Geotechnical Engineering Report_Proposed Building Addition_USDA ARS.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION

USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

1398 WEST TRUCK ROAD

BUZZARDS BAY, MA

Prepared For:

The Johnson McAdams Firm, P.A.

108 West Market St.

Greenwood, MS 38930

Prepared By:

Northeast Geotechnical, Inc.

166 Raymond Hall Drive North Attleborough, MA 02760

Project No. O557.00 December 10, 2024

December 10, 2024 Project No. O557.00

Steven T. Marshall, E.I.

The Johnson McAdams Firm, P.A.

108 West Market St.

Greenwood, MS 38930

SUBJECT: Proposed Building Addition USDA Agricultural Research Service 1398 West Truck Road Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts

Dear Steven:

Northeast Geotechnical, Inc. is pleased to present the results of our geotechnical engineering services provided in support of the proposed building addition project at the subject site. Our objective has been to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for use during design and construction of the building addition. Our studies have been performed in accordance with our proposal to you dated October 23, 2024. This report is subject to the Limitations and Service Constraints included in Appendix A of this report.

This report contains a summary of our studies and presents our findings, conclusions and recommendations for use in design and construction of the proposed project. Please feel free to contact Glenn Olson at (508)-274-0887 or at golson@northeastgeotechnical.com should you have any questions or need anything further.

Sincerely, Northeast Geotechnical, Inc.

Glenn A. Olson, P.E. Mark M. Zambernardi, P.E.

Principal Engineer Principal Engineer i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BACKGROUND

2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATORY TEST BORINGS

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Foundation and Floor Slab Support

5.2 Building Area Earthwork

5.3 Seismic Design Criteria

6.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION, TESTING AND REVIEW

FIGURE

1 Subsurface Exploration Location Plan

APPENDICES

A Limitations and Service Constraints

B Test Boring Logs

C Laboratory Soil Test Results

1.0 BACKGROUND

Our understanding of the existing site conditions and proposed project is based on our correspondence with The Johnson McAdams Firm and our review of the project plans and a geotechnical engineering report by others that were provided to us. In addition, we have completed a subsurface exploration program at the site.

The USDA’s Agricultural Research Center operates a Forest Pest Management Laboratory in an existing building referred to as Building 1392 at the Joint Base Cape Cod in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. Plans are to construct an addition onto the western end of the existing building which will have an at-grade finish floor which is two feet lower than the finish floor level of the existing building. The building addition will have a footprint area of approximately 1,600 square feet.

The existing building and proposed addition are shown on a plan titled “Building 1392 Warehouse Addition Study, Forest Pest Management Laboratory, 1398 West Truck Road, Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts – Site Plan Option A”, Sheet C-100 X of X, dated 10/7/2024, prepared by The Johnson McAdams Firm. A 95% Design Submittal set of plans, dated November 18, 2024 prepared by The Johnson McAdams Firm was also provided for our use.

The area of the proposed building addition is currently covered by asphalt pavement. The proposed building addition is planned to consist of an unheated, pre-engineered metal building. The building will be constructed with 4 foot tall continuous concrete knee walls anticipated to be bearing on continuous concrete spread footings. Axial column loads are anticipated to range from 21 to 42 kips.

The foundations at the columns will be required to resist uplift loads ranging from 2 to 4 kips. The design floor slab live load is 150 pounds per square foot.

A geotechnical engineering report prepared by others dated December 10, 2014 that was prepared for the now existing building was provided to us for reference. The report references test borings that were performed for the existing building. However, the logs of the test borings were not attached to the report and we understand are not available to the project team at this time.

We understand that the existing building is supported on spread footing foundations. The geotechnical engineering report prepared by others references encountering loose to medium dense fill soils overlying natural medium dense to very dense alluvial soils. The report recommended excavating and replacing the existing fill soils with controlled compacted lifts of structural fill. Records of earthwork construction activities to prepare the site for support of the existing building on spread footing foundations were not made available to us.

The referenced 95% Design Submittal set of plans shows the building addition supported using spread footing foundations designed based on an allowable soil bearing capacity of 4,000 pounds per square foot. This bearing capacity was recommended in the 2014 geotechnical engineering report by others following excavation and replacement of the existing fill soils. Foundations are shown to consist of

USDA Building Addition – Buzzards Bay, MA December 10, 2024 Project No. O557.00

Northeast Geotechnical, Inc. 508-598-3510 Page 2 exterior column spread footings, continuous exterior wall foundations, along with tie beams running beneath the floor slab on grade connecting the exterior column footings.

