36C25219B0038-002.pdf

CONSTRUCT NEW PARKING GARAGE

Project # 556-305

For the Department of Veterans Affairs

Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center

3001 Green Bay Rd.

North Chicago, IL 60064

PROJECT MANUAL VOL. 1

DIVISIONS 00 – 01

BID DOCUMENT

January 9, 2019

GUIDON DESIGN, INC.

APOGEE CONSULTING GROUP, PA

CARL WALKER, INC.

Construct New Parking Garage Bid Document

Captain James A. Lovell Project No. 556-305

Federal Health Care Center January 9, 2019

00 01 00 - 1

Federal Health Care Center January 9, 2019

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 00 31 33 Soil Sampling and Laboratory Analysis Report 00 31 34 Limited Asbestos Assessment, Building 133 00 31 35 Limited Asbestos Assessment, Building 134

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 00 00 General Requirements 10-17 01 32 16.15 Project Schedules (Small Projects – Design/Bid/Build 04-13 01 33 00 Submittal Procedures 01 33 23 Shop Drawings, Product Data, and Samples 05-17 01 35 26 Safety Requirements 02-17 01 42 19 Reference Standards 05-16 01 45 00 Quality Control 01-18 01 45 29 Testing Laboratory and Special Inspection Services 08-17 01 57 19 Temporary Environmental Controls 01-11 01 74 19 Construction Waste Management 09-13 01 81 13 Sustainable Construction Requirements 10-17

DIVISION 02 – EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 41 00 Demolition 08-17 02 82 13.31 Asbestos Transite Abatement 09-15

DIVISION 03 – CONCRETE

03 11 00 Concrete Formwork 03 15 00 Concrete Accessories 03 20 00 Concrete Reinforcement 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 10-17 04 05 16 Masonry Grouting 02-16 04 20 00 Unit Masonry 08-17

Federal Health Care Center January 9, 2019

00 01 10 - 2

DIVISION 05 – METALS

05 12 00 Structural Steel Framing 02-16 05 31 00 Steel Decking 02-16 05 50 00 Metal Fabrications 07-14 05 70 00 Wire Metal Mesh

DIVISION 06 – WOOD, PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES

06 10 00 Rough Carpentry 10-17

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 18 16 Traffic Coatings 07 19 16 Silane Water Repellents 07 21 13 Thermal Insulation 10-17 07 22 00 Roof and Deck Insulation 02-16 07 40 00 Roofing and Siding Panels 10-15 07 51 00 Built-Up Bituminous Roofing 07-14 07 60 00 Flashing and Sheet Metal 07-14 07 71 00 Roof Specialties 10-15 07 72 00 Roof Accessories 10-15 07 84 00 Firestopping 02-16 07 92 00 Joint Sealants 10-17 07 95 13 Expansion Joint Cover Assemblies 02-16

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

08 11 13 Hollow Metal Doors and Frames 08-16 08 36 13 Sectional Doors 05-15 08 41 13 Aluminum-Framed Entrances and Storefronts 08-16 08 71 00 Door Hardware 01-16 08 71 13 Automatic Door Operators 02-16 08 80 00 Glazing 10-15

DIVISION 09 – FINISHES

09 06 00 Schedule for Finishes 04-15 09 30 13 Ceramic/Porcelain Tiling 09-15 09 91 00 Painting 01-16

DIVISION 10 – SPECIALTIES

10 14 00 Signage 10-15 10 44 13 Fire Extinguisher Cabinets 08-14

DIVISION 14– CONVEYING EQUIPMENT

14 21 00 Electric Traction Elevator 09-17

Federal Health Care Center January 9, 2019

00 01 10 - 3

DIVISION 22 – PLUMBING

22 05 11 Common Work Results for Plumbing 07-16 22 05 12 General Motor Requirements for Plumbing Equipment 09-15 22 05 23 General-Duty Valves for Plumbing Piping 09-15 22 14 00 Facility Storm Drainage 22 14 29 Sump Pumps 09-15

DIVISION 23 – HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR

CONDITIONING (HVAC)

23 05 11 Common Work Results for HVAC 08-17 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 04-11

DIVISION 26 – ELECTRICAL

26 05 11 Requirements for Electrical Installations 01-16 26 05 13 Medium-Voltage Cables 01-17 26 05 19 Low-Voltage Electrical Power Conductors and Cables 01-17 26 05 26 Grounding and Bonding for Electrical Systems 01-17 26 05 33 Raceway and Boxes for Electrical Systems 05-14 26 05 41 Underground Electrical Construction 01-17 26 09 23 Lighting Controls 05-14 26 12 19 Pad-Mounted, Liquid-Filled, Medium-Voltage Transformers 12-15 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 01-17 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 08 00 Commissioning of Communications Systems 11-16 27 10 00 Control, Communication and Signal Wiring 06-15 27 11 00 Telecommunication Room Fittings 06-15 27 15 00 Communications Structured Cabling 01-16

