Final J2207020 Building 13 Montrose NY GeoReport.pdf

REPORT COVER PAGE

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Building 13 Additions Montrose, New York

November 30, 2020 Terracon Project No. J2207020

Prepared for:

Triple C - The A&E Group LLC

Laramie, WY

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants - NY, Inc.

South Plainfield, New Jersey

Terracon Consultants - NY, Inc. 4081 Hadley Road, Unit B South Pla inf ie ld 07080 P (908) 546-6161 F (908) 546-6160 terracon.com

REPORT COVER LETTER TO SIGN

November 30, 2020

Triple C - The A&E Group LLC 410 E Grand Ave Suite 201C Laramie, WY 82070

Attn: Mr. Mat Perkins P: (307) 460-2054 E: mat.perkins@triplecaeg.com

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Building 13 Additions 2094 Albany Post Road Montrose, New York Terracon Project No. J2207020

Dear Mr. Perkins:

We have completed the Geotechnical Engineering services for the above referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with the June 9, 2020 Montrose CLC Contract Agreement 620-19-334. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations and floor slabs for the proposed project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants - NY, Inc.

Alex Kavaleuski Carl W. Thunberg, P.E.

Project Manager Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed By: Erich L. Christiansen – Authorized Project Reviewer

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

REPORT TOPICS

INTRODUCTION

SITE CONDITIONS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

EARTHWORK

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

FLOOR SLABS

CORROSIVITY

GENERAL COMMENTS

FIGURES

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. Orange Bold text in the report indicates a referenced section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on the GeoReport logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at client.terracon.com.

ATTACHMENTS

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Note: Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.

http://client.terracon.com/

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

INTRODUC TION

Geotechnical Engineering Report Building 13 Additions

2094 Albany Post Road Montrose, New York

Terracon Project No. J2207020 November 30, 2020

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed additions to the existing Building 13 located at 2094 Albany Post Road in Montrose, New York. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

■ Subsurface soil and rock conditions ■ Foundation design and construction

■ Groundwater conditions ■ Floor slab design and construction

■ Site preparation and earthwork ■ Lateral earth pressures

■ Seismic site classification per IBC

The field geotechnical engineering Scope of Services for this project included the advancement of three test borings to depths ranging from approximately 7.5 to 20 feet below existing site grades.

Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs and/or as separate graphs in the Exploration Results section.

SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps.

Item Description

Parcel Information

The site is located at adjacent to an existing Building 13 located at 2094 Albany Post Road in Montrose, New York.

Approximate site coordinates: Latitude, Longitude: 41.2396°, -73.9286° See Site Location

Existing Improvements Grass lawn next to concrete sidewalk.

Building 13 Additions ■ Montrose, New York November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Item Description Current Ground Cover

Grass.

Existing Topography The ground surface within the north addition is at approximately Elevation +127 feet and the south addition is at approximately Elevation +123 feet.

Geology Geologic maps indicate subsurface conditions consist of silty sand soils underlain by diorite bedrock.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Our initial understanding of the project was provided in our proposal and was discussed during project planning. A period of collaboration has transpired since the project was initiated, and our final understanding of the project conditions is as follows:

Item Description

Information Provided A/E Services for Construction of the Building 13 Additions at the Montrose Campus, Project Number 620-334

Project Description Construction of new egress stairs

Proposed Structure The project includes two egress stairs with a combined footprint of less than 1,000 square feet.

Structure Construction

Steel or concrete Slab-on-grade

Finished Floor Elevation

Not provided.

Maximum Loads (Assumed)

■ Columns: 20 kips

■ Walls: 2 kips per linear foot (klf)

■ Slabs: 125 pounds per square foot (psf)

Grading/Slopes Minimum site grading is expected to be needed for the construction of the egress stairs.

Below-Grade Structures

Not planned

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

Subsurface Profile

We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface conditions based upon our review of the subsurface exploration, laboratory data, geologic setting and our understanding of the project. This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation of site preparation and foundation options. Conditions encountered at each exploration point are indicated on the individual logs. The individual logs can be found in the Exploration Results section and the GeoModel can be found in the Figures section of this report.