2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATORY TEST BORINGS

A subsurface exploratory test boring program was coordinated, observed and logged by Northeast Geotechnical personnel at the site on November 22, 2024. The program consisted of four soil test borings (B-1 through B-4) performed by Soil X Corp. of Leominster, Massachusetts. The test borings were performed within the proposed building addition area.

Test Boring locations were established in the field using taped measurements and line of sight from existing site and building features. The approximate test boring locations are shown on the attached Subsurface Exploration Location Plan (Figure No. 1). Existing ground surface elevations noted on the test boring logs were interpreted from the information shown on the provided plans and should be considered approximate.

The test borings were advanced with a truck-mounted Mobile B-57 drill rig using hollow stem augers to depths of approximately 27± to 29± feet below the existing ground surface. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) and split spoon sampling were generally performed at approximate two- to five-foot intervals in the test borings. SPTs were conducted by driving a 2-inch outside diameter standard split spoon sampler a distance of up to 24 inches at each sampling depth by blows of a 140-pound automatic safety hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler in 6-inch increments is recorded on the boring logs attached in Appendix B. The sum of the blows required to drive the split spoon sampler from the 6 to 12-inch interval and the 12 to 18-inch interval is defined as the Standard Penetration Resistance of the soil.

The soil samples retrieved in the split spoon sampler during each SPT were visually described in the field by Northeast Geotechnical, Inc. personnel using Burmister’s soil descriptions. The visual descriptions, the hammer blow counts required to drive the split spoon sampler during the penetration testing, groundwater observations, approximate changes in soil strata, and other observations are shown on the boring logs contained in Appendix B. Note that the soil descriptions are representative of the minus 1.4± inch size fraction of the overall soil deposits sampled.

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Selected soil samples were submitted to Thielsch Engineering of Cranston, Rhode Island for laboratory testing to assist us in assessing the soils’ basic geotechnical engineering properties. Four samples of the natural soils were submitted for gradation testing. The test results are presented in Appendix C of this report.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The general subsurface conditions at the site were assessed based upon the results of the subsurface exploration program, laboratory test results and our review of the 2014 geotechnical engineering report prepared by others.

Northeast Geotechnical, Inc. 508-598-3510 Page 3

In general, the proposed building addition area contains approximately 7± to 15± feet of existing fill materials overlying natural sand with varying amounts of gravel to the depths explored.

The existing fill soils encountered below the layer of surficial asphalt pavement are considered very loose to medium dense in accordance with the SPT results. The existing fill soils consist of a mixture of fine to medium or fine to coarse sand, with approximately 10± to 50± percent silt, and less than 20± percent fine or fine to coarse gravel. Organic soils were mixed in with these granular soil constituents as well as trace amounts of asphalt.

The natural granular soils (i.e., the natural sand and natural sand with gravel) encountered below the existing fill soils are considered primarily medium dense in accordance with the SPT results. The natural granular soils consist of fine to coarse sand with less than 10± and up to 35± percent fine or fine to coarse gravel, and less than 10± and up to 20± percent silt. In some instances, the fine to coarse gravel content exceeded 35± percent of the sample by weight. In test boring B-4, which was performed approximately in the middle of the proposed building addition footprint, the augers used to advance the test boring were observed to grind on possible cobbles or boulders at about 11± feet below ground surface.

Groundwater was not observed to the depths explored in the test borings. It should be noted that groundwater levels will fluctuate due to variations in temperature, precipitation and other factors.

Therefore, groundwater levels encountered during and after construction may be different than those reported herein.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations are presented subject to the attached Limitations and Service Constraints in Appendix A.

5.1 Foundation and Floor Slab Support

It is our opinion that the existing fill is not suitable to support foundations or the floor slab of the proposed building addition. We understand that the 2014 geotechnical engineering report provided recommendations to excavate the existing fill soils to the natural granular soils. Then the report recommended backfilling the excavation with controlled compacted lifts of structural fill to allow the building to be supported on shallow spread footing foundations. We assume that this recommendation was followed to support the existing building.

Excavating and replacing the existing fill within the proposed building addition footprint would require support of the existing building and the excavation sidewalls. We do not recommend excavating and replacing the existing fill within the proposed building addition footprint due to potential damage risks to the existing building.

We spoke with a specialty ground improvement and pile foundation contractor about the project including the proposed axial column and uplift loads. Ground improvement options that might be well suited for these soil conditions may not be well suited for this project. The reason is that typical ground vibrations associated with ground improvement activities could cause damage to the existing building including settlement. This is a particular concern when working up to an existing building.

Northeast Geotechnical, Inc. 508-598-3510 Page 4

Rather, we recommend that the column, wall and floor slab loads be supported by pile foundations.

