Geotech Report - Marion VA- Remodel Bldg 1.pdf

3517 FOCUS DRIVE, FORT WAYNE, INDIANA 46818 • TEL: (260) 497-8127 • 877. 660. 4GME • FAX: (260) 497-0826

Subsurface Exploration • Geotechnical Evaluation • Foundation Engineering • Construction Materials Testing & Monitoring Services www.gmetesting.com

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PROPOSED REMODEL OF BUILDINGS #1 AND 3

Marion VA Hospital

Marion, Indiana

GME TESTING PROJECT NO.

G20-100423

PREPARED FOR:

Viridian Architectural Design, Inc.

Attn: Terry W Thornsbury, AIA

2020 E Washington Blvd, Suite 200 Fort Wayne, IN 46803

December 18, 2020 http://www.gmetesting.com/

3517 FOCUS DRIVE- FORT WAYNE, INDIANA 46818 • TEL: (260) 497-8127 • 877. 660. 4GME • FAX: (260) 497-0826

Subsurface Exploration• Geotechnical Evaluation • Foundation Engineering • Construction Materials Testing & Monitoring Services

December 18, 2020

G20-100423

Viridian Architectural Design, Inc.

Attn: Terry W Thornsbury, AIA

2020 E Washington Blvd, Suite 200

Fort Wayne, IN 46803

REF: SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Proposed Remodel of Buildings #1 and 3

Marion VA Hospital

Marion, Indiana

Terry Thornsbury:

In compliance with your request and authorization, GME Testing is pleased to submit this report of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical recommendations for the above referenced project. Our work was performed in accordance with our proposals GMEP20-

060177A and GMEP20-060177B both dated June 8, 2020. Authorization to proceed with our services was provided on October 28, 2020 by acceptance of our Proposal

Agreements.

The opinions and recommendations submitted in this report are based, in part, on our interpretation of the subsurface information revealed by the subsurface test borings shown on Figure 1 included in Appendix A of this report. Understandably, this report does not reflect variations in subsurface conditions between or beyond the extent of the test boring locations. Therefore, variations in these conditions can be expected, and fluctuation of the groundwater level will occur with time.

Proposed Remodel of Buildings #1 and 3 – Marion VA Hospital GME Project No. G20-100423

Marion, IN Page 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report includes the results of our geotechnical exploration and evaluation, field and laboratory test data, and geotechnical engineering analysis regarding the proposed interior remodel of the existing buildings 1 and 3 at VA Hospital in Marion, Indiana.

2.0 OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE OF WORK

The objectives of this evaluation were to assess the prevailing soils and geological conditions, evaluate the engineering properties of the soils encountered in the borings drilled outside the existing structures, and provide geotechnical and design parameters for use by the design engineers in evaluating the existing building and preparing construction plans and bid documents. This investigation was conducted in general accordance with

ASTM D-420, “Standard Guide to Site Characterization for Engineering Design and

Construction Purposes”.

The purpose of this geotechnical study was to generally characterize the existing subsurface soil and groundwater conditions by drilling four (4) vertical soil test borings

(i.e., 2 test borings for each building), performing laboratory tests on samples recovered from the borings, and providing geotechnical related design and foundation recommendations for the proposed project.

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Site Conditions

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

At the time of our field investigation, the existing buildings Nos. 1 and 3 are approximately 16,000 sq ft each with a below ground (basement) level and two levels above basement. The exteriors of the existing buildings consist of brick veneer.

Marion, IN Page 3

The as-built plans for the existing buildings were not presented at the time of this writing.

Therefore, information relative to soil bearing pressures used to design the original foundation was not known at this time. However, based on the information provided by the client, the buildings were built in the 1880s. It is anticipated that the existing buildings are currently supported on conventional footings and that the basement floors are currently approximately 5 to 6-feet deep below the exterior grade. The structural condition of the existing buildings’ foundations should be assessed by a qualified structural engineer. If any needed modifications or repairs will be required, they should be performed as evaluated by the structural engineer’s findings. Structural evaluation of the existing buildings is outside our specialties.

