22-0049 Geotechnical Report.pdf

Geotechnical Engineering Report

TC601 Camp Geiger Chapel

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

Prepared for:

MCB Camp Lejeune Public Works Division

Prepared by:

151 Poole Road, Suite 100 Leland, NC 28451

(910) 383-1044

NC License C-1621 Project No. G2022-300

May 1, 2023

1 5 1 P o o l e R o a d , S u i t e 1 0 0 • L e l a n d , N C 2 8 4 5 1 • T E L : ( 9 1 0 ) 3 8 3 - 1 0 4 4 • F A X ( 9 1 0 ) 3 8 3 - 1 0 4 5 w w w . c a p e f e a r e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

May 1, 2023

Commanding General Attn: Public Works Division Morgan Hunter, Project Manager MCB, PSC Box 20004 Camp Lejeune, NC 28542-0004

RE: Geotechnical Engineering Report TC601 Camp Geiger Chapel MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Project No: G2022-300

Dear Morgan:

Cape Fear Engineering, Inc. (CFE) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project. This report presents the results of the subsurface exploration and provides our geotechnical engineering recommendations.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us.

Respectfully Submitted, Cape Fear Engineering

Michael C. Raup, P.E.

Project Engineer NC Reg. # 045271

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Site Location and Description

1.2 Scope of Services

1.3 Project Authorization

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Field Exploration

2.2 Laboratory Testing

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

3.3 Groundwater

4.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Earthwork - Site Clearing and Grading

4.2 Earthwork – Subgrade Preparation and Evaluation

4.3 Earthwork – Suitable Structural Fill, Placement, and Compaction Requirements

4.4 Foundations

4.5 Building Floor Slabs

4.6 Seismic Evaluation

4.7 Construction Considerations

5.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I BORING LOCATION EXHIBIT

APPENDIX II CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

APPENDIX III BORING LOGS

APPENDIX IV SOIL PROFILE

APPEDNIX V TC601 CAMP GEIGER CHAPEL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT DATED 8-17-22

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 1 CFE Project No.: G2022-300

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Site Location and Description

Cape Fear Engineering has completed our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed TC601 Camp Geiger Chapel located in the Camp Geiger section of the MCB Camp Lejeune military installation in North Carolina. This development will include the construction of a new chapel to replace the previous chapel which has recently been removed from the site. A geotechnical report was previously completed by Cape Fear Engineering for the same project dated August 17, 2022.

The purpose of our geotechnical engineering evaluation was to verify the subsurface information for earthwork and foundation design considerations.

The development at this site will include a single-story building with standing seam metal roof, various exterior wall finishes and a concrete slab-on-grade. The maximum column and wall loads associated with the new building are anticipated to be on the order of 50 kips and 1 to 2 kips per linear foot, respectively. The new structure is planned to be supported on a shallow foundation system.

Based on the previously discussed project information, documents provided by the client, and observations during our site reconnaissance, site fill operations are anticipated to be less than 2-feet to establish finish floor and other project site facility elevations. This development will also include underground utilities and other infrastructure components.

The project site is a grassed covered vacant lot located within the block of Church, “A”, 6th, and 7th Streets on Camp Geiger. A drainage swale is located along the front of the site parallel to Church Street. The surrounding area includes existing military facilities and open and wooded vacant parcels of land. The new chapel will be located at or near the same location of the previous chapel building.

The existing chapel building was observed to be removed from the site at the time of our subsurface investigation.

A site vicinity map showing the project area is provided below.

Project Site General Vicinity

Ch ur ch S tr ee t

TC601 – Chapel Project Site

“A” Street

7th Street

6th Street

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 2

1.2 Scope of Services

The purpose of this investigation was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions within the project area. The subsurface conditions were evaluated to provide our engineering assessments. For this project, the following items were evaluated to provide geotechnical engineering information and recommendations:

General assessment of the soils revealed by the borings performed at the project site matching the borings conducted as part of the original geotechnical report, as well as provide the depth of groundwater at the boring locations at the time of drilling.

General location and description of any potentially deleterious materials encountered in the borings that may interfere with earthwork, construction, and the structural performance of the building. Potential deleterious materials include existing fills, expansive soils, substantial organics, or other unsuitable materials.

Interpretation of the soil test borings and existing geotechnical report to provide earthwork design and construction recommendations including stripping, grading, engineer requirements for structural fill, placement, and compaction.

Evaluation of the new and previous soil test borings conducted at the project site to provide recommendations for a shallow foundation system and other foundation construction recommendations for support of the proposed building. Design and construction requirements including allowable bearing pressures, foundation sizes, foundation embedment, expected total and differential settlements, foundation excavation preparation, and required foundation observation and testing.

Seismic site class determination in accordance with the International Building Code

(IBC).

The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock, surface water, groundwater, or air on, below, or in the vicinity of the project site.

