Amendment 0002 Attachment 2 6007 Wilkes-Barre Geotechnical Report.pdf

ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Report

Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center

1111 East End Blvd.

Plains Township, Pennsylvania

ECS Project Number 18:6007

July 25, 2023

July 25, 2023 Mr. John J. Foley, AIA, LEED AP Apogee Consulting Group, PA 1151 Kildaire Farm Road Raleigh, NC 27511

ECS Project No. 18:6007

Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center Plains Township, Pennsylvania

Dear Mr. Foley:

ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering analyses for the above-referenced project. Our services were performed in general accordance with our Proposal No. 18:8614-GP, dated May 23, 2023. This report presents our understanding of the geotechnical aspects of the project, results of the field exploration, laboratory testing, and our design and construction recommendations.

It has been our pleasure to be of service to Apogee Consulting Group, PA, during this phase of this project. We would appreciate the opportunity to remain involved during the continuation of the design phase and to provide our services during construction phase operations as well to verify the assumptions of subsurface conditions made for this report. Should you have any questions concerning the information contained in this report, or if we can be of further assistance to you, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted, ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC

Kyle T. Eldridge Geotechnical Staff Project Manager keldridge@ecslimited.com

Derek G. Ridinger, P.E.

Associate Principal dridinger@ecslimited.com mailto:mhartman@ecslimited.com DRidinger

DGR

Wilkes Barre VA Medical Center July 25, 2023 ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Location Proposed Construction

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

Subsurface Characterization Site Geology Soil Survey Mapping Groundwater Observations Laboratory Testing

4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Foundation Design Floor Slabs Below Grade Walls Seismic Design Characteristics

5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

Subgrade Preparation

5.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing

5.1.2 Proofrolling

Earthwork Operations

5.2.1 Removal of Existing Structures

5.2.2 Existing Man-Placed Fill

5.2.3 Rock Excavation

5.2.4 Structural Fill Materials

5.2.5 Proposed Fill Slopes

Foundation and Slab Observations Utility Installations

6.0 CLOSING

Wilkes Barre VA Medical Center July 25, 2023 ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page ii

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Drawings & Reports

• Site Location Diagram

• Exploration Location Diagram

• Subsurface Cross-Section A-A’

• Geologic Map

• Soil Survey Map

Appendix B – Field Operations

• Subsurface Exploration Procedure: Standard Penetration Testing (SPT)

• Reference Notes for Boring Logs

• Reference Notes for Rock Cores

• Boring Logs

• Photographs

Appendix C – Laboratory Testing

• Laboratory Test Results Summary

• Plasticity Chart

• Grain Size Analyses

Wilkes Barre VA Medical July 25, 2023 ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration, particularly those that may have a cost impact on the planned development. Further, our principal foundation recommendations are summarized. Information gleaned from the Executive Summary should not be utilized in lieu of reading the entire geotechnical report.

• Provided the subgrades are prepared to the specifications provided herein, the proposed building can be supported by conventional shallow foundations consisting of column and/or strip footings. The foundations can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf based on anticipated design loads.

• Significant excavation difficulties which may slow down the construction process may occur, especially in areas of deep utility excavations and foundation excavations. Bedrock encountered prior to reaching the designed bottom of footing elevations should be overexcavated a minimum of 6 inches below the proposed footing elevations and replaced with compacted 2A aggregate.

• Groundwater seepage into our borings was not observed during our exploration at the depths explored.

• Up to approximately 3 feet of existing fill was noted within the proposed building footprint during the subsurface exploration. Due to the presence of fill on-site, select over-excavation of unsuitable fill material should be anticipated at some locations within the building pad where proofrolling reveals instability.

• Natural deposits of soils that meet the definition of Satisfactory Structural Fill do appear to be present on the site at possible excavation depths.

• The site can be designed utilizing a Seismic Site Classification of “C.”

Refer to the text of the report for site specific design and construction recommendations.

ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical information for design and construction of a proposed building addition at the project site. The recommendations developed for this report are based on project information supplied by Apogee Consulting Group, PA.

Our services were provided in accordance with the Proposal No. 18:8614-GP, dated May 23, 2023, as authorized by Apogee Consulting Group, PA, which includes our Terms and Conditions of Service.

This report contains the results of our subsurface exploration, site characterization, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed development.

This report includes the following:

• A review of area and site geologic conditions.

• A review of surface topographical features and site conditions.

• A brief review and description of our field procedures.

• A brief review and description of our field and laboratory test procedures and the results of testing conducted.

• A review of subsurface soil stratigraphy with pertinent available physical properties.

• Final copies of our boring logs.

• Discussion of site preparation including depth of removal of soil or rock and over-excavation.

• Discussion of groundwater concerns relative to the planned construction.

• Recommended allowable soil bearing pressure and recommendations for suitable shallow foundations and anticipated maximum settlement.

• Recommended frost depth.

• Recommendations regarding specifications for Structural Fill.

• Discussion of parameters for slab on grade construction and modulus of subgrade reaction.

• Recommendations for site seismic design coefficients based on the 2018 IBC parameters.

• Design and construction recommendations for below-grade or site retaining wall construction, including lateral earth pressures, sliding resistance coefficients and allowable bearing pressures, if applicable.

ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page 3

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT LOCATION

The project site is located at the physical address of 1111 East End Blvd. in Plains Township, Pennsylvania. The site is located on the Wilkes Barre VA Medical Center Campus, just North of the American Legion onsite. At the time of exploration, the project site consisted of an undeveloped courtyard and the site was generally flat with a total topographic relief on the order of approximately ±2 feet.

Refer to Figure 2.1.A and the Site Location Map in Appendix A for a detailed depiction of the project site location.

Figure 2.1.A – Site Location

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

Based on the provided Foundation Plan- Area A, by Apogee Consulting Group, PA, dated January 27, 2023, we understand that the proposed construction consists of an addition to the existing building.