The surrounding areas are generally well-developed with similar size and type structures and associated sidewalks. Overhead and below-ground utilities are present on site.

3.2 Project Description

Based on preliminary information presented to us by the client, the proposed project will entail the remodel of buildings 1 and 3 at the Marion VA Hospital campus. It was reported that this remodel will involve gutting the interior of the buildings including the structural wood floor systems and replacing them with new steel and concrete floor systems. We recommend that the foundation designer evaluate the additional loadings resulting from these changes and make any necessary structural modifications.

Ground surface elevations were not available. All depths are referenced from existing ground surface elevation.

GME Testing should be contacted to review design information that conflicts with our stated understanding of the project.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subsurface conditions for the proposed project were explored by performing four (4) vertical soil test borings (two widely spaced test borings per building) to a depth of approximately 30-feet below the existing ground surface.

Marion, IN Page 4

The test boring locations were indicated at areas accessible by our drill rig equipment and free of underground utilities. The locations are referred to on our boring logs and presented on Figure 1, included in Appendix A of this report.

Additional details of field exploration and laboratory testing are provided in Appendix A of this report.

The lines of demarcation shown on the logs represent approximate boundaries between the various classifications. The stratification of soils, as shown on the accompanying test borehole logs, represents the soil conditions at the drilled borehole locations, and variations may occur between the boreholes. In-situ strata changes could occur gradually or at different levels. Also, it should be noted that the boreholes depict conditions at the particular locations and times indicated.

4.1 Generalized Soil Profile

Building 1 Borings (B-1 and B-2)

Approximately 8 to 14-inches of topsoil was disclosed in the borings. Fill materials (i.e., silty clay with gravel and/or brick fragments) were encountered to depths between about 3-feet and 6-feet in borings B-1 and B-2, respectively.

In summary, the existing native soils encountered in test boring B-2 were variable and decreasing in strength to a depth of 20-feet when compared to B-1 as discussed below and shown on the test boring logs in Appendix B.

Boring B-1 disclosed stiff sandy clay underlain at a depth of 5-feet by alternating layers of very stiff sandy silty clay and soft clayey sandy silt extending to a depth of 26-feet beneath the ground surface. Underneath, very dense silty sand was encountered and extended to the terminal depth of the boring.

Boring B-2 encountered medium stiff clays (i.e., sandy silty clay, silty clay, and sandy clay) to a depth of a 10.5-feet beneath the ground surface. Below, very soft lean clay was disclosed to a depth of 21-feet. Underneath, dense silty sand and gravel was encountered and extended to the terminal depth of the boring.

Marion, IN Page 5

Building 3 Borings (SB-1 and SB-2)

Approximately 6 to 8-inches of topsoil was encountered in the borings.

Boring SB-1 disclosed cohesive soils consisting of very soft sandy silty clays underlain at about 6-feet by medium stiff silty clays to 8-feet below surface. Below, very stiff brown and gray sandy silty clays were disclosed to a depth of 19-feet. Underneath, very dense fine sand and gravel was encountered to the termination depth of the boring.

Boring SB-2 encountered medium stiff to very soft clay and medium stiff to soft sandy silty clay soils to a depth of 15-feet, underlain by medium dense to very dense clayey silty sand and gravel.

The consistencies and relative densities of the encountered materials were evaluated based on the results of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), N-values according to ASTM

D-1586.

The foregoing discussions of subsurface conditions on this site represent generalized soil profiles at the test boring locations. A more detailed description and data for each test boring can be found on the individual Borehole Logs in Appendix B of this report.