1.3 Project Authorization

The Geotechnical Engineering Services were conducted in general accordance with the Cape Fear Engineering fee proposal provided in response to the Request for Proposal (RFP) for this project.

Authorization to proceed with our services was received from Ms. Morgan Hunter of the MCB Camp Lejeune Public Works Division.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 3

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Field Exploration

The general subsurface soil types were explored by completing Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in the areas noted in Table I below. The information obtained from our field exploration program was used to assist in developing the design and construction recommendations.

Table I – Boring Schedule

Boring Number

Boring Depth (feet) Boring Location Description

B-1 25.0 Building area boring located near the northwestern portion of the proposed new building footprint.

B-2 25.0 Building area boring located near the northeastern portion of the proposed new building footprint.

Standard Penetration Tests were performed using mud rotary techniques with a drill rig in general accordance with ASTM D1586 and ASTM D5783. The tests were performed continuously from the existing ground surface to depths of 10 to 12 feet and at 5-foot intervals, thereafter, starting at a depth of 13 feet below existing grade. The soil samples were obtained with a standard split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each of four 6-inch increments of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value (uncorrected for automatic hammer). A representative portion of each disturbed split-spoon sample was collected with each SPT, placed in a glass jar, sealed, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for review.

The boring locations were established, and the locations were staked in the field by a representative of Cape Fear Engineering. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached “Boring Location Exhibit” (Appendix I), which was reproduced from a Google aerial photograph.

2.2 Laboratory Testing

Soil testing provided by Cape Fear Engineering was performed in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards.

Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling operations were labeled, sealed in a glass jar, and transferred to our laboratory in accordance with ASTM D4220 for classification and analysis. Soil descriptions on the boring logs are provided in general accordance with ASTM D2488 using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Soil samples that were selected for testing were classified in general accordance with ASTM D2487. Some variation can be expected between samples classified using the visual-manual procedure (ASTM D2488) and the USCS

(ASTM D2487).

No soil samples were subjected to laboratory testing as samples were only used to verify visual soil classification that was consistent with soils that were previously classified and subjected to laboratory testing. The original geotechnical report is included in Appendix V.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 4

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

The project site lies within a major physiographic province of North Carolina called the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Numerous transgressions and regressions of the Atlantic Ocean have deposited marine, lagoonal, and fluvial (stream lain) sediments. The regional geology is very complex, and generally consists of interbedded layers of varying mixtures of sands, silts, and clays. Based on our review of existing geologic and soil boring data, the geologic stratigraphy encountered in our subsurface exploration generally consisted of marine deposited sands.

3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

A summary of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the boring locations is presented in Table III.

Table III – Subsurface Soil Conditions

Average Depth (ft.) Stratum Description Range of

SPT (1) Values to

0.83 Surficial 10 inches of Topsoil -

0.83 to

25.0 I

Light yellowish brown, very dark grayish brown, dark grayish brown, dark gray, light gray, very dark brown, grayish brown, SAND (SP-SM, SM, SC) with varying amounts of Silt.

Granular

WOH – 16

Note(s):

(1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, N-Values in blows per foot (uncorrected)

(2) WHO = Weight of Hammer

The subsurface descriptions are of a generalized nature and were provided to highlight the major soil strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included in Appendix III (Boring Logs) and in Appendix IV (Soil Profile), which should be reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications shown on the records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the transition may be gradual.

3.3 Groundwater

The initial groundwater level was recorded at the boring locations and as observed through the wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations. The initial groundwater table was measured and occurred at depths of approximately 6.0 feet below the existing site grades at the boring locations to the depths explored. The variations in the groundwater readings are anticipated to be the result of grade differences between boring locations, the effects of recent rain events and associated man-made disturbances, and drainage features. The boreholes were backfilled with grout upon completion for safety considerations.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 5

4.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

Our design and construction recommendations are based on the previously conducted Cape Fear Engineering geotechnical report, discussed project information, interpretation of the soil test borings, review of the provided plans, and observations during our site reconnaissance. If the proposed construction should vary from what was described, we request the opportunity to review our recommendations and make any necessary changes.

4.1 Earthwork - Site Clearing and Grading

The proposed construction area for the new building will be built within the same footprint of the prior chapel building. As previously indicated, the old chapel structure has been removed from the site. The construction area associated with the new chapel building may be impacted by the prior development activities. These impacts may include placement of uncontrolled earthfill, construction debris, existing underground utility installations and/or other potential construction activities which may have disturbed the project study area and could affect the performance of the new structure.

Therefore, the construction area should be cleared by removing any topsoil or associated root mat, de-mucking the existing drainage swale and any other unsuitable material, if encountered.

Based on the SPT borings, 4 inches of topsoil was encountered at the time of drilling. These cuts may extend deeper in isolated areas to remove deeper deposits of organic soils, de-mucking the existing drainage swale, foundations, or other existing structures, debris, or other unsuitable materials from the prior development at the site, which may become evident during the clearing.

