221216_Vol 1 of 4 Specifications_Selfridge ADAL B154_B3 Final HEF Mod.pdf

127th Wing

Michigan Air National Guard

Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan

ADAL FUEL CELL & CORROSION

CONTROL, BLDG 154

Project No. VGLZ162323

Type B3 Final HEF Mod Submittal

Specifications

Volume 1 of 4

December 16, 2022

This page intentionally left blank.

ADAL Fuel Cell & Corrosion Control, Bldg. 154

VGLZ162323

TYPE B3 FINAL HEF MOD

16 DEC 2022

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 1

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 31 32 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

00 31 32A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

00 31 33 LAND USE AND SOIL CONTROL DOCUMENTATION

00 31 33A SOIL RELOCATION GUIDANCE FOR SELFRIDGE ANGB

00 31 33B CROCK WELLS AND GROUNDWATER WELLS GUIDANCE FOR

SELFRIDGE ANGB

00 31 33C FINAL DD – SITE 7

00 31 33D 2003JUNE20 – IRP SITES 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 19,

31, AND 36

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 00 00 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SUPPLEMENT 1 – VETTING FORM

SUPPLEMENT 2 – SUBMITTAL REGISTER

SUPPLEMENT 3 – AF FORM 3000 – MATERIAL APPROVAL SUBMITTAL

SUPPLEMENT 4 – REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

SUPPLEMENT 5 – AF FORM 3064 – CONTRACT PROGRESS SCHEDULE

SUPPLEMENT 6 – AF FORM 3065 – CONTRACT PROGRESS REPORT

SUPPLEMENT 7 – NOT USED

SUPPLEMENT 8 – SAMPLE – SPARE MATERIAL/PARTS LISTING

SUPPLEMENT 9 – SAMPLE – REQUIRED EXTENDED MANUFACTURER

WARRANTIES

SUPPLEMENT 10 – DD FORM 1354 – TRANSFER AND ACCEPTANCE OF

DoD REAL PROPERTY

SUPPLEMENT 11 – REAL PROPERTY INSTALLED COST WORKSHEET

SUPPLEMENT 12 – SAMPLE – O AND M DATA LISTING

SUPPLEMENT 13 – SANGB FORM 23 – CONTRACTOR HAZARDOUS

MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION

SUPPLEMENT 14 – AF FORM 72 – SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND

DIVERSION TRACKING

01 00 10 AFFIRMATIVE PROCUREMENT

ATTACHMENT 1 – AFFIRMATIVE PROCUREMENT REPORTING FORM

ATTACHMENT 2 – AFFIRMATIVE PROCUREMENT DETERMINATION FORM

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS

01 20 00 PRICE AND PAYMENT PROCEDURES

01 30 00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

01 31 00 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

01 32 01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE

01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 33 00A SUBMITTAL REGISTER

01 33 29 SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING

01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

01 42 00 SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS

01 45 00.00 10 QUALITY CONTROL

01 45 35 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 57 19 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

SUPPLEMENT 15 – REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED

MEDIA SUPPLEMENTAL

01 73 00 EXECUTION

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

TYPE B3 FINAL HEF MOD

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2

01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS

01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

01 79 00 DEMONSTRATION AND TRAINING

01 91 00.15 10 TOTAL BUILDING COMMISSIONING

DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 41 00 SELECTIVE DEMOLITION

02 82 00 ASBESTOS REMEDIATION

02 82 00A NESHAPs ASBESTOS INSPECTION REPORT FOR BUILDING 154

02 83 00 LEAD REMEDIATION

02 83 00A LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY REPORT FOR BUILDING 154

02 84 16 HANDLING OF LIGHTING BALLASTS AND LAMPS CONTAINING PCBs

AND MERCURY

VOLUME 2

DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE

03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

DIVISION 04 - MASONRY

04 20 00 UNIT MASONRY

DIVISION 05 - METALS

05 12 00 STRUCTURAL STEEL

05 21 00 STEEL JOIST FRAMING

05 30 00 STEEL DECKS

05 40 00 COLD-FORMED METAL FRAMING

05 50 13 MISCELLANEOUS METAL FABRICATIONS

05 51 33 METAL LADDERS

DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

06 10 00 ROUGH CARPENTRY

06 41 16.00 10 PLASTIC-LAMINATE-CLAD ARCHITECTURAL CABINETS

06 61 16 SOLID SURFACING FABRICATIONS

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 12 00 BUILT-UP BITUMINOUS WATERPROOFING