As part of our analyses, we identified the following model layers within the subsurface profile. For a more detailed view of the model layer depths at each boring location, refer to the GeoModel.

Model Layer Layer Name General Description

1 Fill Silt with sand to silt with gravel, silty sand with gravel, gravel with sand and silt

2 Silty Sand Very dense sandy gravel to gravel with sand 3 Bedrock Moderately weathered diorite

Fill material depths varied between approximately 2.5 feet and 9 feet within relatively short distance.

Slightly to moderately weathered diorite bedrock (Model Layer 3) was encountered at widely-varying depths ranging between 2.5 and 15 feet. The quality of the rock, as indicated by the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) value, ranged from very poor to poor (RQD values ranging from 23 to 43 percent).

Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was not observed in the borings while drilling, or for the short duration the borings remain open before coring. However, this does not necessarily mean the borings terminated above groundwater.

Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

The key geotechnical issue impacting the proposed development is the presence of possibly up to 9 feet of fill at the site and the relatively shallow depth to bedrock observed in our study. The boring data indicates that the relative density of the fill is comparatively high and that the fill possibly was placed in a controlled manner; however, the blow counts recorded within fill material may not truly indicate density and/or compaction level of fill material due to the presence of gravel.

If the placement of the fill was not closely controlled, it is also possible that unsuitable materials are present in the fill. Given these conditions, it is our opinion that the existing fill is unsuitable in its current condition for support of the proposed egress stair additions due to the risk of greater-than-normal post-construction total and differential settlements.

The existing fill should be overexcavated in the egress stair addition areas and replaced with a structural fill. Provided deleterious materials are removed from the excavated soil it expected to be suitable for reuse as a structural fill. Additional site preparation recommendations, including subgrade improvement and fill placement, are provided in the Earthwork section.

Following overexcavation and backfill, the proposed egress stair additions can be supported on conventional shallow foundations. The Shallow Foundations section addresses support of the building bearing on native medium dense to dense silty sand soils or structural fill placed over these soils. The Floor Slabs section addresses the addition’s slab-on-grade support.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

EARTHWORK

Earthwork is anticipated to include clearing and grubbing, excavations, and fill placement. The following sections provide recommendations for use in the preparation of specifications for the work. Recommendations include critical quality criteria, as necessary, to render the site in the state considered in our geotechnical engineering evaluation for foundations.

Site Preparation

The site should be cleared and grubbed to remove trees, stumps, roots, grass, topsoil, organic laden soil, organic matter, and any rubble or debris encountered. The topsoil should be stripped within, as well as five feet beyond the limits of the proposed construction. The topsoil is not suitable for reuse as structural fill/backfill and should be disposed in a suitable manner. As an alternative, the topsoil could be reused in landscaped areas.

When trees are removed, the entire root ball should be excavated such that the remaining roots measure 1 inch in diameter or less. The excavation created for the tree removal should be sloped to allow compaction equipment to achieve uniform backfill compaction.

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

Prior to any earthwork operations, any subsurface utilities and abandoned subsurface structures, if present, that are in conflict with the new construction should be relocated and/or removed from the proposed construction area. Fill material encountered at the site should be overexcavated to the native subgrade soils within the proposed egress stair additions footprints and extending laterally outside the outer edge of the proposed foundation at least a distance equal to the fill thickness at the area. However, care should be taken not to undermine the existing foundation system to remain. Specifically, do not excavate the soils within the existing building’s foundation zone of influence consisting of the soil directly beneath the footing and the soil within the zone outward and downward from the outer edge of the footing at a ratio of 1H:1V, without a designed excavation support system.

