S06 - 0003 - Att1 - Geotech Report 2013.pdf

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 GEOLOGY

5.2 SOIL

5.3 BEDROCK

5.4 GROUNDWATER

6.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 SITE PREPARATION

6.2 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES………………………………………………………………5

6.3 REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING FILL………………………………………………….5

6.4 PROOF-ROLLING

6.5 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS

7.0 STRUCTURAL FILL

7.1 IMPORTED FILL

7.2 REUSE OF ON-SITE SOILS

7.3 PLACEMENT & COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS

8.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

8.2 SETTLEMENT

8.3 SEISMIC COEFFICIENT

8.4 FLOOR SLAB DESIGN

9.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

10.0 STORMWATER INFILTRATION ANALYSIS

11.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING

12.0 LIMITATIONS

Appendix

Topographic Map

Geologic Map

Subsurface Investigation Location Plan

Test Boring Profiles

Laboratory Test Results

Test Boring Logs

Auger Probe Log

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Upgrades to Wilkes-Barre VA Hospital Clinic Plains Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

Advantage Project Number: 130024701

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report was prepared by Advantage Engineers, LLC (Advantage), on behalf of Bray Mooney

Consulting, Inc., of Chester, Pennsylvania, and contains the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation conducted at the site of the proposed upgrades to the existing Wilkes-Barre VA

Hospital Clinic, located in Plains Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The purpose of this investigation has been to define the stratification of subsurface soils and the engineering properties of these materials across the footprint of the proposed structure. Based on the results of our field investigation and laboratory analysis, foundation design and construction recommendations have been formulated.

The scope of work for this project included the completion of a subsurface field investigation, laboratory testing program, and geotechnical engineering analysis. This report summarizes the results of the work performed and provides recommendations regarding foundation design, soil strength conditions, general construction criteria, and proposed stormwater management facilities.

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project site currently consists of a grass and asphalt-covered area within the existing hospital clinic campus, located at 1111 East End Boulevard in Plains Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Existing topography across the footprint of the proposed structure is relatively flat, sloping gently down gradient towards the south, resulting in approximately 6 feet of grade variation.

The site is bordered to the north and west by the existing hospital, to the east by the residential properties, and to the south by Bear Creek Boulevard. The approximate location of the site in relation to the surrounding area is presented on the Topographic Map (Dwg. No.: 130024701-A-

100), presented within the Appendix.

The project will consist of demolition of portions of existing structures, and constructing a new building. The proposed building is anticipated to be comprised of steel-frame and masonry load-bearing wall construction. At the time of this report, proposed finished site grades were unknown;

however, it is anticipated that maximum cuts and fills will not be greater than 5 feet in order to reach proposed building pad subgrade elevations.

Development of the project will also consist of constructing new parking areas, drive lanes, and subsurface stormwater management facility. It is anticipated that cuts of approximately 5 feet will be required to reach the proposed invert elevation.

3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

In an effort to evaluate subsurface conditions beneath the footprint of the proposed building, 5 standard earth borings were conducted on April 20, 2013. The original scope of work as to complete 6 test borings; however, 1 test boring was eliminated due to underground utilities located with the southwestern portion of the building footprint. Supervision and monitoring of the test boring operation was provided by a representative of Advantage, who field located the test borings based on the site plan provided by the client. The approximate locations of the test borings, referenced as B-1 through B-5, are shown on the Subsurface Investigation Location Plan (Dwg. No.:

130024701-A-102), presented in the Appendix.

The test borings were advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers.

Split-spoon samples, conducted in accordance with ASTM standard D1586, were taken throughout the entire depth of the borings and the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values were recorded for each sample obtained. The SPT values, which are a measure of relative density or consistency, are the number of blows required to drive a 2-inch (outer-diameter), split-barrel sampler 2 feet using a

140-pound weight dropped 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler over the 12-inch interval from 6 to 18 inches is considered the "N" value.

Data pertaining to the test borings was documented in the field and is presented in detail on the

Test Boring Profiles and Test Boring Logs, found in the Appendix. The Test Boring Profiles (Dwg.

