36C24918R0163-004.pdf

A/E Construct Parking Garage on West Lot

VA Contract No.: VA249-16-C-0027

Project # 695-325

For the Department of Veterans Affairs

Medical Center Memphis, TN. 38104

Project Manual

DIVISIONS 00-22

BID SET

11/14/2016

GUIDON DESIGN INC.

APOGEE CONSULTING GROUP, P.C.

CARL WALKER, INC.

PROJECT CONTACTS:

OWNER: MEMPHIS VA MEDIAL CENTER

1030 Jefferson Ave.

Memphis, Tennessee C.O.R.: Leland Fong Phone: 901.523.8990 x5023 Email:Leland.fong@va.gov

ARCHITECT, CIVIL &

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS: GUIDON DESIGN INC.

Attn: Kyle Cyr 905 N. Capitol Ave.

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Phone: 317-800-6388 Email: KCyr@guidondesign.com

M/E/P ENGINEER: APOGEE CONSULTING GROUP, P.A.

Attn: Jim Salfity 1151 Kildaire Farm Rd.

Cary, NC 27511 Phone: 919 – 858-7420 Email: jsalfity@acg-pa.com

FUNCTIONAL DESIGN: CARL WALKER, INC.

Attn: Torrey Thompson 1920 S Highland Ave. Suite 210 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: 630-307-3800 Email: tthompson@carlwalker.com

RobMcC Snapshot

Memphis VAMC Parking Garage November 14, 2016 Memphis, TN Bid Set Parking Garage on West Lot Project No. 614-319

00 01 10 - 1

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

VHA MASTER SPECIFICATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 00 01 10

DIVISION 00 - SPECIAL SECTIONS DATE

00 01 00 Certification Page 00 01 15 List of Drawing Sheets 07-15 00 31 32 Geotechnical Engineering Report

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 00 00 General Requirements 11-15 01 32 16.15 Project Schedules 04-13 01 33 23 Shop Drawings, Product Data, and Samples 07-15 01 35 26 Safety Requirements 10-14 01 42 19 Reference Standards 07-15 01 45 29 Testing Laboratory Services 06-15 01 57 19 Temporary Environmental Controls 01-11 01 74 19 Construction Waste Management 09-13 01 81 11 Sustainable Design Requirements 09-15

DIVISION 02 – EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 41 00 Demolition 02-15

DIVISION 03 – CONCRETE

03 30 00 Cast-in-Place Concrete 12-15 03 41 33 Precast Structural Pretension Concrete 07-11 03 45 00 Precast Architectural Concrete 10-15

DIVISION 04 – MASONRY

04 05 13 Masonry Mortaring 02-16 04 05 16 Masonry Grouting 02-16 04 20 00 Unit Masonry 02-16

DIVISION 05 – METALS

05 12 00 Structural Steel Framing 02-16 05 50 00 Metal Fabrications 07-14

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 18 16 Vehicular Traffic Coatings

00 01 10 - 2

07 19 16 Silane Water Repellants 07 22 00 Roof and Deck Insulation 02-16 07 54 23 Thermoplastic Polyolefin (TPO) Roofing 10-15 07 60 00 Flashing and Sheet Metal 07-14 07 71 00 Roof Specialties 10-15 07 92 00 Joint Sealants 10-15 07 95 13 Expansion Joint Cover Assemblies 02-16

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

08 11 13 Hollow Metal Doors and Frames 01-13 08 41 13 Aluminum-Framed Entrances and Storefronts 10-15 08 71 00 Door Hardware 01-16 08 80 00 Glazing 10-15

DIVISION 09 – FINISHES

09 06 00 Schedule for Finishes 04-15 09 91 00 Painting 01-16

DIVISION 10 – SPECIALTIES

10 14 00 Signage 10-15 10 44 13 Fire Extinguisher Cabinets 10 73 20 Aluminum Canopy 13 05 41 Seismic Restraint Requirements for Non-Structural

Components 01-14

DIVISION 14– CONVEYING EQUIPEMENT

14 21 00 Electric Traction Elevators 09-11

DIVISION 21- FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 12 00 Fire Suppression Standpipe Systems 06-15

DIVISION 22 – PLUMBING

22 05 11 Common Work Results for Plumbing 09-15 22 05 12 General Motor Requirements for Plumbing Equipment 09-15 22 05 19 Meters and Gages for Plumbing Piping 09-15 22 05 23 General-Duty Valves for Plumbing Piping 09-15 22 07 11 Plumbing Insulation 09-15 22 11 00 Facility Water Distribution 09-15 22 14 00 Facility Storm Drainage 09-15 22 14 29 Sump Pumps 09-15 22 14 36 Packaged, Submersible, Drainage Pump Units 22 40 00 Plumbing Fixtures 09-15

DIVISION 23 – HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR

CONDITIONING (HVAC)

00 01 10 - 3

23 05 11 Common Work Results for HVAC 02-15 23 05 12 General Motor Requirements for HVAC and Steam

Generation Equipment

23 05 41 Noise and Vibration Control for HVAC Piping and Equipment

02-15

23 05 93 Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing for HVAC 02-15 23 07 11 HVAC and Boiler Plant Insulation 23 09 23 Direct-Digital Control System for HVAC 09-11 23 23 00 Refrigerant Piping 02-15 23 31 00 HVAC Ducts and Casings 03-13 23 34 00 HVAC Fans 02-15 23 37 00 Air Outlets and Inlets 02-15 23 81 00 Decentralized Unitary HVAC Equipment 02-11 23 82 00 Convection Heating and Cooling Units