07 21 13 INSULATION

07 21 16 MINERAL FIBER BLANKET INSULATION

07 27 10.00 10 BUILDING AIR BARRIER SYSTEM

07 27 19.01 SELF-ADHERING AIR BARRIERS

07 27 26 FLUID-APPLIED MEMBRANE AIR BARRIERS

07 42 13 METAL WALL PANELS

07 54 19 POLYVINYL-CHLORIDE ROOFING

07 60 00 FLASHING AND SHEET METAL

07 84 00 FIRESTOPPING

07 92 00 JOINT SEALANTS

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

08 11 13 STEEL DOORS AND FRAMES

08 31 00 ACCESS DOORS AND PANELS

08 34 16.20 VERTICAL LIFT FABRIC DOORS

08 36 13 SECTIONAL OVERHEAD DOORS

TYPE B3 FINAL HEF MOD

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3

08 51 13 ALUMINUM WINDOWS

08 71 00 DOOR HARDWARE

08 71 00A HARDWARE SETS SCHEDULE

08 81 00 GLAZING

08 91 00 METAL WALL LOUVERS

DIVISION 09 - FINISHES

09 29 00 GYPSUM BOARD

09 30 10 CERAMIC, QUARRY, AND GLASS TILING

09 51 00 ACOUSTICAL CEILINGS

09 65 00 RESILIENT FLOORING

09 67 23.13 RESINOUS FLOORING

09 90 00 PAINTS AND COATINGS

DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES

10 14 00.20 INTERIOR SIGNAGE

10 21 13 TOILET COMPARTMENTS

10 26 40 INDUSTRIAL FALL PROTECTION

10 28 13 TOILET ACCESSORIES

10 51 13 HDPE PLASTIC LOCKERS

DIVISION 12 - FURNISHINGS

12 21 00 WINDOW BLINDS

12 48 13 ENTRANCE FLOOR MATS

VOLUME 3

DIVISION 21 - FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 13 13 WET PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, FIRE PROTECTION

21 30 00 FIRE PUMPS

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

22 00 00 PLUMBING, GENERAL PURPOSE

22 05 48.00 20 MECHANICAL SOUND, VIBRATION, AND SEISMIC CONTROL

22 07 19.00 40 PLUMBING PIPING INSULATION

DIVISION 23 - HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC)

23 05 15 COMMON PIPING FOR HVAC

23 05 48.00 40 VIBRATION CONTROLS FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

23 05 48.19 BRACING FOR HVAC

23 05 93 TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR HVAC

23 07 00 THERMAL INSULATION FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

23 09 00 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL FOR HVAC

23 09 13 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL DEVICES FOR HVAC

23 09 23.02 BACNET DIRECT DIGITAL CONTROL FOR HVAC AND OTHER BUILDING

CONTROL SYSTEMS

23 09 93 SEQUENCES OF OPERATION FOR HVAC CONTROL

23 09 93A APPENDIX - SEQUENCES OF OPERATION FOR HVAC CONTROL

23 11 20 FACILITY GAS PIPING

23 21 23 HYDRONIC PUMPS

23 30 00 HVAC AIR DISTRIBUTION

23 52 00 HEATING BOILERS

23 80 20.00 10 GAS-FIRED HEATING EQUIPMENT

23 82 46.00 40 ELECTRIC UNIT HEATERS

TYPE B3 FINAL HEF MOD

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4

DIVISION 25 - INTEGRATED AUTOMATION

25 05 11 CYBERSECURITY FOR FACILITY-RELATED CONTROL SYSTEMS

25 08 10 UTILITY MONITORING AND CONTROL SYSTEM TESTING

25 10 10 UTILITY MONITORING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (UMCS) FRONT END AND

INTEGRATION

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

26 00 00.00 20 BASIC ELECTRICAL MATERIALS AND METHODS

26 05 00.00 40 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR ELECTRICAL

26 05 13.00 40 MEDIUM-VOLTAGE CABLES

26 05 26.00 40 GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 08 00 APPARATUS INSPECTION AND TESTING

26 09 23.00 40 LIGHTING CONTROL DEVICES

26 12 19.00 40 PAD-MOUNTED, LIQUID-FILLED, MEDIUM-VOLTAGE TRANSFORMERS

26 20 00 INTERIOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

26 24 13 SWITCHBOARDS

26 24 16.00 40 PANELBOARDS

26 27 13.10 30 ELECTRIC METERS

26 28 01.00 10 COORDINATED POWER SYSTEM PROTECTION

26 29 23 ADJUSTABLE SPEED DRIVE (ASD) SYSTEMS UNDER 600 VOLTS

26 32 15.00 ENGINE-GENERATOR SET STATIONARY 15-2500 KW, WITH

AUXILIARIES

26 36 23 AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCHES AND BY-PASS/ISOLATION SWITCH

26 41 00 LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEM

26 51 00 INTERIOR LIGHTING

VOLUME 4

DIVISION 27 - COMMUNICATIONS

27 10 00 BUILDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLING SYSTEM

27 51 16 PAGING SYSTEMS

DIVISION 28 - ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 31 76 INTERIOR FIRE ALARM AND MASS NOTIFICATION SYSTEM,

ADDRESSABLE

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

31 00 00 EARTHWORK

31 62 16.16 STEEL H-PILES

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 01 19.61 SEALING OF JOINTS IN RIGID PAVEMENT

32 11 23 AGGREGATE BASE COURSES

32 12 13 BITUMINOUS TACK AND PRIME COATS

32 12 16.16 ROAD-MIX ASPHALT PAVING

32 13 13.06 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT FOR ROADS AND SITE

FACILITIES

32 13 14.13 CONCRETE PAVING FOR AIRFIELDS AND OTHER HEAVY DUTY

PAVEMENTS

32 15 00 AGGREGATE SURFACING

32 16 19 CONCRETE CURBS, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS

32 17 23 PAVEMENT MARKINGS

32 31 13 CHAIN LINK FENCES AND GATES

32 92 23 SODDING

TYPE B3 FINAL HEF MOD

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 5

DIVISION 33 - UTILITIES

33 05 23.13 UTILITY HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILLING

33 11 00 WATER UTILITY DISTRIBUTION PIPING

33 16 15 WATER STORAGE STEEL TANKS

33 30 00 SANITARY SEWERAGE

33 56 10 FACTORY-FABRICATED FUEL CONTAINMENT STORAGE TANKS

33 61 13.19 VALVES, PIPING, AND EQUIPMENT IN VALVE MANHOLES

33 71 02 UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION

33 82 00 TELECOMMUNICATIONS OUTSIDE PLANT (OSP)