Federal Health Care Center January 9, 2019

00 01 10 - 4

DIVISION 28 – ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 05 00 Common Work Results for Electronic Safety and Security 09-11 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 08 00 Commissioning of Electronic Safety and Security Systems 11-16 28 13 00 Physical Access Control System 28 23 00 Video Surveillance 09-11 28 26 00 Electronic Personal Protection System 09-11 28 31 00 Elevator Recall, Fire Detection and Alarm 10-11 28 52 31 Emergency Call System 06-15

DIVISION 31 – EARTHWORK

31 20 00 Earthwork 07-16

DIVISION 32 – EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 05 23 Cement and Concrete for Exterior Improvements 08-16 32 12 16 Asphalt Paving 09-15 32 17 23 Pavement Markings 08-16 32 90 00 Planting 08-16

DIVISION 33 – UTILITIES

33 10 00 Water Utilities 03-17 33 40 00 Storm Sewer Utilities 10-11 33 46 13 Foundation Drainage 10-11

Federal Health Care Center January 9, 2019

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

GENERAL

GI000 COVER SHEET

GI101 CODE ANALYSIS

GI102 LIFE SAFETY PLANS

CIVIL

CIOO1 GENERAL NOTES

VF101 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

CD101 DEMOLITION PLAN

CS101 SITE PLAN

CS102 ROUNDABOUT MODIFICATIONS PLAN

CS501 SITE DETAILS

CS502 SITE DETAILS

CG101 GRADING PLAN

CU101 UTILITY PLAN

CU501 UTILITY DETAILS

CU502 UTILITY DETAILS

CJ101 EROSION CONTROL PLAN

CJ501 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS

CW101 SITE WAYFINDING PLAN

CW501 SITE WAYFINDING DETAILS

STRUCTURAL

SI001 GENERAL NOTES

SI002 GENERAL NOTES

SI003 GENERAL NOTES

SI004 FUTURE EXPANSION INFORMATION

SB100 FOUNDATION PLAN – STRUCTURAL

SB501 FOUNDATION & SLAB ON GRADE DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

Federal Health Care Center January 9, 2019

00 01 15 - 2

SB502 FOUNDATION DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SB601 FOUNDATION SCHEDULE & TYPICAL DETAILS

STRUCTURAL

SF101 LEVEL 1 PLAN – STRUCTURAL

SF102 LEVEL 2 PLAN – STRUCTURAL

SF103 LEVEL 3 PLAN – STRUCTURAL

SF201 STRUCTURAL ELEVATIONS

SF301 BUILDING SECTIONS – STRUCTURAL

SF401 NORTHWEST STAIR-ELEVATOR ENLARGED PLANS -

STRUCTURAL

SF411 SOUTHEAST STAIR–ELEVATOR ENLARGED PLAN -

STRUCTURAL

SF511 PCC COLUMN DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF521 PCC FRAMING DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF522 PCC FRAMING DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF531 TYPICAL PCC BEAM DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF532 PCC WALL & CONNECTION DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF541 WATERPROOFING DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF551 STANDARD & MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF561 ENLARGED PLAN DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF562 ENLARGED PLAN DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF563 ENLARGED PLAN DETAILS – STRUCTURAL

SF611 LOADING DIAGRAMS – STRUCTURAL

ARCHITECTURAL

AS001 ARCHITECTURAL SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AS101 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN

AS102 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN

AS103 LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN

AS121 ROOF PLAN

AS201 BUILDING ELEVATIONS

AS202 BUILDING ELEVATIONS

AS203 ENLARGED BUILDING ELEVATIONS – ST#1

AS204 ENLARGED BUILDING ELEVATIONS – ST#2

AS311 WALL SECTIONS AND DETAILS

AS312 STAIR SECTIONS, RAILING ELEVATIONS, AND DETAILS

AS401 ENLARGED PLANS AND STAIR SECTIONS – ST#1

Federal Health Care Center January 9, 2019

00 01 15 - 3

AS402 ENLARGED PLANS AND STAIR SECTIONS – ST#2

AS601 OPENINGS SCHEDULES AND DETAILS

FUNCTIONAL

AP101 LEVEL 1 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP102 LEVEL 2 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP103 LEVEL 3 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP501 STRIPING & PAINTED GRAPHICS – ARCHITECTURAL

PARKING

AP511 SIGN MOUNTING DETAILS – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

PLUMBING

PP001 PLUMBING LEGEND, ABBREVIATIONS, AND GENERAL

NOTES

PP100 FOUNDATION PLUMBING PLAN

PP101 LEVEL 1 PLUMBING PLAN

PP102 LEVEL 2 PLUMBING PLAN

PP103 LEVEL 3 PLUMBING PLAN

PP901 PLUMBING RISER

MECHANICAL

MH001 MECHANICAL GENERAL NOTES, DETAILS, AND LEGEND

MH401 MECHANICAL PLAN, DETAILS, AND SCHEDULES

ELECTRICAL

ES101 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN

EE001 ELECTRICAL NOTES, LEGENDS AND LIGHT FIXTURES

SCHEDULE

EE101 LEVEL 1 ELECTRICAL PLAN

EE102 LEVEL 2 ELECTRICAL PLAN

EE103 LEVEL 3 ELECTRICAL PLAN

EE401 ELECTRICAL ENLARGEMENTS

EE501 ELECTRICAL DETAILS

EE502 ELECTRICAL DETIALS AND LAN RISERS

EE601 ELECTRICAL SINGLE-LINE AND SCHEDULES

- - - E N D - - -

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Lot G Parking Structure

Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center

3001 Green Bay Road

North Chicago, Illinois

August 14, 2017

Terracon Project No. MR175053

Prepared for:

Guidon Design

Indianapolis, Indiana

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Chicago, Illinois

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 650 West Lake Street, Sui te 420 Chicago, I l l inois 60661

P [312] 575 0014 F [312] 575 0111 terracon.com

Guidon Design

905 N. Capitol Avenue

Suite 100

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Attn: Mr. Kyle J. Cyr, P.E., Env. SP

Senior Civil Engineer / Project Manager

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Lot G Parking Structure

Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center

3001 Green Bay Road

North Chicago, Illinois

Dear Mr. Cyr:

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has performed a geotechnical exploration for the referenced project. These services were provided in general accordance with our proposal No. PMR175053 dated February 2, 2017, and our subsequent email correspondence. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations regarding the design and construction of shallow foundations, floor slabs, below grade walls, and pavements for the project.

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

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Nathan J. Liggett, E.I. Tony A. Kiefer, P.E.

Project Manager Senior Geotechnical Consultant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

2.2 Site Location and Description

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Profile

3.2 Water Level Observations

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

4.2 Earthwork

4.2.1 Site Preparation

4.2.2 Engineered Fill Material Requirements

4.2.3 Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements

4.2.4 Earthwork Construction Considerations

4.2.5 Grading and Drainage

4.3 Shallow Spread Footing Foundations

4.3.1 Shallow Spread Footing Foundation Design Recommendations

4.3.2 Foundation Construction Considerations

4.4 Belled Caisson Foundations

4.4.1 Belled Caisson Foundation Design Recommendations

4.4.2 Lateral Resistance of Deep Foundations

4.4.3 Construction Considerations

4.5 Retaining Walls

4.5.1 Lateral Earth Pressures

4.5.2 Subsurface Drainage

4.6 Floor Slabs

4.6.1 Floor Slab Design Recommendations

4.6.2 Floor Slab Construction Considerations

4.7 Pavements

4.7.1 Subgrade Preparation

4.7.2 Design Considerations

4.8 Seismic Site Class

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

List of Attachments

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Site Location Diagram

Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Diagram

Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description

Exhibit A-4 to A-8 Boring Logs

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-1 General Notes

Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System

Lot G Parking Structure ■ North Chicago, Illinois August 14, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No. MR175053

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following items represent a brief summary of the findings of our subsurface exploration and our geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Lot G Parking Structure at the Captain

James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center in North Chicago, Illinois. This summary should be reviewed in conjunction with the complete report.

It is our opinion that the proposed structure can be supported on shallow spread foundations proportioned for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 8,000 psf and bearing at typical frost depths on the native hard clay crust or lean concrete extending to the native hard clay bearing soils encountered above a depth of approximately 8 to 10 feet. Due to the relatively high allowable bearing pressure, the footings should not be placed on compacted granular fill. Footings should not be placed below El. 710 feet. If deeper fill is encountered at some locations which force footings below 710, a reduced allowable soil bearing pressure of 6,000 psf should be used. We also require that Terracon personnel be present to observe the subgrade. Additional probes should be performed during construction to confirm that the hard clay layer is present throughout the footprint of the building. Total settlement for shallow foundations is expected to be less than 1 inch.

Belled caissons designed for a combination of side friction and end bearing are also possible. However, the soil below a depth of about 10 feet to 80 feet was weaker than the upper clay crust. Thus, straight shaft or belled caissons could be extended into clay soils to a depth of 35 to 40 feet below grade and designed for an allowable side friction on the shaft of 1,500 psf and allowable end bearing of 8,000 psf.

The floor slab and pavements for the structure can be grade supported on either native clay soils or existing fill. To reduce the risk of adverse performance of floor slabs and to provide more uniform subgrade support, any existing fill materials exposed at subgrade level should be thoroughly observed and tested by proofrolling during construction.

Based on the results of the borings, a Seismic Site Class “C” may be used for design.

Close observations of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in achieving the design subgrade support. We therefore recommend that Terracon be retained to provide observation/testing during foundation construction and other earth-related aspects of construction.

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.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

LOT G PARKING STRUCTURE

CAPTAIN JAMES A. LOVELL FEDERAL HEALTH CARE CENTER

NORTH CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has performed a subsurface exploration for the proposed Lot

G Parking Structure planned at the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center in North

Chicago, Illinois. A total of five (5) borings were drilled to depths ranging from 50 to 80 feet below the existing ground surface. A Site Location Diagram, Boring Location Diagram and boring logs are included in Appendix A.