4.2 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater measurements were taken during our field operations (by noting the depth of water on the rods), and in open boreholes following withdrawal of the drilling augers after the completion of drilling activities in test borings. Free groundwater was encountered during our drilling program in borings B-1 and B-2 at a depth of 7.5-feet beneath the ground surface. No groundwater was observed in the rest of the borings as shown on the boring logs included in Appendix B of this report.

The groundwater depths shown on the boring logs reflect groundwater levels only for the date which the borings were drilled.

It must be noted, however, that short term groundwater level observations made in test borings are not necessarily a reliable indication of the actual groundwater elevation.

Fluctuations in the level of groundwater typically occur due to variations in rainfall, Marion, IN Page 6 water level and other factors. Shallow trapped water may become evident during wet periods of the year and within interbedded sands.

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Foundation Recommendations

As previously discussed, the soil bearing pressure values used in the original foundation design are not known. Further, it is anticipated that the existing buildings are supported on conventional foundation and assumed that they have performed well from structural perspectives.

In order to evaluate the existing foundation design, we present the following preliminary estimated soil properties and parameters assuming foundation depths at approximately 5 and 7.5-feet in test borings as shown in Table 1:

Table 1: Estimated Foundation Soil Parameters

Boring Numbers Soil Properties Values

B-1

Coefficient of Sliding Friction 0.25

Moist Soil Unit Weight, pcf 115

Soil Bearing Pressure, psf <1,500 ±

B-2

Coefficient of Sliding Friction 0.20

Moist Soil Unit Weight, pcf 105

Soil Bearing Pressure, psf < 1,000 ±

SB-1

Coefficient of Sliding Friction 0.20

Moist Soil Unit Weight, pcf 105

Soil Bearing Pressure, psf < 1,500 ±

SB-2

Coefficient of Sliding Friction 0.20

Moist Soil Unit Weight, pcf 105

Soil Bearing Pressure, psf < 1,500 ±

We have assumed that soil movements under current loading conditions are within tolerable limits. It is expected that the loadings on the existing foundations will be exceeded after the proposed remodel. Please note that based on the soil boring data, soft and variable soils were encountered. To maintain total settlement below existing

Marion, IN Page 7 foundations in the range of one (1) inch because of additional loadings, a conservative foundation design must be implemented and is strongly recommended.

Due to varying conditions encountered at each test borings, age of structures and uncertainty of existing foundation conditions, the recommended foundation system for this project is the use of helical piers system to underpin existing foundation at this time.

This system should be used where the existing foundations cannot withstand the additional design structural loadings exerted on current foundations, as determined by the structural engineer.

We should be allowed to review final foundation design to determine of any modifications to this report or our findings will be required.

Helical Piers

Helical piers are proprietary foundation system that consists of steel shafts with helices that are screwed into the ground or pre-augured to the required depth to achieve the desired capacity. The subsurface information and test data provided in this report are used by specialty helical pier contractor to determine shaft size, required diameter, spacing and diameter of helices and total length of the helical piers.

Depending on the system, size, length, etc., helical pier foundation systems are designed and installed by a licensed specialty contractor (on a “design-build” basis). The helical pier specialty contractor should install the piers with equipment in good working condition to the capacities and depths shown on the plans. Where the structural design of the foundations and slabs will be performed by a qualified professional structural engineer, helical piers should be torqued to a safe working capacity of two or more times the required design load. Helical pier tests should be performed to confirm the design helical pier capacity. Helical piers must penetrate completely thorough the existing fill, soft, and unsuitable materials and extend to a suitable depth in firm soils as determined by the helical pier design build contractor. Each pier capacity and penetration depth should be checked and evaluated in the field by appropriate methods using the manufacturer’s approved formulas. It is possible that the helical piers may be installed

Marion, IN Page 8 below the maximum depth of borings. Additional deeper soil test borings may be required.

5.2 Seismicity

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. Seismic report is included in Appendix B of this report.