DIVISION 40 - PROCESS INTERCONNECTIONS

40 60 00 PROCESS CONTROL

DIVISION 46 - WATER AND WASTEWATER EQUIPMENT

46 25 14 COALESCING OIL-WATER SEPARATORS

-- End of Project Table of Contents –

TYPE B3 FINAL HEF MOD

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ADAL Fuel Cell & Corrosion Control, Bldg. 154 TYPE B3 FINAL HEF MOD

VGLZ162323 16 DEC 2022

SECTION 00 31 32

GEOTECHNICAL DATA

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

This Document with its referenced attachments is part of the Procurement and Contracting Requirements for Project. They provide information for Bidders' convenience and are intended to supplement rather than serve in lieu of Bidders' own investigations. They are made available for Bidders' convenience and information. This Document and its attachments are not part of the Contract Documents.

Because subsurface conditions indicated by the soil borings are a sampling in relation to the entire construction area, and for other reasons, the A/E, the A/E's consultants, and the firm reporting the subsurface conditions do not warranty the conditions below the depths of the borings or that the strata logged from the borings are necessarily typical of the entire site. Any party using the information described in the soil borings and geotechnical report shall accept full responsibility for its use.

A geotechnical investigation report for Project, prepared by Somat Engineering Incorporated, dated April 27, 2020, is appended to this Document.

a. The opinions expressed in this report are those of a geotechnical engineer and represent interpretations of subsoil conditions, tests, and results of analyses conducted by a geotechnical engineer.

b. Any party using information described in the geotechnical report shall make additional test borings and conduct other exploratory operations that may be required to determine the character of subsurface materials that may be encountered.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

-- End of Section --

DOCUMENT 00 31 32 Page 1

ADAL Fuel Cell & Corrosion Control, Bldg. 154 TYPE B3 FINAL HEF MOD

VGLZ162323 16 DEC 2022

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

DOCUMENT 00 31 32 Page 2 c

4039 40th Street SE • Suite 4 • Grand Rapids • Michigan • 49512

REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

ADAL FUEL CELL AND CORROSION CONTROL

BUILDING 154 ADDITIONS

WATER RESERVOIR TANK AND PUMP HOUSE

SELFRIDGE AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN

Prepared for:

Mead & Hunt 2440 Deming Way

Middleton, Wisconsin 53562

April 27, 2020 2019143A

April 27, 2020 2019143A

Mr. Jeremy Bluhm, PE Mead & Hunt 2440 Deming Way Middleton, Wisconsin 53562-1562

RE: Report on Geotechnical Investigation Building 154 Additions, Water Reservoir and Pump House Selfridge Air National Guard Base Harrison Township, Michigan

Dear Mr. Bluhm:

We have completed the geotechnical investigation for the proposed ADAL Fuel Cell and Corrosion Control, Building 154 additions, Water Reservoir and Pump House, at the SANG Base located in Harrison Township, Michigan. This report presents the results of our observations, geotechnical recommendations and construction considerations.

The soil samples collected during our field investigation will be retained in our laboratory for 90 days from the date of this report, at which time these samples will be discarded unless otherwise directed by you.

It was a pleasure working with you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, Somat Engineering, Inc.

JD Hoksbergen, PE Project Engineer

4039 40th Street SE, Suite 4, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49512 web: www.somateng.com phone: 616‐575‐9230 fax: 616‐575‐9236

Infrastructure Engineering Solutions

REPORT SUMMARY

A general summary of the report conclusions and recommendations is provided below:

1. This project consists of the design and construction of Building 154 additions and a water reservoir tank with associated pump house. Three soil borings were drilled to be used for the design of the additions and new structures. Two soil borings were drilled to a depth of 30 feet and the other soil boring was drilled to a depth of 60 feet below existing grade. The general soil profile encountered at this site included about 3 feet of fill soils overlying stiff to hard clays, extending to depths of about 10 feet below existing grade. Soft clay soils were encountered from 10 feet to about 30 feet below existing grade. Stiff to hard clays were encountered below the soft clays and extended to a depth of about 49 feet below existing grade.

At about 49 feet and extending to the termination depth of boring TH-02, a hardpan material consist of hard sandy clay was encountered.

2. We understand the building additions and the pump house will be constructed as single story, at-grade structures with no below grade areas. The foundations will be supported on shallow foundations. Due to settlement concerns with soft clay soils encountered from about 10 to 30 feet below existing grades, the footings will need to be limited in load and size.

3. The water reservoir tank is proposed to be 66 feet in diameter and have a height of 25 feet.

The tank will be constructed at-grade. Due to settlement concerns, deep foundations will be required to support the tank. Driven piles such as H-piles or steel pipe piles driven into the hardpan should provide suitable support for this structure, assuming the piles are driven into the existing hardpan soils.

4. As a part of this project, some existing pavement areas will need to be removed prior to construction to allow for the installation of new building footings and utility improvements.

Some of the pavement cut areas will be located within driveways and parking lots and will need to be reconstructed. We understand new or reconstructed pavement will consist of both Portland cement concrete or asphaltic cement concrete.

5. The long term groundwater level is expected to be encountered at depths of about 10 to 12 feet below existing grade. Standard sump pit and pumping procedures should be adequate to control the groundwater within the excavations.

The summary presented above is general in nature and should not be considered apart from the entire text of the report with all the qualifications and considerations mentioned therein. Details of our findings and recommendations are discussed in the following sections and in the appendices of this report.

REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT REVIEWED BY:

JD Hoksbergen, P.E. Corey R. Hostetter, P.E., LEED AP Project Engineer Senior Project Engineer

ADAL FUEL CELL AND CORROSION CONTROL, BUILDING 154 ADDITIONS

WATER RESERVOIR TANK AND PUMP HOUSE

SELFRIDGE AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page #

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

1.2 PROJECT AND SITE INFORMATION

2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

2.1.1 Drilling Operations

2.1.2 Sampling

2.1.3 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

2.1.4 Groundwater Level Observation Procedures

2.2 LABORATORY TESTING

2.3 LIMITATIONS

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 SOIL STRATIFICATION

3.2 GROUNDWATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

4.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1.1 Shallow Foundations

4.1.2 Deep Foundations

4.2 SEISMIC SITE CLASS RECOMMENDATION

4.3 PAVEMENT AND SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS

4.3.1 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations

4.3.2 Pavement Recommendations

4.3.3 Pavement Drainage Considerations

4.3.4 Pavement Design Considerations

4.4 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

4.5 ENGINEERED FILL RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A SOIL BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM

APPENDIX B LOGS OF SOIL BORINGS AND GENERAL NOTES

APPENDIX C “IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL-

ENGINEERING REPORT”

BUILDING 154 ADDITIONS, WATER RESERVOIR TANK AND PUMP HOUSE

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Upon authorization from Mead & Hunt of Middleton, Wisconsin, Somat Engineering, Inc. (Somat) has conducted a geotechnical investigation for the proposed additions to Building 154, which houses the ADAL Fuel Cell and Corrosion Control Hangar, as well as the construction of a new reservoir tank and pump house within the Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Harrison Township, Michigan.

This study was performed in accordance with Somat Proposal No. P180289, dated August 22, 2018 and Proposal No. P190251A, dated July 22, 2019.

The following sections of this report will provide our understanding of the project, a description of our field investigation, the results of the field and laboratory tests, the logs of test borings, our interpretation of subsoil and groundwater conditions, and recommendations related to the geotechnical aspects for design of new foundations and new pavement based on the soil and groundwater conditions disclosed by our field investigation.

1.2 PROJECT AND SITE INFORMATION

This project consists of the design and construction of additions to Building 154 and the construction of an adjacent water reservoir and pump house at the Selfridge Air National Guard

Base (ANGB). The Selfridge ANGB is located at 44875 N. Jefferson Avenue in Harrison

Township, Michigan.

The Selfridge ANGB is on the west shore of Lake Saint Clair and is bounded by I-94 to the west, the Clinton River to the south, and by William P. Rosso Highway to the north. Building 154 located on the east side of the base, south of Wilbur Wright Boulevard near the intersection with

Jefferson Avenue, and north of the East Ramp.

REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION APRIL 27, 2020

BUILDING 154 ADDITIONS, WATER RESERVOIR AND PUMP HOUSE 2019143A

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 2

The Building 154 additions and pump house building are proposed to consist of single-story, slab on grade structures, with no below-grade structures considered. The additions to Building 154 are proposed to be a low bay office and locker room and break area spaces, which will expand shop and administrative space for staff. Sections of pavement surrounding the existing building may need to be removed and replaced due to construction activities and utility installation. The water reservoir is to be constructed above grade and will be circular in shape with a diameter of about

66 feet and a height of 25 feet. A pump house will be needed to service the water reservoir tank, and may be constructed as a new building, or an existing building will be used to house the pump equipment.

2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

The field exploration program consisted of performing a total of three (3) soil borings, designated as TH-01, TH-02, and TH-03. Each of these soil borings were located near the footprint of the proposed additions. Soil borings TH-01 and TH-03 extended to 30 feet while TH-02 extended to

60 feet below existing grade.

The number and location of these soil borings were selected by M&H. The final boring locations were adjusted in the field to avoid conflict with any underground utilities. The final as-drilled boring locations were not surveyed and the coordinates presented on the soil boring logs are based on handheld GPS recordings, and measured offsets in the field. Ground surface elevations were estimated from the proposed soil boring location survey file provided by M&H. A soil boring location diagram is presented in Appendix A for reference.

2.1.1 Drilling Operations

The drilling operations were performed between December 17 and 19, 2019. A CME 850X ATV track mounted drill rig (#400472) was used to advance 3¼ inch (inside diameter) hollow stem auger to the termination depth of the soil borings.

SELFRIDGE AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 3

Upon completion, all boreholes were backfilled with a cementitious grout to the ground surface elevation. Certificates are provided to us indicating each hammer’s measured energy transfer ratio.

For this project, the hammer efficiency is provided below:

Drill Rig (Serial No.) Hammer Energy Transfer Efficiency Applicable Soil Borings

#400472 93.20% TH-01 / TH-02 / TH-03

2.1.2 Sampling

Soil samples were recovered from the soil borings using split-spoon sampling procedures in accordance with ASTM Standard D1586 (“Standard Method for Penetration Tests and Split Barrel

Sampling of Soils”). Sampling was performed in the soil borings using a 24-inch-long split-spoon sampler at a 2.5-foot interval from the surface to 10 feet below grade where sample intervals were then collected at 5-foot intervals to the termination depth of each soil boring.

The samples obtained during drilling were sealed in glass jars in the field to protect the soil and maintain the soil’s natural moisture content. All soil samples for the geotechnical investigation were transported to Somat’s laboratory for further analysis and testing and will be retained in our laboratory for a period of 90 days from the date of this report, after which they will be discarded, unless we are notified otherwise.