The following information explains our understanding of the structure and assumed loads:

DESIGN VALUES

SUBJECT DESIGN INFORMATION / EXPECTATIONS

Approximate Building Footprint Approximately 3,200 S.F.

# of Stories Assumed 1 to 3 stories above grade

Usage VA Medical Center

Column Loads 75.0 Kips maximum

Wall Loads 10.0 kips/ft maximum

Lowest Finish Floor Elevation

(FFE)

Estimated ±1 foot of existing; estimated approximate El. 894.0

ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page 4

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

Our exploration procedures are explained in greater detail in Appendix B including the insert titled Subsurface Exploration Procedure. Our scope of work included drilling a total of two (2) geotechnical borings. Our exploration locations were located with a handheld GPS unit and their approximate locations are shown on the Exploration Location Diagram in Appendix A.

SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION

The following sections provide generalized characterizations of the soil strata. Please refer to both the Subsurface Cross-Section in Appendix A and the boring logs in Appendix B.

SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY

Stratum Description n/a Surficial Material:

Topsoil approximately 6 to 8 inches thick

I FILL Materials sampled as GRAVEL (GW/GM) with varying amounts of silt and sand, brown and gray, moist, medium dense to very dense

II

SANDSTONE, moderately weathered, soft, highly fractured, and gray, resulted in auger refusal as shallow as 2.5 feet below existing grade

SITE GEOLOGY

According to the Geologic Map of Pennsylvania (1980)1, the site is underlain by the Llewellyn Formation.

This formation is included in The Engineering Characteristics of the Rocks of Pennsylvania2, and are described as having the following characteristics.

The Llewellyn formation is an interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerate, exhibiting medium to coarse grain sizes. The formation is light gray to brown containing coal and dark gray to black shales.

The joints are moderately developed, moderately abundant, exhibiting a blocky pattern with moderate spacing. The bedrock formation is slightly too moderately weathered and found to be slightly weathered to a shallow depth. The Llewellyn formation possesses good surface drainage with moderate secondary porosity and permeability.

SOIL SURVEY MAPPING

Based on our review of the Soil Survey (USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service (websoilsurvey.ncrs.usda.gov), the site soils are mapped as cut and fill land. This soil type is described as having the following properties:

1 Berg, T. M., Edmunds, W. E., Geyer, A. R., and others, compilers, 1980, Geologic map of Pennsylvania (2nd ed.): Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Map 1, 3 sheets, scale 1:250,000 2 Geyer, A. R., and Wilshusen, J. P., (1982), Engineering Characteristics of the Rocks of Pennsylvania. Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey.

ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page 5

SOIL MAPPING SUMMARY

Mapped Soil Unit

Soil Unit

Symbol

Origin/ Type

Depth to Restrictive

Feature

Depth to Water Table

Hydrologic Soil

Group

KSat (in/hr)

Cut and Fill Land CF Man made >80 inches >80 inches N/A N/A

GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface exploration at the locations and depths explored. Additionally, no apparent signs of the seasonal high ground water table were observed while probing below the infiltration testing depths.

Variations in the long term water table may occur as a result of changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, construction activities, and other factors.

LABORATORY TESTING

The laboratory testing consisted of selected tests performed on samples obtained during our field exploration operations. Classification and index property tests were performed on representative soil samples.

Each sample was visually classified on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with ASTM D2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures) and including USCS classification symbols, and ASTM D2487 Standard Practice for Classification for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)). After classification, the samples were grouped in the major zones noted on the boring logs in Appendix B. The group symbols for each soil type are indicated in parentheses along with the soil descriptions. The stratification lines between strata on the logs are approximate; in situ, the transitions may be gradual.

ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page 6

4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

FOUNDATION DESIGN

Provided subgrades and engineered fills are prepared as discussed herein, the proposed addition can be supported by conventional shallow foundations consisting of column and continuous wall footings. The design of the foundations shall utilize the following parameters:

FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS

Design Parameter Column Footing Wall Footing

Net Allowable Bearing Pressure1 4,000 psf 4,000 psf

Acceptable Bearing Soil Material Stratum II or Structural

Fill

Stratum II or Structural Fill

Minimum Width 24 inches 18 inches

Minimum Footing Embedment Depth for Interior Foundations (below slab or finished grade) 24 inches 24 inches

Minimum Footing Embedment Depth for Exterior Foundations (below slab or finished grade)

36 inches 36 inches

Estimated Total Settlement (max.) 1 inch 1 inch

Estimated Differential Settlement Less than ½ inch between columns Less than ½ inch over

35 feet

Note1: Net allowable bearing pressure is the applied pressure in excess of the surrounding overburden soils above the base of the foundation.

The materials at the foundation bearing elevation are anticipated to be a combination of existing fill materials, new structural fill, and/or bedrock. If soft soils, existing fill, or otherwise unsuitable soils are observed at the footing bearing elevations, the unsuitable soils should be undercut and removed.

Foundation undercut excavations should be widened 1 foot beyond the footing dimension on each side and then 1 foot for every 1 foot of over excavation (equivalent to a 1(H):1(V) slope for improved bearing area) where overexcavation exceeds 2 feet in depth. The undercut areas should be backfilled with Structural Fill (such as 2A aggregate) and compacted under engineering review until the designed bearing elevation has been reached. As an alternate, lean concrete (f’c=1,000 psi) may be used to backfill the undercut. If lean concrete is used, the excavation should be 6 inches larger than the footing on each side and no additional lateral overexcavation is necessary.

Bedrock encountered prior to reaching the designed bottom of footing elevations should be overexcavated a minimum of 6 inches below the proposed footing elevations and replaced with compacted 2A aggregate. Transition zones from rock to soil should incorporate a minimum of 15 lineal feet of footing with overexcavation and replacement with 2A aggregate to a minimum depth of 1 foot to reduce the potential for differential settlement in the soil section.

ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page 7

FLOOR SLABS

Provided subgrades and Structural Fills are prepared as discussed herein, the proposed floor slabs can be constructed as Ground Supported Slabs (or Slab-On-Grade). Based on a lowest finished floor elevation of EL. 894.0 ft, it appears that the slabs will bear on Stratum I – Fill, GRAVEL (GW/GM).

Stratum I can be used for support of the slabs-on-grade provided the exposed subgrade passes a proofroll as described in this report. It should be noted that the long-term performance across the slab may be variable due to the presence of existing fill The following graphic depicts our soil-supported slab recommendations:

Figure 4.2.A

1. Drainage Layer Thickness: 6 inches minimum recommended

2. Drainage Layer Material: Coarse Graded Aggregate

3. Subgrade compacted to 95% maximum dry density in Accordance with ASTM D698

Soft or yielding soils may be encountered in some areas. Those soils should be removed and replaced with compacted Structural Fill in accordance with the recommendations included in this report.

Subgrade Modulus: Provided the Structural Fill and Granular Drainage Layer are constructed in accordance with our recommendations, the slab may be designed assuming a modulus of subgrade reaction, k1 of 150 pci (lbs./cu. inch). The modulus of subgrade reaction value is based on a 1 ft by 1 ft plate load test basis.

Vapor Barrier: Before the placement of concrete, a vapor barrier may be placed on top of the granular drainage layer to provide additional protection against moisture penetration through the floor slab.

When a vapor barrier is used, special attention should be given to surface curing of the slab to reduce the potential for uneven drying, curling and/or cracking of the slab. Depending on proposed flooring material types, the structural engineer and/or the architect may choose to eliminate the vapor barrier.

Slab Isolation: Soil-supported slabs should be isolated from the foundations and foundation-supported elements of the structure so that differential movement between the foundations and slab will not induce excessive shear and bending stresses in the floor slab. Where the structural configuration prevents the use of a free-floating slab such as in a drop down footing/monolithic slab configuration, the slab should be designed with suitable reinforcement and load transfer devices to preclude overstressing of the slab.

BELOW GRADE WALLS

We recommend that below grade walls be designed to withstand at-rest lateral earth pressures and surcharge loads from adjacent building foundations, and/or streets. These recommendations apply to a “drained” condition which is where there is drainage material behind below grade walls that prevents hydrostatic water pressures on the back of the below grade wall.

Concrete Slab Vapor Barrier

Granular Capillary Break/Drainage Layer

Compacted Subgrade

ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page 8

To accomplish a drained condition, drainage materials such as a free draining gravel, geocomposite drainage panels, weep holes, and an underslab drainage system should be used.

We recommend that walls that are restrained from movement at the top be designed for a linearly increasing lateral earth pressure. The following Figure depicts our recommended at-rest lateral earth pressure condition for a “drained below-grade wall” with restrained wall top:

Surcharge loads imposed within a 45-degree slope of the base of the wall should be considered in the below grade wall design. The influence of these surcharge loads on the below grade walls should be based on an at-rest pressure coefficient, k0, of 0.5 in the case of restrained walls.

SEISMIC DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS

The International Building Code (IBC) 2018 requires site classification for seismic design based on the upper 100 feet of a soil profile. At least two methods are utilized in classifying sites, namely the shear wave velocity (vs) method and the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value) method. The latter method (Standard Penetration Resistance) was used in classifying this site.

H (feet)

Surcharge Load (psf)

Lateral Earth Pressure = 60 H psf (For below grade walls restrained from movement at top and bottom, drained conditions presumed;

Internal angle of friction of 30 degrees and a unit weight of 120 pcf.

This diagram is not suitable for the design of Support of Excavation or temporary shoring systems.

Horizontal Pressure from Surcharge = 0.5 x Vertical Surcharge

ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page 9

SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION

Site Class

Soil Profile Name Shear Wave Velocity, Vs, (ft./s) N value (bpf)

A Hard Rock Vs > 5,000 fps N/A

B Rock 2,500 < Vs ≤ 5,000 fps N/A

C Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 < Vs ≤ 2,500 fps >50

D Stiff Soil Profile 600 ≤ Vs ≤ 1,200 fps 15 to 50

E Soft Soil Profile Vs < 600 fps <15

Based upon our interpretation of the subsurface conditions, the appropriate Seismic Site Classification is “C” as shown in the preceding table.

Ground Motion Parameters: In addition to the seismic site classification noted above, ECS has determined the design spectral response acceleration parameters following the IBC 2018 methodology. The Mapped Reponses were estimated from the free seismic design maps available from Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) (http://seismicmaps.org). The design responses for the short (0.2 sec, SDS) and 1-second period (SD1) are noted in bold at the far right end of the following table.

GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS [IBC 2018 METHOD]

Period (sec)

Mapped Spectral Response

Accelerations (g)

Values of Site Coefficient for Site Class

Maximum Spectral Response Acceleration

Adjusted for Site Class (g)

Design Spectral Response

Acceleration (g)

Reference Figures 1613.2.1

(1) & (2) Tables 1613.2.3

(1) & (2) Eqs. 16-37 &

16-38 Eqs. 16-39 &

16-40

0.2 SS 0.153 Fa 1.3 SMS=FaSs 0.199

SDS=2/3

SMS

0.133

1.0 S1 0.058 Fv 1.5 SM1=FvS1 0.087

SD1=2/3

SM1

0.058

The Site Class definition should not be confused with the Seismic Design Category designation which the Structural Engineer typically assesses. If a higher site classification is beneficial to the project, we can provide additional testing methods that may yield more favorable results.

ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page 10

5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

SUBGRADE PREPARATION

5.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing

The subgrade preparation should consist of stripping all vegetation, rootmat, topsoil, unsuitable existing fill, asphalt, and other soft or unsuitable materials from the 10-foot expanded building and 5-foot expanded pavement limits, and 5 feet beyond the toe of Structural Fills. Deep topsoil or organic laden soils may be present within the existing mulched areas. Additionally, organic materials such as roots were observed within the existing fill materials. ECS should be retained to verify that topsoil and unsuitable surficial materials have been removed prior to the placement of Structural Fill or construction of structures.