No.: 130024701-A-103) depict cross-sections of the subsurface conditions encountered within each test boring, including: soil and rock types, depths of individual strata, and recorded “N” values. The Test Boring Logs contain general information about the subsurface program and specific data regarding each test boring, including: sample depths, blow counts per 6 inches of penetration, and detailed characterizations of the subsurface materials encountered.

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

All soils encountered at the site were visually reviewed and classified by Advantage personnel. Two

(2) representative soil samples were subjected to laboratory testing, in an effort to verify visual classification and to establish the engineering parameters required for foundation design analysis.

The laboratory testing conducted on the samples consisted of standard classification testing, completed in accordance with ASTM standard D2487. The tests performed included Natural

Moisture Content (ASTM D2216), Sieve Analysis (ASTM D422), and Atterberg Limits Determination

(ASTM D4318).

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Group Symbols and ASTM Group Names have been assigned to the soils analyzed. Graphical depictions of the particle size analyses are presented in the Appendix. A summary of the results of the testing conducted is presented below in Table I.

TABLE I

LABORATORY RESULTS

Boring Number B-2 B-5

Sample Number S2 S4

Sample Depths (ft.) 2’–4’ 6’–8’

Soil Type Fill Stratum I

Particle Size Distribution (Percent)

Gravel 64.1 77.6

Sand 26.8 18.3

Silt/Clay 9.1 4.1

Atterberg Limits

Liquid Limit NP NP

Plastic Limit NP NP

Plasticity Index NP NP

Natural Moisture Content 8.3% 2.2%

USCS Group Symbol GP-GM GP

ASTM Group Name Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand

Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 GEOLOGY

According to the Pennsylvania Geologic Survey's Atlas of Preliminary Geologic Quadrangles, Fourth Series, 1981, the project site is situated in the Pennsylvanian Llewellyn Formation

(geologic symbol Pl). The Pennsylvania Geologic Survey publication, The Engineering

Characteristics of the Rocks of Pennsylvania, Second Edition, 1982, describes the rock in this formation as consisting of interbedded layers of sandstone, siltstone and conglomerate; which range from medium- to coarse-grained; light gray to brown, with numerous anthracite coal and dark-gray to black shales.

The sandstone in this formation is well bedded and thick to massive, while the coal and shale beds are relatively thin. Fractures are moderately developed and moderately distributed. Joints are moderately spaced, open, and steeply dipping. The rock is slightly to moderately weathered to a shallow or moderate depth, dependent on the local lithology.

The resulting soil mantle is thin to moderately thick. This formation is difficult to excavate with a fast or slow drilling rate, again dependent on the specific rock type encountered.

A depiction of the project site within its geologic setting is presented on the Geologic Map

(Dwg. No.: 130024701-A-101) within the Appendix.

5.2 SOIL

The surfaces of the test borings were found to be covered by approximately 8 to 12 inches of topsoil and organic debris or 8 inches of pavement. Beneath these surficial materials, subsurface conditions were found to be generally uniform, consisting of a layer of Fill, followed by a single, naturally-occurring soil stratum, referenced herein Stratum I. A general description of the soils encountered at the site is as follows:

Fill – Brown to grey gravel with silt and sand

Fill was encountered immediately below the surficial elements, and extended to depths ranging from approximately 1.7 to 6 feet below existing site grades. The “N” values, recorded within this soil, were found to range from 3 to 11 blows per foot, and show Fill to be medium dense in relative density.

Laboratory testing conducted on a representative sample of the existing Fill, shows this soil to be poorly graded and non plastic, with a natural moisture content of 8.3%. The existing

Fill is described under the United Soil Classification System (USCS) as Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand, with the accompanying group symbol of GP-GM.

The Fill was found to be free of deleterious material (i.e. ash, cinder, slag, topsoil and/or organic debris). These samples were taken from discrete locations and the possibility does exist for deleterious materials to exist in other areas of the site not investigated.

Stratum I – Grey to brown gravel with sand

Stratum I was encountered immediately below the existing Fill, and extended to depths ranging from approximately 1.7 to 8 feet below existing site grades. The “N” values, recorded within this soil, were found to range from 33 blows to 45 blows per foot, and show

Stratum I to be very dense in relative density.

Laboratory testing conducted on a representative sample of Stratum I, shows this soil to be poorly graded and non-plastic, with a natural moisture content of 2.2%. Stratum I is described under the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) as Poorly-Graded Gravel with

Sand, with the accompanying group symbol of GP.