Subgrade Preparation

As stated above, following clearing and fill removal, the exposed subgrades should be proofrolled and densified with at least 6 passes of a self-propelled, vibratory compactor with a static drum weight of at least 10-ton (static weight). We recommend that Terracon be present to evaluate the actual subgrades and provide recommendations at the time of construction. Proof-rolling should be performed after a suitable period of dry weather to avoid degrading subgrade soil and to reduce the amount of undercutting/remedial work required. In places where the results of the proof-rolling are questionable. If soft/unstable areas are encountered, they should be mitigated. If the areas are isolated, mitigation by limited overexcavation and replacement with competent soils approved by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction, may suffice. Following the successful proofrolling operation, structural fill could then be placed to the proposed design subgrade elevations as needed in accordance with subsequent sections of this report.

Bedrock Excavation

Diorite bedrock was encountered in a number of the borings ranging from 2.5 to 15 feet below current grades. Therefore, there is a potential that limited bedrock removal will be required when excavating for foundations or utilities. The quality of the rock, as indicated by the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) value, ranged widely from poor to fair (RQD values ranging from 23 to 43 percent). It is our opinion that 1 to 2 feet of bedrock is rippable with conventional excavation equipment in mass excavations, however to a lesser degree in mor confined areas such as utility and footing trenches. Consequently, other rock removal techniques such as hydraulic hammers and splitters may need to be employed.

Excavation Safety

As a minimum, temporary excavations should be sloped or braced, as required by Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations, to provide stability and safe working conditions. The contractor should shore, slope or bench the sides of all temporary excavations, as required, to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6 comply with applicable local, State and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards.

Reuse of Materials

Materials generated during overexcavation of fill operations for foundations expected to consist of predominantly silty sand with gravel. These soils can be reused as structural fill. All structural fill materials should be free of any deleterious materials (i.e., materials that can degrade with time or are highly compressible, such as wood, vegetation, topsoil, etc.) and have a maximum particle size of 6 inches.

Imported Fill Materials

In the event that imported fill is needed to complete the backfill or site grading, we recommend that the material consist of inorganic, readily compactable, well-graded granular soils with no more than 15 percent fines (no more than 15 percent passing the No. 200 sieve). Additionally, we recommend excluding gradations greater than 6 inches. The moisture content of the fill material should be controlled to within approximately 2 to 3 percent of the optimum moisture content by wetting, aeration, or blending, as necessary to achieve the required compaction.

Structural Fill Placement

Structural fill should be installed in controlled layers uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent of the fill material’s maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557 Test Procedures. The layer thickness should be adjusted as needed depending on the type of compaction equipment used and the condition of the fill materials at the time of construction, but should be no greater than 12 inches in loose thickness. Fill layers for the retaining wall backfill should not exceed 10 inches in loose thickness. It should be expected that thinner lifts will be required to achieve the required compaction in confined areas where portable compaction equipment is used.

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

If the site has been prepared in accordance with the requirements noted in Earthwork, the following design parameters are applicable for shallow foundations.

Design Parameters – Compressive Loads

Item Description Maximum Net Allowable Bearing pressure 1, 2 3,000 psf

Required Bearing Stratum 3 Medium dense silty sand or structural fill

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

Item Description

Minimum Foundation Dimensions Columns: 30 inches Continuous: 18 inches

Ultimate Passive Resistance 4

(equivalent fluid pressures) 360 pcf (granular backfill)

Ultimate Coefficient of Sliding Friction 5 0.4 (granular material)

Minimum Embedment below

Finished Grade 6 48 inches

Estimated Total Settlement from Structural Loads 2 Less than about 1 inch

Estimated Differential Settlement 2, 7 About 2/3 of total settlement

1. The maximum net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. An appropriate factor of safety has been applied. Values assume that exterior grades are no steeper than 20% within 10 feet of structure.

2. Values provided are for maximum loads noted in Project Description.

3. Unsuitable or soft soils should be over-excavated and replaced per the recommendations presented in the

Earthwork.

4. Use of passive earth pressures require the sides of the excavation for the spread footing foundation to be nearly vertical and the concrete placed neat against these vertical faces or that the footing forms be removed and compacted structural fill be placed against the vertical footing face.

5. Can be used to compute sliding resistance where foundations are placed on suitable soil/materials. Should be neglected for foundations subject to net uplift conditions.