5.1.2 Proofrolling

Prior to fill placement or other construction on subgrades, the subgrades should be evaluated by an ECS field technician. The exposed subgrade should be thoroughly proofrolled with construction equipment having a minimum axle load of 10 tons [e.g. fully loaded tandem-axle dump truck]. Proofrolling should be traversed in two perpendicular directions with overlapping passes of the vehicle under the observation of an ECS technician. This procedure is intended to assist in identifying localized yielding materials.

Where proofrolling identifies areas that are unstable or “pumping” subgrade those areas should be repaired prior to the placement of subsequent Structural Fill or other construction materials. Methods of stabilization include undercutting, moisture conditioning, or chemical stabilization. The situation should be discussed with ECS to determine the appropriate procedure. Test pits may be excavated to explore the shallow subsurface materials to help in determining the cause of the observed unstable materials, and to assist in the evaluation of appropriate remedial actions to stabilize the subgrade.

EARTHWORK OPERATIONS

5.2.1 Removal of Existing Structures

Development of the project will include removal of existing sidewalks, a covered shelter, and electrical utilities present onsite.

Existing foundation elements and utilities within the footprint of the proposed buildings should be removed and backfilled with compacted Structural Fill placed under engineering review. Existing foundations or slabs situated within the proposed pavement areas should be over-excavated and removed such that the top of the concrete is a minimum of 2 feet below the finished subgrade elevation. The foundations and pavements may be processed for reuse as Structural Fill provided all steel reinforcement is removed and the material is well-graded containing no fragments larger than 4-inches in diameter and conforms to the parameters presented in Section 5.2.4. If existing slabs are to remain, they should be rubblized to allow downward migration of water.

ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page 11

5.2.2 Existing Man-Placed Fill

Fill Content: Up to approximately 3 feet of existing fill was noted within the proposed building footprint during the subsurface exploration. Due to the presence of fill on-site, select over-excavation of unsuitable fill material should be anticipated at some footing locations, and some locations within the building pad where proofrolling reveals instability.

5.2.3 Rock Excavation

Bedrock was encountered in both borings performed, signified by auger refusal. Rock coring was performed in each boring, with samples indicating that the underlying rock was composed of gray Sandstone that is moderately weathered, soft, and highly fractured. The Sandstone was encountered at depths as shallow as approximately 2.5 foot below existing grade. Significant excavation difficulties which may slow down the construction process may occur, especially in areas of deep utility excavations and foundation excavations. Usually, rock saws employed for trench excavations are capable of exceeding our refusal depths by several feet, but with some difficulty. The use of hydraulic rams on heavy duty excavation equipment may be required depending on the proposed excavations depths.

We recommend that no “rock” fills be placed, and that fills meet the grain size criteria provided. Rock fill consists of rock particles that have a high void content between the rock particles. Rock fills are not suitable for satisfactory long term performance. These rock materials can be blended with other soils types to form a suitable particle size distribution for reuse as Structural Fill as outlined above.

5.2.4 Structural Fill Materials

Prior to placement of Structural Fill, representative bulk samples (about 50 pounds) of on-site and/or off-site borrow should be submitted to ECS for laboratory testing, which will typically include Atterberg limits, natural moisture content, grain-size distribution, and moisture-density relationships (i.e., Proctors) for compaction. Import materials should be tested prior to being hauled to the site to determine if they meet project specifications.

Satisfactory Structural Fill Materials: Materials satisfactory for use as Structural Fill should consist of inorganic soils with the following engineering properties and compaction requirements.

STRUCTURAL FILL INDEX PROPERTIES

Subject Property

Building and Pavement Areas LL < 40, PI <20

Max. Particle Size 4 inches

Minimum Dry Density 105 pcf

STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS

Subject Requirement

Compaction Standard Standard Proctor, ASTM D698

Required Compaction 95% of Max. Dry Density

Moisture Content ±2 % points of the soil’s optimum value

Loose Thickness 8 inches prior to compaction

ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page 12

On-Site Borrow Suitability: Natural deposits of soils that meet the definition of Satisfactory Structural Fill do appear to be present on the site at possible excavation depths.

Fill Placement: Fill materials should not be placed on frozen soils, on frost-heaved soils, and/or on excessively wet soils. Borrow fill materials should not contain frozen materials at the time of placement, and all frozen or frost-heaved soils should be removed prior to placement of Structural Fill or other fill soils and aggregates. Excessively wet soils or aggregates should be scarified, aerated, and moisture conditioned.

5.2.5 Proposed Fill Slopes

Slopes comprised of Structural Fill may be constructed at a slope of 3(H):1(V) or flatter. Slopes steeper than 3(H):1(V) should be evaluated by ECS. All slopes should be properly vegetated to reduce the likelihood of surficial erosion and sloughing.

FOUNDATION AND SLAB OBSERVATIONS

Protection of Foundation Excavations: Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore, foundation concrete should be placed the same day that excavations are made. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation must remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, a 1 to 3-inch thick “mud mat” of “lean” concrete should be placed on the bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel.

Footing Subgrade Observations: Most of the soils at the foundation bearing elevation are anticipated to be suitable for support of the proposed structure. It is important to have ECS observe the foundation subgrade prior to placing foundation concrete, to confirm the bearing soils are what was anticipated.

Slab Subgrade Verification: Prior to placement of a drainage layer, the subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations found in Section 5.1.2 Proofrolling.

UTILITY INSTALLATIONS

Utility Subgrades: The soils encountered in our exploration are expected to be generally suitable for support of utility pipes. The pipe subgrades should be observed and probed for stability by ECS. Loose or unsuitable materials encountered should be removed and replaced with suitable compacted Structural Fill, or pipe stone bedding material.