5.3 BEDROCK

The bedrock surface was encountered in all the test borings completed, at depths ranging from approximately 2.2 to 8 feet below existing site grades, with corresponding bedrock surface elevations ranging from approximately 893.2 to 891 feet. The bedrock surface was defined as the depth at which the auger of the equipment could no longer penetrate.

In order to determine the composition and integrity of the bedrock present beneath the site, a bedrock sample was retrieved through rock coring. The percent recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) was determined for the core sample retrieved. Percent recovery is calculated by dividing the length of the rock core retrieved from the core barrel by the total length of the core run, and multiplying by 100. RQD is calculated by summing the length of all of the rock fragments in the core run which are greater than or equal to 4 inches in length, and dividing by the total length of the core run and multiplying by 100. The percent recovery and rock quality designation of the bedrock core sample is provided below in Table II.

TABLE II

BEDROCK CORING DATA SUMMARY

CORE SAMPLE

BEDROCK CORE

SAMPLE (FT)

LENGTH OF

CORE (FT)

PERCENT

RECOVERY (%)

RQD

VALUE (%)

B-1 1.7 – 6.7 5 90 0

The bedrock sample retrieved was found to consist of slightly weathered, highly fractured, brown to grey sandstone. Based on the percent recovery and RQD value of the rock core obtained, the sandstone underlying the site is hard and of very poor quality.

5.4 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered within any of the test borings advanced. These observations were made at the time of the field operation and groundwater table elevations will vary with daily, seasonal, and climatological variations.

6.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 SITE PREPARATION

At the outset of the project, all topsoil and pavement should be stripped from all structural areas. Structural areas are defined as those areas to be covered by the proposed building, extending to a minimum of 5 feet beyond the proposed building, and any portion of the site to be covered by asphalt or concrete pavements. Any unstable or deleterious materials encountered below the surface should also be removed. Removal of unsuitable materials should continue until stable soils are encountered.

6.2 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES

Development of the project will include demolition of existing structures. Care should be exercised to completely remove all foundation elements and utilities from within the footprint of the proposed building. All excavations associated with demolition of the existing buildings and utilities should be backfilled with compacted structural fill as outlined in

Section 7.0 of this report. Any existing structural elements or utilities left in-place may create obstructions during excavation for new utility conduits or future foundation construction. Disposal of demolition material shall be performed in accordance with local, state and federal guidelines for the types of material encountered.

6.3 REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING FILL

As stated previously in this report, existing Fill was encountered in all the test borings completed, with termination depths ranging from approximately 1.7 to 6 feet below existing site grades. Due to the inherent unknowns associated with the existing man-made Fill and to allow for satisfactory support of the proposed foundation elements, it is recommended that the existing Fill be excavated from beneath the foundation elements of the proposed building. Details concerning completion of the excavation and reuse of the existing Fill are presented below.

The existing Fill should be completely excavated from beneath all foundations.

Excavation should continue until naturally-occurring soils are encountered. The lateral extent of the excavations should extend a minimum of 1 foot beyond each edge of the respective foundation. The final extent of excavation should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction.

Once excavated, the base of the resulting excavation should be densified and compacted. Should any weak or yielding areas be noted, excavation should continue until stable soils are encountered.

Following review, the excavation may be backfilled to the prevailing foundation subgrade elevations with structural fill, as defined below, or flowable fill. The placement and compaction of structural fill should be completed in accordance with

Section 7.0 of this report. Flowable fill should consist of a cementicious mixture capable of achieving a minimum unconfined compressive strength of 500 psi.

Consideration should be given to completing the removal and replacement program prior to site grading. Proceeding in this manner will reduce the extent of the removal and replacement process.

The above procedures should be carried out under the review of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record.

6.4 PROOF-ROLLING

Following removal of the surficial elements, required excavation to reach proposed subgrade elevations, and prior to the placement of structural fill or construction of foundation elements, all structural areas should be proof-rolled and compacted using a steel-drum, vibratory roller, having a minimum static weight of 10 tons. A minimum of 5 overlapping passes of the roller should be completed across the building pad and all other structural areas. Proof-rolling and compaction procedures are necessary to compact and verify the integrity of the upper zones of the soils and allow for a uniform distribution of loads. Any loose or unstable areas encountered during proof-rolling should be compacted in place or removed and replaced with structural fill, as outlined below in Section 7.3 of this report.