This report describes the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations, presents the test data, and provides geotechnical engineering recommendations regarding the following items:

design and construction of shallow foundations floor slab subgrade preparation and design recommendations lateral earth pressure and drainage recommendations for design of below grade walls site preparation and earthwork pavement design criteria seismic site classification

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Site Layout/Description See Appendix A, Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Diagram.

Structure

A new two-bay, two-story parking structure is to be constructed in the existing Lot G area. A future expansion is anticipated to extend the parking structure to a total of three bays with six stories each.

Maximum loads

Preliminary typical foundation loading was provided by Carl Walker and is reflective of the loading following the completion of the future expansion mentioned above:

Typical Exterior Columns: 800 kips

Typical Interior Wall: 50 kips per linear foot (klf)

Floor Slabs: 200 pounds per square foot (psf) (assumed)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Below grade walls

We understand that no basement level is planned for the project. The only below grade walls expected for the project would be for an elevator pit. Above-grade retaining walls will be needed to contain fill below ramps.

Grading

We understand that fill up to 8 feet will be required to achieve the required subgrade elevations for the sloping slab-on-grade vehicle ramps of the first-floor level. Cuts up to five to six feet may be required for construction of the elevator pit.

2.2 Site Location and Description

Item Description

Location The existing Lot G parking area of the James A. Lovell Federal Health

Care Center located at 3001 Green Bay Road, North Chicago, Illinois.

Existing improvements The area of the proposed addition is currently occupied by asphalt parking and drive areas.

Existing topography

A site topographic plan was provided to us. Existing ground surface elevations in the area of the proposed construction range from approximately 715 feet to 719 feet, generally sloping downward from south to north. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations varied by two feet (716 to 718 USGS).

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Profile

Subsurface conditions at each boring location are described on the individual boring logs in

Appendix A. The stratification boundaries shown on the boring logs represent the approximate depths where changes in material types occur. In-situ, transitions between material types can be more gradual. Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Description Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum Material Encountered Consistency/Density

Surface 5 to 12 inches Asphalt or Topsoil N/A

1 1 2½ to 3 feet Fill: sand and gravel or lean clay N/A

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

Description Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum Material Encountered Consistency/Density

2 2 7½ to 10 feet Native lean clay (CL), brown, trace sand and gravel.

Hard

Moisture content: 13 to 18%

3 3

Boring termination depth of 50 feet or 72 feet in Boring B-3

Native lean clay (CL), gray, trace silt, sand, and gravel.

Stiff to very stiff

Moisture content: 12 to 22%

4 77 feet Sand (SP), brown/gray, saturated

Very dense

Moisture content: 22%

Boring termination depth of 80 feet in

Boring B-3

Lean clay (CL) with silt Very stiff

Moisture content: 22%

1. Boring B-3 encountered possible clay fill to a depth of 6½ feet.

2. A gravelly sand seam was observed at a depth of 8 feet in boring B-1.

3. A sandy lean clay to clayey sand layer was encountered between 31 and 32 feet in Boring B-4.

3.2 Water Level Observations

The borings were observed during sampling for the presence and level of ground water. No borings encountered free water prior to switching to rotary wash drilling techniques. The absence of water at a boring location does not necessarily mean that the boring terminated above the groundwater table. Due to the low permeability of the predominantly clay soils encountered, a longer period of time may be required for groundwater to develop and stabilize in a borehole.

Drilling mud was added to the borehole to maintain stability. Longer 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.

Alternatively, a method commonly used to estimate the long-term groundwater table position in low permeability cohesive soils is by observing changes in soil color. A brown color generally indicates oxidation has occurred meaning these soils are generally above the water table.

Conversely, a more homogeneously gray color indicates soils that have not been oxidized and are likely below the long-term water table. A brown to gray color transition was typically observed at a depth of about 10 feet below within most of the borings.

Water levels may fluctuate seasonally or over a period of years due to variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Subsurface water levels during construction or at other times in the future may be different from the levels indicated on the boring logs. Trapped or “perched” water could occur within variable existing fill materials, within sand seams and layers or above lower permeability soil layers. Water level

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 fluctuations and perched water should be considered when developing design and construction plans and specifications for the project.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

It is our opinion that the proposed structure can be supported on shallow spread foundations proportioned for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 8,000 psf and bearing at typical frost depths on the native hard clay crust or lean concrete extending to the native hard clay bearing soils encountered above a depth of approximately 8 to 10 feet. Due to the relatively high allowable bearing pressure, the footings should not be placed on compacted granular fill. Footings should not be placed below El. 710 feet. If deeper fill is encountered at some locations which force footings below 710, a reduced allowable soil bearing pressure of 6,000 psf should be used. We also require that Terracon personnel be present to observe the subgrade. Additional probes should be performed during construction to confirm that the hard clay layer is present throughout the footprint of the building. Total settlement for shallow foundations is expected to be less than

1 inch.

Belled caissons designed for a combination of side friction and end bearing are also possible.

However, the soil below a depth of about 10 feet to 80 feet was weaker than the upper clay crust.