It is recommended that the clearing operations extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed construction areas.

Once the site clearing is completed, the exposed subgrade will generally be comprised of loose to medium dense SAND (SM). Due to the presence of loose SAND, excess surface moisture from precipitation ponding on the site, along with construction equipment traffic, may make this site susceptible to pumping and general deterioration of the bearing capabilities of the surface soils.

Therefore, undercutting to remove wet soils may be required. The extent of the undercut will be determined in the field during construction, based on the outcome of the field-testing procedures (subgrade proofroll and test pits). The project’s budget should include an allowance for subgrade improvements (building area - undercut and backfill with structural fill).

Uncontrolled Fill materials were not encountered at all boring locations. However, previous development at this site included a prior building, and possibly existing underground utilities.

Uncontrolled earth fill may have been placed as part of the original development within the project study area. If encountered, it is possible these materials can be left in place beneath building provided that substantial amounts of organics or other unsuitable materials are not present. This should be verified in the field during the subgrade evaluation performed as described in section

4.2 of this report. However, all foundation bearing surfaces must penetrate any Uncontrolled Earthfill materials, if encountered.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 6

To reduce the potential for subgrade improvements, it is recommended that the grading operations be performed during the drier months of the year (generally April through November).

This should help minimize these potential problems. If grading is attempted during the winter months, the site should be graded to enhance surface water runoff. However, stabilization of wet soils should be anticipated. Methods to address wet soils may include undercutting and backfilling with structural fill. However, during the drier months of the year, wet soils could be dried by disking or implementing other drying procedures, such as stockpiling or spreading the soils in thin lifts, to achieve moisture contents necessary to reach adequate degrees of compaction. As previously stated, the project’s budget should include an allowance for subgrade improvements as described above.

Any undercut and backfill should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative, who will evaluate the composition of the recovered soils.

Recommendations concerning the subgrade improvements (as necessary) will be provided in the field following the testing procedures.

4.2 Earthwork – Subgrade Preparation and Evaluation

Following the clearing operation, the exposed subgrade soils should be densified with a large static drum roller, as needed. After the subgrade soils have been densified, they should be evaluated by a qualified representative of Cape Fear Engineering for stability. The subgrade soils should be proofrolled to check for pockets of soft material hidden beneath a crust of better soil.

Several passes should be made by a large smooth drum roller with two rubber tires or loaded dump truck over the construction areas, with the successive passes aligned perpendicularly. The number of passes will be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer or their qualified representative. Any pumping and unstable areas observed during proofrolling (beyond the initial clearing cut) should be undercut and/or stabilized at the direction of the geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative.

A drainage swale parallels Church Street along the front of the project site and may be within the construction area. The subgrade soils within this swale should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer or their qualified representative prior to any structural fill placement, if required. Based on our experience with drainage features, a cut of 12 to 24 inches will likely be required to “de-muck” and/or remove very soft to soft saturated soils before backfilling any portion of the swale.

In addition to the proofroll, a series of test pit excavations should be performed to determine the extent of any potential deeper organics or possible uncontrolled earthfill or other unsuitable materials are present within the proposed building pad and pavement areas. The test pit excavations should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative to determine the thickness and composition of any deeper organic materials or other unsuitable materials and the suitability of the materials to remain in place or the necessity for these materials to be removed from the building and pavement areas.

The prepared subgrade should be sloped to prevent the accumulation and/or ponding of surface water. If the exposed subgrade becomes wet or frozen, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 7

4.3 Earthwork – Suitable Structural Fill, Placement, and Compaction Requirements Following the approval of the natural subgrade soils by a geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative, the placement of the fill required to establish the design grades may begin. Any material to be used for structural fill should be evaluated and tested by a qualified inspector and laboratory prior to placement to determine if they are suitable for the intended use. Suitable structural fill material should consist of sand or gravel containing less than 25% by weight of fines (SP, SP-SM, SM, SW, SW-SM, GP, GP-GM, GW, GW-GM), have a liquid limit less than 20 and plastic limit less than 6, and should be free of rubble, organics, clay, debris, and other unsuitable material.

All structural fills should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). In general, the compaction should be accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 10-inch loose lifts and mechanically compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. A qualified inspector should perform field density tests on each lift as necessary to assure that adequate compaction is achieved.

Backfill material in utility trenches within the construction areas should consist of structural fill and be compacted to at least 95% of ASTM D1557. This fill should be placed in 4 to 6-inch loose lifts when hand compaction equipment is used.

Care should be used when operating the compactors near existing structures to avoid transmission of the vibrations that could cause settlement damage or disturb occupants. In this regard, it is recommended that large vibratory rollers remain at least 25 feet away from existing structures. Areas within 25 feet of existing structures should be compacted with small, hand-operated compaction equipment.