In areas of the site where a cut or removal of soil is necessary to achieve the required soil subgrade elevation, proof-rolling of the surface may be waived until the proposed subgrade elevation is achieved.

6.5 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS

Excavation during construction of the proposed building and associated site features will take place within the existing Fill and soils of Stratum I, which may be removed using conventional earth moving equipment and techniques. Based on existing site grades and anticipated finished subgrade elevations, and the data recorded during the subsurface investigation, bulk bedrock removal will be required during foundation construction or utility installation and will require pneumatic equipment for removal.

Excavation for the proposed building may take place adjacent to existing structures. Care must be exercised to provide temporary support to existing foundations and subsurface utilities as necessary. This may be accomplished with shoring, bracing, or underpinning.

The Structural Engineer and Geotechnical Engineer should be consulted prior to implementation of any temporary foundation support system.

All excavations should be adequately sloped, benched, or supported to minimize collapse and protect personnel. All excavations should be completed in accordance with OSHA requirements.

7.0 STRUCTURAL FILL

7.1 IMPORTED FILL

Imported structural fill should meet the following criteria:

free of organic matter, trash, ash, cinders, slag and other deleterious materials particle size distribution that is well-graded plasticity index less than 10; liquid limit less than 30 less than 15 percent by weight rock fragments larger than 3", less than 30 percent by weight larger than the 3/4" and less than 30 percent smaller than the no. 200 sieve.

Alternate soils proposed for use which differ from those specified above should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record regarding their suitability prior to placement at the site.

7.2 REUSE OF ON-SITE SOILS

Comments regarding the suitability of on-site soils for reuse as structural fill are provided below.

Fill/Stratum I –These soils were found to be well graded, non-plastic, and to consist of primarily of gravel with secondary amounts of silt and sand. Based on this information, these soils are considered to be well suited for use as structural fill.

Our analysis of the suitability of on-site soils for use as structural fill is based on data collected from the test borings completed at the site. Soil suitability should be confirmed in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record during construction.

7.3 PLACEMENT & COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS

Structural fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 10 inches in loose thickness and compacted with a smooth-drum, vibratory roller having a minimum static weight of 10 tons.

Structural fill placed in areas where hand operated compaction equipment is required, maximum loose thickness of 4 inches is recommended. The optimum lift thickness and number of repetitive passes with compaction equipment necessary to achieve the required percentage compaction values should be determined in the field with test passes of the chosen compaction equipment. All fill should be placed at, or deviate nominally from (±2%) the optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with ASTM D698 and compacted to the minimum percentages of the soil’s maximum standard dry density as indicated below in Table III.

TABLE III

COMPACTION CRITERIA

Fill Area

Percent of Maximum Standard Dry Density as per ASTM D698

Foundation Support Fill 100%

Foundation Backfill 100%

Slab-On-Grade, Parking

Areas

100%

Non-Structural 92%

8.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Provided the removal and replacement of Fill and site development considerations have been completed, firm and stable existing soils, structural fill placed under engineering control, or the underlying bedrock surface may be utilized for support of the proposed foundation elements using a shallow foundation system. The soil bearing conditions at the site were evaluated based on the information derived from this investigation. The following conclusions and engineering recommendations are provided regarding the proposed addition’s foundation system.

1. A foundation system consisting of strip and/or spread footings is recommended for support of the proposed building.

2. The foundations should be supported on firm and stable existing soils, structural fill placed under engineering control, or on the underlying bedrock.

3. The foundations should be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of

3,000 pounds per square foot (psf).

4. The bottom of all exterior foundations and those in unheated areas should be at least 36 inches below the final exterior grades in order to minimize the potential for frost heave.

5. All foundation bottoms should be completely cleaned of loose material or debris immediately prior to the placement of concrete.

6. Concrete should be placed in excavated foundation areas as quickly as possible to minimize degradation to the foundation subgrade due to exposure.

7. The actual bearing conditions of the soil at the foundation subgrade elevation should be confirmed in the field during excavation by inspection under the supervision of a Professional Engineer qualified in Geotechnical Engineering.