Pile foundations would transfer the structural loads through the existing fill to the underlying suitable, generally medium dense, natural granular soil deposits. These natural granular soils were observed below the fill at approximately 7± to 15± feet below the existing ground surface grades.

Furthermore, given the proposed axial column and uplift loads to be resisted, we are of the opinion that helical piles are a feasible pile option. Helical piles, also known as helical piers, consist of steel shafts having helical flights which are advanced by drilling into the soil to the desired bearing stratum which are the medium dense natural granular soils on this site. The installation contractor typically measures torque during installation, which correlates to pile capacity.

We understand that the current building design includes axial column loads of 21 to 42 kips and uplift loads of 2 to 4 kips while the floor slab will support live loads of 150 pounds per square foot. A licensed professional engineer working on behalf of the specialty foundation contractor should evaluate the structural loads and layout of the proposed building addition to develop a pile foundation design to support the column, wall and floor slab loads. The pile design should be provided to Northeast Geotechnical and the project structural engineer for review and comment at least two weeks prior to start of installation.

A concern with the installation of piles is the presence of underground obstructions. Cobbles and boulders may be present within the existing fill as observed in one of the test borings. The contractor for this project should be prepared to excavate obstructions encountered during pile installation. Piles that need to be offset from proposed design locations due to refusal on obstructions which cannot be removed should be reviewed by the project structural engineer.

We recommend that the bottom of pile caps and grade beams be established a minimum of four feet (4’) below proposed finish grades for frost protection. This includes foundations on the interior of the building since the space will be unheated.

5.2 Building Area Earthwork

We recommend the existing asphalt and sufficient amount of existing fill be removed to accommodate a minimum 12-inch thick base course layer prior to the installation of helical piles for slab support.

Once the helical piles are adequately installed, we anticipate foundation (i.e., pile caps and grade beams) excavations will commence. Foundation excavations should be backfilled with controlled compacted lifts of off-site structural fill. We do not consider the on-site existing fill suitable to be reused as structural fill.

We recommend that foundation backfill be placed in maximum 6-inch thick lifts and be compacted by hand operated vibratory compactors. Each lift of fill up to the bottom of the proposed slab base course layer (i.e., the slab subgrade level) should be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the soils’ maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 and to a firm and stable condition as assessed by the on-site geotechnical engineer.

Off-site structural fill should be free from ice and snow, roots, sod, rubbish, and other deleterious or organic material, and meet the following gradation criteria:

Northeast Geotechnical, Inc. 508-598-3510 Page 5

Off-Site Structural Fill

Sieve Size Percent Finer by Weight

4 inches 100 No. 10 30-95 No. 40 10-70 No. 200 0-12

Structural fill should not be placed over frozen ground and should be protected from becoming frozen.

Frozen ground should be removed prior to placing structural fill for compaction.

The floor slab base course layer should consist of off-site sand and gravel. The off-site sand and gravel should be free from ice and snow, roots, sod, rubbish, and other deleterious or organic material, and meet the following gradation criteria:

Off-Site Sand and Gravel

Sieve Size Percent Finer by Weight

4 inch 100 ½ inch 50-85 No. 4 40-75 No. 10 30-60 No. 40 10-35 No. 100 5-20 No. 200 2-8

The floor slab should bear directly on minimum 12-inch-thick base course sand and gravel layer compacted to at least 95 percent maximum laboratory dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557, and to a firm and stable condition as assessed by the on-site geotechnical engineer.

5.3 Seismic Design Criteria

It is our opinion that the soils encountered in the test borings are not susceptible to liquefaction under moderate earthquake loading. Provided earthwork is performed, and foundations are designed and constructed as recommended in this report, the site will be considered Site Class D in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7, which is referenced in Section1613.3.2 of the tenth edition of the Massachusetts State Building Code.

6.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION, TESTING AND REVIEW

Northeast Geotechnical, Inc. should be retained to provide construction observation and soil testing services during the earthwork construction and foundation installation phases of the project. The purpose of our participation is to observe that the contractors perform earthwork and foundation

Northeast Geotechnical, Inc. 508-598-3510 Page 6 installation in general compliance with the requirements of the pertinent sections of the plans and specifications as well as the recommendations presented in this report. Our presence on-site during construction will also allow us to verify our design assumptions in the field and provide engineering input in a timely manner if subsurface conditions are found to vary from those anticipated prior to construction and warrant a design change or a change in earthwork procedures.

We also recommend Northeast Geotechnical be afforded the opportunity to review the foundation and site plans, and earthwork specifications prior to bidding for construction to see that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and included. Northeast Geotechnical should also review the specialty foundation contractor’s pile design submittal.