Utility Backfilling: The granular bedding material (often AASHTO #57 stone) should be at least 4 inches thick, but not less than that specified by the civil engineer’s project drawings and specifications. We recommend that the bedding materials be placed up to the springline of the pipe. Fill placed for support of the utilities, as well as backfill over the utilities, should satisfy the requirements for Structural Fill and Fill Placement.

Utility Excavation Dewatering: It is possible that perched water may be encountered by utility excavations which extend below existing grades. It is expected that removal of perched water which

ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page 13 seeps into excavations could be accomplished by pumping from sumps excavated in the trench bottom and which are backfilled with AASHTO No. 57 Stone or open graded bedding material. Should water conditions beyond the capability of sump pumping be encountered, the contractor should submit a Dewatering Plan in accordance with project specifications.

Excavation Safety: All excavations and slopes should be constructed and maintained in accordance with OSHA excavation safety standards. The contractor is solely responsible for designing, constructing, and maintaining stable temporary excavations and slopes. The contractor’s responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. ECS is providing this information solely as a service to our client. ECS is not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

ECS Project No. 18:6007 Page 14

6.0 CLOSING

ECS has prepared this report to guide the geotechnical-related design and construction aspects of the project. We performed these services in accordance with the standard of care expected of professionals in the industry performing similar services on projects of like size and complexity at this time in the region. No other representation, expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report.

The description of the proposed project is based on information provided to ECS by Apogee Consulting Group. If any of this information is inaccurate, either due to our interpretation of the documents provided or if the site’s design changed, ECS should be contacted immediately to review the report in light of the changes and provide additional or alternate recommendations as required to reflect the proposed construction.

We recommend that ECS review the project plans and specifications so we can confirm that those plans/specifications are in accordance with the recommendations of this geotechnical report.

Field observations, and quality assurance testing during earthwork and foundation installation are an extension of, and integral to, the geotechnical design. We recommend that ECS be retained to apply our expertise throughout the geotechnical phases of construction, and to provide consultation and recommendation should issues arise.

ECS is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on the data in this report.

Appendix A - Drawings and Reports

Site Location Diagram Exploration Location Diagram(s) Subsurface Cross-Section(s) Geologic Survey Map Soil Survey Map

7/18/2023

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors

²

ENGINEER

SCALE

18:6007

PROJECT NO.

FIGURE

DATE

DGR

APOGEE CONSULTING GROUP, PA

WILKES-BARRE VA MEDICAL CENTER

1111 EAST END BLVD, PLAINS TWP, PENNSYLVANIA

SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM

0 600300

Feet

AS NOTED

B-01 B-02

A A'

7/18/2023

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors

²

ENGINEER

SCALE

18:6007

PROJECT NO.

FIGURE

DATE

DGR

Legend Approximate Boring Locations

Approximate Cross-Section Location

APOGEE CONSULTING GROUP, PA

WILKES-BARRE VA MEDICAL CENTER

1111 EAST END BLVD, PLAINS TWP, PENNSYLVANIA

EXPLORATION LOCATION DIAGRAM

0 5025

895 895

894 894

893 893

892 892

891 891

890 890

889 889

888 888

887 887

886 886

885 885

884 884

883 883

882 882

881 881

0.

.9

8.

6.

Legend Key Topsoil

Poorly Graded

GRAVEL

Well Graded

GRAVEL

Sandstone

Notes:

1- EOB: END OF BORING AR: AUGER REFUSAL SR: SAMPLER REFUSAL.

2- THE NUMBER BELOW THE STRIPS IS THE DISTANCE ALONG THE BASELINE.

3- SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION.

4- STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE (LEFT OF BORING) IN BLOWS PER

FOOT (ASTM D1586).

Plastic Limit Water Content Liquid Limit X─────────⚫─────────△

[FINES CONTENT %]

BOTTOM OF CASING

LOSS OF CIRCULATION

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Completion)

WL (Estimated Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

Fill

Possible Fill

Probable Fill

Rock

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE

A-A'

Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center Apogee Consulting Group, PA

1111 East End Blvd, Plains Twp, Pennsylvania, 18711 Project No: 18:6007 Date: 07/18/2023

50/1"

[RQD=17%]

[REC=100%]

[RQD=27%]

[REC=100%]

*B -0

EOB @ 13

Topsoil

GW

Sandstone

Sandstone

60/11"

50/1"

[RQD=0%]

[REC=100%]

*B -0

EOB @ 7.5

Topsoil

GP-GM

Sandstone

Estimated Building FFE: EL. 894.0 ft

7/18/2023

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors

²

ENGINEER

SCALE

18:6007

PROJECT NO.

FIGURE

DATE

DGR

APOGEE CONSULTING GROUP, PA

WILKES-BARRE VA MEDICAL CENTER

1111 EAST END BLVD, PLAINS TWP, PENNSYLVANIA

GEOLOGIC SURVEY MAP

0 1,200600

SOURCE

DATE

6/21/2023

Web Soil Survey https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov

PROJECT NO.

SCALE

NTS

18:6007

SOIL SURVEY MAP

WILKES-BARRE VA MEDICAL

CENTER

1111 EAST END BLVD, PLAINS TWP, PENNSYLVANIA

APOGEE CONSULTING GROUP, PA

DRAFTER

CBP

Appendix B – Field Operations

Reference Notes Exploration Procedures Boring Logs Photographs

REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS

MATERIAL1,2

1Classifications and symbols per ASTM D 2488-17 (Visual-Manual Procedure) unless noted otherwise.

2To be consistent with general practice, “POORLY GRADED” has been removed from GP, GP-GM, GP-GC, SP, SP-SM, SP-SC soil types on the boring logs.

3Non-ASTM designations are included in soil descriptions and symbols along with ASTM symbol [Ex: (SM-FILL)].

4Typically estimated via pocket penetrometer or Torvane shear test and expressed in tons per square foot (tsf).

