Building 14 Boiler Plant Geotechnical Report.pdf

Marion VA - Building 14 Marion, Illinois

BFW Project Number 22452

Submittal Date:

November 11, 2022

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

11/11/2022

Exp. 11/30/2023

November 11, 2022

Mr. Frank Espinal, P.E.

H2B, Inc.

1225 North Loop West, Suite 800 Houston, Texas 77008

RE: Geotechnical Services Report

Marion VA – Building 14 Marion, Kentucky

Dear Mr. Espinal, Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc. (BFW), is pleased to present the attached Geotechnical Exploration Report for the referenced site. The geotechnical exploration was conducted in accordance with applicable ASTM Standards.

The attached report includes a review of pertinent project information provided to us, descriptions of site and subsurface conditions encountered, and our general recommendations for foundations, site preparation and construction phase concerns. The Appendix contains a Boring Location Plan and results of all field and laboratory tests conducted for the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to serve you and look forward to future association with you on this and other projects. If you have questions concerning this report, please call our office.

Sincerely, Christopher L. Mathews, P.E. Christopher N. Farmer, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer/Project Manager Principal Engineer

Attachment: Geotechnical Exploration Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Project Information and Objective Existing Site Description Subsurface Exploratory Method

2. Subsurface Conditions Regional Geology Site-Specific Subsurface Conditions Groundwater

3. Laboratory Testing Laboratory Results

Natural Moisture Contents Atterberg Limits Unconfined Compressive Strength Soluble Sulfates

4. Geotechnical Considerations and Recommendations Basis for Recommendations Foundation Recommendations

Lateral Pile Response Foundation QA/QC

Seismic Design Parameters Concrete Slabs Lateral Earth Pressures Groundwater General Site Preparation Recommendations

Clearing / Grubbing / Stripping Subgrade Preparation Engineered Fill Placement Surface Water Control

Other Design Considerations Project Specifications Construction Monitoring

5. Qualifications of Recommendations

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Boring Log / Laboratory Procedure Guide

Appendix B – Boring Location Plan

Appendix C – Subsurface Boring Log

Appendix D – Soil Laboratory Data

Appendix E – ReMi Results

TABLES

Table 1.1 – Boring Depths Table 2.1 – Groundwater Elevations Table 3.1 – Natural Moisture Content Table 3.2 – Atterberg Limits Table 3.3 – Unconfined Compressive Strength - Soil Table 3.4 – Unconfined Compressive Strength - Rock Table 3.5 – Soluble Sulfates Table 4.1 – LPile Parameters for Soil Table 4.2 – LPile Parameters for Rock Table 4.3 – Seismic Site Classification Table 4.4 – Seismic Design Parameters Table 4.3 – Static Lateral Earth Pressures

ACRONYMS

amsl above mean sea level ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BFW Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc.

bgs below ground surface

DGA densely graded aggregate ksf kips per square foot

LL Liquid Limit

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service pcf pounds per cubic foot PI Plasticity Index PL Plastic Limit psf pounds per square foot psi pounds per square inch

SPT standard penetration test

USCS Unified Soil Classification System USGS United States Geologic Survey

Geotechnical Exploration Report

Marion, Illinois BFW Project: 22452

1. PROJECT INFORMATION AND OBJECTIVE

A seismic feasibility study is planned for Building 14 (B14) at the Veterans Administration Center in Marion, Illinois.

The purpose of our geotechnical services was to determine the current nature and capacities of the in-situ soils pertinent to the support of the existing structure, as requested in the RFP dated August 2, 2022.

Based on the information provided in the RFP, the assumed structural loads are:

• Column service dead load reactions will vary from 75,000 pounds to 115,000 pounds and service live load reactions will vary from 9,800 pounds to 20,000 pounds, respectively.

• Wall service dead live loads to continuous footings will vary from 6,870 pounds per lineal foot (plf) to 7,620 plf and service live line loads will vary between 100 plf and 400 plf, respectively.

Our recommendations are based on the load requirements above. If these loads will be exceeded our recommendations may require modification. Please contact BFW for any changes so that we can review the changes to the scope outlined herein.

EXISTING SITE DESCRIPTION

Building 14 currently houses the steam plant for the VA hospital in Marion, Illinois. The structure is assumed to be constructed in the 1950’s and has had little to no structural modifications. The structure is two stories with a basement that is ground level and accessible in the north side of the building. Additionally, a partial sub-basement is present that houses tanks and provides access to steam tunnels. This floor is exhibiting water seepage through a previous concrete cut near the middle of the floor. There is also a sump pit beneath the sub-basement floor. Building 14 is bound to the south by a roadway and parking surface, north by a grassy area, east by above ground tanks and a grassy area, and to the west by new construction that appears to be a parking area.

Figure 1.1 – Site Location

SITE

Marion, Illinois BFW Project: 22452

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATORY METHOD

The procedures used by Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc. (BFW) for field and laboratory sampling and testing are in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures, and established engineering practice. A total of Seven (7) test borings were advanced during the exploration. Borings were advanced to the depths summarized in Table 1.1. See the Boring Location Plan and Subsurface Boring Logs in Appendix B and C, respectively for more detail.