DIVISION 25 – INTEGRATED AUTOMATION

25 10 10 Advanced Utility Metering System 02-10

DIVISION 26 – ELECTRICAL

26 05 11 Requirements for Electrical Installations 01-16 26 05 19 Low-Voltage Electrical Power Conductors and Cables 07-13 26 05 26 Grounding and Bonding for Electrical Systems 12-12 26 05 33 Raceway and Boxes for Electrical Systems 05-14 26 05 41 Underground Electrical Construction 12-12 26 05 73 Overcurrent Protective Device Coordination Study 12-15 26 09 23 Lighting Controls 05-14 26 22 00 Low-Voltage Transformers 12-15 26 24 16 Panelboards 05-14 26 27 26 Wiring Devices 01-16 26 29 21 Enclosed Switches and Circuit Breakers 12-12 26 33 23.11 Centralized Emergency Lighting Inverter 26 41 00 Facility Lightning Protection 12-12 26 43 13 Surge Protective Device 12-12 26 51 00 Interior Lighting 08-14 26 56 00 Exterior Lighting 05-14

DIVISION 27 – COMMUNICATIONS

27 05 11 Requirements for Communications Installations 06-15 27 05 26 Grounding and Bonding for Communications Systems 06-15 27 05 33 Raceways and Boxes for Communications Systems 06-15 27 10 00 Control, Communication and Signal Wires 06-15 27 11 00 Communications Equipment Room Fittings 06-15 27 15 00 Communications Structured Cabling 01-16 27 52 31 Security emergency call, duress alarm, and telecommunications

DIVISION 28 – ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 05 00 Common Work Results for Electronic Safety and Security 09-11

00 01 10 - 4

28 05 13 Conductors and Cables for Electronic Safety and Security

09-11

28 05 26 Grounding and Bonding for Electronic Safety and Security

09-11

28 05 28.33 Conduits and Backboxes for Electronic Safety and Security

09-11

28 13 00 Physical Access Control System 10-11 28 23 00 Video Surveillance 09-11 28 31 10 Elevator Recall and Supervisory Control System

DIVISION 31 – EARTHWORK

31 20 00 Earthwork 10-12 31 23 19 Dewatering 10-12 31 66 13 Rammed Aggregate Piers

DIVISION 32 – EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 05 23 Cement and Concrete for Exterior Improvements 05-13 32 12 16 Asphalt Paving 09-15 32 17 23 Pavement Markings 04-10 32 90 00 Planting 10-11

DIVISION 33 – UTILITIES

33 10 00 Water Utilities 01-14 33 40 00 Storm Sewer Utilities 10-11

00 01 15 - 1

SECTION 00 01 15

LIST OF DRAWING SHEETS

The drawings listed below accompanying this specification form a part of the contract.

Drawing No. Title

GI000 COVER SHEET

GI101 CODE ANALYSIS

GI102 LIFE SAFETY PLAN

GI103 BID ALTERNATES

CC101 GENERAL NOTES

VF101 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

CD101 DEMOLITION PLAN

CS101 SITE PLAN

CS501 SITE DETAILS

CG101 GRADING PLAN

CU101 UTILITY PLAN

CU501 UTILITY DETAILS

CJ101 DEMOLITION PHASE EROSION CONTROL PLAN

CJ102 CONSTRUCTION PHASE EROSION CONTROL PLAN

CJ103 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PLAN

CJ104 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC PLAN

CJ501 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS

CJ502 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS

SI001 ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

SI002 LOAD MAPS

SI003 STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES

SB101 FOUNDATION PLAN

SB401 ENLARGED FOUNDATION PLANS

SB501 TYPICAL FOUNDATION SECTINOS AND DETAILS

SB502 FOUNDATION SECTIONS AND DETAILS

SB601 FOUNDATION SCHEDULES, SECTIONS AND DETAILS

00 01 15 - 2

SF101 SLAB-ON-GRADE PLAN

SF102 LEVEL 2 FRAMING PLAN

SF103 LEVEL 3 FRAMING PLAN

SF201 BUILDING ELEVATIONS

SF202 SHEARWALL ELEVATIONS AND SCHEDULES

SF203 PRECAST ELEVATIONS

SF401 ENLARGED FRAMING PLANS – STAIR #1 AND #2

SF501 TYPICAL FRAMING DETAILS

SF502 FRAMING SECTIONS AND DETAILS

SF901 ISOMETRIC VIEWS

AS001 ARCHITECTURAL SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AS101 FIRST FLOOR PLAN

AS102 SECOND FLOOR PLAN

AS103 THIRD FLOOR PLAN

AS251 ROOF PLAN

AS301 BUILDING ELEVATIONS

AS302 BUILDING ELEVATIONS

AS303 ENLARGED BUILDING ELEVATIONS

AS304 ENLARGED BUILDING ELEVATIONS

AS311 BUILDING ELEVATIONS

AS312 ENLARGED CURTAIN WALL ELEVATIONS

AS411 WALL SECTIONS

AS421 STAIR SECTIONS

AS422 STAIR SECTIONS

AS423 DETAILS

AS501 ENLARGED PLANS

AS601 INTERIOR ELEVATOINS

AP101 LEVEL 1 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP102 LEVEL 2 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP103 LEVEL 3 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AS104 LEVEL 4 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP105 ALTERNATE 1 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP106 ALTERNATE 2 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