2.1.3 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Soil samples collected during the drilling portion of the subsoil exploration were labeled with the soil boring designation and a unique sample number. Soil boring samples were obtained by

Standard Penetration Tests in general accordance with ASTM D1586 procedures, whereby a conventional 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler is driven into the soil with a 140 pound hammer repeatedly dropped through a free-fall distance of 30 inches. The sampler is generally driven three successive 6-inch increments, with the blows for each 6-inch increment being recorded. The number of blows required to advance the sampler through 12 inches after an initial penetration of

6 inches, is termed the Standard Penetration Test resistance (N-value) and is presented graphically on the individual Logs of Test Borings. As added information, the number of blows for each 6-inch increment is also presented on the boring logs.

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 4

2.1.4 Groundwater Level Observation Procedures

Whenever possible, groundwater level observations were made during the drilling operations and immediately after completion of drilling, and are shown on the individual Logs of Test Borings.

During drilling, the depth at which free water was observed, where drill cuttings became saturated or where saturated samples were collected, was indicated as the groundwater level during drilling.

In granular, pervious soils, the indicated water levels are considered relatively reliable when solid-stem augers are used for drilling. However, in cohesive soils, groundwater observations are not necessarily indicative of the static water table due to the low permeability rates of the soils, and due to the sealing off of natural paths of groundwater flow during drilling operations.

It should be noted that seasonal variations and recent precipitation conditions may influence the level of the groundwater table significantly. Groundwater observation wells are generally used if precise groundwater table information is needed, however the installation of groundwater monitoring wells was not included in the scope of the investigation. Therefore, the discussion and recommendations provided within the report are based on our knowledge of the soil and groundwater conditions in this area, which should provide for a reasonable approximation of the groundwater level.

2.2 LABORATORY TESTING

All samples recovered from the borings were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil

Classification System.

The results of the laboratory classification are included in Appendix B on the respective logs of test borings. All laboratory tests were performed in accordance with their applicable ASTM procedures.

2.3 LIMITATIONS

Our scope of our services was strictly geotechnical and did not include any environmental assessment, or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on, below or around this site. Any statement in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors, unusual or suspicious contents or conditions are strictly for informational purposes. No further testing or investigation has been performed to specifically identify the content or source.

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 5

Further, Somat has made no observations or recommendations with regard to the presence or absence of mold or other biological contaminants (such as spores, fungi, bacteria, viruses and the byproducts of such organisms), now or in the future, on this site or within or on any structures to be constructed on this site. Any consideration with regard to the presence of mold, or the possibility of mold growth in or on the structure to be constructed on this site are not within

Somat’s scope of services on this project.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 SOIL STRATIFICATION

Soil conditions encountered at the soil boring locations have been evaluated and are presented in the form of Logs of Test Borings. The Logs of Test Borings presented in Appendix B include approximate soil stratification with detailed soil descriptions and selected physical properties for each stratum encountered in the test borings. In addition to the observed subsoil stratigraphy, the boring logs present information relating to sample data, Standard Penetration Test results, groundwater level conditions observed in the boring, personnel involved, and other pertinent data. For information, and to aid in understanding the data as presented on the boring logs, General Notes defining nomenclature used in soil descriptions are presented immediately following the Logs of

Test Borings in Appendix B. It should be noted that the Logs of Test Borings included with this report have been prepared on the basis of laboratory classifications and testing as well as field logs and observations of the soils encountered.

A generalized description of the soils encountered in the borings (TH-01 to TH-03), beginning at the existing ground surface, is provided below:

Surface Materials. Approximately 14 inches of topsoil was encountered at the surface of TH-01. 8 inches of Portland cement concrete was encountered at the surface of TH-02 and

TH-03.

Fill Materials. Beneath the pavement, fill soils were encountered and extended to approximately 2 feet and 3 feet in soil borings TH-02 and TH-03, respectively. These fill soils consisted of mixed clay, silty sand, and crushed aggregate in TH-02. A slight foreign

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 6

odor was present in these fill soils. The fill soils encountered in TH-03 include a poorly graded fine sand with silt. Occasional layers of cinders were encountered in the TH-03 fill layer.

A foreign odor was observed in soils to a depth of about 2 feet below grade in TH-02.

Upper Clay. Below the fill soils, each of the soil borings generally encountered lean clay with varying amounts of sand and gravel. A stiff to hard lean clay was found to extend to a depth of about 10 to 12 feet below grade. In TH-03, the clays extending to 8 feet below grade were classified as possible fill soils.

A foreign odor was observed in these upper clay soils to a depth of about 12 feet in TH-01.

Very Soft Native Clay. Below the upper clay soils, very soft lean clay was encountered extending to about 28 to 30 feet below grade.

Deep Native Clay. Stiff to hard lean clays were encountered below the very soft clay soils in all three soil borings. Soil borings TH-01 and TH-03 were terminated in this layer at depths of 30 feet below grade. In soil boring TH-02, stiff to very stiff sandy clay soils extended to a depth of about 49 feet below grade.

Hardpan. In soil boring TH-02, hardpan material consisting of sandy lean clay was encountered beginning at a depth of 49 feet below grade and continued to the explored depth of the boring.

Please refer to the individual boring logs for the soil conditions at the specific boring locations. It is emphasized that the stratification lines shown on the Logs of Test Borings are approximate indications of change from one soil type to another at the locations of the boreholes. The actual transition from one stratum to the next may be gradual, and may vary within the area represented by the test boring.