Based on the completed laboratory testing, the shallow subsurface SANDS (SP-SM, SM) will likely meet the criteria recommended in this report for reuse as structural fill.

At a minimum, further classification testing including natural moisture content, No. 200 sieve wash analysis, and Proctor testing should be performed at the time of construction to evaluate the suitability of the excavated soils for reuse as structural fill.

4.4 Foundations

Based on the laboratory classification results, the shallow subsurface soils encountered at the boring locations are not considered to be expansive in accordance with 1803.5.3 of the 2018 IBC.

Shallow Foundations

Provided that the construction procedures are properly performed, the proposed structure can be supported by isolated or continuous spread footings or a monolithic slab with turn down edges bearing upon firm natural soil or well-compacted structural fill material. These footings can be designed using a net allowable soil pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). In using net pressures, the weight of the footings and backfill over the footings, need not be considered.

Hence, only loads applied at or above the foundation need to be used for dimensioning the footings.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 8

To develop the recommended bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf), the base of the footings should have a minimum embedment of 18 inches beneath finished grades and should have a minimum width of 18 inches. In addition, isolated square column footings (if deemed necessary) are recommended to be a minimum of 3 feet by 3 feet in area for bearing capacity consideration. The recommended 18-inch footing embedment is also considered sufficient to provide adequate cover against frost penetration to the bearing soils.

The recommended allowable bearing pressures for the shallow foundation system proposed for the new structure may potentially impact any existing underground utilities located below the building footprint. The additional loads produced by the new structure may detrimentally affect any potential underground utility facilities. Therefore, we recommend that a thorough utility locate be conducted specifically within the building footprint to determine if any underground utilities exist in this area. The building load impacts to the underground utilities, if encountered, should also be evaluated by the structural and/or civil engineer for the project to determine if the existing utility facilities can remain in place or need to be removed and relocated.

Settlements

It is estimated that, with proper site preparation, the maximum resulting post-construction total settlement of the proposed foundations should be up to 1 inch. The maximum differential settlement magnitude is expected to be less than ½ inch between adjacent footings (wall footings and column footings of varying loading conditions). The settlements were estimated based on the results of the field penetration tests. Careful field control will contribute substantially towards minimizing the settlements.

Foundation Excavations

In preparation for shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend into firm natural soil or well-compacted structural fill. All foundation bearing surfaces must penetrate any existing Uncontrolled Earthfill materials, if encountered. The foundation bearing capacities should be verified in the field during construction by performing a foundation inspection for the structure.

At that time, the geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative should also explore the extent of any excessively loose or otherwise unsuitable material within the exposed excavations. Also, at the time of footing observations, the geotechnical engineer or qualified representative should advance hand auger borings and use a hand penetration device in the base of the foundation excavations to verify that the recovered soils are consistent with those documented in this report.

The necessary depth of penetration will be established during the footing subgrade observations.

If pockets of unsuitable soils requiring undercut are encountered in the footing excavations, the proposed footing elevation should be re-established by means of backfilling with No. 57 Stone, “flowable fill”, or lean concrete prior to concrete placement. This construction procedure will provide for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf.

Immediately prior to reinforcing steel placement, it is suggested that the bearing surfaces of all footing and floor slab areas be compacted using hand operated mechanical tampers, to a dry density of at least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557), as tested to a depth of 12 inches, for bearing capacity considerations. In this manner, any localized areas which have been loosened by excavation operations should be adequately re-compacted. The compaction testing in the base of the footings may be waived by the geotechnical engineer, where firm bearing soils are observed during the footing inspections.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 9

Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory foundation excavations should be protected against any detrimental change in condition such as from physical disturbance, rain, or frost. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be allowed to pond. If possible, all footing concrete should be placed the same day the excavation is made. If this is not possible, the footing excavations should be adequately protected.

4.5 Building Floor Slabs

The building floor slabs may be constructed as slab-on-grade members provided the previously recommended earthwork activities and evaluations are carried out properly. It is recommended that the ground floor slab be directly supported by at least a 4-inch layer of relatively clean, compacted, poorly graded sand (SP) or gravel (GP) with less than 5% passing the No. 200 Sieve (0.074 mm). The purpose of the 4-inch layer is to act as a capillary barrier and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab. The slabs can be designed with the use of a subgrade modulus on the order of about 125 psi/in bearing on the existing natural subgrade soils or bearing on structural fill compacted to 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557).

It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing soils be covered by a vapor barrier or retarder to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect the performance of glued tile and carpet. Generally, use of a vapor retarder provides for minimal vapor resistance protection below the slab on grade. When floor finishes, site conditions, or other considerations require greater vapor resistance protection, consideration should be given to using a vapor barrier. Selection of a vapor retarder or barrier should be made by the architect based on project requirements.