00 01 15 - 3

AW101 LEVEL 1 PLAN – WATERPROOFING

AW102 LEVEL 2 PLAN – WATERPROOFING

AW103 LEVEL 3 PLAN – WATERPROOFING

AW104 LEVEL 4 PLAN – WATERPROOFING

AW501 WATERPROOFING DETAILS

FX101 FIRST FLOOR FIRE SUPPRESSION PLAN

MH401 MECHANICAL PLAN, DETAILS, AND SCHEDULES

M1001 MECHANICAL NOTES, DETAILS, AND LEGEND

P1001 PLUMBING NOTES, LEGEND, AND DETAILS

PP101 FIRST FLOOR PLUMBING PLAN

PP102 SECOND FLOOR PLUMBING PLAN

AP103 THIRD FLOOR PLUMBING PLAN

AP104 FOURTH FLOOR PLUMBING PLAN

PP901 PLUMBING RISERS

EE001 ELECTRICAL NOTES, LEGENDS, AND LIGHT FIXTURE SCHEDULE

EE002 ELECTRICAL SITE DEMO PLAN

EE003 HOSPITAL ELECTRICAL PLAN

EE004 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN

EE101 LEVEL 1 ELECTRICAL PLAN

EE102 LEVEL 2 ELECTRICAL PLAN

EE103 LEVEL 3 ELECTRICAL PLAN

EE104 LEVEL 4 ELECTRICAL PLAN

EE401 ELECTRICAL ENLARGEMENTS

EE402 ELECTRICAL ENLARGEMENTS

EE501 ELECTRICAL DETAILS

EE502 ELECTRICAL DETAILS AND RISERS

EE601 SINGLE-LINE, PANEL SCHEDULES, EQUIPMENT CONDUCTOR

SCHEDULE

- - - END - - -

00 31 32

Geotechnical Engineering Report

VAMC – West Lot Parking Garage

Memphis, Tennessee April 25, 2016

Terracon Project No. A8165003

Prepared for:

Guidon Design, Inc.

Indianapolis, Indiana

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Memphis, Tennessee

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Site Location and Description

2.2 Project Description

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Geology

3.2 Typical Profile

3.3 Groundwater

3.4 Infiltration Test

4.0 LIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EVALUATION

4.1 Soil Samples

4.2 Groundwater Samples

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

5.1 Geotechnical Considerations

5.2 Shallow Foundations

5.2.1 Design Recommendations

5.2.2 Construction Considerations

5.3 Seismic Considerations

5.3.1 Earthquake Hazards

5.4 Floor Slabs

5.4.1 Floor Slab Design Recommendations

5.4.2 Floor Slab Construction Considerations

5.5 Earthwork

5.5.1 Site Preparation

5.5.2 Material Requirements

5.5.3 Compaction Requirements

5.5.4 Utility Trench Backfill

5.5.5 Grading and Drainage

5.5.6 Earthwork Construction Considerations

6.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Boring Location Plan Exhibit A-2 Field Exploration Description Exhibits A-3 to A-8 Boring Logs

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Description Exhibit B-2 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Sheet Exhibits B-3 and B-4 Gradation Analyses Exhibit B-5 Analytical Test Results Reports

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-1 General Notes Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System

Proposed VAMC – West Lot Parking Garage ■ Memphis, TN April 25, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. A8165003

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This geotechnical investigation has been performed for a proposed three-story parking garage to be constructed on the west lot of the existing VA Medical Center (VAMC) property in Memphis, Tennessee. Six borings were advanced to depths of approximately 80 to 100 feet below the existing ground surface within the proposed garage footprint. The following geotechnical considerations were identified:

n The site is generally covered with about 20 to 28 feet of cohesive soils (silty clay, lean clay) transitioning into poorly graded sand with gravel and gravel with sand extending to planned boring termination depths. The upper 6 to 18 feet of clay appears to be existing fill at all boring locations except B-1. The fill exhibited erratic and relatively low field penetration test data (N-values ranging from 2 to 13 bpf). Natural clay is typically medium stiff to very stiff but occasionally soft (N-values ranging from 3 to 15 bpf). The underlying natural sand and gravel are typically medium dense to very dense but occasionally loose (N-values ranging from 9 to 84 bpf). Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 19½ to 28 feet below existing grade.

n Shallow foundations can be used to support the proposed three-story parking garage structure; however, ground improvement in the form of stone columns will be required to control settlements to tolerable limits and achieve higher bearing pressure. The ground improvement should extend to firm natural soils to achieve the recommended bearing pressure. An allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf can be preliminarily used in design which should be verified by the stone column designer.

n A ground supported floor slab can be used for the proposed ground level garage. However, due to the presence of the existing undocumented fill extending to greater depth and/or weak soils at the site, subgrade remediation using stone columns will be necessary to achieve suitable bearing for slab support across the vast majority of the floor slab area. An exception would be the area near boring B-1 where generally stiff natural soils were encountered below the pavement. The floor slab in this area could be supported on stiff natural soils or on new engineered fill placed above these stiff natural soils.

As an alternate to stone column subgrade reinforcement for slab support, it may be possible to partially undercut the existing fill to achieve at least a 2½-foot thick new engineered fill buffer beneath the finished subgrade provided the underlying existing fill subgrade is documented as stable under a proofroll, and the fill conditions are evaluated and approved by a Terracon engineer as outlined, herein. This option assumes that some risk of higher slab settlement and/or maintenance due to consolidation of the existing fill is acceptable to the owner. The onsite fill can be reused provided the material meets our fill quality and placement criteria outlined herein.