Table 1.1 – Boring Depths

Test Boring Auger Refusal Depth (feet below ground surface)

Total Depth (feet below ground surface)

B-1 31.6 41.1 B-2 30.3 40.2 B-5 34.2 44.2 B-6 34.7 50.1 B-7 36.3 46.3

C-1 NA 10.0

C-2 NA 10.0

Soil samples for laboratory evaluation were obtained using a CME-550 track-mounted rotary-drilling rig at locations outside of Building 14, and a concrete core machine and hand auger were used to obtain soil samples within Building 14. The test borings were advanced in accordance with geotechnical investigative procedures outlined in ASTM D-1452. Rock coring techniques were used to advance the borings beyond the auger refusal depth. Borings were backfilled with native soil cuttings and patched with either asphalt cold-patch or quick setting cement, where appropriate, at the completion of the subsurface investigation. The hand auger borings within the building were backfilled with bentonite chips upon completion.

Disturbed samples were retrieved during Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) [ASTM D-1586] using an automatic hammer assembly at various depths in the underlying stratum. The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter split-barrel sampler (split-spoon) into the soil with a 140-pound weight falling freely through 30 inches. The sampler was driven in three (3) successive 6-inch increments, with the number of blows per increment being recorded. The number of blows required to advance the sampler the last 12 inches is termed the Standard Penetration Resistance (N).

Where possible, undisturbed samples were also collected by advancing steel Shelby Tubes into the underlying soils. Shelby tubes are approximately 3-inches in diameter and have a knife edge along one end of the tube.

After advancing Shelby Tube by hydraulically pushing into the soils, the “undisturbed” soil core remains inside the tube and is sealed to preserve the natural moisture content. If gravel or large stone is present within the underlying soil matrix, then Shelby Tube will be unable to be advanced. Once at the laboratory, the soil core is pushed out of the tube in the same direction as initially advanced and is preserved for further testing.

Unconfined compressive strength tests are typically conducted on the preserved soil cores.

Drilling operations and visual classification of soil samples were performed in general accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D-2488 guidelines. Records of the conditions encountered, and visual soil classification were prepared and incorporated in Subsurface Boring Logs included in Appendix C.

The Subsurface Boring Logs represent BFW’s interpretation of the conditions encountered within the soil test borings. It should be noted that strata changes may vary from those encountered within the soil test borings, transitions may be gradual or abrupt, and conditions may vary significantly at other locations. The groundwater information listed represents conditions at the time of drilling activities. Representative soil samples obtained from the boring were preserved in plastic bags, sealed, and taken to the laboratory for testing.

Marion, Illinois BFW Project: 22452

2. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) online web soil database was reviewed to determine the type of soil underlying the area of interest. Based on the available data the subject property is shown divided with Bluford Silt Loam on the north half and Urban Land on the south half. Urban Land is described as areas that have been mostly disturbed from natural soil formation due to manmade or construction activities. The Bluford Silt Loam is described as silt from a ground moraine containing loess and drift. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) this area is underlain by the Carbondale Formation which consists of gray shale, siltstone, sandstone, limestone, and coal bearing shale.

SITE-SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subsurface conditions across the project site consisted of layered soil zones including sandy lean clays overlain by silt or sand. Soil layering was moderately consistent between the borings with some variations in layer thicknesses and presence.

Borings B-1 and B- encountered between 9 and 12 inches of asphaltic or concrete pavement at the surface. The remaining exterior borings encountered a 3 to 4 inches of grass and topsoil at the surface. The native soils generally consisted of layers of lean clay, lean clay with gravel, sandy lean clay, gravelly sand, and silt. The soils were typically stiff to very stiff with SPT N-values generally increasing with depth.

Augur refusal on bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from 30.3 to 36.3 feet, The bedrock generally consisted of a sandstone overlaying shale. The shale contained a limestone layer of variable thickness. The sandstone was brown to light brown, fine grained, and had a variable thickness of approximately 1 to 5 feet.

Beneath the sandstone a dark gray shale that was generally more weathered and clayey near the top and became more competent with depth. The limestone layer was gray and highly weathered, and generally in or beneath the shale with a variable thickness of approximately 6 inches to 2 feet. The limestone layer was not encountered in boring B-1

GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was encountered in all seven (7) of the borings at the time of drilling activities. Water levels and elevations are provided in the table below. It should be noted that the ground water level is dependent upon seasonal and climatic variations and may be present at different depths in the future. It should also be noted that groundwater began coming out of the hole once the concrete was cored at location C-1 within the building.

This is consistent with the water issues that have been observed in the basement of the building.

Table 2.1 – Groundwater Elevations

Boring Groundwater Depth (at time of drilling completion)

B-1 10.5 B-2 15.8 B-5 8.5 B-6 12.8 B-7 8.0 C-1 0.0 C-2 5.4

Marion, Illinois BFW Project: 22452

3. LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory soil tests were conducted in accordance with applicable ASTM Standards. Natural moisture contents were determined for all samples collected. Liquid limits (LL) and Plastic Limits (PL) tests were conducted on selected soil samples to verify field classification of the soils. In addition, these tests evaluate the potential for volumetric changes in the soil. Laboratory test results are tabulated in Appendix D.

LABORATORY RESULTS

Natural Moisture Contents

Natural moisture contents were determined for the soil samples collected. Table 3.1 provides the range of moisture content derived from the soil samples analyzed.