FIGURE

NORTHEAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

Figure No.: Scale:

Reviewed By: G. OLSON P.E. Project No.:

Date: 12/9/2024

O557.00

1"=16' 1

Drawn By: CBR

NOTES:

1. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM UNDATED PLAN TITLED

"SITE PLAN - OPTION A", SHEET No. C-100, BY THE

JOHNSON MCADAMS FIRM, P.A.

2. TEST BORING LOCATIONS ESTABLISHED AT THE SITE

BY NORTHEAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PERSONNEL

USING TAPED MEASUREMENTS AND LINE OF SIGHT

FROM EXISTING SITE AND BUILDING FEATURES. THE

TEST BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN

SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE.

3. TEST BORINGS OBSERVED AND LOGGED BY

NORTHEAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PERSONNEL.

LEGEND:

TEST BORINGS PERFORMED BY SOIL X CORP. OF

LEOMINSTER, MA ON NOVEMBER 22, 2024.

PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION

USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

1398 WEST TRUCK ROAD BUZZARDS BAY, MA

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN

B-2

B-1

B-3

B-4

APPENDIX A

Limitations and Service Constraints

LIMITATIONS AND SERVICE CONSTRAINTS

Geotechnical Engineering Consulting Services

The opinions, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the scope of services, information obtained through the performance of the services, and the schedule as agreed upon by Northeast Geotechnical, Inc. and the party for whom this report was originally prepared.

This report is an instrument of professional service and was prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standards and level of skill and care under similar conditions and circumstances established by the geotechnical consulting industry. No representation, warranty, or guarantee, express or implied, is intended or given. To the extent that Northeast Geotechnical, Inc. relied upon any information prepared by other parties not under contract to Northeast Geotechnical, Inc. , Northeast Geotechnical, Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. This report is expressly for the sole and exclusive use of the party for whom this report was originally prepared and/or other specifically named parties have the right to make use of and rely upon this report. Reuse of this report or any portion thereof for other than its intended purpose, or if modified, or if used by third parties, shall be at the user’s sole risk.

Furthermore, nothing contained in this document shall relieve any other party of its responsibility to abide by contract documents and applicable laws, codes, regulations, or standards.

Subsurface Explorations and Testing

Results of any observations, subsurface exploration or testing, and any findings presented in this report apply solely to conditions existing at the time when Northeast Geotechnical, Inc.’s exploratory work was performed. It must be recognized that any such observations and exploratory or testing activities are inherently limited and do not represent a conclusive or complete characterization.

Conditions in other parts of the project site may vary from those at the locations where data were collected and conditions can change with time. Northeast Geotechnical, Inc.’s ability to interpret exploratory and test results is related to the availability of the data and the extent of the exploratory and testing activities.

The findings, conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based, in part, on data obtained from subsurface borings, test pits, and specific, discrete sampling locations. The nature and extent of variation between these test locations, which may be widely spaced, may not become evident until construction. If variations are subsequently encountered, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the conclusions and recommendations of this report.

Correlations and descriptions of subsurface conditions presented in boring logs, test pit logs, subsurface profiles, and other materials are approximate only. Subsurface conditions may vary significantly from those encountered in borings and sampling locations and transitions between subsurface materials may be gradual or highly variable.

Conditions at the time water level measurements and other subsurface observations were made are presented in the boring logs or other sampling forms. This field data has been reviewed and interpretations provided in this report. However, groundwater levels may be variable and may fluctuate due to variation in precipitation, temperature, and other factors. Therefore, groundwater levels at the site at any time may be different than stated in this report.

Review

In the event that any change in the nature, design, or location of the proposed structure(s) is planned, the conclusions and recommendations in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report are modified or verified in writing.

Northeast Geotechnical, Inc. should be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design plans and specifications to assess that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and included in the design and construction documents.

Construction

To verify conditions presented in this report and modify recommendations based on field conditions encountered in the field, Northeast Geotechnical, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during the construction phase of the project. This is to observe compliance with design concepts, specifications, and recommendations contained in this report, and to verify and refine our recommendations as necessary in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.

APPENDIX B

Test Boring Logs

B-1

O557.00 Glenn Olson, P.E.

Moble Drill B-57 Truck Mounted Drill Rig

No. Depth Pen. Rec. Rem.