April 25, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. A8165003

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive ii

Support of footings and floor slabs on or above existing fill soils is discussed in the following paragraphs. However, even with the recommended construction testing services, there is an inherent risk for the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely removing the existing fill, but can be reduced by performing ground improvement and additional testing and evaluation as outlined herein.

n The 2012 IBC, Table 1613.3.2 IBC seismic site classification for this site is D.

n The onsite near surface soils are very silty and moisture sensitive and can undergo strength loss with added moisture. We strongly recommend that construction activities be performed during dryer weather. Subgrade instability and subgrade remediation should be anticipated throughout the site if construction is planned during wet weather.

n A limited environmental assessment (LEA) was also completed for the site in accordance with Terracon Proposal No. PA8150076 dated October 28, 2015. Twelve soil samples collected from the six geotechnical soil borings were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and total lead. The laboratory analytical results indicate that the soil samples did not contain VOCs or lead at concentrations above the EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs).

The client-approved scope of services did not include sampling or testing of groundwater.

n Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in achieving the design subgrade support. We therefore recommend that Terracon be retained to monitor this portion of the work.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

VAMC – WEST LOT PARKING GARAGE

MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

Terracon Project No. A8165003

April 25, 2016

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This geotechnical engineering report has been completed for the proposed three-story parking garage to be located at 1030 Jefferson Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee. Six (6) borings were drilled to depths of approximately 80 to 100 feet below the existing ground surface within the area proposed for construction. Logs of the borings along with a boring location plan are included in Appendix A.

The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

n subsurface soil conditions n foundation design and construction n groundwater conditions n seismic considerations n earthwork n slab design and construction

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Site Location and Description

Item Description

Location 1030 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, Shelby County, TN See Appendix A, Exhibit A-1, and aerial photo of site shown on cover Latitude/Longitude: 35.144907° / -90.028758o

Existing improvements Asphalt paved parking lot and drives

Current ground cover Asphalt surface

Existing topography Existing grades within the proposed development area reportedly vary from about El. 249 to El. 245.

2.2 Project Description

Item Description

Site layout See Appendix A, Exhibit A-2, Boring Location Plan

Proposed Improvements Three-story, 124-foot by 245-foot footprint parking garage

April 25, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. A8165003

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 2

Item Description

Parking Garage Construction (assumed)

Precast concrete with possibly CMU infill walls around staircases and/or elevator

Finished floor elevation Reported to be El. 247.4

Maximum loads Columns: 765 kips Walls: 3 klf (assumed) Slab: 250 psf (assumed)

Grading About 2 feet of cut and fill

Cut and fill slopes Assumed to be no steeper than 3H:1V (Horizontal to Vertical)

Free-standing retaining walls Not expected

Below grade areas Not expected

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Geology

This region of Tennessee is in the Plateau Slope of West Tennessee. The Plateau Slope extends from the Chickasaw Bluffs overlooking the Mississippi River flood plain to the western valley of the Tennessee River. The eastern section of the Plateau Slope consists of the Sand Hills region, while the western section of the Plateau Slope is a broad flat-topped area between the headwaters of the streams that drain eastward into the Tennessee River and those that drain westward into the Mississippi River. Typical sediments in the Plateau Slope are Tertiary and Cretaceous loess deposits of sands and clays.

3.2 Typical Profile

Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

All borings encountered about 0.3 feet of asphalt concrete over 0.4 feet of crushed aggregate base. Beneath the surface pavement cover, all borings except B-1 encountered about 6 to 18 feet of existing fill or possible fill. The fill consisted of silty clay and lean clay with some samples in borings B-2 and B-3 containing trace of gravel and brick pieces. The existing fill exhibited erratic field penetration test (SPT) N-values ranging from 2 to 13 blows per foot (bpf). The following table summarizes the fill thickness encountered at each boring location.

April 25, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. A8165003

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 3

Boring No.

Approximate

Fill Depth (feet) Boring No.

Approximate

Fill Depth (feet)

B-1 0 B-4 6

B-2 15 B-5 8

B-3 18 B-6 18

Natural soils (silty clay, clayey silt, lean clay, sand with gravel, gravel with sand, clayey sand) were encountered below the existing fill and below the pavement cover in boring B-1, extending to boring termination depths of about 80 to 100 feet below existing grade. Natural sand was encountered below the clay layer at depths ranging from 20 to 28 feet below existing grade. In boring B-2, a silty clay layer was also encountered within the sand stratum between 55 to 70 feet below existing grade. Natural clay is typically medium stiff to very stiff but occasionally soft based on most SPT N-values ranging from 3 to 15 bpf. Natural sand and gravel is medium dense to very dense but occasionally loose based on SPT N-values ranging from 9 to over 50 bpf.

Atterberg Limits tests performed on natural clay samples obtained from borings B-1 and B-4 yielded the following results.

Sample Location, Depth Liquid Limit, (%) Plastic Limit, (%) Plasticity Index, (%) Boring B-1, 8.5 – 10 ft. 29 21 8 Boring B-4, 6 – 7.5 ft. 27 21 6

Unconfined compressive strength tests were performed on selected natural clay samples taken from borings B-2 and B-5. Test results are shown in the following table.

Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results Sample Location Dry Density (pcf) Compressive Strength (psf)

B-2 @ 8’ – 10’ 103 1,480

B-2 @ 13’– 15’ 99 1,950 B-5 @ 8’ – 10’ 93 1,100 B-5 @ 13’ – 15’ 92 820

Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can be found on the logs in Appendix A. A discussion of field sampling procedures is included in Appendix A and laboratory testing procedures and test results are presented in Appendix B.

April 25, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. A8165003

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 4

3.3 Groundwater

The boreholes were monitored while drilling and at completion for the presence and level of groundwater. Groundwater was observed in all borings at depths ranging from about 19½ to 28 feet below existing grade, while drilling. Due to the low permeability of the soils encountered in the upper horizon of the borings, a relatively long period of time may be necessary for a groundwater level to develop and stabilize in a borehole in these materials. Long term observations in piezometers or observation wells sealed from the influence of surface water are often required to define groundwater levels in materials of this type.

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.

3.4 Infiltration Test

An infiltration test was performed within an open borehole near boring B-4 extending to a depth of about 6 feet below existing grade. The bottom of the hole was covered with about 2 inches of coarse sand and fine gravel. A 4-inch PVC pipe was then installed in the borehole extending to the top of sand layer to perform the infiltration test. The annulus around the bottom of the pipe was sealed with at least 1 foot of bentonite pellets and the remaining annulus was backfilled with soil and sand. The borehole was initially charged with water to a depth of about 3 feet 24 hours prior to starting the test to saturate the subgrade below the pipe. After 24 hours, the hole was refilled to same 3 feet depth and the water level was then monitored at 60-minute intervals, refilling the hole to the same 3 feet depth after each reading. A total four 60-minute readings were taken to complete the test. Readings for each 60-minute interval during the monitoring period are shown below.

Infiltration Test Readings at 60-Minute Intervals Date Reading No. Water Drop (inches)

4-3-2016 Initial Saturation --- 4-4-2016 1 1 4-4-2016 2 1 4-4-2016 3 1 4-4-2016 4 2½

April 25, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. A8165003

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 5

4.0 LIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EVALUATION

A limited environmental assessment (LEA) was completed for the site in accordance with Terracon Proposal No. PA8150076 dated October 28, 2015. The LEA field activities were conducted in conjunction with the advancement of the six (6) geotechnical soil borings. The purpose of the LEA was to evaluate subsurface soils based on the reported presence of environmental contamination at the site. Information regarding the location or type of contaminants potentially present was not provided by the Client or VAMC; however, the client approved an LEA scope of services based on the assumption that contaminants are likely volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and/or petroleum fuels.

4.1 Soil Samples

Drilling services were performed from March 25 through April 1, 2016 by McCray Drilling, LLC of Memphis, Tennessee using a hollow stem auger drill rig and mud-rotary drilling methods. The soil borings (B-1 through B-6) were advanced to depths of about 80 to 100 feet below ground surface (bgs). Terracon environmental professional Matthew Howard, PG observed the drilling activities and logged the soil samples in the field. In the upper 10 feet of the borings, soil samples were collected using a split spoon sampler at approximate depths of 1’ to 2½’, 3½’ to 5’, 6’ to 7½’, 8½’ to 10’. Below a depth of 10 feet, soil samples were collected at 5-foot intervals to the boring termination.

Soil samples were observed to document soil types, color, relative moisture content, and sensory evidence of environmental impairment. The soil samples from each boring were field-screened by headspace methods using a photoionization detector (PID) organic vapor analyzer to indicate the presence of volatile organics. Visual and olfactory evidence of environmental impact was not observed in the soil samples and elevated PID readings were not detected in the headspace samples. Soil samples (two per boring) from the depths indicated in the following table were selected for laboratory analyses. The soil samples were placed in laboratory prepared glassware and placed on ice in a cooler secured with a custody seal. The sample cooler and completed chain-of-custody form were shipped to ESC Lab Sciences in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee for analysis.

Boring Number Sample Depth, ft. Laboratory Analysis

B-1 23½-25 and 73½-75 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Total Lead B-2 28½-30 and 43½-45 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Total Lead B-3 8½-10 and 28½-30 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Total Lead B-4 18½-20 and 38½-40 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Total Lead B-5 48½-50 and 63½-65 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Total Lead B-6 18½-20 and 38½-40 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Total Lead

April 25, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. A8165003

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 6

The analytical results are summarized in the following table and the ESC laboratory analytical reports are provided in Appendix B, Exhibit B-5.

Laboratory Results (mg/kg) Boring Number Sample Depth, ft. VOCs Total Lead

B-1 23½-25 All ND 9.21 B-1 73½-75 All ND 4.87 B-2 28½-30 All ND 3.61

B-2 43½-45 All ND, except for tetrachloroethene (0.0159 mg/kg)

0.702

B-3 8½-10 All ND 4.35 B-3 28½-30 All ND 4.90 B-4 18½-20 All ND 1.61 B-4 38½-40 All ND ND (<0.50) B-5 48½-50 All ND 2.03 B-5 63½-65 All ND 7.32 B-6 18½-20 All ND 29.7 B-6 38½-40 All ND 1.07

ND – Not Detected at concentrations above the reported detection limit (RDL) mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram

The Tennessee Division of Remediation (TDOR) uses the EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) as initial screening criteria to evaluate sites. The RSLs are used to determine “risk free” concentrations of various constituents in both residential and industrial settings. If appropriate to evaluate certain common volatile constituents, TDOR may also use the Tennessee Division of Underground Storage Tanks (TDUST) - Risk Based Clean-up Levels (RBCLs) for indoor inhalation of vapor emissions from subsurface soils by a commercial/industrial worker. As a secondary screening criteria for certain metals, TDOR may consider the naturally occurring background levels for metals in soils in the State of Tennessee, as indicated in the publication, Hazardous Trace Elements on Tennessee Soils and Other Regolith, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Geology, Report of Investigations No. 49, dated 2001.