Thus, straight shaft or belled caissons could be extended into clay soils to a depth of 35 to 40 feet below grade and designed for an allowable side friction on the shaft of 1,500 psf and allowable end bearing of 8,000 psf.

The floor slab and pavements for the structure can be grade supported on either native clay soils or existing fill. To reduce the risk of adverse performance of floor slabs and to provide more uniform subgrade support, any existing fill materials exposed at subgrade level should be thoroughly observed and tested by proofrolling during construction. Areas that exhibit excessive deflections or rutting during testing should be improved by scarification and re-compaction or replacement with engineered soil fill.

Close observation of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in achieving the design subgrade support. We therefore recommend that Terracon be retained to provide observation/testing during foundation construction and other earth-related aspects of construction.

Our recommendations for design and construction of footings, floor slabs, retaining walls, earthwork, and pavements are presented in the following sections.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

4.2 Earthwork

Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. Recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fill for the project are provided below.

4.2.1 Site Preparation

The areas of proposed new construction should be cleared of asphalt, debris, and other surficial unsuitable material for an area extending at least 5 feet beyond the edges of the proposed structure’s footprint. Any existing utilities that will be removed or impacted by construction should be relocated. Excavations for utility removal should be backfilled with engineered soil fill as described in Section 4.2.2. After site stripping, the exposed floor slab subgrade beneath the structure should be proofrolled to delineate any soft, loose, or unstable areas. Proofrolling of cohesive fill subgrade can be accomplished using a loaded tandem-axle dump truck with a gross weight of at least 25 tons, or similarly loaded equipment. Areas exhibiting pumping, rutting or excessive deflection should be re-compacted or carefully trimmed and replaced with compacted granular fill. In any event, the finished subgrade beneath the floor slab should be tested and approved prior to final construction of the floor slab.

4.2.2 Engineered Fill Material Requirements

Engineered fill should meet the following material property requirements presented in the following table. Engineered fill is not recommended below the footings considering the high bearing pressure provided. Only lean concrete may be used below the footings, if footing elevations are raised or undercuts are needed in fill areas.

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

Cohesive 2 CL, CL-ML Adjacent to foundations/grade beams and below/adjacent to slabs and pavements

Granular

GW, GP, GM, GC, SW,

SP, SM, SC

Adjacent to foundations/grade beams and below slabs and pavements

Unsuitable CH, MH, OL, OH, PT Non-structural locations

1. Engineered fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris.

Cohesive fill materials should have a liquid limit less than 45 and a plasticity index less than 20;

cohesive soils that do not meet these criteria should be considered “unsuitable.” 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 Terracon for evaluation prior to use on this site.

2. Based on visual and tactile examination of recovered soil samples and the results of the laboratory tests, most of the on-site clay and granular soils (native and fill) would likely meet the criteria for engineered fill. However, any organic materials, rock fragments larger than 3 inches, and other unsuitable materials should be removed prior to use of the existing fill materials in new fill sections.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

4.2.3 Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements

Item Description

Fill Lift Thickness

9 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelled compaction equipment is used.

4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e., a jumping jack or plate compactor) is used.

Minimum Compaction Requirement 1, 2

95% of the material’s modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) below floor slabs or adjacent to grade beams.

Moisture Content of Cohesive Soil -2% to +3% of modified Proctor optimum (ASTM D 1557)

Moisture Content of Granular Material 3 Workable moisture levels

1. We recommend that each lift of fill be tested for moisture content and compaction prior to the placement of additional fill or concrete. If the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

2. If granular material is a coarse sand or gravel, is of a uniform size, or has a low fines content, compaction comparison to relative density (ASTM D 4253/4254) may be more appropriate.

3. The gradation of a granular material affects its stability and the moisture content required for proper compaction. Moisture levels should be maintained to achieve compaction without bulking during placement or pumping when proofrolled.

4.2.4 Earthwork Construction Considerations

Terracon should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation, proofrolling, placement and compaction of engineered fills, backfilling of excavations, and just prior to construction of floor slabs.

Care should be taken to avoid disturbance of prepared subgrades. Unstable subgrade conditions could develop during general construction operations, particularly if the soils are wetted and/or subjected to repetitive construction traffic. New fill compacted above optimum moisture content or that accumulates water during construction can also become disturbed under construction equipment. Construction traffic over the exposed subgrade should be avoided to the extent practical. If the subgrade becomes saturated, desiccated, or disturbed, the affected materials should either be scarified and compacted or be removed and replaced.

Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations, shallow excavations for footing foundations are not expected to encounter the water table. However, if seepage is encountered, Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7 the contractor is responsible for employing appropriate dewatering methods to control seepage and facilitate construction. In our experience, dewatering of shallow excavations in clays and sands above the water table can typically be accomplished with sump pits and pumps.

As a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” and its appendices, and in accordance with any applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations. The contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depth should in no instance exceed those specified by these safety regulations. Based on the soil boring results, the native clay material is classified as Type “B” in accordance with OSHA regulations. Therefore, we recommend that shallow excavations be planned no steeper than 1.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical (1.0H:1.0V) inclination for Type “B” soils.