Table 3.1 – Natural Moisture Content

Atterberg Limits

Atterberg Limit tests were performed on representative samples. Table 3.2 provides the results of the Atterberg Limits:

Table 3.2 – Atterberg Limits

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Unconfined compressive strength tests were performed on soil and rock samples. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 provide the results of the unconfined compressive strengths tests:

Table 3.3 – Unconfined Compressive Strength - Soil

Depth Minimum Maximum 0-5.0’ 6.0 27.0

7.5-15’ 14.0 23.8

20-35’ 7.8 23.9

Sample Depth LL PL PI Classification

B-1 5.0’ 40 26 14 CL

B-2 3.0’ 29 20 9 CL

B-2 10.0’ 30 18 12 CL

B-5 3.0’ 31 19 12 CL

C-1 0.5’ 31 19 12 CL

C-2 1.0’ 35 17 18 CL

Sample Depth Compressive Strength (psf) Strain at Failure (%)

B-1 5.0’ 2,485 2.7

B-2 10’ 2,547 2.7

B-6 10’ 1,080 3.7

B-7 5’ 2,034 2.1

Marion, Illinois BFW Project: 22452

Table 3.4 – Unconfined Compressive Strength - Rock

Soluble Sulfates

Soluble sulfates tests were performed on representative soil samples. Table 3.5 provides the results of the sulfate tests

Table 3.5 – Soluble Sulfates

Sample Depth Compressive Strength (ksf)

B-1 33.5’ 109

B-2 38’ 173

B-5 34.8’ 194

B-6 46.5’ 91

B-7 44.7’ 122

Sample Depth pH (H20) pH(CaCl2) Soluble Sulfates

B-1 5.0’ 4.7 3.8 <105 mg/Kg-Dry

B-2 3.0’ 4.2 3.2 319 mg/Kg-Dry

B-5 3.0’ 6.0 5.4 <535 mg/Kg-Dry

B-6 10.0’ 4.8 3.9 <605 mg/Kg-Dry

Marion, Illinois BFW Project: 22452

4. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of the subsurface exploration, current site conditions observed, and laboratory results, items of geotechnical interest and considerations are discussed in the following sections.

BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are based on data from this exploration and the stated project information.

In our evaluations, we have utilized both subsurface data from this exploration and our experience with similar structures and subsurface conditions. If the structural information is incorrect or changed after our reporting, if the siting or building components have been changed, or if the subsurface conditions encountered during the construction vary from those reported, our recommendations should be reviewed based on the changed conditions.

Experience indicates that the actual subsoil conditions at a site could vary from those generalized based on soil test borings made at specific locations. Therefore, it is essential that a geotechnical engineer be retained to provide soil-engineering services during the site preparation, excavation, and foundation construction phases of the proposed project. The geotechnical engineer should observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on information provided by KFC Engineering on November 4, 2022, drilled shafts will be utilized for the project. Drilled shafts designed to obtain their load carrying capacity through skin friction and end bearing in bedrock are suitable for support of the proposed improvements. Due to strain incompatibility, skin friction should be ignored in the soils above bedrock. Drilled piers socketed at least 1-foot into bedrock can be designed for allowable tip resistance of 11 kips per square foot (ksf). In addition to the allowable tip resistance, piers socketed at least one pier diameter into bedrock can utilize an allowable skin friction of 2 ksf. The uplift capacity of the pier foundations should be computed as the sum of the weight of the foundation element and the frictional resistance (adhesion) between the pier shaft and bedrock

In addition, the drilled shafts will require casing, likely extending from the ground surface elevation to the top of bedrock, to prevent collapse of the soft soils into the pier, as well as allowing for downhole testing and observation. Furthermore, groundwater is anticipated to be encountered during drilling and will require pumping prior to concrete placement. If excessive groundwater flows are encountered, concrete may need to be placed utilizing the tremie method if a dry hole cannot be maintained.

Lateral Pile Response

The lateral response can be developed by modeling the soil/shaft interaction with the computer program LPILE.

Discrete elements are used in LPILE to represent the shaft and non-linear soil using springs. The non-linear soil springs are commonly referred to as P-Y curves. Based on the encountered subsurface conditions, Tables 4.1 and 4.2 summarizes the approximate soil and rock parmeters for the LPILE analyses (Reference: LPILE User’s Manual, Ensoft, Inc., 2022).

Table 4.1 – LPile Parameters for Soil

Depth

(ft) Soil Model Effective Unit

Weight (pcf) Cohesion

(psf) E50

0 to 10 Stiff Clay without Free Water 120 1,000 0.007

10 to 30 Stiff Clay without Free Water 57.6 1,000 0.007

Table 4.2 – LPile Parameters for Rock

Depth (ft) Soil Model Effective

Unit Weight (pcf)

Strain Factor, krm

Rock Compressive Strength (psi)

Modulus of Rock

Mass (psi)

RQD

30+ Weak Rock 72.6 0.0005 833 10,000 50

Foundation QA/QC

BFW should observe the bearing material in each pier, to confirm that competent bearing materials are present and that the bearing surface has been adequately cleaned. To allow for downhole observation of the bearing materials, the minimum shaft diameter should be 30 inches. QA/QC for the drilled shafts should include a combination of using a shaft inspection device (SID camera) and Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) testing to ensure the bottom is clean and verify the integrity of the concrete. This will also verify that the estimated uplift capacities are present.

SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

According to the International Building Code (IBC 2015), structures are required to be designed for seismic accelerations. A seismic site class is used to classify a site according to specific site soil conditions. The Site Class accounts for the effect of local soil conditions on the ground motion and shall be based on the types of soils present and their engineering properties. The Seismic Site Class is designated by letters A through E. These letter designations are based on specific in-situ soil properties within the upper 100 feet of the soil stratum and can be chosen based on one of the following methods including: a direct measurement of the soil shear wave velocity or correlation based on weighted averages of the Standard Penetration Data and/or Soil Undrained Shear Strength values.