3.2 GROUNDWATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater was not encountered in the soil borings either during drilling operations or upon completion of drilling operations. Often, the color change from brown to gray can indicate the long term groundwater levels within cohesive soils. The change from brown to gray soils at this site, and our estimate of the long term groundwater level occurred at a depth of about 10 to 12 feet below existing grade (El. 569 to 566 feet±) in all three soil borings. Although not encountered at the time of our field investigation, perched groundwater conditions should be expected above the long term level, due to the significant presence of fines encountered within the soils on site.

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 7

It should be noted that the elevation of the natural groundwater table is likely to vary throughout the year depending on the amount of precipitation, runoff, evaporation and percolation in the area, as well as on the water level of surface water bodies in the vicinity, such as the Clinton River and

Lake St. Clair, affecting the groundwater flow pattern.

4.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The overall project consists of the design and construction of new additions to the low bay office and locker room / break room area, surrounding pavement, as well as the installation of a water reservoir and pump house. As we understand, no below grade areas are proposed for any of these structures. We understand shallow spread or continuous strip foundations will be used to support the building additions as well as the pump house building. The reservoir tank will need to be supported on deep foundations.

As a part of this project, some existing pavement areas will need to be removed and replaced during construction. We understand both Portland cement concrete and asphaltic cement concrete pavement will be used.

4.1 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1.1 Shallow Foundations

We understand shallow foundations will be used to support the Building 154 additions, and the new pump house building (if the existing structure is not repurposed). As such, we expect shallow spread or continuous foundations to bear at standard frost depth (42 inches below final site grade).

We do not anticipate any significant grade changes in this area (limited to within 1 foot±).

The bearing soils encountered in soil borings TH-01, TH-02 and TH-03 at a depth of 42 inches below existing grade were found to consist of hard to stiff clay, decreasing in strength with depth.

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 8

Soft clay soils were encountered at a depth of about 10 to 12 feet below existing grade and extended to depths of about 28 to 30 feet below existing grade. The soils in TH-03 were classified as possible fill to a depth of about 8 feet, likely associated with the construction of the existing building.

In general, we do not recommend constructing new foundations on undocumented fill soils.

However, in boring TH-03, the possible fill was not found to contain any deleterious material. As such, these soils would be acceptable to leave in place, as long as they are properly prepared

(described further in this report); however, careful observation should be made by a geotechnical engineer or qualified engineering inspector during construction to ensure the soils encountered at the foundation bearing elevation are similar to what was observed in boring TH-03, that there are not deeper fill soils, or buried debris/unsuitable soils at or beyond TH-03.

Care must be taken to protect and support the existing building foundations, so that they are not undermined or damaged.

The natural clay and possible clay fill soils are considered suitable for support of new foundations, given the discussion above. However, the deeper soft clay soils are susceptible to consolidation settlement, and shallow foundations need to be designed to prevent excessive settlement.

For shallow foundations bearing on these clay soils at conventional frost depth, we recommend a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf for square footings, and 2,000 psf for continuous

(strip) footings be used for design. These values incorporate a factor of safety of 3. The design of the foundations must take into consideration the estimated settlement of the footings.

We have estimated the total settlement for both square and continuous foundations. Due to the settlement sensitive soils located below the bearing soils, the estimated settlement is highly dependent on the width of the footings. The table below shows the estimated settlement for various footing configurations.

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 9

Footing Type Assumed Footing

Pressure Estimated Settlement

Square Footing 2 foot x 2 foot

2,500 psf 1.0 inches

Square Footing 3 foot x 3 foot

2,500 psf 1.5 inches

Square Footing 4 foot x 4 foot

2,500 psf 2.0 inches

Continuous Footing

1.5 foot wide

2,000 psf 1.5 inches

Continuous Footing 2 foot wide

2,000 psf 2.2 inches

Differential settlement is estimated as one-half of the total settlement.

Foundations should be situated a minimum of 3.5 feet below final site grade for frost concerns.

Also, for frost heave considerations, the footing concrete should be cast in a vertical manner and should not be allowed to “mushroom out” near the top. Foundations should not be constructed on frozen subgrade soils. If foundation construction occurs during the winter, the foundations must be protected from frost by either embedment or proper insulation.

For bearing capacity and settlement considerations, isolated spread footing type foundations should be at least 24 inches wide, and continuous strip foundations should be at least 18 inches wide. For adjacent spread footings bearing at different elevations, we recommend a maximum line of slope between bottoms of footings to be 1V:1H.

Careful probing and visual observations should be made during construction to make sure foundations are not constructed on any organic soils, existing unsuitable fill, or unsuitable natural soils.

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 10

Based on our experience with soils within and nearby the Selfridge ANGB, it is possible some of the bearing soils have potential for shrinking and swelling. Although none of the soils at the proposed bearing depths at this Building 154 Additions project appeared to be “sensitive” clays, it is possible to still encounter such soils during construction. The deeper soft clay soils likely have a much higher shrink or swell potential. Unfortunately, there is no way to reliably determine the amount of distress which may occur as a result of the shrink/swell nature of the clay soils.

Precautions should be taken to control the natural moisture content of these proposed clay subgrade soils. Changes in moisture content of ±5% could significantly impact the shrinking and swelling potential of the clay. For building foundations bearing on clay subgrade soils susceptible to shrinking and swelling, there is a concern for future foundation distress.

The potential for shrink/swell should be noted during design and construction, and conscious care should be taken to prevent significant moisture changes. This means protecting the foundation bearing soils from excessive drying or absorption of groundwater. Drainage of rain water/surface runoff should be directed away from the building, and a properly functioning perimeter foundation drainage system should be installed.