4.6 Seismic Evaluation

Based on the data obtained from the 25-foot deep SPT borings and our experience with 100-foot-deep CPT soundings and SPT borings performed within the vicinity of the project site, this site should be classified as a Site Class ‘D’ in accordance with the IBC.

4.7 Construction Considerations

Based on the results of this exploration, varying soil conditions and compositions are expected to be encountered throughout the project limits. Open-cut excavations will likely extend through natural soils that are relatively “clean” (i.e., soil that is relatively free of deleterious debris that may hinder excavation or installation). Debris typically considered unsuitable consist of wood, glass, organics, plastics, coal, brick, or any other material larger than 2 inches in diameter. Based on these characteristics, it is anticipated that some of the shallow subsurface materials encountered within the project alignment may be reusable as backfill. Soils containing appreciable amounts of deleterious debris should be discarded; however, an effort should be made during excavation to segregate any debris encountered within potentially suitable reusable in-situ soils.

The shallow subsurface within the project limits is mostly comprised of granular soils; however, the Contractor should anticipate that some of the granular soils encountered will have relatively little cohesion and have a high potential for caving. Additionally, water seepage at varying elevations should be expected within the side walls of the open cut areas, increasing the potential for caving.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 10

Temporary Slopes

Due to the limited space for construction, temporary slopes may not be a feasible option. The contractor should be aware that temporary slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depths should in no case exceed those specified in local, state and/or federal safety regulations. Where temporary slopes are not feasible, shoring by means of sheeting and/or trench boxes may be appropriate. Where the stability of adjoining structures, pavements, or other improvements is endangered by excavation operations, support systems such as shoring, bracing, or underpinning may be required to provide structural stability. Shoring, bracing, or underpinning required for this project (if required) should be designed by a professional engineer.

Shoring

Shoring design and installation should be the responsibility of the contractor. Shoring systems required for this project should be designed by a professional engineer. Shoring systems should be designed to provide positive restraint of trench walls to protect against lateral deformation that may result in ground cracks, settlement, and/or other ground movements that may affect adjacent underground utilities, pavements, structures, and surface improvements. The contractor should be made aware of this potential condition so that preventative or repair measures can be implemented.

Depending on the shoring system used, the removal process may create voids along the walls of the excavations. If these voids are left in place and are significant, backfill and/or the retained soil may shift laterally, resulting in settlement of overlying structures/pavements. As such, care should be taken to remove the shoring systems and backfill the trenches so that these voids are not created.

In all cases, the contractor should select an excavation and/or shoring scheme that will protect adjacent and overlying improvements, including below grade utilities.

Dewatering

It is expected that dewatering will be required for excavations that extend near or below the existing groundwater table. Dewatering above the groundwater-level could probably be accomplished by pumping from sumps. Dewatering at depths below the groundwater-level will require well pointing and possibly shoring. Since temporary dewatering will impact construction and be dependent on construction methods and scheduling, we recommend the contractor be solely responsible for the design, installation, maintenance, and performance of all temporary dewatering systems. Where shoring is employed, the dewatering system should be compatible with the type of shoring to be used. We recommend the Contractor verify groundwater conditions and evaluate dewatering requirements prior to construction.

Lowering the groundwater table during dewatering activities will result in an increase in effective stresses and may induce settlements of the soils underlying adjacent structures/pavements.

Additionally, hydraulic compaction of the predominately granular soils (e.g., SP, SP-SM, SM soils) should be anticipated because of lowering the groundwater table. We recommend that the dewatering be performed so that the groundwater-level is lowered by no more than approximately 5 feet below the proposed excavation depth. It may be advantageous to install settlement monuments in areas where dewatering by means of well pointing is required.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 11

Site Utility Installation

The base of the utility trenches should be observed by a qualified inspector prior to the pipe placement to verify the suitability of the bearing soils. Based on the results of our field exploration program, it is expected that the utilities located below the groundwater level will bear in the wet granular soils. In these instances, the bearing soils may require some stabilization to provide suitable bedding. This stabilization is commonly accomplished by adding 12 inches or more of bedding stone (Type NCDOT #57). The resulting excavations located within structural areas should be backfilled with structural fill. Imported fill should be included in the construction budget to backfill the utility excavations within the structural areas of the project site.

Excavations

Federal regulation requires that all excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavation, or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with (OSHA) guidelines.

The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor’s responsible person should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 12

5.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information obtained by Cape Fear Engineering and the information supplied by the client and their consultants for the proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, Cape Fear Engineering should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the recommendations are warranted. If Cape Fear Engineering is not retained to perform these functions, Cape Fear Engineering cannot be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the geotechnical recommendations for the project.

The geotechnical engineer of record warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties are implied or expressed.