For the subject site the Seismic Site Class was evaluated by a measurement of the soil shear wave velocity by performing Refraction Microtremor (ReMi) survey on the site. ReMi is a surface-performed geophysical survey utilized to evaluate the surface waves, in particular Rayleigh Waves. The evaluation of the surface waves allows for a one-dimensional shear wave velocity determination with respect to depth to be developed. Once the shear wave velocity is obtained the Seismic Site Class can be determined per the letter designations from Section 1613.2.3 of the IBC.

The weighted average shear wave velocity was determined to be 1,520 feet per second. Based on Table 20.3-1 Site Classification of ASCE 7-10, and the average shear wave velocity, the following seismic site class was determined. The results of the ReMi survey are included in Appendix E.

Marion, Illinois BFW Project: 22452

Table 4.3 – Seismic Site Classification

Vs(avg) Site Class 1,520 ft/s C

Seismic Design Parameters are determined based on the Seismic Site Class, the structure Risk Category and the Earthquake accelerations to an earthquake with a 2 percent Probability of Exceedance (PE) over a 50-year exposure period (i.e. a 2,475-year design earthquake). The 2,475-year design earthquake has a Moment Magnitude (Mw) of 7.7 and a Modified Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) of 0.70g as determined from data provided by IBC 2015 and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project.

Based on the procedures outlined in IBC 2015 and the results of our subsurface exploration, a Site Class D should be used for foundation design. Seismic design parameters, as determined from IBC 2015, are presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.4 – Seismic Design Parameters

Site Class C

FA 1.04

FV 1.49

FPGA 1.00

SS 0.90

S1 0.31

PGA 0.51

PGAM 0.51

SDS 0.63

SD1 0.31

CONCRETE SLABS

If subgrade soils are properly compacted as described in this report, then a modulus of subgrade reaction

(k) of 175 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for floor slab design if the subgrade is properly compacted throughout to at least 95% of Standard Proctor and within 2% of optimum.

If the subgrade has been properly compacted and inspected, a minimum of 4-inch-thick layer of free-draining compacted granular aggregate should be placed beneath the proposed floor slab. The compacted aggregate will provide a better load distribution from the floor slab to the soil, and it will provide additional protection against the migration of moisture upward through the floor slab.

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Static lateral earth pressures are dependent on the relative rigidity and allowable movement of the retaining structure as well as the strength properties of the backfill soil and drainage conditions behind the retaining structure. The lateral earth pressure is significantly dependent on the lateral deformations which occur in the soil. A restrained retaining structure (at-rest conditions) will experience higher lateral earth pressures than a retaining structure that is free to move (active condition).

It is recommended that granular material such as limestone aggregate be used as backfill for any proposed foundation or retaining walls to aid in reducing the lateral pressures. Granular backfill should have maximum moist unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with a friction angle of at least 34 degrees.

Cohesive soils should be avoided as backfill against the permanent structures due to the increased lateral load. The gravel back fill should be placed in the area behind the wall that extends from the bottom of the footing at 1:1 upward until the subgrade of the main floor area is reached.

Marion, Illinois BFW Project: 22452

Groundwater was encountered at relatively shallow depths. It is therefore recommended that proper drainage be included in the design to remove water from behind the foundation wall. Drainage is also recommended for any retaining walls but could also include the use of weep holes.

Table 4.5 provides lateral earth pressures for in-situ cohesive soils. Values for granular backfill assume that granular soils are used as backfill against the structure and at a 1:1 from bottom of foundation upward to intersect level ground at main floor subgrade elevation

Table 4.3 – Static Lateral Earth Pressures

Material Type

Soil Moisture

Assumption

Earth Pressure Condition

Earth Pressure Coefficient

Equivalent Fluid Pressure

(psf)

Cohesive Soil

Saturated Active (Pa) 0.39 53

At-Rest (P0) 0.56 76

Submerged Active (Pa) 0.39 91

At-Rest (P0) 0.56 103

Granular Limestone

Backfill

Saturated Active (Pa) 0.29 40

At-Rest (P0) 0.46 61

Submerged Active (Pa) 0.29 84

At-Rest (P0) 0.46 95

1) Lateral pressures for level backfill calculated using an average of the Rankine and Coulomb

Equations for active/at rest earth pressures using assumed unit weights and friction angles as specified.

2) Additional loading from foundations near wall must be added.

GROUNDWATER

During drilling, groundwater began seeping out between the concrete slab and soil interface in boring C-1. The hole was left overnight and when we returned to the site the next day an artesian condition existed such that groundwater was observed seeping out onto the basement floor. Additionally, based on our discussions with facilities personnel there has been issues with groundwater entering the basement. We observed the conditions in the sump located in the basement and the water in the sump was observed to be several feet below the top of slab elevation, suggesting that the subgrade drainage to the sump has failed since water rose out of the borehole in the basement. We recommend contacting a contractor specializing in basement waterproofing be contacted to discuss options for retrofitting the basement with new drain tile such that water that collects below the floor slab can drain to the sump.

GENERAL SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Clearing / Grubbing / Stripping

The subject site should be cleared, stripped, and grubbed of topsoil/organics, old footings/foundations, basement walls/floors, historic septic systems, asphalt, deleterious materials, and soft/unsuitable soils. Any extensive soft soil deposits encountered should be evaluated by extensive proof rolling and/or shallow excavations to determine the amount of undercutting required. Under no circumstances should the stripped material (i.e. old fill, trees, topsoil) be used as fill for any excavations, low-lying areas, or for any subsurface structural element. Based on the historic presence of former structures on site and the felling

Marion, Illinois BFW Project: 22452 of trees, there is a significant potential that buried debris and other deleterious materials likely will be encountered across the site.