6. Embedment necessary to minimize the effects of frost and/or seasonal water content variations. For sloping ground, maintain depth below the lowest adjacent exterior grade within 5 horizontal feet of the structure.

7. Differential settlements are as measured over a span of 50 feet.

Design Parameters - Uplift Loads

Uplift resistance of spread footings can be developed from the effective weight of the footing and the overlying soils. As illustrated on the subsequent figure, the effective weight of the soil prism defined by diagonal planes extending up from the top of the perimeter of the foundation to the ground surface at an angle, q, of 20 degrees from the vertical can be included in uplift resistance.

The maximum allowable uplift capacity should be taken as a sum of the effective weight of soil plus the dead weight of the foundation, divided by an appropriate factor of safety. A maximum total unit weight of 100 pcf should be used for the backfill. This unit weight should be reduced to 40 pcf for portions of the backfill or natural soils below the groundwater elevation.

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

Foundation Construction Considerations

As noted in Earthwork, the footing excavations should be evaluated under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer. The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil, prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Care should be taken to prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during construction. Excessively wet or dry material or any loose/disturbed material in the bottom of the footing excavations should be removed/reconditioned before foundation concrete is placed.

If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered at the base of the planned footing excavation, the excavation should be extended deeper to suitable soils, and the footings could bear directly on these soils at the lower level or on lean concrete backfill placed in the excavations. This is illustrated on the sketch below.

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

Over-excavation for structural fill placement below footings should be conducted as shown below.

The over-excavation should be backfilled up to the footing base elevation, with structural fill placed, as recommended in the Earthwork section.

Construction Adjacent to Existing Building

Differential settlement between the egress stair addition and the existing building is expected to approach the magnitude of the total settlement of the addition. Expansion joints should be provided between the existing building and the proposed addition to accommodate differential movements between the two structures. Underground piping between the two structures, if required, should be designed with flexible couplings and utility knockouts in foundation walls should be oversized, so minor deflections in alignment do not result in breakage or distress. Care should be taken during excavation adjacent to existing foundations, to avoid disturbing existing foundation bearing soils.

New footings should bear at the bearing elevation of immediately adjacent existing foundations.

Depending upon their locations and current loads on the existing footings, footings for the new addition could cause settlement of adjacent walls and columns. In the event that footings that are not immediately adjacent but which are close and cannot be installed at the same bearing elevation, clear distances equal to at least 2/3 of difference in elevation of the footings should be maintained between the equipment footings and footings supporting the existing building

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure.

The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7 and the International Building Code (IBC).

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10

Based on the soil/bedrock properties encountered at the site and as described on the exploration logs and results, it is our professional opinion that the Seismic Site Classification is C.

Subsurface explorations at this site were extended to a maximum depth of 20 feet. The site properties below the boring depth to 100 feet were estimated based on our experience and knowledge of geologic conditions of the general area. Additional deeper borings or geophysical testing may be performed to confirm the conditions below the current boring depth.

FLOOR SLABS

Design parameters for floor slabs assume the requirements for Earthwork have been followed.

Specific attention should be given to positive drainage away from the structure and positive drainage of the aggregate base beneath the floor slab.

Floor Slab Design Parameters

Item Description

Floor Slab Support 1 Minimum 4 inches of well graded aggregate compacted to at least 95% of

ASTM D 1557 2

Estimated Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 2 150 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for point loads

Modulus Correction Factor Kc=k((b+1)/2b)2

1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of building footings or walls to reduce the possibility of floor slab cracking caused by differential movements between the slab and foundation.

2. Modulus of subgrade reaction is an estimated value based upon our experience with the subgrade condition, the requirements noted in Earthwork, and the floor slab support as noted in this table. It is provided for point loads. It is common to reduce the k-value to account for dimensional effects of large loaded areas using the modulus correction factor provided, where kc is the corrected or design modulus value and b is the mat width (short dimension) or tributary loaded area.

The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade covered with wood, tile, carpet, or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder.