After the plans and specifications are more complete, the geotechnical engineer of record should be provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to make sure our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents, in order that the earthwork, and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented. At that time, it may be necessary to submit supplementary recommendations.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client and their designated agents for the specific application to the TC601 Camp Geiger Chapel project located within the MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

APPENDIX II CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

APPENDIX III BORING LOGS

APPENDIX V LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX I

BORING LOCATION EXHIBIT

EX-01G2022-300

BORING LOCATION

EXHIBIT

TC 601 - CAMP GEIGER CHAPEL

MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, NC

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

LEGEND

NOTES

1. THIS BORING LOCATION EXHIBIT WAS

REPRODUCED FROM A GOOGLE AERIAL

IMAGE.

2. THIS BORING EXHIBIT IS NOT TO SCALE.

3. ALL BORING LOCATIONS ARE

APPROXIMATE.

4. GRAYED OUT BORINGS ARE ASSOCIATED

WITH THE ORIGINAL GEOTECHNICAL

REPORT DATED 8-17-22.

"B" ORIGINAL BUILDING

BORING LOCATIONS

(25 FEET)

DATE: 5-1-2023

SCALE: NOT TO SCALE

DRAWN: JGC

APPROVED: MCR

PREPARED FOR:

PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION

SITE

151 Poole Rd. Suite 100 | Leland, NC, 28451

TEL (910) 383-1044 | FAX (910) 383-1045

www.capefearengineering.com | N.C. LICENSE # C-1621

B-1 (25')

B-3 (25')

B-4 (25')

B-2 (25')

EXISTING STRUCTURE

HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED

B-2 (25')

B-1 (25')

"B" BUILDING BORING

LOCATIONS

(25 FEET)

AutoCAD SHX Text

SHEET NUMBER

AutoCAD SHX Text

JOB NUMBER

APPENDIX II

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

Very Loose 4 blows/ft. or less Very Soft 2 blows/ft. or less

Loose 5 to 10 blows/ft. Soft 3 to 4 blows/ft.

Medium Dense 11 to 30 blows/ft. Medium Stiff 5 to 8 blows/ft.

Dense 31 to 50 blows/ft. Stiff 9 to 15 blows/ft.

Very Dense 51 blows/ft. or more Very Stiff 16 to 30 blows/ft.

Hard 31 blows/ft. or more

Boulders 8 inch diameter or more

Cobbles 3 to 8 inch diameter

Gravel Coarse 1 to 3 inch diameter

Medium 1/2 to 1 inch diameter

Fine 1/4 to 1/2 inch diameter

Sand Coarse 2.00 mm to 1/4 inch

(diameter of pencil lead)

Medium 0.42 to 2.00 mm

(diameter of broom straw)

Fine 0.074 to 0.42 mm

(diameter of human hair)

Silt 0.002 to 0.074 mm

(cannot see particles)

GW - Well-graded Gravel CL - Lean Clay

GP - Poorly graded Gravel CL-ML - Silty Clay

GW-GM - Well-graded Gravel w/Silt ML - Silt

GW-GC - Well-graded Gravel w/Clay OL - Organic Clay/Silt

GP-GM - Poorly graded Gravel w/Silt Less than 5 percent GW, GP, SW,SP

GP-GC - Poorly graded Gravel w/Clay CH - Fat Clay More than 12 percent GM, GC, SM, SC

GM - Silty Gravel MH - Elastic Silt 5 to 12 percent

GC - Clayey Gravel OH - Organic Clay/Silt

GC-GM - Silty, Clayey Gravel

SW - Well-graded Sand

SP - Poorly graded Sand PT - Peat SW-SM - Well-graded Sand w/Silt

SW-SC - Well-graded Sand w/Clay

SP-SM - Poorly graded Sand w/Silt

SP-SC - Poorly graded Sand w/Clay

SM - Silty Sand

SC - Clayey Sand

SC-SM - Silty, Clayey Sand

CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488)

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as tidal influences and man-made influences, such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved parking lots, side walks, etc.).

Little

Some

Mostly 50-100

Borderline cases requiring dual symbols

Plasticity Chart

Strata Changes In the column “Description” on the boring log, the horizontal lines represent approximate strata changes.

Groundwater Readings

Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No.

200 sieve size), coarse-grained soils are classified as follows:

15-25

30-45

Few

COHESIVE SOILS

(CLAY, SILT and Combinations)

Relative Proportions Descriptive Term Percent

0-5

5-10

Jacksonville Office

415A Western Boulevard

Jacksonville, NC 28546

(910) 478-9915

Virginia Beach Office

204 Grayson Road

Virginia Beach, VA 23462

(757) 518-1703

Relative Density

NON COHESIVE SOILS

(SILT, SAND, GRAVEL and Combinations)

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4” I.D., 2” O.D., 30” long split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment (4 increments for each soil sample) of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value.