Subgrade Preparation After stripping and clearing, the areas intended to support floor slabs, new fill, and pavements should be carefully inspected by qualified geotechnical personnel. Any soft or unsuitable soils should be undercut and replaced with properly compacted engineered fill. Competent geotechnical personnel should be present during any undercutting activities to determine when adequate subgrade bearing has been achieved.

The site subgrade should be proof rolled in the presence of competent geotechnical personnel. Proof-rolling activities should occur after a suitable period of dry weather to avoid degrading the subgrade. Proof-rolling should be performed by making repeated passes over the subgrade with a 20 to 30-ton loaded truck or other pneumatic-tired vehicle of similar size and weight. The vehicle should make enough passes in each of two perpendicular directions covering the proposed development area.

Any areas judged to deflect excessively during, proof rolling should be undercut and rerolled. This process should be repeated until all soft soils are removed or the geotechnical engineer recommends an alternate stabilization method such as lime or cement stabilization. If removal of soft soils is impractical due to their excessive depth, “bridging” of the soft soils can often be accomplished by working 2- to 4-inch clean crushed rock into the softer soils and then placing a geofabric, such as Mirafi 600X or equivalent, prior to placing additional fill.

Any proof rolling activities should occur immediately before fill placement. If fill material is not immediately placed and subgrade can stand unprotected, then additional proof-rolling activities will be required in the same area to verify subgrade stability.

It is important to note that at the end of each day or prior to any rainfall events that the site subgrade be smoothed and rolled to minimize any surface water infiltration. The site grading should always provide for positive site drainage away from the project site even during construction activities. Surface water / storm water should not be allowed to pond on the surface or in tire ruts.

Engineered Fill Placement Prior to any fill activities taking place, we recommend that representative samples of the proposed fill material be collected (minimum 5-gallon container of material) and tested to determine the laboratory compaction characteristics, plasticity, and natural moisture contents. The tests should be conducted to determine the suitability of proposed fill material. Based on the subsurface data obtained, the in-situ soils should be acceptable for use as engineered fill material once stripped of topsoil / organics and rootballs.

Proposed fill materials should be free of organics, deleterious debris, or rocks larger than 3 inches in diameter. Suitable fill soil should have a plasticity index (PI) of less than 30 and a maximum dry density according to the standard Proctor compaction test of at least 100 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). All fill soils and fill pads should be properly compacted and tested.

The fill should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the soil maximum dry density (ASTM D-698 “Standard Proctor”) under structures, building slabs and proposed paved areas. Fill materials in lawn area should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density. Moisture contents of the fill materials should be maintained to within ± 2 percent of the soil’s optimum moisture.

The soil should be placed in lifts of 8 inches or less for materials compacted by heavy equipment and not more than 4 inches loose depth for hand compaction equipment. Each lift should be compacted and tested by nuclear density gauge methods prior to placing additional lifts every 2,500 square feet. All fill pads should extend laterally at least 10 feet beyond the building before sloping down. In-place density testing should be conducted for each lift placed to check the compaction achieved.

Positive surface drainage should be maintained to prevent water from ponding on the surface during all earthwork operations. After each day’s work or prior to any anticipated rainfall, the subgrade should be

Marion, Illinois BFW Project: 22452 rolled with a rubber-tired or steel-drummed roller to improve surface runoff. The geotechnical engineer should be notified if the subgrade soils become excessively wet, dry, or frozen.

As is common construction knowledge, extremely large tire loadings are typically present on construction sites from dump trucks, concrete trucks, masonry block and brick/masonry block forklifts (Pettybone). The tire loadings from these vehicles are usually the most significant concentrated loadings that the soil subgrades will most likely be encountered. In many cases these tire loadings will exceed the overall shear strength of the in-situ soils or recently placed engineered fill and rutting and pumping will occur as a result.

This is especially true during repeated heavy tire loadings occur when the soil subgrade wet or above its optimum moisture content. It is important that the site subgrade be properly maintained by the contractor for the extent of the entire project. The site should not be allowed to become rutted or water allowed to pond.

Surface Water Control Surface water should not be allowed to pond on the building subgrade surfaces. This is especially true during construction activities. Proper erosion and sedimentation control plans must be developed as per the City and State requirement.

OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Project Specifications

Specifications for this project should meet local building codes and OSHA guidelines. The observations, recommendations, and considerations presented in this report should be fully read and understood by the owner, project designer(s) and contractor(s) prior to final submittal of project plans and specifications.

Construction Monitoring The implementation of a soil and concrete quality testing program aids in assuring that the product is that which was designed. Thorough testing also allows opportunity for correction before major problems develop. For these reasons, Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc. (BFW), recommends the retainage of a qualified testing laboratory (by the Owner) to conduct quality tests on structural fill, aggregate base course, and concrete placement.

Marion, Illinois BFW Project: 22452

5. QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Our evaluation of foundation and pavement design and construction conditions has been based on our understanding of the site and on conditions encountered in the five widely spaced boring locations at the time of investigation. The general subsurface conditions used were based on our interpolation of the subsurface data between the borings. Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface investigation, there is the possibility that conditions between borings will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions. Therefore, experienced geotechnical engineers should observe earthwork and foundation construction to confirm that the conditions anticipated in design are noted. Otherwise, BFW assumes no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations.

The design recommendations in this report have been developed based on the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions. If project criteria or locations change, a qualified geotechnical engineer should be permitted to determine whether the recommendations must be modified. The findings of such a review will be presented in a supplemental report.

The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until the course of construction.

If such variations are encountered, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report after on-site observations of the conditions.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings derived, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied. BFW is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on this data.