S-1 0.5'-2.5' 24" 8"

S-2 2.5'-4.5' 24" 10" 5'

S-3 5'-7' 24" 24" 2

S-4 7'-9' 24" 14"

10' S-5 10'-12' 24" 8"

S-6 12'-14' 24" 4"

15' S-7 15'-17' 24" 4"

20' S-8 20'-22' 24" 8"

25' S-9 25'-27' 24" 10"

Notes:

1)

2) 3)

1398 West Truck Road File No.:

Reviewed By:

Boring Co. Soil X Corp. Date: 11/22/24 / Clear, 40s to 50s °F

NORTHEAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

TEST BORING LOG Project: Proposed Building Addition Test Boring No.:

Page:

Buzzards Bay, MA

USDA Agricultural Research Service

George Guintle Northeast Geotechnical Observer: Luciano Gordon Boring Equipment: Test Boring Location: See Exploration Location Plan

8-5-6-3

Medium dense, tan, F/C SAND, some Silt, little F/C Gravel, trace Asphalt, moist

4¼-inch I.D. Hollow-Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: 97± feet 2.0" O.D. Split Spoon, 140 lb Auto Hammer Depth to Water: Not Encountered

Foreman:

1-WOH-WOH-1

1-WOH-WOH-2

Sample Data Strata Change Sample Description Blows per 6 in.

12-11-6-5

5-8-21-20

7-8-8-8

2-5-3-3

7-11-11-10

F/M = Fine to Medium

Abbreviations

(Blows/Foot) F = Fine M = Medium

Standard Penetration Resistance Density

Some (So) = 20 - 35% 50+ Very Dense AND = 35-50%

Augered about 6± inches through about 3± inches of bituminous concrete into existing fill.

Asphalt, 0.2'± 3± inches of Bituminous Concrete

15'±

Existing Fill

27'±

Trace (T) = 0 - 10% 30 - 50 Dense Little (Li) = 10 - 20%

4 - 10 Loose F/C = Fine to Coarse

Proportions Used 10 - 30 Med. Dense

Boring terminated at about 27'± feet below ground surface (bgs).

Loose, brown and rust, F/C SAND and SILT, little F/C Gravel, trace Organics, moist

Very loose, dark gray to brown, F/M SAND and SILT, trace F. Gravel, trace Organics, trace wood pieces, wet

Very loose, brown, F/M SAND and SILT, trace F. Gravel, trace (+) Organics, wet

Medium dense, dark gray to brown, F/M SAND and SILT, trace F.

Gravel, trace (+) Organics, moist

Medium dense, brown, F/C SAND, little (+) F/C Gravel, little Silt, trace Organics, moist

WHO = weight of hammer.

Natural Sand

Medium dense, tan, F/M SAND, little F/C Gravel, trace Silt, moist

Medium dense, tan, F/M SAND, trace F. Gravel, trace (-) Silt, moist

Medium dense, tan, F/M SAND, trace F. Gravel, trace (-) Silt, moist

0 -4 Very Loose C = Coarse

Bottom of boring at 27± feet

6-11-14-14

B-2

O557.00 Glenn Olson, P.E.

No. Depth Pen. Rec. Rem.

S-1 0.5'-1' 24" 6" S-1A 1'-2.5' 6" S-2 2.5'-4.5' 24" 18"

5' S-3 5'-7' 24" 12"

S-4 7'-9' 24" 4"

10' S-5 10'-12' 24" 13"

S-6 12'-14' 24" 15"

15' S-7 15'-17' 24" 2"

20' S-8 20'-22' 24" 6"

25' S-9 25'-27' 24" 12"

Notes:

1)

2)

1398 West Truck Road File No.:

Reviewed By:

Boring Co. Soil X Corp. Date: 11/22/24 / Clear, 40s to 50s °F

NORTHEAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

TEST BORING LOG Project: Proposed Building Addition Test Boring No.:

Page:

Buzzards Bay, MA

USDA Agricultural Research Service

4¼-inch I.D. Hollow-Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: 98± feet 2.0" O.D. Split Spoon, 140 lb Auto Hammer Depth to Water: Not Encountered

Foreman: George Guintle Northeast Geotechnical Observer: Luciano Gordon Boring Equipment: Test Boring Location: See Exploration Location PlanMoble Drill B-57 Truck Mounted Drill Rig

16-19 17-8

6-7-4-3

3-6-9-11

Sample Data Strata Change Sample Description Blows per 6 in.