Description Value

2012 International Building Code Site Classification (IBC) D 1

Site Latitude 40.519554

Site Longitude -85.636386

Ss 0.123

S1 0.069

SDS 0.131

SD1 0.111

1. The 2012 IBC uses a site profile extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. Borings at this site were extended to a maximum depth of 30-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.

5.3 Backfill Recommendations

If soil replacement or grade-raise fill is required, it should be approved by GME Testing prior to placement on site and should consist of non-organic, naturally occurring non-expansive soil compacted to 95 or more percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). We recommend that the moisture content of the subgrade be maintained at 2 percent within optimum moisture content as evaluated by ASTM D-1557.

Marion, IN Page 9

6.0 LIMITATIONS

This field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this geotechnical report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request.

This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein.

GME Testing should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.

Our geotechnical recommendations and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon request.

Although general constructability issues have been considered in this report, the means, methods, techniques, sequences and operations of construction, safety precautions, and all items incidental thereto and consequences of, are the responsibility of parties to the

Project other than GME Testing. This office should be contacted if additional guidance is needed in these matters.

The scope of our services does not include any environmental assessments or investigations for the possible presence of toxic materials in the soil, groundwater or surface water within or in the general vicinity of the site studied. Any statements made in this report or shown on the test borehole logs regarding unusual subsurface conditions and/or composition, odor, staining, origin or other characteristics of the surface and/or subsurface materials are strictly for the information of our client.

Marion, IN Page 10

We wish to remind you that we will store the samples for 30 days after which time they will be discarded unless you request otherwise.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions related to this report, please contact us at your convenience.

Sincerely, GME Testing

APPENDIX A

Proposed Remodel of Buildings #1 and 3- Marion VA Hospital GME Project No. G20-100423

Marion, IN Appendix A Page 1

FIELD EXPLORATION

Drilling and Sampling Procedures

The test borings were drilled using conventional augers to advance the holes and representative samples of the soils were obtained employing split-barrel sampling techniques in accordance with ASTM procedures D-1586-84. After completion of the borings and water level readings, the auger holes were backfilled with auger cuttings.

The description and depths of soil strata encountered and levels at which samples were recovered are indicated on the accompanying borehole log sheets in the Appendix B. In the column “Soil/Material Description” on the drill borehole log, the horizontal lines represent stratum changes. A solid line represents an observed change, and a dashed line represents an estimated change. An explanation of the symbols and terms used on the boring log sheets is given in Appendix B of this report.

Field Tests and Measurements

Standard Penetration Test: During the sampling procedures, Standard Penetration Test

(SPT) was performed at regular intervals through the depth of the borings. The SPT value

(“N”-value) is defined as the number of blows required to advance a 2-inch O.D., split-barrel sampler a distance of one foot by a 140-pound hammer falling 30-inches. These values provide a useful preliminary indication of the consistency or relative density of most soil deposits and are included on the Borehole Logs in Appendix B.

Water Level Measurements: Groundwater level observations were made in the boring holes during and upon completion of the boring operations. The groundwater level measurements are noted on the boring logs presented herein.

All recovered samples were returned to GME Testing laboratory for visual examination and subsequent laboratory testing.

Proposed Remodel of Buildings #1 and 3- Marion VA Hospital GME Project No. G20-100423

Marion, IN Appendix A Page 2

LABORATORY TESTING

Selected soil samples obtained from the drilling and sampling program were tested in the laboratory to evaluate additional pertinent engineering characteristics of the foundation materials necessary in estimating the engineering properties of these materials.

Soil Laboratory Tests and Measurements

Visual Classification: All samples were visually classified by a geotechnical engineer in general accordance with ASTM D-2488, and on the Borehole Logs, which are located in the Appendix B of this report.

Moisture Content Tests: The natural moisture content of selected samples was determined by ASTM method D-2216 and is recorded on the Borehole Logs as a percentage of dry weight of soil under the “MC”.