Flatter slopes than those dictated by these regulations may be required depending upon the soil conditions encountered and other external factors. These regulations are strictly enforced and if they are not followed, the owner, contractor, and/or earthwork and utility subcontractor could be liable and subject to substantial penalties. Under no circumstances should the information provided in this report be interpreted to mean that Terracon is responsible for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of the construction operations.

4.2.5 Grading and Drainage

During construction, grades should be developed to direct surface water flow away from or around the site. Exposed subgrades should be sloped to provide positive drainage so that saturation of subgrades is avoided. Surface water should not be permitted to accumulate on the site.

Final grades should slope away from the building to promote rapid surface drainage. Accumulation of water adjacent to the building could contribute to significant moisture increases in the subgrade soils and subsequent softening/settlement. Roof drains should discharge into a storm sewer or several feet away from building.

4.3 Shallow Spread Footing Foundations

It is our opinion that the proposed structure can be supported on shallow spread foundations proportioned for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 8,000 psf and bearing at typical frost depths on the native hard clay crust or lean concrete extending to the native hard clay bearing soils encountered above a depth of approximately 8 to 10 feet. Due to the relatively high allowable bearing pressure, the footings should not be placed on compacted granular fill. Footings should not be placed below El. 710 feet. If deeper fill is encountered at some locations which force footings below 710, a reduced allowable soil bearing pressure of 6,000 psf should be used.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

4.3.1 Shallow Spread Footing Foundation Design Recommendations

Description Value

Maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure 1 8,000 psf – Above Elev. 710 feet

6,000 psf – Below Elev. 710 feet

Minimum embedment below finished grade for frost protection 4 feet

Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient for Resistance to Lateral Loads 2

Granular Soils: 3.0

Cohesive Soils: 2.4

Ultimate Coefficient of Friction for Sliding

Resistance 3 0.35

Approximate total settlement 4 Less than 1 inch

Approximate differential settlement 4 1/2 to 2/3 of the total settlement

1. The net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum adjacent overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. Foundations proportioned for a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 8,000 psf should be supported on native clay soils above El. 710 feet having a minimum unconfined compressive strength of 4.0 tsf. Footings below El. 710 feet should use a reduced soil bearing pressure of 6000 psf.

2. A factor of safety has not been applied to the provided values. We recommend a minimum factor of safety of 2.0 be used with the provided values due to the large strains required to mobilize the full passive pressure. Passive pressure should be ignored in the upper 3 feet due to reduction in strength from freeze-thaw cycles.

3. A factor of safety has not been applied to the provided value. We recommend a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 be used in determining sliding stability.

4. The foundation settlement will depend upon variations within the subsurface soil profile, the structural loading conditions, the embedment depth of the footing, and the quality of earthwork operations.

The maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure provided above is based on a factor of safety of 3. The allowable bearing pressure can be increased by a factor of 1.33 for short-term temporary loading conditions such as wind and seismic activity.

The minimum width of rectangular footings should be 30 inches and the minimum width of continuous footings should be 18 inches to avoid disproportionately small footings sizes.

If footings support eccentric loads, the peak soil pressure should be less than indicated in the table above. We recommend the resultant of soil pressure be maintained within the middle third of the footing.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

4.3.2 Foundation Construction Considerations

The soils at the base of each foundation excavation should be observed and tested by Terracon personnel to evaluate whether they meet the requirements for suitable bearing soils as defined in this report. The excavations should be probed or otherwise sampled at regular intervals.

The base of each foundation excavation should be free of water and loose materials prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed as soon as possible after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance. If the soils at the bearing level become excessively dry, disturbed, saturated, or frozen, the affected soil should be removed prior to placing concrete. Placement of a lean concrete mud-mat over the bearing soils should be considered if the excavations must remain open overnight or for an extended period of time.

Footings should bear directly on tested and approved native cohesive soils or on lean concrete that extends to approved native soils. If unsuitable bearing materials are encountered at the base of a footing excavation, the materials should be extended deeper to suitable native soils. The excavation could be backfilled with lean concrete backfill. If lean concrete backfill (minimum 28-day compressive strength of 1,500 psi) is used, the excavation need only be widened at least 6 inches on all sides of the footing. The recommended extents of the over excavation and backfill procedure are illustrated in the following figure. Note that the sidewalls in this figure are shown vertical for ease of dimensioning. The excavation sidewalls will need to be properly sloped in accordance with OSHA provisions if personnel are expected to enter the excavation.

Note: Excavations in sketches shown vertical for convenience. Excavations should be sloped as necessary for safety. Excavations should be widened at least 6 inches on all sides of the footings if lean concrete is used as backfill. For convience, the 6-inch widening is not shown in the above sketch.

4.4 Belled Caisson Foundations

Belled caissons designed for a combination of side friction and end bearing are also possible.