Appendix A Boring Log / Laboratory Procedure Guide

BORING LOG / LABORATORY PROCEDURE GUIDE

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc., conducts soil test borings, field sampling and laboratory analysis in general accordance with methods of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and generally accepted engineering practices. Soil test borings were advanced with truck or track mounted rotary-type drilling rig equipment. Hollow stem or solid flight augers were used to advance soil test borings (ASTM D 1452). A series of soil samples are typically obtained for visual inspection and laboratory analysis during drilling activities. The samples collected may include disturbed, undisturbed or auger cutting samples.

BORING LOCATIONS / ELEVATIONS

Boring Locations are either selected by our project manager or have been selected by the client. The borings are typically located in the field by estimating right angles and measuring distances from site landmarks. Because of the locating methods used, the boring locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan (In Appendix) are approximate unless specifically noted. When topographic plans of the site are provided, the project engineer estimates the surface elevation of the boring locations using available information. Surveying to determine the locations and elevations of the borings is typically beyond the scope of the typical geotechnical study. Therefore, the boring locations and elevations should be considered approximate unless specifically noted.

BORING LOGS / RECORDS

The Subsurface Boring Logs included in this report are our interpretation of the conditions encountered at each boring location. The Subsurface Boring Logs are prepared on the basis of the field crew’s observations during drilling, engineering review of the soil samples obtained, and laboratory testing on selected samples. Soil descriptions are made using the Unified Soil Classification System and ASMT D 2488 as guides. The depths designating strata changes on the Boring Records are estimations. In many geologic settings, the transition between strata is gradual.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL READINGS

Groundwater levels are monitored in each borehole upon the completion of drilling. In low permeability soils such as silts and clays, the groundwater level in the boreholes may take several or more hours to stabilize. Therefore, when possible, water level readings are also made at least 24-hours after drilling activities cease. Groundwater levels may be dependent upon recent rainfall activity and other site specific factors. Since these conditions may change with time, the water level information presented on the Subsurface Boring Logs represents the conditions only at the time each measurement is taken.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

Soil samples are typically obtained at selected depths during the drilling activities. Representative portions of the soil samples obtained are placed in sealed containers, labeled, and transported to the laboratory. The soil samples obtained are used for visual classification, and for strength, index and consistency testing. Samples obtained from the drilling activities include: Disturbed, undisturbed and bulk samples. Disturbed samples are collected during the Standard Penetration Tests using a split spoon sampler and hammer as described in the following section. Undisturbed samples are obtained by advancing a thin-walled Shelby tube with hydraulic pressure as described in the following section. Bulk samples are obtained from the auger cuttings generated during the advancement of the augers.

The STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D 1586) is a method to obtain disturbed soil samples for examination and testing and to obtain relative density and consistency information. A standard 1.4-inch I.D. / 2-inch O. D. split-barrel (split spoon) sampler is driven three 6-inch increments with a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. The hammer can either be of a trip, free-fall design or actuated by a rope and cathead. The hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final foot is the standard penetration resistance (N-value). Standard penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, is an index to the soil’s strength, consistency and density. Upon completion of each standard penetration test, the sampler is brought to the surface and the tube is split open to expose the soils penetrated. Our project manager / engineer examines the soil and places a representative portion of the soil into a sealed container for transportation to our laboratory.

BORING LOG / LABORATORY PROCEDURE GUIDE

(Continued)

UNDISTURBED SOIL SAMPLING (ASTM D 1587) is a method used to obtain a relatively undisturbed soil sample for more precise laboratory analysis including unconfined compressive strengths, compressibility or permeability. Undisturbed soil sampling is conducted by advancing a 3–inch O. D., 16 gauge, steel tube (Shelby Tube) with a sharpened edge slowly and uniformly into the underlying soil stratum under constant hydraulic pressure to the desired sampling elevation. The tube is then removed from the ground and both ends are sealed to prevent loss of moisture. The depth at which the undisturbed samples were collected is indicated on the Subsurface Boring Logs.

SOIL LABORATORY TESTS

The MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D 2216) of soils is an indicator of various physical properties, including strength and compressibility. Each test sample is weighed and then placed in an oven (110°C ± 5°C). The sample remains in the oven until the free moisture has evaporated. The dried sample is removed from the oven, allowed to cool and then reweighed. The moisture content is computed by dividing the weight of evaporated water by the weight of the dry sample. The results are expressed as a percent.

ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D 4318) tests are used to help define the relationship between behavior changes in fine-grained soils at different moisture contents values. Depending upon the moisture content, a fine-grained soil may occur in a liquid, plastic, semi-solid, or solid state. These set of tests are used to establish the approximate moisture contents at which the soil changes its state. LIQUID LIMIT – a soil specimen is wetted until it is in a viscous fluid state. A portion of the soil is then placed in a standardized dimension brass cup, and a groove is made through the middle of the soil specimen with a grooving tool of standardized dimensions. The cup is attached to a cam that lifts it 10 mm, and then allows it to freefall and strike a hard rubber base. The cam is rotated at about 2 drops per second until the two halves of the soil specimen come in contact at the bottom of the groove along a distance of 13 mm. The number of blows required to close the groove is recorded, and a portion of the specimen is subjected to moisture content determination. Additional water is added to the remainder of the specimen, and the grooving process and cam action process repeated. After the third trial, the number of blows versus moisture content is plotted on semi-logarithmic graph paper. The moisture content corresponding to 25 blows is designated as the Liquid Limit.