Hand Penetration Tests: Samples of cohesive soils obtained from the split spoon sampler were tested with a calibrated hand penetrometer to aid in evaluating the soil strength characteristics. The results from this testing are tabulated on the Borehole Logs under the heading “QP”.

Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests: The undrained shear strengths of the cohesive soils were evaluated utilizing unconfined compressive tests on specimens obtained from the split-barrel and/or thin wall tube sampler. The values of strength tests performed on soil samples obtained from the split-barrel sampler are considered approximate recognizing that the sampler provides a representative but somewhat disturbed sample.

The test results are tabulated on the Borehole Logs under the heading “Qu”.

GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey and

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the natural soils covering the majority of the site are classified as Urban land-Glynwood complex and Urban land-Pewamo complex. A copy of the Custom Soil Resource Report for Grant County, Indiana has been included in Appendix B of this report.

VICINITY MAP (NOT TO SCALE) NOTES

1. All soil test borings were drilled at locations determined and established in the field by GME Testing.

2. Vicinity map generated using imagery from google.com/maps.

LEGEND

B-1

Test Boring Location and

Designation

FIGURE 1 – APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION MAP

Project Name: Proposed Remodel of Buildings #1 and 3

Location: Marion VA Hospital, Marion, Indiana

Client Name: Viridian Architectural Design, Inc.

GME Project Number: G20-100423

Project Location

#1 #3

APPENDIX B

±8" Dark Brown, Moist, Sandy Silty Clayey TOPSOIL.

FILL: Dark Brown, Clay, With Topsoil and Brick Fragments.

Brown, CLAYEY SILTY SAND.

Brown, SANDY SILTY CLAY.

Brown, Wet, CLAYEY SANDY SILT.

Gray, SANDY SILTY CLAY, Trace Gravel.

Gray and Brown, Moist, SANDY SILTY CLAY, Trace Gravel, With Sand Seams.

Brown, Fine SILTY SAND, Trace Gravel.

Bottom of Boring at 30.0 ft

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

24.0

19.6

18.8

22.7

12.3

10.6

12.0

2.1

0.7

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.5

21.0

26.0

30.0

8.00

6.30

2-3-3 (6)

7-6-9 (15)

12-12-13 (25)

2-2-3 (5)

8-10-11 (21)

9-11-19 (30)

8-12-15 (27)

31-37-38 (75)

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

12-07-20

RS/DM

40.520411

-85.635824

LATITUDE

LONGITUDE

DATE STARTED

DRILLER/INSP

BORING METHOD

RIG TYPE

CASING DIA.

HAMMER

LOCATION 1700 38th Street, Marion, IN

30.0 ft

ASTM D-1586

Skid

3.3 in

Auto

GROUNDWATER:

ELEVATION

STATION

OFFSET

LINE

DEPTH

At completion DryEncountered at 7.5 ft

DATUM :

STRUCTURE

TEST BORING LOG

S T

R A

T U

M E

LE

V

A T

IO

N

B-1

SPT

per 6"

(N)

PROJECT TYPE

OF

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

32.5

35.0

BORING NO.:

SHEET

Viridian Architectural Design, Inc.

VA Hospital Remodel Buildings 1 and 3

GME PROJECT NO:

CLIENT:

REMARKS

G20-100423

SOIL/MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

LE

D

E P

T H N-Values

15 30 45 600 75M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

% R E

C O

V E

R Y

Q p

(t sf

U N

C O

N F

C

O M

P ts f

S A

M P

LE

N

U M

B E

R

±14" Dark Brown, Moist, Sandy Silty Clayey Gravelly

TOPSOIL.

FILL: Brown, Moist, Silty Clay, Trace Gravel and Fine Roots.

POSSIBLE FILL: Brown, Moist, Silty Clay.

Brown, Very Moist, CLAYEY SAND and GRAVEL.

Brown and Gray, Very Moist, LEAN CLAY.

Brown, Fine SILTY SAND and GRAVEL, Trace Clay Pockets.