5Standard Penetration Test (SPT) refers to the number of hammer blows (blow count) of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon sampler required to drive the sampler 12 inches (ASTM D 1586). “N-value” is another term for “blow count” and is expressed in blows per foot (bpf). SPT correlations per 7.4.2 Method B and need to be corrected if using an auto hammer.

6The water levels are those levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable when augering, without adding fluids, in granular soils. In clay and cohesive silts, the determination of water levels may require several days for the water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally employed.

7Minor deviation from ASTM D 2488-17 Note 14.

8Percentages are estimated to the nearest 5% per ASTM D 2488-17.

Reference Notes for Boring Logs (09-02-2021).doc © 2021 ECS Corporate Services, LLC. All Rights Reserved

COHESIVE SILTS & CLAYS

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH, QP4

<0.25

0.25 - <0.50

0.50 - <1.00

1.00 - <2.00

2.00 - <4.00

4.00 - 8.00

>8.00

SPT5

(BPF)

CONSISTENCY7

(COHESIVE)

GRAVELS, SANDS & NON-COHESIVE SILTS

SPT5

DENSITY

<5 5 - 10

11 - 30 31 - 50

>50

Very Loose Loose

Medium Dense Dense

Very Dense

WATER LEVELS6

RELATIVE

AMOUNT7

Trace

With

Adjective (ex: “Silty”)

COARSE

GRAINED

(%)8

<5

FINE

GRAINED

(%)8

<5

DRILLING SAMPLING SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS

PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION

DESIGNATION PARTICLE SIZES

Hollow Stem Auger Power Auger (no sample) Bulk Sample of Cuttings Wash Sample Shelby Tube Sampler Split Spoon Sampler

Rock Quality Designation % Rock Sample Recovery % Rock Core, NX, BX, AX Rock Bit Drilling Pressuremeter TestSS

ST

WS

BS

PA

HSA

RQD

PM

RD

RC

REC

Boulders Cobbles

Gravel:

Sand:

Silt & Clay (“Fines”) Fine Medium

Coarse Fine Coarse

0.074 mm to 0.425 mm (No. 200 to No. 40 sieve) <0.074 mm (smaller than a No. 200 sieve)

0.425 mm to 2.00 mm (No. 40 to No. 10 sieve)

2.00 mm to 4.75 mm (No. 10 to No. 4 sieve)

4.75 mm to 19 mm (No. 4 sieve to ¾ inch) ¾ inch to 3 inches (19 mm to 75 mm) 3 inches to 12 inches (75 mm to 300 mm) 12 inches (300 mm) or larger

>50 31 - 50 16 - 30

9 - 15 5 - 8 2 - 4 <2

Very Hard Hard

Very Stiff

Stiff Firm Soft

Very Soft

ASPHALT

CONCRETE

GRAVEL

TOPSOIL

VOID

BRICK

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

MH

CL

CH

OL

OH

PT

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL

gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL

gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

SILTY GRAVEL

gravel-sand-silt mixtures

CLAYEY GRAVEL

gravel-sand-clay mixtures

WELL-GRADED SAND

gravelly sand, little or no fines

POORLY-GRADED SAND

gravelly sand, little or no fines

SILTY SAND

sand-silt mixtures

CLAYEY SAND

sand-clay mixtures

SILT

non-plastic to medium plasticity

ELASTIC SILT

high plasticity

LEAN CLAY

low to medium plasticity

FAT CLAY

high plasticity

ORGANIC SILT or CLAY non-plastic to low plasticity

ORGANIC SILT or CLAY high plasticity

PEAT

highly organic soils

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Completion)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

FILL POSSIBLE FILL PROBABLE FILL ROCK

FILL AND ROCK

25 - 45

10 - 20

30 - 45

10 - 25

REFERENCE NOTES FOR ROCK CORES

*ASTM D6032‐17: RQD is performed on cores using BQ to PQ sized bits (1.433 to 3.345 inch diameter cores, respectively) Reference Notes for Rock Cores (03‐22‐2019) © 2019 ECS Corporate Services, LLC. All Rights Reserved

ROCK CLASSIFICATION TYPES

Igneous Sedimentary Metamorphic

Coarse Grained

DIABASE

DIORITE

GABBRO

GRANITE

PEGMATITE

PERIDOTITE

SYENITE

Fine Grained

ANDESITE

BASALT

RHYOLITE

TRACHYTE

Pyroclastic

OBSIDIAN

PUMICE

TUFF

Clastic (sediment)

SHALE

SILTSTONE

SANDSTONE

CONGLOMERATE

LIMESTONE, OOLITIC

Chemically Formed

DOLOSTONE

GYPSUM

HALITE

LIMESTONE

Organic Remains

CHALK

COAL

COQUINA

Foliated

GNEISS

PHYLLITE

SCHIST

SLATE

Non‐Foliated

AMPHIBOLITE

HORNFELS

MARBLE

QUARTZITE

HARDNESS

Very Soft Deformed by hand

Soft Scratched with a fingernail

Moderately Hard Scratched easily with a knife

Hard Scratched with difficulty with a knife

Very Hard Cannot be scratched with a knife

JOINT/FRACTURE SPACING BEDDING

Fractured/Jointed Spacing Thinly ≤ 0.3 ft.

Very Widely > 10 feet Medium >0.3 ft. ≤ 1 ft.

Slightly 3 ‐ 10 feet Thickly >1 ft. ≤ 3 ft.

Moderately 1 ‐ 3 feet Massive >3 ft.

Highly 2 inches ‐ 1 foot

Intensely < 2 inches

JOINT OR FRACTURE CONTINUITY

It shall be noted whether the joints or fractures are continuous or discontinuous. If continuity of joints is not discernable at the scale of the rock core, continuous joints or fractures shall be assumed.

JOINT/FRACTURE ORIENTATION

The range or average orientation of each joint set or fracture trend shall be measured in degrees from a horizontal plane where possible.