The Plastic Limit is the lowest moisture content at which the soil is sufficiently plastic to be manually rolled into threads 3 mm in diameter. It is determined by taking a pat of soil remaining from the liquid limit test, and repeatedly rolling, kneading, and air drying the specimen until the soil breaks into threads about 3 mm in diameter and 3 to 10 mm long. The moisture content of these soil threads is then determined, and is designated the Plastic Limit.

A PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS determines the distribution of particles sizes in soils. Distribution of particle sizes larger than the No. 200 sieve is determined by the sieving process, while the distribution of particles smaller than the No. 200 sieve are determined by a sedimentation process, using a hydrometer. In the sieving process the soil is prepared by air drying and crushing, to separate clusters that clump together. A series of sieves, that consist of a square mesh woven-wire cloth having different size openings as per ASTM specifications are each weighed individually. They are stacked with the greatest size opening at the top with each successive lower sieve having smaller openings. A pan is placed on the bottom of the stack to catch soil finer that the # 200 sieve (0.75 mm).

The soil is placed into the top sieve of the stack and is covered. The nest of sieves is placed and locked into a sieve shaker which is then agitated for approximately 10 minutes. Each sieve is reweighed with the retained soil.

A semi-logarithmic graph is created showing the percent passing each specific sieve size.

The UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST, (ASTM D 2166) is a relatively quick method to obtain the approximate compressive strength of soils that possess sufficient cohesion to allow testing in the unconfined state. An undisturbed sample is obtained from the borehole with a Shelby Tube sampler. The tube is sealed in the field to retain natural moisture content. Once in the laboratory the undisturbed sample is extruded from the tube and cut to a specified length. The sample measurements are recorded. The sample is placed in its natural state in a compressive strength load frame. The sample is compressed under increasing load. Measurements of the load applied and the sample strain are recorded. Upon specimen failure the test is concluded and a graph of stress versus strain is plotted. The maximum stress applied is defined as the unconfined compressive strength.

Subsurface Boring Log Legend

Standard Penetration Test (N-Value Tables)

Fine Grained Soils Coarse Grained Soils (Silts & Clays) (Sands & Gravels)

Particle Sizes Relative Proportions

Boring Log Symbols / Abbreviations

N: Blows per foot of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30-inches on a 2 inch O. D. split spoon

Qp: Unconfined compressive strength, hand penetrometer, tsf

Qu: Unconfined compressive strength, Shelby tube sample, ksf

Mc: Percent of water in sample (%)

Dd: Sample Dry Density, pcf

LL: Liquid Limit

PL: Plastic Limit

PI: Plasticity Index

-# 200: Percent of sample passing a # 200 sieve (0.075mm)

-#4: Percent of sample passing a # 4 sieve

N Consistency Qu, (KSF) Estimate Only

N Relative Density

0 - 1 Very Soft 0 – 0.25 0 – 4 Very Loose

2 – 4 Soft 0.25 – 0.5 5 – 10 Loose

5 – 8 Firm 0.5 – 1.0 11 – 20 Firm

9 – 15 Stiff 1.0 – 2.0 21 – 30 Very Firm

16 – 30 Very Stiff 2.0 – 4.0 31 – 50 Dense

Over 30 Hard > 4.0 Over 50 Very Dense

Descriptive Term Percent

Trace 1 – 10

Little 11 – 20

Some 21 – 35

And 36 - 50

Boulders Greater than 300 mm (12 in)

Cobbles 75 mm to 300 mm (3 to 12 in)

Gravel 4.74 mm to 75 mm (3/16 to 3 in)

Coarse Sand 2 mm to 4.75 mm

Medium Sand 0.425 mm to 2 mm

Fine Sand 0.075 mm to 0.425 mm

Silts & Clays Less than 0.075 mm

Appendix B Boring Location Plan

1 inch : 46 feet 2022-10-31HK/BF22452 Project Number: Dra!ed/Checked: Date:

Marion VA - Building 14 2401 W Main St

Marion, Williamson County, IL

Boring Loca�on Plan

C-2 C-1

Appendix C

Subsurface Boring Logs

SPT

SS-1

ST

ST-1

SPT

SS-2

SPT

SS-3

SPT

SS-4

SPT

SS-5

SPT

SS-6

100250 psi

2-3-3 (6)

2-3-5 (8)

1-3-5 (8)

1-2-4 (6)

5-8-9 (17)

2-6-7 (13)

ASPHALT - 3"

CONCRETE - 6"

(CL) LEAN CLAY WITH SILT: Light grayish brown to brownish yellow, medium stiff, moist

(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL: Yellowish brown, medium stiff to hard, moist

DRILLING CONTRACTOR BFW

DATE STARTED 10/3/22 COMPLETED 10/4/22

DRILLED BY F. Woodard

LOGGED BY A.Milford CHECKED BY C. Mathews

LATITUDE 37.723892 LONGITUDE -88.952263

GROUND ELEVATION 458 ft HOLE SIZE 6.25 inches

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

AT TIME OF DRILLING 18.00 ft / Elev 440.00 ft

AT END OF DRILLING 10.50 ft / Elev 447.50 ft

AFTER DRILLING ---

DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger (CME45, track-mounted)

(Continued Next Page)

20 40 60 80

PL LLMC

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

S H

E A

R

(t sf

) SPT N VALUE

20 40 60 80

FINES CONTENT (%)

20 40 60 80

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING NUMBER B-1

CLIENT H2B, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 22452

PROJECT NAME Marion VA - Building 14

PROJECT LOCATION Marion, Illinois

G E

O T

E C

H B

H P

LO

T

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B

1.