Bottom of Boring at 30.0 ft

1.0

1.5

1.0

19.2

22.8

27.9

20.1

29.0

29.4

5.8

3.3

1.2

5.5

7.5

10.5

21.0

30.0

2-3-3 (6)

2-4-4 (8)

3-4-4 (8)

3-4-4 (8)

1-1-1 (2)

1-1-1 (2)

15-16-18 (34)

20-25-21 (46)

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

12-07-20

RS/DM

40.519958

-85.63624

LATITUDE

LONGITUDE

DATE STARTED

DRILLER/INSP

BORING METHOD

RIG TYPE

CASING DIA.

HAMMER

LOCATION 1700 38th Street, Marion, IN

30.0 ft

ASTM D-1586

Skid

3.3 in

Auto

GROUNDWATER:

ELEVATION

STATION

OFFSET

LINE

DEPTH

At completion DryEncountered at 7.5 ft

DATUM :

STRUCTURE

TEST BORING LOG

S T

R A

T U

M E

LE

V

A T

IO

N

B-2

SPT

per 6"

(N)

PROJECT TYPE

OF

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

32.5

35.0

BORING NO.:

SHEET

Viridian Architectural Design, Inc.

VA Hospital Remodel Buildings 1 and 3

GME PROJECT NO:

CLIENT:

REMARKS

G20-100423

SOIL/MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

LE

D

E P

T H N-Values

15 30 45 600 75M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

% R E

C O

V E

R Y

Q p

(t sf

U N

C O

N F

C

O M

P ts f

S A

M P

LE

N

U M

B

±6" Dark Brown, Moist, Clayey TOPSOIL.

FILL: Dark Brown, Sandy Silty Clay, Trace Gravel.

Brown, Moist, Mottled SILTY CLAY, Trace Fine Gravel.

Brown, SANDY SILTY CLAY, Trace Gravel.

Gray, SANDY SILTY CLAY, Trace Gravel.

Brown, Fine SAND and GRAVEL.

Bottom of Boring at 30.0 ft

2.0

0.50

1.0

4.5+

4.5+

15.9

19.2

15.5

9.2

11.3

4.3

5.2

8.0

0.5

5.5

7.5

13.0

19.0

30.0

6.90

2-1-2 (3)

2-2-2 (4)

3-4-4 (8)

6-9-12 (21)

10-11-13 (24)

24-30-31 (61)

20-25-26 (51)

40-=-6"

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

12-07-20

RS/DM

40.519121

-85.63648

LATITUDE

LONGITUDE

DATE STARTED

DRILLER/INSP

BORING METHOD

RIG TYPE

CASING DIA.

HAMMER

LOCATION 1700 38th Street, Marion, IN

30.0 ft

ASTM D-1586

Skid

3.3 in

Auto

GROUNDWATER:

ELEVATION

STATION

OFFSET

LINE

DEPTH

At completion DryEncountered at Dry

DATUM :

STRUCTURE

TEST BORING LOG

S T

R A

T U

M E

LE

V

A T

IO

N

SB-1

SPT

per 6"

(N)

PROJECT TYPE

OF

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

32.5

35.0

BORING NO.:

SHEET

Viridian Architectural Design, Inc.

VA Hospital Remodel Buildings 1 and 3

GME PROJECT NO:

CLIENT:

REMARKS

G20-100423

SOIL/MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

LE

D

E P

T H N-Values

15 30 45 600 75M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

% R E

C O

V E

R Y

Q p

(t sf

U N

C O

N F

C

O M

P ts f

S A

M P

LE

N

U M

B

±8" Dark Brown, Moist, Clayey TOPSOIL.

FILL: Dark Brown, Moist, Clay, Trace Fine Roots.

Brown, Moist, SANDY SILTY CLAY, Trace Gravel.

Brown, CLAYEY SILTY SAND and GRAVEL.

