety against general bearing capacity failure of at least 3.0.

The above allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by 33 percent for wind and seismic loads when used in conjunction with load combinations defined in IBC 2012 Section 1605.3.2, Alternative Basic Load Combinations for use with allowable stress design. This increase is not applicable for other allowable stress load combinations, strength design, or load and resistance factor design.

Settlements of shallow foundations supported on suitable natural soils and on properly placed new compacted structural fill are not expected to exceed about 1 inch. Differential settlements between similarly loaded footings are not expected to exceed about half this value.

6.1.1 Footing Subgrades

Footing subgrades should consist of suitable natural soils or new compacted fill. Some existing fill soils of unknown consistency were encountered at the ground surface to depths of up to 5-ft. Existing fill soils are not considered suitable for footing support. Where existing fill soils are present at the footing subgrade, they should be undercut to firm suitable natural soils and replaced with new compacted structural fill. A detail for the undercutting of the existing fills and replacement with new compacted structural fill is shown on Figure No. 3 at the end of this report.

The Geotechnical Engineer must evaluate the suitability of the footing subgrades. The evaluation should compare the observed subgrade soils with those found in the test borings and described in this report.

Evaluation should include visual soil classification and probing to verify a firm consistency. Where unsuitable soils are encountered at the design bearing grade, these soils must be removed down to suitable natural soils as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. The lowered excavation should be replaced with materials as described above.

Project 23140043.000 Page 14 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

When removal of unsuitable materials is required, the excavation must be performed in a manner to prevent undermining and disturbance of the building footing subgrades. This is described in Section 9.2.

The excavations must limit the disturbance of the underlying suitable material. The excavation should be performed under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer to evaluate required excavation depths and proper methods.

6.2 Horizontal Resistance of Spread Footings

We expect that resistance to horizontal forces on foundations from wind loads will be required. At-rest earth resistance of the footings may be used to resist the lateral forces. We recommend an ultimate equivalent fluid pressure of 60H psf (where H is the height of the footing in feet measured from the ground surface or below the structural slab to the bottom of the footing) for footings backfilled with compacted structural fill as recommended herein.

Sliding resistance at the base of the footing may also be used to resist the lateral forces. An ultimate frictional resistance of 0.35W (where W is the net footing vertical load) should be used to compute the sliding resistance at the base of the footing when founded on suitable natural soils or new compacted fills.

A factor of safety of 1.5 should be used when evaluating the sliding resistance.

6.3 Floor Slabs

The proposed floor slabs should be supported on firm existing fill soils of Stratum A, suitable natural soils of Stratum B or on new compacted structural fill. A modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 150 pci should be used in design of floor slabs. The recommended modulus value is for a 1-ft-square plate. Some slab design software may consider different definitions of k for input. The Structural Engineer should contact our office if their software considers a different definition of k.

A minimum 4-inch crushed stone or washed gravel capillary moisture barrier should underlie floor slabs on grade. Moisture barrier material should consist of AASHTO No. 57 crushed stone. The Contractor should compact the stone in place with at least two passes of suitable vibratory compaction equipment.

The Contractor should proofroll and compact floor slab subgrades as recommended in Section 5.1, before placing moisture barrier materials to repair any disturbance that may occur due to construction operations. Because floors will be slab-on-grade, footing and utility excavations below the floor should be backfilled with compacted structural fill as defined in Section 5.2.

Some of the on-site existing fill soils may not be suitable for floor support. These should be identified during the proofrolling. Where unsuitable soils are identified, these soils should be compacted to the required densities or removed and replaced with new compacted fill as described in Section 5.2, Compacted Fill.

Project 23140043.000 Page 15 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

7.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

New asphalt pavements for parking lots around the building are planned.

7.1 Pavement Subgrades

The Contractor should prepare pavement subgrades and place compacted structural fill for pavement support as described in Section 5.0 of this report. Final pavement subgrades should be proofrolled under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer, as described in Section 5.1, immediately prior to placing subbase or base coarse aggregate to evaluate their suitability to support the pavement.

Adequate control of surface drainage will be a very important consideration for the overall performance of the pavement performance. The pavement surfaces and the areas surrounding pavements should be graded to direct surface water away from paved areas. Utility excavations within pavement areas should be backfilled with compacted structural fill.

7.2 Pavement Design

Soil laboratory testing on two bulk samples of the onsite soils indicated very high CBR values of 84 and

102. The tested soils were mostly sands with only 25 to 27 percent fines. To account for the possibility of more fine-grained soils, we have reduced the recommended CBR value shown below.

We developed the recommended pavement sections based on the “Pavement-Transportation Computer Assisted Structural Engineering (PCASE)” software. PCASE is a computer program for the design and evaluation of transportation systems (airfields, roads, and railroads).