G D

T

1/

1/

9:

C

:\P W

W O

R K

D

IR

\D

4\

M

A R

IO

N

V A

B U

IL

D

IN

G

4.

G P

J Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc.

500 S 17th St Paducah, KY 4203 Telephone: 270-443-1995

SS-7

RC

Run 1

RC

Run 2

(96)

(58)

8-50/3"

SANDSTONE: Light brown, fine grained

SHALE: Dark gray and brown, clayey and weathered near top, gradually becomes more competent with depth

Refusal at 31.6 feet.

Bottom of borehole at 41.1 feet.

20 40 60 80

PL LLMC

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

S H

E A

R

(t sf

) SPT N VALUE

20 40 60 80

FINES CONTENT (%)

20 40 60 80

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING NUMBER B-1

CLIENT H2B, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 22452

PROJECT NAME Marion VA - Building 14

PROJECT LOCATION Marion, Illinois

G E

O T

E C

H B

H P

LO

T

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B

1.

G D

T

1/

1/

9:

C

:\P W

W O

R K

D

IR

\D

4\

M

A R

IO

N

V A

B U

IL

D

IN

G

4.

G P

J Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc.

500 S 17th St Paducah, KY 4203

ST

ST-1

SPT

SS-1

SPT

SS-2

ST

ST-2

SPT

SS-3

SPT

SS-4

SPT

SS-5

400 psi

350 psi

3-7-7 (14)

3-3-3 (6)

1-1-3 (4)

3-6-8 (14)

3-7-8 (15)

ASPHALT - 12"

(SC) GRAVELLY SAND WITH CLAY: Light brownish gray, medium dense, moist

(CL) LEAN CLAY: Light brownish gray to brownish yellow, medium stiff to stiff, moist

(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY: Dark yellowish brown to brownish yellow, stiff to hard, moist

DRILLING CONTRACTOR BFW

DATE STARTED 10/4/22 COMPLETED 10/4/22

DRILLED BY F. Woodard

LOGGED BY A.Milford CHECKED BY C. Mathews

LATITUDE 37.723893 LONGITUDE -88.952499

GROUND ELEVATION 457 ft HOLE SIZE 6.25 inches

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

AT TIME OF DRILLING ---

AT END OF DRILLING 15.80 ft / Elev 441.20 ft

AFTER DRILLING ---

DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger (CME45, track-mounted)

(Continued Next Page)

20 40 60 80

PL LLMC

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

S H

E A

R

(t sf

) SPT N VALUE

20 40 60 80

FINES CONTENT (%)

20 40 60 80

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING NUMBER B-2

CLIENT H2B, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 22452

PROJECT NAME Marion VA - Building 14

PROJECT LOCATION Marion, Illinois

G E

O T

E C

H B

H P

LO

T

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B

1.

G D

T

1/

1/

9:

C

:\P W

W O

R K

D

IR

\D

4\

M

A R

IO

N

V A

B U

IL

D

IN

G

4.

G P

J Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc.

500 S 17th St

SS-6

RC

Run 1

RC

Run 2

RC

Run 3

(100)

(68)

(19)

50/3" SANDSTONE: Brown-orange, fine-medium grained

WEATHERED SHALE: Dark gray, clayey

LIMESTONE: Dark gray with fossil fragments

SHALE: Dark gray Refusal at 30.3 feet.

Bottom of borehole at 40.2 feet.

20 40 60 80

PL LLMC

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

S H

E A

R

(t sf

) SPT N VALUE

20 40 60 80

FINES CONTENT (%)

20 40 60 80

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING NUMBER B-2

CLIENT H2B, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 22452

PROJECT NAME Marion VA - Building 14

PROJECT LOCATION Marion, Illinois

G E

O T

E C

H B

H P

LO

T

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B

1.

G D

T

1/

1/

9:

C

:\P W

W O

R K

D

IR

\D

4\

M

A R

IO

N

V A

B U

IL

D

IN

G

4.

G P

J Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc.

500 S 17th St Paducah, KY 4203

SS

ST

ST-1

SS

SS-2

SS

SS-3

SS

SS-4

SS

SS-5

SS

SS-6

SS

SS-7

500 psi

7-12-9 (21)

3-3-4 (7)

2-2-2 (4)

1-2-1 (3)

3-5-5 (10)

3-5-6 (11)

3-5-6 (11)

TOPSOIL - 3"

(CL) LEAN CLAY WITH SILT: Brown to yellowish brown, very stiff to stiff, moist, coal fragments at lower depth

DRILLING CONTRACTOR BFW

DATE STARTED 9/29/22 COMPLETED 9/30/22

DRILLED BY F. Woodard

LOGGED BY F. Woodard CHECKED BY C. Mathews

LATITUDE 37.724261 LONGITUDE -88.952466

GROUND ELEVATION 449 ft HOLE SIZE 6.25 inches

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

AT TIME OF DRILLING 5.00 ft / Elev 444.00 ft

AT END OF DRILLING 8.50 ft / Elev 440.50 ft

AFTER DRILLING ---

DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger (CME45, track-mounted)

(Continued Next Page)

20 40 60 80

PL LLMC

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

S H

E A

R

(t sf

) SPT N VALUE

20 40 60 80

FINES CONTENT (%)

20 40 60 80

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING NUMBER B-5

CLIENT H2B, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 22452

PROJECT NAME Marion VA - Building 14

PROJECT LOCATION Marion, Illinois

G E

O T

E C

H B

H P

LO

T

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B

1.

G D

T

1/

1/

9:

C

:\P W

W O

R K

D

IR

\D

4\

M

A R

IO

N

V A

B…