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

Standard Penetration Test (SPT), N-value

1592 Penniman Rd. Suite E

Williamsburg, VA 23185

Particle Size Identification

Consistency

GET Revision 12/12/07

Coarse Grained Soils Fine-Grained Soils

Highly Organic Soils

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Liquid Limit 50% or greater

Trace

Williamsburg Office

(757) 564-6452

Elizabeth City Office

106 Capital Trace, Suite E

Elizabeth City, NC 27909

(252) 335-9765 hohmeierg Text Box hohmeierg Text Box hohmeierg Stamp hohmeierg Text Box

APPENDIX III

BORING LOGS

10 inches of Topsoil 0.83

Light yellowish brown, moist, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with Silt, Medium Dense

Very dark grayish brown, moist to wet, Silty fine to medium SAND

(SM), Loose

Dark grayish brown, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with Silt, Very Loose to Medium Dense

Dark gray, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Very Loose

Light gray, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with Marine Shell

Fragments, Loose to Medium Dense

Boring terminated at 25.0 ft.

PROJECT: T601 Camp Geiger Chapel PROJECT NO.: G2022-300 CLIENT: Cape Fear Engineering NORTHING:

PROJECT LOCATION: MCAS New River, NC EASTING:

LOCATION: See attached Boring Location Exhibit ELEVATION:

BORING LOG

No. B-1

DRILLER: Hofler Drilling, Inc. LOGGED BY: LH DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary DATE: 1-12-23

DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 6 AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING>

WOH - Weight of Hammer

De pt h (fe et

Description

Gr ap hi c

Sa m pl e

No

Bl ow

Co un ts

N- Va lu e

0 TEST RESULTS

10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - Water Content - Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

T h is i n fo rm a ti o n p e rt a in s o n ly t o t h is b o ri n g a n d s h o u ld n o t b e i n te rp re te d a s b e in g i n d ic a ti v e o f th e s it e

10 inches of Topsoil 0.83

Light yellowish brown, moist, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with Silt, Medium Dense

Very dark brown, moist to wet, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC), Very Loose

Very dark grayish brown, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Very Loose

Grayish brown, wet, Poorly Graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with

Silt, Medium Dense

Very dark gray, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Very Loose

Light gray, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with Marine Shell

Fragments, Very Loose to Medium Dense

Boring terminated at 25.0 ft.

WOH

WOH

WOH

WOH

WOH

WOH

WOH

WOH

WOH

WOH

PROJECT: T601 Camp Geiger Chapel PROJECT NO.: G2022-300 CLIENT: Cape Fear Engineering NORTHING:

PROJECT LOCATION: MCAS New River, NC EASTING:

LOCATION: See attached Boring Location Exhibit ELEVATION:

BORING LOG

No. B-2

DRILLER: Hofler Drilling, Inc. LOGGED BY: LH DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary DATE: 1-12-23

DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 6 AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING>

WOH - Weight of Hammer

De pt h (fe et

Description

Gr ap hi c

Sa m pl e

No

Bl ow

Co un ts

N- Va lu e

0 TEST RESULTS

10 20 30 40 50 Penetration - Water Content - Plastic Limit Liquid Limit

T h is i n fo rm a ti o n p e rt a in s o n ly t o t h is b o ri n g a n d s h o u ld n o t b e i n te rp re te d a s b e in g i n d ic a ti v e o f th e s it e

APPENDIX IV

SOIL PROFILE

B-1

B-2

WOH

WOH

D ep th i n F ee t

D ep th in

F eet

Strata symbols

Topsoil

Poorly graded SAND with silt

Silty SAND

Clayey SAND

Cape Fear Engineering, Inc.

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

HORIZONTAL DRAWN BY/APPROVED BY DATE DRAWNSCALE:

VERTICAL 5/1/2023SCALE: 1"=5'

T601 Camp Geiger Chapel MCAS New River, NC

PROJECT NO. G2022-300

FIGURE NUMBER

APPENDIX V

CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING TC601 CAMP GEIGER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

DATED AUGUST 17, 2022

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

Prepared for:

Avolis Engineering PA

Prepared by:

151 Poole Road, Suite 100 Leland, NC 28451

(910) 383-1044

NC License C-1621 Project No. G2022-119

August 17, 2022

PR

EVIO

U S G

EO

TEC

H N

IC

AL

R

EPO

R T D

ATED

A

U G U

ST 1

7, 1 5 1 P o o l e R o a d , S u i t e 1 0 0 • L e l a n d , N C 2 8 4 5 1 • T E L : ( 9 1 0 ) 3 8 3 - 1 0 4 4 • F A X ( 9 1 0 ) 3 8 3 - 1 0 4 5 w w w . c a p e f e a r e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

August 17, 2022

Kevin Avolis, PE Avolis Engineering PA Sent via email: kevin@avoliseng.com

RE: Geotechnical Engineering Report TC601 Camp Geiger Chapel MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Project No: G2022-119

Dear Mr. Avolis:

Cape Fear Engineering, Inc. (CFE) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project. This report presents the results of the subsurface exploration and provides our geotechnical engineering recommendations.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us.