Bottom of Boring at 30.0 ft

1.0

1.5

1.0

17.5

23.0

17.3

15.4

5.7

5.5

5.8

6.0

0.7

5.5

13.0

30.0

3-3-3 (6)

2-1-2 (3)

3-4-4 (8)

2-2-3 (5)

9-12-14 (26)

18-25-28 (53)

20-18-21 (39)

19-20-23 (43)

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

12-07-20

RS/DM

40.518646

-85.636829

LATITUDE

LONGITUDE

DATE STARTED

DRILLER/INSP

BORING METHOD

RIG TYPE

CASING DIA.

HAMMER

LOCATION 1700 38th Street, Marion, IN

30.0 ft

ASTM D-1586

Skid

3.3 in

Auto

GROUNDWATER:

ELEVATION

STATION

OFFSET

LINE

DEPTH

At completion DryEncountered at Dry

DATUM :

STRUCTURE

TEST BORING LOG

S T

R A

T U

M E

LE

V

A T

IO

N

SB-2

SPT

per 6"

(N)

PROJECT TYPE

OF

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

30.0

32.5

35.0

BORING NO.:

SHEET

Viridian Architectural Design, Inc.

VA Hospital Remodel Buildings 1 and 3

GME PROJECT NO:

CLIENT:

REMARKS

G20-100423

SOIL/MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

LE

D

E P

T H N-Values

15 30 45 600 75M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

% R E

C O

V E

R Y

Q p

(t sf

U N

C O

N F

C

O M

P ts f

S A

M P

LE

N

U M

B

GENERAL NOTES

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION

Visual soil classifications are made in general accordance with the United States Soil Classification System on the basis of textural and particle size categorization, and various soil behavior and characteristics. Visual classifications should be made by appropriate laboratory testing when more exact soil identification is required to satisfy specific project applications criteria.

Note(s):

The penetration resistance, “N” Value, is the summation of the number of blows required to effect two successive 6-inch penetrations of the 2-inch split-barrel sampler. The sampler is driven with a 140-lb. weight falling 30-inches and is seated to a depth of 6-inches before commencing the standard penetration test.

Water level measurements shown on the boring logs represent conditions at the time indicated and may not reflect static levels, especially in cohesive soils

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Term Trace

Defining Range by % of Weight 1-10 %

Little 11-20 % Some 21-35 % And 36-50 %

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT

NE No Water Encountered BF Backfilled upon Completion

ORGANIC CONTENT BY

COMBUSTION METHOD LABORATORY TESTS

Soil Description

LOI Qp

Penetrometer Reading, tsf w/ organic matter 4-15 % Qu Unconfined Strength, tsf Organic Soil (A-8) 16-30 % MC Moisture Content, % Peat (A-8) More than 30% LL Liquid Limit, %

PL Plastic Limit, % PI Plastic Index

SL Shrinkage Limit, % pH Measure of Soil Alkalinity/Acidity γ Dry Unit Weight, pcf

LOI

Loss of Ignition, %

AS

DRILLING AND SAMPLING

SYMBOLS

Auger Sample BS Bag Sample PID Photo ionization Detector (Hnu meter) volatile vapor level,(PPM) COA Clean-Out Auger CS Continuous Sampling FA Flight Auger HA Hand Auger HAS Hollow Stem Auger NR No Recovery PT 3” O.D. Piston Tube Sample RB Rock Bit RC Rock Coring REC Recovery RQD Rock Quality Designation RS Rock Sounding S Soil Sounding SS 2”O.D. Split-Barrel Sample 2ST 2”O.D. Tin-Walled Tube Sample 3ST 3” O.D. Thin-Walled Tube Sample VS Vane Shear Test DB Diamond Bit WS Wash Sample RB Roller Bit ST Shelby Tube, 2” O.D. or 3” O.D.