8. Column and wall foundations should be a minimum of 3.0 and 1.5 feet in width, respectively.

9. When encountered, the bedrock surface should be over-excavated a minimum of

6 inches below the foundation subgrade elevation and be backfilled with crushed stone. Proceeding in this manner will minimize the potential for point loading and allow for an even distribution of load.

Prior to the placement of concrete, all foundation bottoms should be densified and compacted using a walk-behind vibratory roller, gas-powered automatic tamper, or similar equipment. Densification is required to provide uniform density of the foundation subgrade and allow for proper distribution of loads. Proper compaction and densification of the foundation soils should be verified by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to placement of concrete.

It is emphasized that caution should be exercised to not disturb foundation subgrade soils.

Should the subgrade be disturbed, the soil should be compacted in place or removed until firm soil is encountered and the resulting excavation backfilled with concrete or controlled structural fill as described above. Every effort should be made to prevent water from entering open foundation excavations. Any water which may accumulate in the bottoms of the excavations should be removed immediately. It is recommended that footing excavation and placement of concrete be performed on the same day and during fair weather conditions. Installation of the foundations should be carried out in accordance with applicable ACI guidelines, under the direction of a licensed Professional Engineer.

8.2 SETTLEMENT

At the time of this report, column and wall loads were not known. Therefore, for design purposes, it was estimated that interior column loads would not exceed 100 kips and that wall loads will not exceed 3 kips per linear feet. Based on an allowable bearing pressure of

3,000 psf, and our analysis of the conditions encountered, maximum post-construction settlement of the proposed structure’s foundation is estimated to be 1-inch. Since the potential exists for adjacent foundations to be supported on bedrock and soil, respectively, differential settlement may equal total settlement. Should loading information differ from what is stated above, Advantage should be notified so a further, more detailed settlement analysis can be completed.

8.3 SEISMIC COEFFICIENT

According to Table 1613.5.2 - Site Class Definitions of the 2009 International Building

Code, the stratigraphic profile underlying the proposed construction area meets the characteristics of Site Class C, Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock.

8.4 FLOOR SLAB DESIGN

The floor of the proposed structure may be constructed as a conventional slab-on-grade and may be supported on properly placed structural fill, or firm and stable existing soils.

These soils are expected to exhibit a modulus of subgrade reaction of approximately 150 pci provided they are compacted to a minimum of 100% of its maximum standard dry density as determined by ASTM D698.

The floor slab should be underlain by a layer of crushed stone to provide a capillary break.

The stone bedding should be comprised of clean, crushed stone (such as AASHTO No. 57).

9.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

The following data is provided for the design of earth retaining structures which may be constructed at the site. The data presented is based on the use of the existing Fill and naturally-occurring soils of Stratum I placed under engineering control for backfill of all retaining walls. Should alternate soil be used in construction of earth retaining structures, alternate design criteria should be established. Table IV, presented below, provides the Earth Pressure Design Data for the use of the above referenced soils.

TABLE IV

EARTH PRESSURE DESIGN DATA

Parameter Fill/Stratum I

Angle of Internal Friction 35º

Unit Weight of Soil 125 pcf

Coefficient of Active Earth 0.27

Coefficient of Passive Earth 3.69

Coefficient of At-Rest Earth 0.43

Cohesion 0.0 psf

Adequate drainage must be maintained adjacent to all earth retaining walls in an effort to minimize the buildup of hydrostatic pressures on the structures. At a minimum, a drainage blanket consisting of clean, crushed aggregate should be placed behind all earth retaining walls. The drainage blanket should be connected to a drain at the base of the retaining wall with all water directed to dedicated stormwater channels.

10.0 STORMWATER INFILTRATION ANALYSIS

In order to evaluate the feasibility of stormwater infiltration within the footprint of the proposed subsurface stormwater management facility, a single infiltration test was completed utilizing the

“cased-pipe method”. It should be noted, the proposed invert elevation is anticipated to be situated approximately 4 feet below existing site grades. The bedrock surface (i.e. limiting zone) was encountered at approximately 3 feet below existing site grades; therefore, infiltration testing was conducted at 1 foot below existing site grades. The infiltration test was completed in accordance with the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, latest edition.

The location of the infiltration test, approximate test depth, approximate depth of limiting zone, and result of the field infiltration analysis are presented below in Table V.