However, the soil below a depth of about 10 feet to 80 feet was weaker than the upper clay crust and may not be more economical than footings. Based on the expected subsurface conditions and the anticipated building loads, the proposed building could be supported on small-diameter

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10 belled, drilled shaft (“caisson”) foundations extending to a depth of approximately 35 to 40 feet below the existing surface grade. Design recommendations and construction considerations for caisson foundations are presented below.

4.4.1 Belled Caisson Foundation Design Recommendations

Based on the information obtained from the borings, a maximum net allowable end bearing pressure of 8,000 pounds per square foot (psf) can be used for belled caissons bearing on the very stiff lean to silty clay encountered at a depth of approximately 35 to 40 feet below the existing ground surface. The maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure is that pressure which may be transmitted to the foundation soils in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure.

The design bearing capacity values may be increased by 1/3 for intermittent loading such as wind and seismic loads.

Side friction along the shaft may also be accounted for to resist the applied loading. An allowable side friction along the shaft of 1,500 psf may be used for design. Shear resistance above a depth of 4 feet should be ignored due to disturbance from frost and construction activities. No side friction would apply in the belling zone.

We estimate a maximum settlement on the order of ¾-inch for belled caisson foundations supported at the recommended bearing level. The maximum differential settlement between adjacent caissons will be dependent on the actual loads but is typically on the order of one-half the total settlement. It should be noted that these settlement values are for soil compression only and that elastic compression of the concrete shafts should be added to these values.

To resist tension forces, if needed, caissons can be designed to include full length, tied reinforcement to the bottom of the bell. Uplift resistance can be determined by computing the soil shear strength mobilized on a cylinder the diameter of the bell to the height of one bell diameter and adhesion between the soil and the concrete along the shaft above this level plus the buoyant weight of the caisson concrete.

For uplift design purposes, an allowable side friction value of 1,000 psf can be utilized along the length of the shaft. Shear resistance above a depth of 4 feet should be ignored due to disturbance from frost and construction activities.

Foundation elements at the building perimeter and below any unheated areas, such as grade beams and pier caps, should extend at least 4 feet below grade for frost protection. A minimum shaft diameter of at least 30 inches is recommended. The caisson bells should have a base angle no flatter than 60 degrees from the horizontal and the bell diameter should not exceed three times the shaft diameter.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

4.4.2 Lateral Resistance of Deep Foundations

A number of methods, including hand solutions and computer programs, are available for calculating the lateral behavior of deep foundations. The majority of these methods rely on “key” soil parameters such as soil elastic properties (E and ks), strain at 50 percent of the principal stress difference (50), undrained shear strength (c), angle of internal friction (), and load-deflection (p-y) criteria. The p-y criteria, which are commonly used to model soil reaction, were developed from instrumented load tests and are generally considered to provide the best model of soil behavior under short term lateral loading. COM624 and LPILE series programs use the p-y criteria and are widely used in lateral load analysis. The input parameters for the COM624 and LPILE series programs are presented in the following table.

Depth (feet) LPILE Soil

Type

Total Unit

Weight

(pcf)

Friction

Angle

(degrees)

Lateral Soil

Modulus

Parameter k (pci)

Strain

Factor (ε50)

Cohesion, C, (psf)

0 to 4 Sand 1 115 26 10 -- --

4 to 8

Stiff Clay w/o free water

120 -- 2,000 0.004 4,000

8 to 16

Stiff Clay w/o free water

120 -- 1,000 0.005 3,000

Below 16

Stiff Clay w/o free water

120 -- 1,000 0.005 2,000

1. The upper 4 feet have been given a highly reduced strength to account for frost heave and soil disturbance.

It should be noted that factors of safety are not generally applied to the lateral load analysis. A performance criteria, or “limit state” is usually considered. Terracon would be pleased to perform the lateral load analysis for the building, if desired.

In addition to the lateral resistance of the piles; grade beams, slabs-on-grade and buried walls will also contribute as detailed below:

1) Side friction along grade beams will contribute resistance to movement parallel to the wind or lateral force direction. Compute the lateral (shear) resistance parallel to the wall direction using an equivalent allowable fluid pressure of 18 psf per foot depth. This allowable shear stress already includes a factor of safety of 1.5. This value may be used assuming compacted backfill.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12

2) Passive pressure on foundation walls, grade beams and pier caps could also be used to resist lateral loads, provided the excavations adjacent to these structural elements are backfilled with properly compacted engineered fill. The allowable passive pressure may be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 150 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) above the water table. This values include a factor of safety of 2.0 on the passive resistance to provide strain compatibility with other structural components, such as the lateral resistance on the caissons and frictional sliding resistance on the slabs. Passive pressure should be ignored within 4 feet of final exterior grade due to the potential for freeze-thaw effects.

3) Additional lateral resistance can also be considered from slab-on-grade friction. We recommend the grade-supported dead load be multiplied by an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 for slabs which are in direct contact with grade beams, walls, or piles.

Where a vapor barrier is used below the slab, the allowable friction coefficient should be reduced to 0.18. These friction coefficients include a factor of safety of 1.5.

4.4.3 Construction Considerations

To limit problems, caissons should be completed and poured as quickly as possible with concrete waiting on site as the bell is completed. If bell wall instability problems occur, longer casing may be necessary to complete the bell.