Asphalt, 0.2'± 3± inches of Bituminous Concrete

9-12-17-15

12-12-15-15

6-6-7-8

10-13-17-10

5-5-8-8

Standard Penetration Resistance

13-14-14-13

F/M = Fine to Medium

Density Abbreviations Augered about 6± inches through about 3± inches of bituminous concrete into existing fill. (Blows/Foot) F = Fine Boring terminated at about 27'± feet bgs. M = Medium

Some (So) = 20 - 35% 50+ Very Dense AND = 35-50%

27'± Bottom of boring at 27± feet

Trace (T) = 0 - 10% 30 - 50 Dense Little (Li) = 10 - 20%

4 - 10 Loose F/C = Fine to Coarse

Proportions Used 10 - 30 Med. Dense

0 -4 Very Loose C = Coarse

Dense, light tan, F/C SAND, some (+) F/C Gravel, trace Silt, moist

Medium dense, light tan, F/C SAND, little F. Gravel, trace Silt, moist

Medium dense, light tan, F/C SAND, some (-) F/C Gravel, trace Silt, moist

Medium dense, light tan, F/C SAND, little F/C Gravel, trace Silt, moist

Medium dense, dark brown, F/C SAND and SILT, little F. Gravel, trace Organics, moist Medium dense, tan, F/M SAND, some Silt, trace (+) F, Gravel, trace (-) Organics, moist

Dark brown, F/C SAND, some (-) F. Gravel, little (+) Silt, trace red Brick, moist

7'±

Natural Sand with Gravel

Tan, F/M SAND, little (+) Silt, little F. Gravel, clumps of SILT, moist

Medium dense, tan, F/C SAND, some F/C Gravel, little (-) Silt, moist

Medium dense, light tan, F/C SAND, little F. Gravel, trace Silt, moist

Existing Fill

B-3

O557.00 Glenn Olson, P.E

No. Depth Pen. Rec. Rem.

S-1 0.5'-2.5' 24" 8"

S-2 2.5'-4.5' 24" 8" 5'

S-3 5'-7' 24" 10"

S-4 7'-9' 24" 8"

10' S-5 10'-12' 24" 8"

S-6 12'-14' 24" 0"

15' S-7 15'-17' 24" 10"

20' S-8 20'-22' 24" 12"

25' S-9 25'-27' 24" 0"

S-10 27'-29' 24" 3" 2,3

Notes:

1)

2) 3)

1398 West Truck Road File No.:

Reviewed By:

Boring Co. Soil X Corp. Date: 11/22/24 / Clear, 40s to 50s °F

NORTHEAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

TEST BORING LOG Project: Proposed Building Addition Test Boring No.:

Page:

Buzzards Bay, MA

USDA Agricultural Research Service

4¼-inch I.D. Hollow-Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: 97± feet 2.0" O.D. Split Spoon, 140 lb Auto Hammer Depth to Water: Not Encountered

Foreman: George Guintle Northeast Geotechnical Observer: Luciano Gordon Boring Equipment: Test Boring Location: See Exploration Location PlanMoble Drill B-57 Truck Mounted Drill Rig

8-7-6-4

5-5-4-5

2-2-2-6

Sample Data Strata Change Sample Description Blows per 6 in.

Asphalt, 0.2'± 3± inches of Bituminous Concrete Medium dense, gray to brown, F/M SAND, some Silt, little F/C Gravel, wet Loose, dark brown, F/M SAND and SILT, little F/C Gravel, trace (+) Organics, wet

8-3-5-6

2-3-2-3

2-3-6-12

16-10-10-16

8-10-12-14

14-13-18-20

Standard Penetration Resistance

3-6-7-12

F/M = Fine to Medium

Density Abbreviations Augered about 6± inches through about 3± inches of bituminous concrete into existing fill. (Blows/Foot) F = Fine Rock lodged in tip of split spoon. M = Medium

Some (So) = 20 - 35% 50+ Very Dense AND = 35-50%

Boring terminated at about 29'± feet bgs.

29'± Bottom of boring at 29± feet

Trace (T) = 0 - 10% 30 - 50 Dense Little (Li) = 10 - 20%

4 - 10 Loose F/C = Fine to Coarse

Proportions Used 10 - 30 Med. Dense

0 -4 Very Loose C = Coarse

No Recovery

Loose, tan, F/C SAND, little (+) F/C Gravel, trace (-) Silt, moist

Medium dense, tan, F/C SAND, little F/C Gravel, trace (-) Silt, moist

No Recovery

Dense, tan, F/C SAND, little F/C Gravel, trace (-) Silt, moist

Loose, gray to brown, F/M SAND and SILT, trace F/C Gravel, trace Organics, trace wood pieces, wet Loose, brown to dark brown, F/C SAND and SILT, little F. Gravel, trace Organics, wet

10'±

Existing Fill

Loose, tan to gray, F/C SAND, little (+) Silt, little F. Gravel, moist

Natural Sand with Gravel

B-4

O557.00 Glenn Olson, P.E

No. Depth Pen. Rec. Rem.