The laboratory analytical results indicate that the soil samples did not contain VOCs at concentrations above the reported detection limits, except tetrachloroethene was reported in the sample from B-2 at 45 feet bgs at a concentration of 0.0159 mg/kg, which below its residential RSL (8.1 mg/kg) and industrial RSL (39 mg/kg).

Total lead was reported at concentrations ranging from ND (<0.50 mg/kg) to 29.7 mg/kg. The reported concentrations of lead are below its residential RSL (400 mg/kg), industrial RSL (800 mg/kg), and the naturally occurring background level in Tennessee (45 mg/kg).

April 25, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. A8165003

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 7

It is also relevant to note that the reported concentrations of tetrachloroethene and lead in the soil samples are also below the minimum concentrations that would trigger further testing to determine if soils sampled at the site could possibly meet the definition of a characteristic hazardous waste.

Additional analysis by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) would not be required since the total reported concentrations are below the minimum TCLP screening levels for tetrachloroethene (14 mg/kg) and lead (100 mg/kg).

4.2 Groundwater Samples

Groundwater was encountered in each of the soil borings as discussed in Section 3.3 above.

However, in accordance with Terracon Proposal No. PA8150076 dated October 28, 2015, the client-approved scope of services did not include sampling or testing of groundwater.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

5.1 Geotechnical Considerations

The results of our field exploration revealed about 6 to 18 feet of existing fill in five of the six borings drilled within the proposed garage footprint. The erratic and relatively low field penetration test (SPT) data (N-values) and trace amounts of brick debris and topsoil in a few samples suggests that the fill was apparently placed without proper compaction and technical observation and appears uncontrolled. This fill poses a risk for excessive settlement of shallow foundations and at-grade floor slab. Furthermore, soft to medium stiff natural clay were encountered near the surface in boring B-1 and below the existing fill at borings B-2 through B-6 and extended to depths of about 6 to 20 feet below existing grade.

Due to the presence of uncontrolled fill and low strength soils, and expected relatively high column loads, we recommend the subgrade be reinforced with stone columns to control settlements to tolerable limits and achieve suitable bearing and higher bearing pressure. Shallow foundations and at-grade floor slab can be used to support the proposed multi-story parking garage after ground improvement using stone columns. The exception is a small area of the floor slab near boring B-1 that is underlain by medium stiff to stiff natural soils. The floor slab in this area could be supported on still natural soils or on new engineered fill placed above thee stiff natural soils.

An allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf can be preliminarily used in design which should be verified by the stone column designer. The ground improvement should extend to firm natural soils below the existing fill to achieve the recommended bearing pressure.

As an alternate to stone column subgrade reinforcement for slab support, it may be possible to partially undercut the existing fill to achieve at least 2½-foot thick new engineered fill buffer beneath finished subgrade provided the underlying existing fill subgrade is documented as stable under proofroll, the fill conditions are evaluated and approved by a Terracon engineer as outlined, herein. This option assumes that some risk of higher slab settlement and/or maintenance due to

April 25, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. A8165003

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 8 consolidation of the existing fill is acceptable to the owner. Where more than 2½ feet of new engineered fill is placed during grading, it may not be necessary to undercut the existing soil fill if approved by Terracon representative. The onsite fill can be reused provided the material meets our fill quality and placement criteria outlined herein.

Support of footings and floor slabs on or above existing fill soils is discussed in the following paragraphs. However, even with the recommended construction testing services, there is an inherent risk for the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely removing the existing fill, but can be reduced by performing ground improvement and additional testing and evaluation as outlined herein.

The onsite near surface soils are moisture sensitive and can undergo strength loss with added moisture. We strongly recommend that construction activities be performed during dryer weather.

Subgrade instability and surficial subgrade remediation should be anticipated throughout the site if construction is planned during wet weather. The use of cement or lime additives may be required during inclement weather, especially if limited drying conditions prevail at the time of construction.

Subgrade stabilization techniques are discussed in the following Section 5.5.6.

5.2 Shallow Foundations

After reinforcing/modifying the subgrade using stone columns as discussed in the following section, the proposed parking garage structure can be supported by shallow spread footings bearing on stone column modified subgrade. Design recommendations for shallow footings are presented in the following sections.

5.2.1 Design Recommendations

The proposed parking garage columns and walls could be designed to rest on shallow footings after implementation of a ground improvement program. Ground improvement options may include stone columns using vibro-replacement technique or rammed aggregate piers (Geopier®).

We recommend that this report and the appendices be provided to the ground improvement contractors/designers for pricing and subsequent design.