The geotechnical engineer of record (Terracon) or their representative should be retained full time during caisson installations to inspect and approve each caisson bearing level. Due to safety concerns, it is expected that personnel will not be lowered into excavations to observe the base of the caisson. For this reason, an explosion proof camera should be lowered into the bell after final cleanup to verify it is suitably free of loose material and debris. If no camera inspection is performed, we recommend the caisson bell area be increased by 15 percent, for a minimum diameter increase of 6 inches up to a maximum diameter increase of one foot.

We recommend temporary casing be used when the drilled shafts are installed through the existing surface fill material and into the hard native clay to create a seal against near-surface soil caving. If significant sand seams or water-bearing silt seams are encountered at the bell elevation, the shaft may have to be extended deeper below this zone to facilitate belling. It may also be necessary to extend temporary casing through this zone to prevent cave-in and create a water-tight seal. Under no circumstance should an uncased shaft excavation be allowed to remain open overnight.

Caisson cut-offs are expected to be within the temporary casing at this site. As a result, after the bell is excavated and the bearing is approved by a representative of Terracon, we recommend that a permanent corrugated liner be installed in the shaft to a depth of about 2 feet below the casing. The corrugated liner should fit tightly into the clay and extend up to the cut-off elevation.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13

The corrugated liners should have the same diameter as the design size of the shaft. Concrete may be poured by free-fall into clean and dry excavations (less than 2 inches of standing water) inside the corrugated liner. After the concrete has set for a day, the annular space between the corrugated liner and temporary casing should be filled with sand/cement grout and the casing should then be pulled. Free-fall concrete should have a slump in the range of 5 to 7 inches.

If the predominantly clay soils are found to stand without caving in an open excavation, the “pour and pull” casing procedure may also be considered. In this method, no permanent corrugated liner is needed. After the concrete is poured in the excavation to a level above the cut-off level, the casing can then pulled to a point just above the cut-off level. Care must be exercised in this method to ensure the concrete level lowers after the casing is pulled. If the fluid concrete level rises, it is an indication that water or soil intrusion has occurred and the concrete should be mucked out and be re-poured. Concrete slump should be in the range of 7 to 9 inches for a “pour and pull” procedure. Casings must be clean. After the concrete has set for at least 6 hours, the top of the shaft can be backfilled with sand to protect the rebar cage and the casing remaining above the cut-off level can then be pulled from the hole.

Concrete may be placed by free fall into clean and dry shafts. The excavation is considered “dry” if there is less than two inches of standing water at the time of placement. Concrete must be directed down the center of the shaft so that rebar is not impacted or displaced by falling concrete. A concrete slump in the range of 5 to 7 inches is recommended for free-fall concrete. An uninterrupted supply and placement of concrete is recommended to produce a monolithic shaft. The maximum size of the concrete aggregate should not exceed one-third of the minimum clear spacing between individual reinforcing bars or bundles.

4.5 Retaining Walls

We anticipate that retaining walls will likely be limited to below-grade elevator pits and retaining walls supporting the sloping first level ramps (which may retain up to 8 feet of soil). All retaining wall structures would be above the expected long-term water table level which is estimated to be at approximately 10 feet below existing grade. We recommend that retaining walls be designed for the drained condition.

4.5.1 Lateral Earth Pressures

Walls with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed for earth pressures at least equal to those indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will be influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of free-standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes wall movement. The

"at-rest" condition assumes no wall movement and is used for design of rigid below grade structures. For the elevator pits and retaining walls being constructed, some movement is possible and we recommend a “near at-rest” pressure, which is intermediate between active and

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14 at-rest. The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor of safety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls.

EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS

EARTH

PRESSURE

CONDITIONS

COEFFICIENT FOR

BACKFILL TYPE

EQUIVALENT

FLUID DENSITY

(pcf)

SURCHARGE

PRESSURE, p1

(psf)

EARTH

PRESSURE,

p2 (psf)

Active (Ka) Granular - 0.33 40 (0.33)S 40 H

Near At-Rest (K) Granular – 0.40 48 (0.40)S 48 H

At-Rest (Ko) Granular - 0.50 60 (0.50)S 60 H

Passive (Kp) Granular - 3.0 360 --- ---

Applicable conditions to the above include:

For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements of about

0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height

For passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance.

This value is typically reduced by a factor of safety (such as 2.0) to limit required movement to less than ½ inch.

Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure

In-situ soil backfill weight a maximum of 120 pcf

Horizontal backfill, compacted to at least 90 percent of modified Proctor maximum dry density

Loading from heavy compaction equipment not included

No hydrostatic pressures acting on wall (i.e., permanent drainage will be installed and maintained)

No dynamic loading

No safety factor included in soil parameters

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 15

Ignore passive pressure in frost zone

Backfill placed against retaining walls should consist of free-draining granular soils (less than 3 percent fines). For the granular values to be valid, the granular backfill must extend out from the base of the wall at an angle of at…