Saw-cut control joints should be placed in the slab to help control the location and extent of cracking. For additional recommendations refer to the ACI Design Manual. Joints or cracks should be sealed with a waterproof, non-extruding compressible compound specifically recommended for heavy duty concrete pavement and wet environments.

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

Floor Slab Construction Considerations

Finished subgrade within and for at least 10 feet beyond the floor slab should be protected from traffic, rutting, or other disturbance and maintained in a relatively moist condition until floor slabs are constructed. If the subgrade should become damaged or desiccated prior to construction of floor slabs, the affected material should be removed and structural fill should be added to replace the resulting excavation. Final conditioning of the finished subgrade should be performed immediately prior to placement of the floor slab support course.

The geotechnical engineer should approve the condition of the floor slab subgrades immediately prior to placement of the floor slab support course, reinforcing steel and concrete. Attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier, and to areas where backfilled trenches are located.

CORROSIVITY

The table below lists the results of laboratory soluble sulfate, soluble chloride, electrical resistivity, and pH testing. The values may be used to estimate potential corrosive characteristics of the on-site soils with respect to contact with the various underground materials which will be used for project construction. Results of corrosion analysis page is presented in Exploration Results section.

Corrosivity Test Results Summary

Boring Sample Depth (feet)

Soil Description Soluble Sulfate

Soluble Chloride

Electrical Resistivity

(Ω-cm) pH

SB-2 3 Fill: sandy silt with gravel 158 23 9,700 7.17

Results of soluble sulfate testing indicate samples of the on-site soils tested possess moderate sulfate concentrations when classified in accordance with Table 4.3.1 of the ACI Design Manual.

Concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4. Type I or II cement can be used for this project. Please note that this applies to soil free of debris; however, if fill materials observed to include considerable amounts of debris additional evaluation may be required.

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12

GENERAL COMMENTS

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural variations will occur between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather.

The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction.

Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.

Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third-party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client.

Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client, and is not intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.

Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

FIGURES

Contents:

GeoModel

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

M

S L

(f ee t)

Building 13 Addition Montrose, NY Terracon Project No. J2207020

Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the geotechnical engineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface conditions as required for the subsequent geotechnical engineering for this project.

Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground surface.

NOTES:

SB-1

SB-2 SB-3

GEOMODEL

This is not a cross section. This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only. See individual logs for more detailed conditions.

moderately weathered diorite3

LEGEND

Topsoil

Fill

Well-graded Gravel w/sand

Igneous Rock 1

Well-graded Gravel

Well-graded Gravel with Sand

Model Layer General DescriptionLayer Name

Silt with sand to silt with gravel, silty sand with gravel, gravel with sand and silt1

Very dense sandy gravel to gravel with sand2

Bedrock

Fill

Silty Sand

2.5

7.5

ATTACHMENTS

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 1 of 2

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) Planned Location

3 7.5 to 201 Proposed addition areas

1. Bottom of five foot rock core.

Boring Layout and Elevations: Terracon personnel provided the boring layout. Coordinates were obtained with a handheld GPS unit (estimated horizontal accuracy of about ±20 feet) and approximate elevations were obtained by interpolation from the Google EarthTM. If elevations and a more precise boring layout are desired, we recommend borings be surveyed following completion of fieldwork.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the borings with a track-mounted, rotary drill rig using 4-inch solid stem augers with Tricone Rollerbit. Five samples were obtained in the upper 10 feet of each boring and at intervals of 5 feet thereafter. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, performed at the site, a standard 2-inch outer diameter split-barrel sampling spoon was driven into the ground by a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the middle 12 inches of a normal 24-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value. The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths. Coring was performed in three borings at the site using NQ-2 Size Rock Core Barrel. We observed and recorded groundwater levels during drilling and sampling. For safety purposes, all borings were backfilled with auger cuttings after their completion.

The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information was recorded on the field boring logs. The samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory for testing and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs were prepared from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the Geotechnical Engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on observations and tests of the samples in our laboratory.

Laboratory Testing

The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned laboratory tests to understand the engineering properties of the various soil and rock strata, as necessary, for this project.