If no measurement is possible, the qualitative terms High, Moderate or Low‐angle shall be used. Record whether the joints are present in Conjugate sets (i.e. having an opposite sense of dip)

High 61‐90 degree

Moderate 31‐60 degree

Low‐angle 0‐30 degree

Dip‐angle (1‐90) ____ degrees (if measured)

Description Sequence Example Rock Classification Description

ROCK TYPE, [REC=_%,RQD=_%], Weathering, Hardness, Bedding, Joint/Fracture Spacing, Joint/Fracture Surface Condition, Wall Rock Condition, Joint or Fracture Continuity, Joint/Fracture Orientation, Color, Additional Features

LIMESTONE, [REC=95%,RQD=60%], Highly Weathered, Hard, Thinly Bedded, Slightly Fractured/Jointed, Slightly Rough, Hard Wall Rock, Continuous, Moderate‐angle Dip, Gray White

Recovery (REC(%))

Total rock recovered from run Total Run Length

Rock Quality Designation (RQD(%))*

Sum of core pieces ≥ 4 inches long Total Run Length

RQD% Description of Rock Quality

0‐25% Very Poor

>25%‐50% Poor

>50%‐75% Fair

>75%‐90% Good

>90% Excellent

WEATHERING

Unweathered No evidence of any chemical or mechanical alteration.

Slightly Weathered

Slight discoloration on surface, slight alteration along discontinuities, less than 10 percent of the rock volume altered.

Moderately Weathered

Discoloring evident, surface pitted and altered with alteration penetrating well below rock surfaces, weathering 'halos' evident. 10 to 50 percent of the rock altered.

Highly Weathered

Entire mass discolored, alteration pervading nearly all of the rock, with some pockets of slightly weathered rock noticeable, some minerals leached away.

Decomposed Rock reduced to a soil with relict rock structure remaining (i.e. saprolite).

Generally molded and crumbled by hand (friable).

JOINT/FRACTURE SURFACE CONDITION

The following qualitative terms shall be used to describe surface condition of joints and fractures. Multiple terms can be used.

Very rough Slightly rough Slickensided Gouge

WALL ROCK CONDITION

The qualitative terms 'hard wall rock' or 'soft wall rock' shall be used to describe the condition of the parent rock on either side of the joint or fracture.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURE:

STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT)

ASTM D 1586

Split-Barrel Sampling

Standard Penetra on Tes ng, or SPT, is the most frequently used subsurface explora on test performed worldwide. This test provides samples for iden fica on purposes, as well as a measure of penetra on resistance, or N-value. The N-Value, or blow counts, when corrected and correlated, can approximate engineering proper es of soils used for geotechnical design and engineering purposes.

• Involves driving a hollow tube (split-spoon) into the ground by dropping a 140-lb hammer a height of 30-inches at desired depth

• Recording the number of hammer blows required to drive split-spoon a distance of 18-24 inches (in 3 or 4 Increments of 6 inches each)

• Auger is advanced* and an addi onal SPT is per-formed

• One SPT typically performed for every two to five feet. An approximate 1.5 inch diameter soil sam-ple is recovered.

*Drilling Methods May Vary— The predominant drilling methods used for SPT are open hole fluid rotary drilling and hollow-stem auger drilling.

SPT Procedure:

DE

PT

H (F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

N U

M

BE

R

S-1

S-2

R-1

R-2

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SS

SS

RC

RC

SA

M

PL

E

DI

ST

IN

RE

CO

VE

RY

(I N

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

Topsoil Thickness[8.00"]

(GW FILL) FILL, WELL-GRADED

GRAVEL, brown and gray, moist, medium dense to very dense

SANDSTONE, [REC=100%,RQD=17%],

Moderately Weathered, SoŌ, Highly Fractured/Jointed, Gray

SANDSTONE, [REC=100%,RQD=27%],

Moderately Weathered, SoŌ, Highly Fractured/Jointed, Gray

END OF BORING AT 13 FT

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

S

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T)

BL

O

W S/

6"

2-8-6-50/3" (14)

50/1" (50/1")

50/1"

1.7

2.7

[0.8%]

CLIENT:

Apogee ConsulƟng Group, PA

PROJECT NAME:

Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center

PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.:

18:6007 B-01

DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:

Negley's Well Drilling, Inc.

SHEET:

SITE LOCATION:

1111 East End Blvd, Plains Twp, Pennsylvania, 18711

LOSS OF CIRCULATION

NORTHING:

703282.0

EASTING:

2495003.4

STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:

BOTTOM OF CASING

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL

WL (First Encountered)

WL (CompleƟon)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

N/E

N/E

N/E

BORING STARTED:

BORING

COMPLETED:

EQUIPMENT:

Acker Rebel

Jun 29 2023

Jun 29 2023

LOGGED BY:

MSD2

CAVE IN DEPTH:

HAMMER TYPE:

DRILLING METHOD:

Auto

3.25" HSA

GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT

20 40 60 80 100

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION &

RECOVERY

RQD

REC

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC LIMIT

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF

1 2 3 4 5

WATER CONTENT %

[FINES CONTENT] %

10 20 30 40 50

DE

PT

H (F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

N U

M

BE

R

S-1

S-2

R-1

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SS

SS

RC

SA

M

PL

E

DI

ST

IN

RE

CO

VE

RY

(I N

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

Topsoil Thickness[6.00"]

(GP-GM FILL) FILL, GRAVEL WITH SILT

And SAND, brown and gray, moist, very dense

SANDSTONE, [REC=100%,RQD=0%],

Moderately Weathered, SoŌ, Highly Fractured/Jointed, Gray

END OF BORING AT 7.5 FT

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

S

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T)

BL

O

W S/

6"

4-10-50/5" (60/11")

50/1" (50/1")

60/11"

50/1"

3.7

5.7

CLIENT:

Apogee ConsulƟng Group, PA

PROJECT NAME:

Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center

PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.:

18:6007 B-02

DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:

Negley's Well Drilling, Inc.