S-1 0.5'-1' 24" 6" S-1A 1'-2.5' 6" S-2 2.5'-4.5' 24" 12"

5' S-3 5'-7' 24" 14"

S-4 7'-9' 24" 8"

10' S-5 10'-12' 24" 4" 2

S-6 12'-14' 24" 8"

15' S-7 15'-17' 24" 14"

20' S-8 20'-22' 24" 10"

25' S-9 25'-27' 24" 14"

Notes:

1)

2) 3)

1398 West Truck Road File No.:

Reviewed By:

Boring Co. Soil X Corp. Date: 11/22/24 / Clear, 40s to 50s °F

NORTHEAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

TEST BORING LOG Project: Proposed Building Addition Test Boring No.:

Page:

Buzzards Bay, MA

USDA Agricultural Research Service

4¼-inch I.D. Hollow-Stem Augers Ground Surface Elevation: 97± feet 2.0" O.D. Split Spoon, 140 lb Auto Hammer Depth to Water: Not Encountered

Foreman: George Guintle Northeast Geotechnical Observer: Luciano Gordon Boring Equipment: Test Boring Location: See Exploration Location PlanMoble Drill B-57 Truck Mounted Drill Rig

13-10-10 4-5-3-2

2-2-3-3

Sample Data Strata Change Sample Description Blows per 6 in.

Asphalt, 0.2'± 3± inches of Bituminous Concrete

6-11-15-19

4-5-8-12

13-9-7-7

8-6-13-15

6-8-8-11

Standard Penetration Resistance

5-7-8-12

F/M = Fine to Medium

Density Abbreviations Augered about 6± inches through about 3± inches of bituminous concrete into existing fill. (Blows/Foot) F = Fine Augers grinding on possible cobbles or boulders at about 11± feet bgs. M = Medium

Some (So) = 20 - 35% 50+ Very Dense AND = 35-50%

Boring terminated at about 27± feet bgs.

27'± Bottom of boring at 27± feet

Trace (T) = 0 - 10% 30 - 50 Dense Little (Li) = 10 - 20%

4 - 10 Loose F/C = Fine to Coarse

Proportions Used 10 - 30 Med. Dense

0 -4 Very Loose C = Coarse

Medium dense, tan, F/C SAND and F/C GRAVEL, trace Silt, moist

Medium dense, tan, F/C SAND, little F. Gravel, trace Silt, moist

Medium dense, light tan, F/C SAND, little F/C Gravel, trace Silt, moist

Loose, dark brown, F. SAND and SILT, little Organics, trace F/C Gravel, moist

Loose, dark brown, F. SAND and SILT, little Organics, trace F. Gravel, moist

Tan, F/C SAND, little F/C Gravel, little Silt, moist

7'±

Existing Fill

Natural Sand with Gravel

Dark gray, F/M SAND and SILT, trace F. Gravel, trace Organics

Medium dense, tan, F/C SAND and F/C GRAVEL, trace Silt, moist

Medium dense, light tan, F/C GRAVEL, some F/C Sand, little (-) Silt, moist

Medium dense, light tan, F/C SAND, some (-) F/C Gravel, trace Silt, moist

APPENDIX C

Laboratory Soil Test Results

As Rcvd

Moisture

Content

LL

PL

OD

LL

Gravel

Sand

Fines

Org.

pH gd

MAX (pcf)

Wopt gd

MAX (pcf)

Wopt (%)

(Corr.)

Dry unit wt.

(pcf)

Test

Moisture

Content %

Target

Test Setup as % of

Proctor

CBR

0.1"

CBR

0.2"

Permeability cm/sec

D2216 D2974 D4792

B-1 S-8 20-22 24-S-4922 3.2 95.6 1.2 Brown poorly graded sand

B-2 S-5 10-12 24-S-4923 15.9 81.8 2.3 Brown poorly graded sand with gravel

B-3 S-7 15-17 24-S-4924 17.2 80.9 1.9 Brown poorly graded sand with gravel

B-4 S-4 7-9 24-S-4925 36.5 60.6 2.9 Brown poorly graded sand with gravel

Date Reviewed: 12.06.24Date Received:

Laboratory

No.

Material

Source

Laboratory Log and

Soil Description

D6913

Sample

ID

D4318 D1557

Reviewed By:12.02.24

Depth

(ft)

12.06.24

LABORATORY TESTING DATA SHEET, Report No.: 7424-M-105

Identification Tests Proctor / CBR / Permeability Tests

Phone: (401)-467-6454 North Attleboro, MA

195 Frances Avenue Client Information:

Let's Build a Solid Foundation cts.thielsch.com

Project Information:

Cranston RI, 02910 Northeast Geotechnical, Inc.

Fax: (401)-467-2398

Proposed Buiding Addition - USDA Agricultural Research Service

Buzzards Bay, MA

Project Number: O557.00508-274-0887

Summary Page:

Report Date:

Project Contact:

Collected By:

Glenn A. Olson, P.E.