Procedural standards noted below are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods were applied because of local practice or professional judgment. Standards

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 2 of 2 noted below include reference to other, related standards. Such references are not necessarily applicable to describe the specific test performed.

■ ASTM D2216 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass

■ ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils

The laboratory testing program often included examination of soil samples by an engineer. Based on the material’s texture and plasticity, we described and classified the soil samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

Rock classification was conducted using locally accepted practices for engineering purposes.

Boring log rock classification was determined using the Description of Rock Properties.

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 1 of 1

PHOTOGRAPHY LOG

SB-1 Run 1 from 6 feet to 11 feet SB-2 Run 1 from 15 feet to 20 feet

SB-3 Run 1 from 2.5 feet to 7.5 feet

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

Contents:

Site Location Exploration Plan

Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.

SITE LOCATION

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.

When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.

The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.

SITE LOCA TION

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY GOOGLE EARTH MAPS

EXPLORATION PLAN

November 30, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. J2207020

Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.

When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.

The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.

EXPLORATION P LAN

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY GOOGLE EARTH MAPS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

Boring Logs (SB-1 through SB-3) Grain Size Distribution Results of Corrosion Analysis

10-22-50/3"

3/3"

RUN # 1

6.0' - 11.0'

51 38

1.8

TOPSOIL

FILL - SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL , light brown

SANDY GRAVEL (GW), trace silt, dark gray, very dense, possible weathered bedrock

DIORITE, gray, fine to medium-grained, moderately fractured, very close to moderate fracture spacing, moderately weathered, medium strong, trace hornblende observed

Boring Terminated at 11 Feet

0.2

3.0

6.0

11.0

127+/-

124+/-

121+/-

116+/-

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

J

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

0/

/2

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

R Q

D

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

)LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 41.2396° Longitude: -73.9286°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

M O

D E

L

LA

Y E

R

DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)

Approximate Surface Elev.: 127 (Ft.) +/-

Advancement Method:

4" Solid Stem Augers with Tricone Rollerbit to 6' BGS.

NQ-2 Size Rock Core Barrel 6.0' - 11.0' BGS

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: J2207020

Drill Rig: Diedrich D-50

BORING LOG NO. SB-1

CLIENT: Triple C - The A&E Group LLC

Laramie, WY

Driller: C.Johnston

Boring Completed: 09-24-2020

PROJECT: Building 13 Addition

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any).

See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

2094 Albany Post Road Montrose, NY

SITE:

Boring Started: 09-24-2020

201 Hammer Mill Rd Rocky Hill, CT

None observed prior to coring

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

TOPSOIL

FILL - SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL , brown grading to silty gravel with sand, gray to brown grading to silty sand with gravel, gray to brown possible weathered bedrock or cobble fragments present in sampling shoe of split barrel soil sampler

GRAVEL (GW), trace sand and silt, gray, very dense, possible weathered bedrock GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW), trace silt, brown to dark gray, very dense, possible weathered bedrock

DIORITE, gray, fine to medium-grained, moderately fractured, close to moderately close fracture spacing, moderately weathered, medium strong, trace hornblende observed

Boring Terminated at 20 Feet

0.2

9.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

123+/-

114+/-

113+/-

108+/-

103+/-

10-10-50/5"

15-15-14-13 N=29

12-6-6-13 N=12

7-29-29-39 N=58

50/4"

14-31-40-50/1" N=71

RUN # 1

15.0' - 20.0'

46 43

1.9

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

J

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

0/

/2

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

M O

D E

L

LA

Y E

R

DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)

Approximate Surface Elev.: 123 (Ft.) +/-

Advancement Method:

4" Solid Stem Augers with Tricone Rollerbit to 15' BGS.

NQ-2 Size Rock Core Barrel 15.0' - 20.0' BGS

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: J2207020

Drill Rig: Diedrich D-50

BORING LOG NO. SB-2

CLIENT: Triple C - The A&E Group LLC

Laramie, WY

Driller: C.Johnston

Boring Completed: 09-25-2020

D E

P T

H

F t.)