SHEET:

SITE LOCATION:

1111 East End Blvd, Plains Twp, Pennsylvania, 18711

LOSS OF CIRCULATION

NORTHING:

703302.9

EASTING:

2495053.2

STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:

BOTTOM OF CASING

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL

WL (First Encountered)

WL (CompleƟon)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

N/E

N/E

N/E

BORING STARTED:

BORING

COMPLETED:

EQUIPMENT:

Acker Rebel

Jun 29 2023

Jun 29 2023

LOGGED BY:

MSD2

CAVE IN DEPTH:

HAMMER TYPE:

DRILLING METHOD:

Auto

3.25" HSA

GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT

20 40 60 80 100

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION &

RECOVERY

RQD

REC

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC LIMIT

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF

1 2 3 4 5

WATER CONTENT %

[FINES CONTENT] %

10 20 30 40 50

RUN DEPTH RECOVERY RQD

1 2.5’ to 7.5’ 100% 0%

Project Number:6007 Boring Number: B-01 Boring Completed: June 2023

Rock Core Photographs

WILKES-BARRE VA MEDICAL

CENTER

1111 EAST END BLVD, PLAINS TWP, PENNSYLVANIA

APOGEE CONSULTING GROUP, PA

RUN DEPTH RECOVERY RQD

1 2.5’ to 7.5’ 100% 0%

Project Number:6007 Boring Number: B-01 Boring Completed: June 2023

Rock Core Photographs

WILKES-BARRE VA MEDICAL

CENTER

1111 EAST END BLVD, PLAINS TWP, PENNSYLVANIA

APOGEE CONSULTING GROUP, PA

R-1

R-2

Appendix C – Laboratory Testing

Laboratory Testing Summary Grain Size Analysis/Analyses Plasticity Chart(s)

S-1 1.7 GW NP NP NP 0.8

S-2 2.7

S-1 3.7

S-2 5.7

Project:

Client:

Laboratory Testing Summary

Sample Location Sample

Number Depth ()

^MC

Soil

Type

Atterberg Limits **Percent

Passing

No. 200

Sieve

Moisture - Density CBR (%)

#Organic

Content (%)

LL PL PI

<Maximum

Density (pcf)

<Optimum

Moisture (%)

0.1 in. 0.2 in.

B-01 0.0-1.8

B-01 2.0-2.1

B-02 0.0-1.4

B-02 2.0-2.1

Notes: See test reports for test method, ^ASTM D2216-19, *ASTM D2488, **ASTM D1140-17, #ASTM D2974-20e1 < See test report for D4718 corrected values

Definitions: MC: Moisture Content, Soil Type: USCS (Unified Soil Classification System), LL: Liquid Limit, PL: Plastic Limit, PI: Plasticity Index, CBR: California

Bearing Ratio, OC: Organic Content

Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center Project No.: 18:6007

Apogee Consulting Group, PA Date Reported: 7/6/2023

Office / Lab Address Office Number / Fax

ECS Mid-Atlantic LLC - York 52-6 Grumbacher Road

York, PA 17406

(717)767-4788

(717)767-5658

Tested by Checked by Approved by Date Received

JGates agolihew

D90 D50 D10

D85 D30 Cu

D60 D15 Cc

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

TEST RESULTS (ASTM D6913M-17-METHOD A)

Sieving Hydrometer Sedimentation Dry Mass of sample, g 78.6

Particle Size % Passing Particle Size mm % Passing

Very coarse, >3" sieve 0

3" 100 Sample Proportions % dry mass

1 1/2" 100

2" 100

1" 100 Gravel, 3" to # 4 sieve 88

3/4" 41

3/8" 27 Coarse Sand, #4 to #10 sieve 4

#4 12

#10 8 Medium Sand, #10 to #40 3

#20 6

#40 5 Fine Sand, #40 to #200 4

#60 4

#100 2 Fines <#200 1

#140 2

#200 1

USCS GW Liquid Limit NP 23.870 19.840 3.258

AASHTO A-1-a Plastic Limit NP 23.330 11.200 6.378

USCS Group Name Well graded gravel Plasticity Index NP 20.780 5.532 1.853

Project: Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center Project No.: 18:6007

Client: Apogee Consulting Group, PA Depth (ft): 0.0 - 1.8

Sample Description: Well Graded Gravel Sample No.: S-1

Sample Source: B-01 Date Reported: 7/6/2023

Office / Lab Address Office Number / Fax

ECS Mid-Atlantic LLC - York 52-6 Grumbacher Road

York, PA 17406

(717)767-4788

(717)767-5658

Tested by Checked by Approved by Date Received Remarks

JGates agolihew ø ö ç ç è æ m m

SILT

SAND

FineMediumCoarse GRAVEL CLAYVery Coarse

3" 2" 1.5" 1"3/4" 1/2"3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200

0.0010.010.11101001000

P e rc e n ta g e P a s s in g

Particle Size mm

LL PL PI %<#40 AASHTO

NP NP NP 5.0 A-1-a

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

TEST RESULTS (ASTM D4318-10 (MULTIPOINT TEST))

Sample

Location

Sample

Number

Sample

Depth (ft) %<#200 USCS Material Description

B-01 S-1 0.00-1.75 0.8 GW Well Graded Gravel

Project: Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center Project No.: 18:6007

Client: Apogee Consulting Group, PA Date Reported: 7/6/2023

Office / Lab Address Office Number / Fax

ECS Mid-Atlantic LLC - York 52-6 Grumbacher Road

York, PA 17406

(717)767-4788

(717)767-5658

Tested by Checked by Approved by Date Received

JGates agolihew

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

LIQUID LIMIT

ML or OLCL-ML MH or OH

P L A S T I C I T Y I N D E X

Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils

6.0 CLOSING