Based on our evaluation of the soil conditions encountered and conversations with specialty contractor Geopier, we believe that stone columns offer an economical alternative to deep foundations. To provide initial guidance, we recommend that the structural engineer consult with one or more specialty contractors for further details. Additional information can be found in the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-SA- 98-086, Demonstration Project 116. General comments concerning this approach are provided in the subsequent paragraphs

April 25, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. A8165003

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 9

Stone columns are constructed by drilling a hole to design depth and removing the soil. Once the design depth is obtained, a large vibrator is inserted in the hole and the hole is filled up with about 2 to 4 feet of aggregates. Usually No. 57 or 67 stone is typically used as aggregate. The vibrator then penetrates the stone to the bottom of the hole and is withdrawn to about the top of the stone layer and then allowed to re-penetrate about two-thirds of the stone lift. The re-penetration process is repeated in increments between one-quarter to one-third the stone lift thickness. The remainder of the hole is filled to the existing ground surface in this manner. Stone columns are designed and installed by specialized contractors.

Rammed aggregate piers (Geopier®) are constructed by drilling a hole, removing a volume of soil, and then building a bottom bulb of clean, open-graded stone while vertically pre-stressing and pre-straining subsoils underlying the bottom bulb. The Geopier shaft is built on top of the bottom bulb, using open-graded base course stone placed in thin lifts. Geopier elements are a proprietary subgrade reinforcing system and should be designed and constructed by an installer licensed by the Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. (GFC). The design parameters should be verified by a full-scale Geopier modulus test (similar to a pile load test) performed in the field. The Geotechnical Consultant should be retained to monitor the modulus test and subsequent production Geopier installations.

Regardless of which system is selected, the installer should provide detailed design calculations sealed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Tennessee. The design calculations should demonstrate that the ground improvement method is estimated to control long-term settlements to less than 1 inch total and 3/4-inch differential, or a more stringent requirement if determined by the structural engineer. After the implementation of the above mentioned ground improvement program and planned grading as discussed herein, the proposed parking garage could be designed to rest on shallow footings overlying stone column modified subgrade. Shallow footings for the garage structure may be preliminarily designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. This value should be confirmed by the stone column contractor/designer. The stone column specialty contractor should coordinate ground modification work including spacing of stone columns with the structural engineer to achieve required bearing pressure and facilitate spacing of control joints in the structure.

5.2.2 Construction Considerations

The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil and rock prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Should the soils at bearing level become excessively disturbed or saturated, or frozen, the affected soil should be removed prior to placing concrete. A lean concrete mud-mat should be placed over the bearing soils if the excavations must remain open for an extended period of time. We recommend that the geotechnical engineer be retained to observe and test the soil foundation bearing materials.

April 25, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. A8165003

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 10

5.3 Seismic Considerations

Code Used Site Classification

2012 International Building Code (IBC) 1 D

1. In general accordance with the 2012 International Building Code, Section 1613.3.2, which gives specific reference to Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 for site class definition. Borings extended to a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet and this seismic site class definition considers stiff clay and/or medium dense to dense sand extending to 100 feet. A geophysical exploration could be utilized in order to attempt to attain reduced acceleration values, however, site class is not expected to change.

5.3.1 Earthquake Hazards

To our knowledge, the proposed site is not located near an active fault. The closest commonly-known active fault (New Madrid fault) is located in the state of Missouri and part of Arkansas near the northwest corner of Tennessee. The New Madrid fault zone represents the main earthquake source for Memphis. The area was affected by three large earthquakes in 1811 and 1812.

Magnitudes of the events likely ranged from M7 to M8. Paleoliquefaction data indicate a 500 year recurrence for large earthquakes in this zone. The next biggest earthquakes since 1811-1812 were a M6.6 on October 31, 1895, with an epicenter at Charleston, Missouri and a M5.4 on November 9, 1968 near Dale, Illinois. Instruments installed in and around the area in 1974 have documented more than 4,000 earthquakes, most of which were too small to be felt. On average, one earthquake per year is large enough to be felt in the area.

Fault rupture and strong ground shaking are two of the direct hazards attributable to earthquakes.

Secondary hazards that the site may be susceptible to are soil liquefaction, slope instability, lateral spreading, and differential settlement. These six hazards are described below.

Fault Rupture - Faults are recognized zones of differential earth movement. Stresses build in the earth's surface over time and release stored energy along these existing zones of weak rock.

The history of movement along a given fault can be investigated with geologic studies. Structures located in the path of fault rupture typically experience considerable damage.

The 1811-1812 earthquakes are thought to have ruptured the Reelfoot fault. This fault is located approximately 100 miles away from the project site.

Strong Ground Shaking - The release of energy from a fault results in shaking of the ground that generally decreases with distance from the fault. New buildings are required by code to withstand a prescribed level of ground shaking without collapse. The prescribed level of ground shaking is a function of proximity to a given fault and the potential size of the earthquake (i.e., its magnitude). Sites consisting of unconsolidated sediments will typically experience stronger ground shaking than sites composed of rock.

April 25, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. A8165003

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 11

Soil Liquefaction - Soil Liquefaction occurs in saturated, loose to medium dense sands, and to a lesser extent silts and gravels. Recently (Holocene epoch) deposited sands in deltaic environments have historically experienced the greatest amount of liquefaction during strong ground shaking. Liquefaction can cause a loss of soil strength and result in lateral or vertical ground movements. Structures located over soils that liquefy typically do not collapse provided they have been properly designed and constructed.

Slope Instability - Earthquake-induced slope movements may be characterized as either inertial or weakening. Inertial landslides occur when the ground shaking adds a temporary horizontal force to the soil mass that, when combined with the existing gravitational force, exceeds the frictional resistance of the soil. Weakening failures occur when the soil mass losses strength (e.g., liquefaction) and can no longer provide the necessary frictional resistance to remain stable.