We assumed the following traffic loads and input parameters for the pavements:

Average Annual Daily Traffic: 500 passes per day % Trucks (two axle trucks) 4 percent % Cars/Passenger Vehicles 96 percent Design life 25 years Design CBR 20

Our analysis considers that proper grading will be maintained to provide runoff from the pavement surface and beyond the limits of paved areas. We recommend the pavement sections shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Pavement Section Recommendations

Pavement Section Layer Thickness (inch)

Superpave Asphalt Mix 9.5 mm, Surface, PG 64-22 ( 9.5M64) (1 lift) 1.5

Superpave Asphalt Mix 12.5 mm, Base, PG 64-22 (12.5M64) (1 lift) 2.0

Graded Aggregate Base or Bank Run Gravel (1 lift) 6

The asphalt and aggregate materials should conform to New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) Standards.

Project 23140043.000 Page 16 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

7.3 Concrete Pavement

Concrete pavements around the building are planned. We assume the pads are for support trucks and equipment storage:

We used the Pavement-Transportation Computer Assisted Structural Engineering (PCASE) software Version 7.0.5 to design the concrete test pad. We also considered the guidelines set forth in UCF 3-260- 02 (Pavement Design for Airfields) Chapters 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12, and used the thickness design method for rigid pavements based on Navy and Marine Corps Pavements guidelines.

The following design values and additional assumptions were used for our preliminary design of the concrete pads:

• Unreinforced concrete design

• Design period of 20 years

• A minimum concrete flexural strength of 650 psi

• A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 psi/in.

Based on our assumptions and the results of our analysis using the PCASE Version 7.0.5 software, a minimum rigid pavement thickness of 7 inches is required. Table 8-6 of UCF 3-260-02 requires a minimum aggregate base thickness of 6 inches. The aggregate base should be Graded Aggregate Base (GAB) or Back Run Gravel (BRG) per the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) Standards.

The test pad jointing pattern should be designed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in UFC 3- 260-02 Chapter 12.

The recommended pavement section assumes a transverse joint spacing of not greater than 15 ft.

Dowels should be round smooth steel bars. A dowel center-to-center spacing of 12 inches, a dowel diameter of 1 inch, and a length of 16 inches are recommended for the joints. Dowels should be placed at mid-depth of the PCC slab. A nominal amount of reinforcement may be used within the pavement section to reduce the risk of pavement cracking.

7.4 General Pavement Considerations

Adequate control of surface drainage will be a very important consideration for the overall performance of the pavement design. The area surrounding pavements should be graded to direct surface water away from paved areas. Utility excavations within pavement areas should be backfilled with compacted fill.

Section 5.0 of this report describes the evaluation and approval of the pavement subgrades, and the placement of new compacted fills. The pavement subgrades should be proofrolled under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer. Subgrades passing the proof roll test are considered suitable for the concrete and asphalt pavement support. Soft or rutting areas should be removed or undercut and stabilized with new compacted fills.

Project 23140043.000 Page 17 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

8.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

We understand that stormwater management best management practices are planned for the site with a lowest level of approximately EL 50 ft. We performed six test borings for stormwater management at planned or potential stormwater management locations (SWM-1 to SWM-6). The boring logs are included in Appendix A. SWM-2 was attempted as a backhoe excavated test pit. However, a fiber optic line was encountered at a 1.5 ft depth. Thus, the pit was terminated, and borings were used for all the stormwater investigations. The borings were drilled to depths of 16 to 18 ft.

The 2022 NJDEP Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual requires that the bottom of the infiltration structure must be at least 2-ft above the groundwater table or bedrock. Groundwater was measured at depths ranging from 13.5 to 18.0 ft. SWM-2 was dry. Bedrock was not encountered in the borings. The Stratum A fill depths in the six borings ranged from 3 to 5 ft below the ground surface.

8.1 Soils Textures

The 2022 NJDEP Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual requires United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Textural Classifications for each type of soil at the infiltration device.

Permeability tests were performed in each boring at depths of 7 to 9.5 ft below ground. The test method used was in accordance with USBR 7300-89 – Well Permeameter Test (Johnson Permeameter) as described in Section 3 of Chapter 12 of the New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, April 2022.

The permeability test results of are summarized in Table 4 and are also included in Appendix D.

Table 4: Permeability Tests

Boring ID Test Depth (ft) and Elevation (ft)

USDA Textural Classification

In-Situ Permeability Rate (inches/hour)

SWM-1 7 / EL 50 Sandy Loam 0.67 SWM-2 7 / EL 50 Sandy Loam 0.19 SWM-3 7 / EL 52 Gravelly Loamy Sand 1.88 SWM-4 9.5 / EL 48 Loamy Sand 0.32 SWM-5 9.5 / EL 48.5 Loamy Sand 0.23 SWM-6 9.5 / EL 48.5 Sand 0.11

It should be noted that the recorded permeability rates are an approximation of the in-situ soil permeability at the locations tested, and variations of the actual permeability of the facility should be expected. The New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual requires that a factor of safety of at least 2 must be applied to the tested rates.