Respectfully Submitted, Cape Fear Engineering

Glenn W. Hohmeier, P.E.

Senior Project Engineer NC Reg. # 033529

PR

EVIO

U S G

EO

TEC

H N

IC

AL

R

EPO

R T D

ATED

A

U G U

ST 1

7, mailto:kevin@avoliseng.com mailto:kevin@avoliseng.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Site Location and Description

1.2 Scope of Services

1.3 Project Authorization

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Field Exploration

2.2 Laboratory Testing

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

3.3 Groundwater

4.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Earthwork - Site Clearing and Grading

4.2 Earthwork – Subgrade Preparation and Evaluation

4.3 Earthwork – Suitable Structural Fill, Placement, and Compaction Requirements

4.4 Foundations

4.5 Building Floor Slabs

4.6 Seismic Evaluation

4.7 Construction Considerations

5.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX II CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

APPENDIX III BORING LOGS

APPENDIX IV SOIL PROFILE

APPENDIX V LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

PR

EVIO

U S G

EO

TEC

H N

IC

AL

R

EPO

R T D

ATED

A

U G U

ST 1

7, MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 1 CFE Project No.: G2022-119

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Site Location and Description

Cape Fear Engineering has completed our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed TC601 Camp Geiger Chapel located in the Camp Geiger section of the MCB Camp Lejeune military installation in North Carolina. This development will include the construction of a new chapel to replace the previous chapel which has recently been removed from the site. The purpose of our geotechnical engineering evaluation was to determine pertinent subsurface information for earthwork and foundation design considerations.

The development at this site will include a single-story building with standing seam metal roof, various exterior wall finishes and a concrete slab-on-grade. The maximum column and wall loads associated with the new building are anticipated to be on the order of 50 kips and 1 to 2 kips per linear foot, respectively. The new structure is planned to be supported on a shallow foundation system.

Based on the previously discussed project information, documents provided by the client, and observations during our site reconnaissance, site fill operations are anticipated to be less than 2-feet to establish finish floor and other project site facility elevations. This development will also include underground utilities and other infrastructure components.

The project site is a grassed covered vacant lot located within the block of Church, “A”, 6th, and 7th Streets on Camp Geiger. A drainage swale is located along the front of the site parallel to Church Street. The surrounding area includes existing military facilities and open and wooded vacant parcels of land. The new chapel will be located at or near the same location of the previous chapel building.

The existing chapel building was observed to be removed from the site at the time of our subsurface investigation.

A site vicinity map showing the project area is provided below.

Project Site General Vicinity

Ch ur ch S tr ee t

TC601 – Chapel Project Site

“A” Street

7th Street

6th Street

PR

EVIO

U S G

EO

TEC

H N

IC

AL

R

EPO

R T D

ATED

A

U G U

ST 1

7, MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 2

1.2 Scope of Services

The purpose of this investigation was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions within the project area. The subsurface conditions were evaluated to provide our engineering assessments. For this project, the following items were evaluated to provide geotechnical engineering information and recommendations:

General assessment of the soils revealed by the borings performed at the project site, as well as provide the depth of groundwater at the boring locations at the time of drilling.

General location and description of any potentially deleterious materials encountered in the borings that may interfere with earthwork, construction, and the structural performance of the building. Potential deleterious materials include existing fills, expansive soils, substantial organics, or other unsuitable materials.

Interpretation of the soil test borings to provide earthwork design and construction recommendations including stripping, grading, engineer requirements for structural fill, placement, and compaction.

Evaluation of the soil test borings to provide recommendations for a shallow foundation system and other foundation construction recommendations for support of the proposed building. Design and construction requirements including allowable bearing pressures, foundation sizes, foundation embedment, expected total and differential settlements, foundation excavation preparation, and required foundation observation and testing.

Seismic site class determination in accordance with the International Building Code

(IBC).

The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock, surface water, groundwater, or air on, below, or in the vicinity of the project site.

1.3 Project Authorization

The Geotechnical Engineering Services were conducted in general accordance with the agreed upon scope of services as discussed with Cape Fear Engineering. Authorization to proceed with our services was provided by Mr. Kevin Avolis, P.E. of Avolis Engineering, PA.

PR

EVIO

U S G

EO

TEC

H N

IC

AL

R

EPO

R T D

ATED

A

U G U

ST 1

7, MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 3

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Field Exploration

The general subsurface soil types were explored by completing Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in the areas noted in Table I below. The information obtained from our field exploration program was used to assist in developing the design and construction recommendations.

Table I – Boring Schedule

Boring Number

Boring Depth (feet) Boring Location Description

B-1…