Earthquake-induced landslides tend to decrease in number with increasing distance from the location of rupture and are generally a function of steepness of the slope. The site is relatively level and not expected to have any significant slopes.

Lateral Spreading - Lateral spreading is a phenomenon wherein liquefied ground undergoes permanent lateral displacement. Sites with a slight slope to the ground surface or level sites with an adjacent slope are susceptible to lateral spreading during strong ground shaking. Case histories with several feet of lateral ground movement have been documented. Because the site does not contain highly susceptible liquefiable soil, the likelihood of permanent surface displacement at the site due to lateral spreading is low.

Differential Settlement - Ground surface settlements commonly occur as pore-water pressures dissipate from liquefied soils. In addition, non-liquefied sands may densify during strong ground shaking with resultant settlement of the ground surface. Clays have also been observed to soften, lose soil strength, and deform with cyclic loading. The amount of settlement is a function of many factors including soil type, density, thickness, and level of ground shaking but is typically less than a few inches.

5.4 Floor Slabs

5.4.1 Floor Slab Design Recommendations

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Floor slab support

Stiff natural clays and/or stone column modified subgrade or low volume change new engineered fill overlying approved stable subgrade and compacted to 98 % of standard Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density.

Modulus of subgrade reaction 100 pounds per square inch per in (psi/in) for point loading conditions

Aggregate base course/capillary break

4 inches of free draining granular material 2

April 25, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. A8165003

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 12

Vapor barrier Project Specific 2

Structural considerations Floor slabs should be structurally independent of building 3

1. This value assumes that at least 4 inches of granular subbase beneath the slab.

2. The floor slab design should include a capillary break, comprised of free-draining, compacted, granular material with less than 5 percent fines (material passing the #200 sieve). Local ordinance in Shelby County requires the use of a vapor barrier beneath the building slab.

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

Where floor slabs are tied to perimeter walls or turn-down slabs to meet structural or other construction objectives, our experience indicates that any differential movement between the walls and slabs will likely be observed in adjacent slab expansion joints or floor slab cracks that occur beyond the length of the structural dowels. The structural engineer should account for this potential differential settlement through use of sufficient control joints, appropriate reinforcing or other means.

As an alternate to stone column subgrade reinforcement for slab support, it may be possible to partially undercut the existing fill to achieve at least 2½-foot thick new engineered fill buffer beneath finished subgrade provided the underlying existing fill subgrade is documented as stable under proofroll, the fill conditions are evaluated and approved by a Terracon engineer as outlined, herein. This option assumes that some risk of higher slab settlement and/or maintenance due to consolidation of the existing fill is acceptable to the owner. Where more than 2½ feet of new engineered fill is placed during grading, it may not be necessary to undercut the existing soil fill if approved by Terracon representative.

Support of footings and floor slabs on or above existing fill soils is discussed in the following paragraphs. However, even with the recommended construction testing services, there is an inherent risk for the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely removing the existing fill, but can be reduced by performing ground improvement and additional testing and evaluation as outlined herein.

5.4.2 Floor Slab Construction Considerations

Prior to construction of grade supported slabs, varying levels of remediation may be required to reestablish stable subgrades within slab areas due to construction traffic, rainfall, disturbance, desiccation, etc. As a minimum, the following measures are recommended.

n Confirm that interior trench backfill placed beneath slabs is compacted in accordance with recommendations outlined in the following Section 5.6.

n All floor slab subgrade areas should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to placement of the stone base and concrete.

April 25, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. A8165003

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 13

5.5 Earthwork

5.5.1 Site Preparation

All existing pavement, any topsoil and organics, and otherwise unsuitable material should be removed from the construction areas. Wet or dry material should either be removed or moisture conditioned and re-compacted. After stripping and grubbing, the subgrade should be proof-rolled where possible to aid in locating loose or soft areas. Proof-rolling can be performed with a loaded tandem axle dump truck. Soft and low-density soil should be removed or compacted in place prior to placing fill.

As discussed earlier in Section 5.2.1, the existing foundation subgrade within the parking garage structure area should be modified/improved using stone columns to achieve adequate bearing and to help control settlements to tolerable limits. In addition, the vast majority of the floor slab subgrade consists of uncontrolled fill. The subgrade in these areas should also be modified/improved using stone columns to achieve adequate slab support. The exception is an area near boring B-1 where medium stiff to stiff natural clay soils were encountered below the existing pavement. The floor slab in this area could be supported on stiff natural soils or new engineered fill placed above these stiff natural soils. As an alternate to stone columns, the existing fill subgrade beneath the floor slab area only can be repaired by partial undercutting and replacement with a buffer of engineered fill as outlined in Section 5.1. This alternative assumes that the owner is willing to accept the risk of higher settlements, both total and differential, resulting from consolidation of the existing fill.

5.5.2 Material Requirements

Compacted structural fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Engineered Fill Description and Recommended Uses

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

Lean clay, silty clay 2 CL, CL-ML2

(LL<45) All locations and elevations

Well graded granular SW, SM, SC, GW 3 All locations and elevations

Existing fill CL, CL-ML 2

A portion of the existing fill can be reused as engineered fill provided the fill is clean and free of debris and unsuitable material and meets the above fill criteria. A Terracon engineer should field evaluate fill material for reuse.

1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation.

2. If silty soil is used as fill, the contractor should expect difficulties with controlling the soil’s natural moisture to near optimal levels in order to achieve adequate density of the compacted soil. Cement modification may considered for highly silty soils to maintain stability.