Project 23140043.000 Page 18 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

9.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Geotechnical considerations during the construction of this project are provided throughout the previous sections of this report. The sections recommend measures and procedures to perform during the construction to evaluate, replace, improve, and protect the on-site soils during construction. The reader is encouraged to read the entire report. Additional measures during construction are provided below.

9.1 Site Grading and Earthwork

The test boring data indicate the approximate depth of topsoil based on our visual identification procedures. The depth of stripping needed to provide a suitable base for placement and compaction of earthwork or for pavement subgrade preparation may include topsoil and other softer surficial layers, with or without organic matter. The depth of required stripping should be determined by the Excavation Contractor prior to construction using test pits, probes, or other means that the Contractor wishes to employ, and this determination should be the excavation Contractor's responsibility.

Traffic on stripped or undercut subgrades should be limited to reduce disturbance of underlying soils.

Also, using lightweight, track-mounted dozer equipment for stripping will limit the disturbance of underlying soils, and may reduce the undercut volume needed. The Contractor should provide site drainage to maintain subgrades free of water and to avoid saturation and disturbance of the subgrade soils before placing compacted structural fill, pavement base course, or moisture barrier material. This will be important during all phases of the construction work. The Contractor should be responsible for reworking of subgrades and compacted structural fill that were initially considered suitable but were later disturbed by equipment and/or weather.

9.2 Spread Footings

The Contractor should exercise care during excavation for spread footings so that as little disturbance as possible occurs at the foundation level. The Contractor should carefully clean loose or soft soils from the bottom of the excavation before placing concrete. A Geotechnical Engineer from our firm should observe actual footing subgrades during construction to evaluate whether subgrade soils meet the requirements as recommended in this report.

Forms may be used, if necessary, but less subgrade disturbance is expected if excavations are made to the required dimensions, and concrete is placed against the soil. If footings are formed, the forms should be pulled, and the excavation backfilled as soon as possible. Water should not be allowed to pond along the outside of footings for long periods of time.

The footing subgrade soils should not be exposed for long periods. Concreting should take place the same day as excavation and approval of the footings.

9.3 Construction Dewatering

The highest groundwater level encountered at the test boring locations was about EL 44.5 ft. We do not expect groundwater to be encountered in the excavations for foundations. If encountered, a system of localized sumps and pumps may be effective for temporary groundwater control during construction.

Project 23140043.000 Page 19 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Ineffective groundwater control will result in softening of foundation and slab subgrades and the need to remove softened and otherwise unsuitable subgrade materials.

9.4 Engineering Services During Construction

The engineering recommendations provided in this report are based on the information obtained from the subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. However, conditions on the site may vary between the discrete locations observed at the time of our subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become evident until during construction.

To account for this variability, a qualified Geotechnical Engineer must provide professional observation and testing of subsurface conditions revealed during construction as an extension of the design engineering services. These services will also help in evaluating the Contractor's conformance with the plans and specifications.

Project 23140043.000 Page 20 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

10.0 GENERAL SPECIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS

An allowance should be established to account for possible additional costs that may be required to construct earthwork and foundations as recommended in this report. Additional costs may be incurred for a variety of reasons including variation of soil between borings, greater than anticipated unsuitable soils, need for borrow fill material, wet on-site soils, obstructions, and temporary dewatering, etc. The project specifications should indicate the Contractor's responsibility for providing adequate site drainage during construction. Inadequate drainage will most likely lead to disturbance of soils by construction traffic and increased volume of undercut.

This report may be made available to prospective bidders for informational purposes. We recommend that the project specifications contain the following statement:

Schnabel Engineering, LLC has prepared this geotechnical engineering report for this project.

This report is for informational purposes only and is not part of the contract documents. The opinions expressed represent the Geotechnical Engineer’s interpretation of the subsurface conditions, tests, and the results of analyses performed. Should the data contained in this report not be adequate for the Contractor's purposes, the Contractor may make, before bidding, independent exploration, tests, and analyses. This report may be examined by bidders at the office of the Owner, or copies may be obtained from the Owner at nominal charge.

Additional data and reports prepared by others that could have an impact upon the Contractor's bid should also be made available to prospective bidders for informational purposes.

Project 23140043.000 Page 21 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

11.0 LIMITATIONS

We based the analyses and recommendations submitted in this report on the information revealed by our exploration. We attempted to provide for normal contingencies, but the possibility remains that unexpected conditions may be encountered during construction.

This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of this site and to assist in the design of the project.

It is intended for use concerning this…