4.1.2 Deep Foundations

The proposed water reservoir tank will be constructed as an above grade tank with a diameter of

66 feet and a height of 25 feet. Although the foundation pressure is not expected to be very large

(possibly under 2,000 psf), due to the large footprint of the tank as well as the soft soils encountered at the site, the tank will need to be supported on deep foundations as the resulting settlement will likely be intolerable. We recommend the tank be supported on driven piles: either H-Piles or cast-in-place, closed ended pipe piles (CIPs). Other options, such as drilled shafts, auger cast piles, or micropiles may also be feasible but will result in soil cuttings that would need to be disposed of.

This could be cost prohibitive considering the history of contamination in these areas.

Driven piles are relatively easy and quick to install, with less site disturbance and clean up. These piles would also nearly eliminate the amount of total and differential settlement within the structure. Conversely, consideration should be given to the ground vibrations induced by the driving of the piles and any negative impact on surrounding structures and adjacent underground utilities (generally within about 25 feet of the pile driving operations).

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 11

In order for these piles to develop any significant capacity, they would need to be extended into the hard, sandy clay soils (hardpan) encountered at a depth of about 49 feet below existing grade. The piles are expected to develop significant side friction and end bearing resistance within the hardpan layers. We believe a 10 or 12 inch pile section would be most suitable for support of this structure

(HP10x42 or HP12x53 or 12 inch diameter pipe piles), depending on the structural requirements.

For HP pile sections manufactured from Grade 50 steel, we recommend a maximum allowable axial capacity of 120 kips and 180 kips for HP10x42 and HP12x53 piles, respectively. For pipe piles, the capacity will vary significantly with diameter and wall thickness. For ASTM A252

Grade 3 Steel, 10-inch or 12-inch diameter piles with a minimum wall thickness of 0.25 inches, we recommend a maximum allowable axial capacity of 100 kips and 160 kips, respectively. Larger pipe piles could be used; however, we would caution against larger H-Pile sections as with their increased bearing resistance and larger pile driving equipment, there is a possibility of piles extended deeper than expected as they cut into the hardpan soils.

The piles bearing within the hardpan will have more than sufficient capacity to support the vertical loads from this tank structure. A bearing depth of 55 feet below existing grade should be used for estimating pile quantities.

Preliminarily, we recommend an allowable lateral capacity of 10 kips be used for design of new vertical piles, based on our previous experience with lateral load tests for short term (transient) loading. Where the lateral load capacity of a vertical pile is used to resist design forces, then only transient forces, such as wind loading, should be applied to this lateral capacity. Sustained lateral loading should be resisted by the axial component of battered piles and not by the lateral load resistance of vertical piles.

Considering the soil conditions that the piles will be driven through, we do not anticipate issues with overstressing the piles during installation, provided proper inspection of each pile installation.

Typically, the contractor is required to submit a wave equation analysis incorporating the pile driving system that is anticipated to be used on the project. The wave equation analysis demonstrates that the anticipated system is capable of developing the ultimate pile bearing capacity

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 12

without damaging the pile. However, since these piles will be driven to bear hardpan, the ultimate capacity will be achieved. The maximum compressive driving stress in the pile must not exceed

90% of the yield strength of the steel.

Also, based on our experience with driving piles down to hardpan, it is also possible that natural obstructions could be encountered above the top of the hardpan stratum. For piles where refusal is encountered at elevations above the estimated top of hardpan, the pile should be presumed to have stopped on a cobble, boulder or other material and should be evaluated to determine its load carrying capacity.

Based on the soil boring information, harder driving conditions could be anticipated through the hard clay and extremely dense granular soils. As such, protective cast steel point protectors should be used on all piles.

We recommend a minimum spacing of 5 pile diameters (center to center).

The pile capacity considerations discussed in this report are based on static analysis methods and experience with similar piles driven in the greater Detroit area. Local building codes may require a load test be performed for this project. If a load test is required, we would permit the use of quick test procedures for this site and proposed foundation system. However, since these piles will not be supporting large vertical loads, we do not believe a load test is necessary for this site and for the anticipated pile size and loading.

We do not anticipate any significant settlement of this water tank bearing on pile foundation systems. Elastic compression of the piles should be about ¼ inch. Settlement at the pile tip is negligible. Differential settlement between adjacent piles, spaced as indicated, should be negligible.

All pile driving should be performed under the full time monitoring of a qualified field engineer to verify the proper set has been obtained. Complete driving records should be kept for each pile.

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 13

Once the pile capacities have been achieved, based on a predetermined blow count or set, the piles should be cut off at the design top of pile elevation. We recommend the piles not be driven past the point where the design capacities are achieved due to potential damage resulting from overdriving. Piles damaged during driving should be replaced with new piles, installed as approved by the Engineer.

It is important to have an experienced pile contractor. The pile contractor should have at least five years experience in installing pile foundations and submit proof of at least three similar projects.

4.2 SEISMIC SITE CLASS RECOMMENDATION

In order to determine the seismic site classification in accordance with the current Michigan

Building Code (MBC), the top 100 feet of the soil profile should be considered. Based on the surficial soils encountered in our geotechnical investigation and our general knowledge of the soils within the Harrison Township area, the soil profile at this site can be generally considered a “soft soil” profile. The moisture contents and the thickness of the soft clay soils at this site meet the criteria for a “soft soil” profile, and although Atterberg limit testing was not performed on the soft clay soils within the soil borings TH-01 through TH-03, testing was performed on similar materials at the nearby Hangar 3, 4, 5 projects where results indicate a PI of 20 or above. As such, this site can be classified as a Seismic Site Class E.