Client

This report only relates to items inspect and/or tested. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without prior written approval from the Agency, as defined in ASTM E329.

http://www.thielsch.com/ http://www.thielsch.com/ http://www.thielsch.com/ http://www.thielsch.com/ http://www.thielsch.com/ http://www.thielsch.com/ http://www.thielsch.com/

Th es e re su lt s ar e fo r th e ex cl u si ve u se o f th e cl ie n t fo r w h o m t h ey w er e o b ta in ed . T h is r ep o rt o n ly r el at es t o it em s in sp ec t an d

/o r te st ed . N o w ar ra n ty

, e xp re ss ed o r im p lie d , i s m ad e.

Tested By: RB/RKO Checked By: Kris Roland

Particle Size Distribution Report

PE

R C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 3.2 3.0 70.4 22.2 1.2 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: Boring Depth: 20-22' Sample Number: B-1/S-8 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Brown poorly graded sand 1/2" 3/8" #4

#10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #200

100.0 99.1 96.8 93.8 69.6 23.4

7.9 2.9 1.2

NP NV NP

1.5562 1.2722 0.7221

0.6291 0.4777 0.3402

0.2772 2.61 1.14

SP A-1-b

Northeast Geotechnical, Inc.

Proposed Building Addition - USDAAgricultrual Research Service Buzzards Bay, MA

O557.00

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

12.5.24

24-S-4922

Thielsch Engineering Inc.

Cranston, RI e re su lt s ar e fo r th e ex cl u si ve u se o f th e cl ie n t fo r w h o m t h ey w er e o b ta in ed . T h is r ep o rt o n ly r el at es t o it em s in sp ec t an d

/o r te st ed . N o w ar ra n ty

, e xp re ss ed o r im p lie d , i s m ad e.

Tested By: RB/RKO Checked By: Kris Roland

Particle Size Distribution Report

PE

R C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 15.9 8.7 57.4 15.7 2.3 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: Boring Depth: 10-12' Sample Number: B-2/S-5 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Brown poorly graded sand with gravel 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4

#10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #200

100.0 97.2 91.8 84.1 75.4 48.1 18.0

6.1 3.5 2.3

NP NV NP

8.3416 5.2063 1.1765

0.8945 0.5686 0.3856

0.3143 3.74 0.87

SP A-1-b

Northeast Geotechnical, Inc.

Proposed Building Addition - USDAAgricultrual Research Service Buzzards Bay, MA

O557.00

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

12.5.24

24-S-4923 e re su lt s ar e fo r th e ex cl u si ve u se o f th e cl ie n t fo r w h o m t h ey w er e o b ta in ed . T h is r ep o rt o n ly r el at es t o it em s in sp ec t an d

/o r te st ed . N o w ar ra n ty

, e xp re ss ed o r im p lie d , i s m ad e.

Tested By: RB/RKO Checked By: Kris Roland

Particle Size Distribution Report

PE

R C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 7.5 9.7 9.3 47.8 23.8 1.9 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: Boring Depth: 15-17' Sample Number: B-3/S-7 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Brown poorly graded sand with gravel 1"

3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4

#10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #200

100.0 92.5 90.3 89.2 82.8 73.5 53.8 25.7

7.7 3.1 1.9

NP NV NP

11.6143 5.9286 1.0526

0.7625 0.4745 0.3203

0.2743 3.84 0.78

SP A-1-b

Northeast Geotechnical, Inc.

Proposed Building Addition - USDAAgricultrual Research Service Buzzards Bay, MA

O557.00

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

12.05.24

24-S-4924 e re su lt s ar e fo r th e ex cl u si ve u se o f th e cl ie n t fo r w h o m t h ey w er e o b ta in ed . T h is r ep o rt o n ly r el at es t o it em s in sp ec t an d

/o r te st ed . N o w ar ra n ty

, e xp re ss ed o r im p lie d , i s m ad e.

Tested By: RKO/AB Checked By: Kris Roland

Particle Size Distribution Report

PE

R C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 25.3 11.2 7.6 42.9 10.1 2.9 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: Boring Depth: 7-9' Sample Number: B-4/S-4 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Brown poorly graded sand with gravel 1 1/2"

1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4

#10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #200

100.0 84.5 74.7 70.0 68.6 63.5 55.9 33.0 13.0

6.5 4.3 2.9

NP NV NP

29.4463 25.7721 2.7919

1.5355 0.7664 0.4633

0.3545 7.88 0.59

SP A-1-b

Northeast Geotechnical, Inc.

Proposed Building Addition - USDAAgricultrual Research Service Buzzards Bay, MA

O557.00

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

12.05.24

24-S-4925