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

R Q

D

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

)LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 41.2392° Longitude: -73.9286°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G PROJECT: Building 13 Addition

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any).

See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

2094 Albany Post Road Montrose, NY

SITE:

Boring Started: 09-25-2020

201 Hammer Mill Rd Rocky Hill, CT

None observed prior to coring

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y

9-50/5"

RUN # 1

2.5' - 7.5'

39 23

TOPSOIL

FILL - SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL , brown, contains trace plastic

DIORITE, gray, fine to medium-grained, moderately fractured, very close to close fracture spacing, moderately weathered, medium strong, trace hornblende observed

Boring Terminated at 7.5 Feet

0.2

2.5

7.5

123+/-

120.5+/-

115.5+/-

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

J

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

0/

/2

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

R Q

D

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

)LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 41.2392° Longitude: -73.9285°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

M O

D E

L

LA

Y E

R

DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)

Approximate Surface Elev.: 123 (Ft.) +/-

Advancement Method:

4" Solid Stem Augers with Tricone Rollerbit to 2.5' BGS.

NQ-2 Size Rock Core Barrel 2.5' - 7.5' BGS

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: J2207020

Drill Rig: Diedrich D-50

BORING LOG NO. SB-3

CLIENT: Triple C - The A&E Group LLC

Laramie, WY

Driller: C.Johnston

Boring Completed: 09-24-2020

PROJECT: Building 13 Addition

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any).

See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

2094 Albany Post Road Montrose, NY

SITE:

Boring Started: 09-24-2020

201 Hammer Mill Rd Rocky Hill, CT

None observed prior to coring

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y

0.0010.010.1110100

3/4 1/23/8 30 403 60

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

16 20

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

44 10063 2 10 14 506 2001.5 81 140

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

P E

R C

E N

T C

O A

R S

E R

B Y

W E

IG

H

T

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136

PROJECT NUMBER: J2207020

SITE: 2094 Albany Post Road Montrose, NY

PROJECT: Building 13 Addition

CLIENT: Triple C - The A&E Group LLC Laramie, WY

201 Hammer Mill Rd Rocky Hill, CT

LA

B

O R

A T

O R

Y T

E S

T S

A R

E N

O T

V A

LI

D

IF

S

E P

A R

A T

E D

F R

O M

O R

IG

IN

A L

R E

P O

R T

G R

A

IN

S

IZ

E : U

S C

S

J

.G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

0/

1/

BB-1

BB-2

fine coarse finemedium

COBBLES

GRAVEL SAND

SILT OR CLAY

D30

D60

BORING ID

1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" 1/4" #4 #10 #20 #40 #50 #100 #200

100.0 91.4 72.8 68.97 60.51 54.43 43.74 35.74 29.55 26.59 19.41 13.73

1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" 1/4" #4 #10 #20 #40 #50 #100 #200

100.0 92.76 76.84 71.1 65.97 61.18 51.07 41.88 34.55 31.2 22.9 16.09

CC

CU

coarse

D10

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL

45.6

38.8

40.7

45.1

13.7

16.1

0.0

0.0

0.5 - 1.8

5 - 7

6.197 4.292

0.447 0.271

Sieve

REMARKS

SOIL DESCRIPTION

% Finer% Finer SieveSieve% Finer

USCS% CLAY% FINES% SILT% SAND% GRAVEL% COBBLESDEPTH

COEFFICIENTS

GRAIN SIZE

750 Pilot Road, Suite F

Las Vegas, Nevada 89119

(702) 597-9393

Client

Date Received:

BB-2

3.0

7.17

Nil

+691

Analyzed By:

Trisha Campo pH Analysis, ASTM G 51

Water Soluble Sulfate (SO4), ASTM C 1580

(mg/kg)

Sulfides, AWWA 4500-S D, (mg/kg)

Chlorides, ASTM D 512, (mg/kg)

Red-Ox, ASTM G 200, (mV)

Total Salts, AWWA 2540, (mg/kg)

Resistivity (Saturated), ASTM G 57, (ohm-cm)

Triple C - The A&E Group LLC Building 13 Renovations - VAMC Montrose, NY

Lab No.: 20-1185

Sample Number

Sample Location

Sample Depth (ft.)