4.3 PAVEMENT AND SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS

As we understand, for the Building 154 additions and the proposed pump house, slab-on-grade construction will be used for the floor, with the slab consisting of a Portland cement concrete section. We anticipate a total pavement section including a granular base material will be about

12 inches thick.

As a part of this project, some existing pavement areas will need to be removed and replaced during construction. We understand that new pavement sections could consist of either an asphalt or concrete pavement. For subgrade analysis, we have generally assumed the new pavement section

(including any base or subbase materials) will not be any thicker than about 18 inches.

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 14

4.3.1 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations

Based on the soil boring TH-01, TH-02 and TH-03, which were all drilled near the proposed building structures, we anticipate the slab subgrade soils will consist of natural clay soils, or mixed sand, clay and gravel fill soils. These soils are generally considered structurally suitable for support of the proposed slab-on-grade, considering they did not appear to contain debris or deleterious material.

However, due to the high fines content (clay soils), they are not considered highly permeable or free-draining. As such, these soils are also considered highly susceptible to frost action. The effects of frost heave are anticipated to be more significant in areas where water is not allowed to drain freely either due to subsoil conditions, site grades, or other factors. We expect the proposed pump house building may not be heated full-time and frost action could occur. As such, for the pump house building, we recommend removing a minimum of 12 inches of the clay or fill soils sand below the base of the slab and replacing it with a clean, granular engineered fill soil to reduce the potential for frost action.

Once rough grade has been achieved (prior to placement of fill or concrete), the exposed subgrade should be visually checked for the presence of organic matter and other unsuitable materials. If unsuitable or organic subgrade soils (organic content over 4 percent) are encountered at subgrade level during earthwork operations, these soils should be removed and replaced with properly compacted engineered fill.

Within any slab-on-grade subgrade areas, the top 12 inches of the subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557

(Modified Proctor) before placement of new fill or pavement.

It may be necessary in some of these areas to remove disturbed subgrade soils and replace them with a stabilization layer of engineered crushed aggregate fill. The thickness and extent of the required aggregate stabilization layer can be determined in the field by the site geotechnical engineer. We recommend a layer of MDOT 21AA material be used for this purpose, though other materials may also be acceptable. Again, where this aggregate is used to backfill undercuts, this

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 15

material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). It should be noted that if an open graded material is placed over a finer-grained material, a separator fabric (non-woven geotextile) should be placed between the two dissimilar layers.

Once the subgrade has been properly compacted, the subgrade areas should also be thoroughly proofrolled before placement of new fill or pavement. The purpose of the proofrolling is to locate overly loose or soft areas as well as to uniformly compact the subgrade surface. Proofrolling should be performed using a fully-loaded, tandem axle dump truck, rubber-tired loader, or other suitable piece of pneumatic-tired construction equipment. Loose or soft areas revealed during compaction or during the proofrolling should either be suitably compacted (or aerated if necessary) or removed and replaced with properly compacted engineered fill.

For Portland cement concrete slab design, we recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction (kv) of

150 pci be used for design of this slab. This recommended modulus of subgrade reaction assumes the soil conditions encountered in the borings are representative of the soil conditions within the proposed slab areas and that any improvement measures discussed above have been implemented.

If during construction (within excavations below the existing pavement), the subgrade is found to vary from the expected soil conditions, we should be contacted so we may re-evaluate our modulus value.

These floor slabs will be situated above the long term groundwater level, therefore, we do not believe that an underfloor drainage system would be necessary.

4.3.2 Pavement Recommendations

The proposed pavement sections could consist of either an asphalt or concrete pavement. For subgrade analysis, we have generally assumed the new pavement section (including any base or subbase materials) will not be any thicker than about 18 inches.

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN PAGE 16

Soil borings TH-02 and TH-03 were drilled within or near areas where new pavement is proposed to be constructed. Based on these soil borings, after all the existing pavement or topsoil is removed, at the estimated subgrade level of 18 inches, we expect the subgrade soils for the new pavement to consist of the natural clay soils, or the mixed clay and sand fill soils. These soils are considered to be suitable for support of a new pavement section, provided they are properly prepared. However, similar to the building slabs, these soils contain a significant amount of fines to where they are not considered free draining and could be susceptible to frost action. We recommend a minimum of 12 inches of the clay and fill soils be removed below the proposed subgrade level and be replaced with a “clean” granular engineered fill.

Again, once rough grade has been achieved (prior to placement of fill or concrete), the exposed subgrade should be visually checked for the presence of organic matter and other unsuitable materials. If unsuitable or organic subgrade soils (organic content over 4 percent) are encountered at subgrade level during earthwork operations, these soils should be removed and replaced with properly compacted engineered fill.

The top 12 inches of the subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) before placement of new fill or pavement. It may be necessary in some of these areas to remove disturbed subgrade soils and replace them with a stabilization layer of engineered crushed aggregate fill. The thickness and extent of the required aggregate stabilization layer can be determined in the field by the site geotechnical engineer. We recommend a layer of MDOT 21AA material be used for this purpose, though other materials may also be acceptable. Again, where this aggregate is used to backfill undercuts, this material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). It should be noted that if an open graded material is placed over a finer-grained material, a separator fabric (non-woven geotextile) should be placed between the two dissimilar layers.

Once the subgrade has been properly compacted, the subgrade areas should also be thoroughly proofrolled before placement of new fill or pavement. The purpose of the proofrolling is to locate

HARRISON…