CB Carbide Bit WOH Weight of the Hammer

GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY PLASTICITY

Soil fraction Particle size Us standard sieve size Term “N”

Value Term “N”

Value Term Boulders

Plastic Index larger than 75 mm Larger than 3” Very Loose 0-5 Very Soft 0-3 None to Slight 0-4 Gravel 2mm to 75 mm #10 to 75 mm Loose 6-10 Soft 4-5 Slight 5-7

Coarse Sand 0.425 mm to 2 mm #40 to #10 Medium Dense 11-30 Medium Stiff 6-10 Medium 8-22 Fine Sand 0.075mm to 0.425 mm #200 to #40 Dense 31-50 Stiff 11-15 High/Very High Over 22

Silt 0.002 mm to 0.075 mm Smaller than #200 Very Dense 51+ Very Stiff 16-30

Clay Smaller than 0.002 mm Smaller than #200 Hard 31+

GME TESTING

3517 Focus Drive

Fort Wayne, IN 46818

(260) 497- 8127▪ (877) 660-4GME• (260) 497- 0826 fax

Division of GEOTECHNICAL & MATERIALS ENGINEERS, INC.

http://www.gmetesting.com/�

3517 FOCUS DRIVE- FORT WAYNE, INDIANA 46818 TEL: (260) 497-8127 877. 660. 4GME FAX: (260) 497-0826

Subsurface Exploration Geotechnical Evaluation Foundation Engineering Construction Materials Testing & Monitoring Services

12/16/2020 U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://seismicmaps.org 1/3

Proposed Remodel of Buildings #1 and 3- Marion VA Hospital Latitude, Longitude: 40.519554, -85.636386

Date 12/16/2020, 12:48:51 PM

Design Code Reference Document IBC-2012

Risk Category III

Site Class D - Stiff Soil

Type Value Description SS 0.123 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period)

S1 0.069 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period)

SMS 0.197 Site-modified spectral acceleration value

SM1 0.167 Site-modified spectral acceleration value

SDS 0.131 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA

SD1 0.111 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA

Type Value Description SDC B Seismic design category

Fa 1.6 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second

Fv 2.4 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second

PGA 0.057 MCEG peak ground acceleration

FPGA 1.6 Site amplification factor at PGA

PGAM 0.091 Site modified peak ground acceleration

TL 12 Long-period transition period in seconds

SsRT 0.123 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second)

SsUH 0.134 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration

SsD 1.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second)

S1RT 0.069 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second)

S1UH 0.08 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration.

S1D 0.6 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second)

PGAd 0.6 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration)

CRS 0.915 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods https://seismicmaps.org 2/3

Type Value Description

CR1 0.869 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s https://seismicmaps.org 3/3

DISCLAIMER

While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this website.

United States Department of Agriculture

A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants

Custom Soil Resource Report for

Grant County, Indiana

Natural Resources Conservation Service

December 16, 2020

Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?

cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/ http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/ https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?cid=nrcs142p2_053951 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?cid=nrcs142p2_053951 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Contents Preface How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil Map

Soil Map Legend Map Unit Legend Map Unit Descriptions

Grant County, Indiana UhB—Urban land-Glynwood complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes Ut—Urban land-Pewamo complex

References

How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and

Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

Soil Map

615400 615430 615460 615490 615520 615550 615580 615610

615430 615460 615490 615520 615550 615580 615610

40° 31' 14'' N

8'

5' ' W

40° 31' 14'' N

8'

'' W

40° 31' 5'' N

8'

5' ' W

40° 31' 5'' N

8'

'' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300

Feet 0 20 40 80 120

Meters Map Scale: 1:1,360 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Points

Special Point Features Blowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line Features

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Grant County, Indiana Survey Area Data: Version 28, Jun 4, 2020

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Feb 14, 2012—Apr 1, The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

UhB Urban land-Glynwood complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes

1.2 46.2%

Ut Urban land-Pewamo complex 1.4 53.8%

Totals for Area of Interest 2.5 100.0%

Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each…