The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM and AWWA test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials.

Terracon (J2)Sample Submitted By: 11/4/2020

Results of Corrosion Analysis

Chemist

Project

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

General Notes Unified Soil Classification System Description of Rock Properties

Building 13 Addition Montrose, NY Terracon Project No. J2207020

0.50 to 1.00

> 4.00

Unconfined Compressive Strength Qu, (tsf)

0.25 to 0.50

1.00 to 2.00

2.00 to 4.00 less than 0.25

Auger Cuttings Rock Core

Standard Penetration Test

N

(HP)

(T)

(DCP)

UC

(PID)

(OVA)

Standard Penetration Test Resistance (Blows/Ft.)

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

SAMPLING WATER LEVEL FIELD TESTS

GENERAL NOTES

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs are the levels measured in the borehole at the times indicated. Groundwater level variations will occur over time. In low permeability soils, accurate determination of groundwater levels is not possible with short term water level observations.

Water Initially Encountered

Water Level After a Specified Period of Time

Water Level After a Specified Period of Time

Cave In Encountered

Exploration point locations as shown on the Exploration Plan and as noted on the soil boring logs in the form of Latitude and Longitude are approximate. See Exploration and Testing Procedures in the report for the methods used to locate the exploration points for this project. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area.

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

Soil classification as noted on the soil boring logs is based Unified Soil Classification System. Where sufficient laboratory data exist to classify the soils consistent with ASTM D2487 "Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes" this procedure is used.

ASTM D2488 "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)" is also used to classify the soils, particularly where insufficient laboratory data exist to classify the soils in accordance with ASTM D2487. In addition to USCS classification, coarse grained soils are classified on the basis of their in-place relative density, and fine-grained soils are classified on the basis of their consistency. See "Strength Terms" table below for details. The ASTM standards noted above are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods are applied as a result of local practice or professional judgment.

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

The soil boring logs contained within this document are intended for application to the project as described in this document.

Use of these soil boring logs for any other purpose may not be appropriate.

RELEVANCE OF SOIL BORING LOG

STRENGTH TERMS

Descriptive Term (Density)

Standard Penetration or N-Value

Blows/Ft.

Descriptive Term

(Consistency)

Standard Penetration or N-Value

Blows/Ft.

20 - 29

30 - 49

50 - 79

>79

Standard Penetration or N-Value Blows/Ft.

BEDROCK

Very Loose

Loose

Very Soft

2 - 4

8 - 15

15 - 30

> 30

4 - 9

Medium Dense

Dense

Weathered

Medium Hard

Firm

Very HardVery Dense

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)

Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)

Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Soft

Medium Stiff

Stiff

Very Stiff

Hard

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

< 200 - 1

4 - 8

0 - 3

10 - 29

30 - 50

> 50

Descriptive Term

(Consistency)

Hard

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

UNIFIED SOI L CLASSI FICATI ON SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group Symbol Group Name B

Coarse-Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu ³ 4 and 1 £ Cc £ 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu < 4 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu ³ 6 and 1 £ Cc £ 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu < 6 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic:

PI > 7 and plots on or above “A” line J

CL Lean clay K, L, M

PI < 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

< 0.75 OL Organic clay K, L, M, N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic:

PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K, L, M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

< 0.75 OH Organic clay K, L, M, P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve.

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay.

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains ³ 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains ³ 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains ³ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add

“sandy” to group name.

MIf soil contains ³ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

NPI ³ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

OPI < 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

QPI plots below “A” line.

DESCRIPTION OF ROCK PROPERTIES

ROCK VERSION 1

WEATHERING

Term Description Unweathered No visible sign of rock material weathering, perhaps slight discoloration on major discontinuity surfaces.

Slightly weathered

Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and discontinuity surfaces. All the rock material may be discolored by weathering and may be somewhat weaker externally than in its fresh condition.

Moderately weathered

Less than half…