TABLE V

RESULTS OF INFILTRATION ANALYSIS

TEST

LOCATION

APPROXIMATE DEPTH

OF TEST (ft)

APPROXIMATE DEPTH

OF LIMITING ZONE (ft)

INFILTRATION

RATE (IN/HR)

AP-1 1 3 2.4

11.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING

Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical engineering exploration, there is always a possibility that conditions between the test borings and below the depths explored may be different from those encountered, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the subsurface conditions. Therefore, geotechnical engineering construction observation should be performed under the supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer who is familiar with the intent of the recommendations presented herein. Construction observation is recommended to evaluate whether the conditions anticipated in the design actually exist or whether the recommendations presented herein should be modified where necessary.

12.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical design practices for specific application to this project. This report has been based on assumed conditions and characteristics of the proposed development where specific information was not available.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the subsurface data obtained during this investigation and on details stated in this report. The validity of the projections, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report is necessarily limited by the scope of field investigation and by the number of borings that were made. It is understood that the number of test borings made are consistent with good engineering practice but, given the nature of subsurface conditions, there is a possibility that actual conditions encountered may differ significantly from those projected in this report. Should conditions arise which differ from those described in this report, Advantage should be notified immediately.

Our recommendations are based upon the assumption that the services of a qualified Geotechnical

Engineer will be retained, for the removal and replacement of Fill, observation of the proof-rolling procedures, structural fill placement, foundation subgrade review, and all critical earthwork operations. Advantage has the capability of providing these services and would be pleased to present a proposal to perform the on-site quality control observation on behalf of the Owner.

The scope of this investigation was limited to the evaluation of the load-carrying capabilities and load stability of the subsoils. Oil, hazardous waste, radioactivity, irritants, pollutants, radon or other dangerous substances and conditions were not the subject of this study. Their presence and/or absence are not implied, inferred or suggested by this Report or results of this study.

APPENDIX

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

GEOLOGIC MAP

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION LOCATION PLAN

TEST BORING PROFILES

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

TEST BORING LOGS

AUGER PROBE LOG

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

UPGRADES TO WILKES-BARRE VA HOSPITAL CLINIC

PREPARED FOR

PLAINS TOWNSHIP LUZERNE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

SCALE: DRAWING NUMBER:

DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

APPROVED BY: DATE:

AS SHOWN 130024701-A-100

T.C. SERFASS D. KREISCHER

4-17-2013

2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet

6520 STONEGATE DRIVE, SUITE 110

ALLENTOWN PA, 18106

PH: (610) 366 7120

FAX: (610) 366 7121

Legend

D. KREISCHER

Site

GEOLOGIC MAP

UPGRADES TO WILKES-BARRE VA HOSPITAL CLINIC

PREPARED FOR

PLAINS TOWNSHIP LUZERNE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

SCALE: DRAWING NUMBER:

DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

APPROVED BY: DATE:

AS SHOWN 130024701-A-101

T.C. SERFASS D. KREISCHER

4-17-2013

1,000 0 1,000500 Feet

*Source - Map 61 - Atlas of Preliminary Geologic Quadrangle Maps of Pennsylvania, 1981, Pa Geological Survey

6520 STONEGATE DRIVE, SUITE 110

ALLENTOWN PA, 18106

PH: (610) 366 7120

FAX: (610) 366 7121D. KREISCHER

Legend Road Stream

Fault

Site Outline Ç

Ç

Ç Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç Ç

Ç

Ç Ç

Ç Ç

Ç Ç Ç

Ç

Ç Ç

Ç

ÇÇ

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç Ç

Ç

Ç Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç Ç

Ç

Ç Pennsylvanian Llewellyn FormationPl

A

A

A

A

A

B-3 B-1

B-2

B-4

B-5

AP-1

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION LOCATION PLAN

UPGRADES TO WILKES-BARRE VA HOSPITAL CLINIC

PREPARED FOR

PLAINS TOWNSHIP LUZERNE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

SCALE: DRAWING NUMBER:

DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

APPROVED BY: DATE:

AS SHOWN 130024701-A-102

T.C. SERFASS D. KREISCHER

4-17-2013

150 0 15075 Feet

6520 STONEGATE DRIVE, SUITE 110

ALLENTOWN PA, 18106

PH: (610) 366 7120

FAX: (610) 366 7121D. KREISCHER

Legend Building Footprint

A Approximate Auger Probe Location A Approximate Test Boring Location

As-Received Moisture:8.3%

Gravel: Coarse: 10.7% Fine: 53.4%

Sand: Coarse: 9.8% Medium: 8.7% Fine: 8.3%

Fines: Silt: Clay:

Sand Description:

Consistency: Dry Strength:

Dilatancy: Toughness:

Structure: Cementation:

D60: 10.2 D30: 2.2 D10: 0.1 Cu: 102 Cc: 4.75

Boring: LL: NP PL: NP PI: NP

Sample: Depth:

Project:

Client:

Project Number:

Opening (mm) %Finer

100.0%

89.3%

2.00

35.9%

Description:

Atterberg Limits

Particle Size Distribution

9.1%

64.1%

USCS Classification:

26.8% GRAVEL

US Standard Sieve Size

19.0

1-1/2"

3/4"

3/8" 9.50

No. 4

0.005

38.0

S2 2'-4'

Gravel Description:

Brown and grey

No. 40 0.425

0.150

0.075

Clay Size

26.1%

4.75

Silt Size

No. 10

Soil Classification Report Per ASTM Designations D 2487 - 06 and D 2488 - 06

0.001

17.4%

11.5%

9.1%

GP-GM Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand

FINES

No. 200

No. 100

Sub-angular to Sub-rounded

51.6%

SAND

Homogeneous

B2

N/A

N/A

N/A

Sub-angular

N/A

Report Date: April 23, 2013

Bray Mooney Consulting, Inc

Fill Remarks:

130024701

Upgrades to Wilkes-Barre VA Hospital Clinic

N/A

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000

P e rc e n t

F in e r

Sieve Opening, mm

Particle Size Analysis of Soils

1-1/2" 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.10 No.40 No.100 No.200 Silt Clay

As-Received Moisture:2.2%

Gravel: Coarse: 42.5% Fine: 35.1%

Sand: Coarse: 8.2% Medium: 6.4% Fine: 3.7%

Fines: Silt: Clay:

Sand Description:

Consistency: Dry Strength:

Dilatancy: Toughness:

Structure: Cementation:

D60: 11 D30: 6.9 D10: 0.8 Cu: 14 Cc: 5.41

Boring: LL: NP PL: NP PI: NP

Sample: Depth:

Project:

Client:

Project Number:

Opening (mm) %Finer

100.0%

57.5%

2.00

22.4%

Description:

Atterberg Limits

Particle Size Distribution

4.1%

77.6%

USCS Classification:

18.3% GRAVEL

US Standard Sieve Size

19.0

1-1/2"

3/4"

3/8" 9.50

No. 4

0.005

38.0

S4 6'-8'

Gravel Description:

Brown and grey

No. 40 0.425

0.150

0.075

Clay Size

14.2%

4.75

Silt Size

No. 10

Soil Classification Report Per ASTM Designations D 2487 - 06 and D 2488 - 06

0.001

7.8%

5.4%

4.1%

GP - Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

FINES

No. 200

No. 100

Angular

38.6%

SAND

Homogeneous

B5

N/A

N/A

N/A

Angular to Sub-angular

N/A

Report Date: April 23, 2013

Bray Mooney Consulting, Inc

Stratum I Remarks:

130024701

Upgrades to Wilkes-Barre VA Hospital Clinic

N/A

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000

P e rc e n t

F in e r

Sieve Opening, mm

Particle Size Analysis of Soils

1-1/2" 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.10 No.40 No.100 No.200 Silt Clay

TEST BORING LOG SHEET 1 OF 1

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NUMBER:

LOCATION:

FIELD SURVEYED X TOPO ESTIMATE

GROUNDWATER DATA: Dry

Depth: Not Encountered Time: Completion

Upgrades to Wilkes-Barre VA Hospital Clinic BORING NO.: B-1

130024701 CLIENT: Bray Mooney Consulting, Inc TOP OF GROUND: ±894'

See Subsurface Investigation Location Plan (Drawing: 130024701-A-102)

Pavement3" of Bituminous Concrete and 5" of gravel subbase

0.7' - 1.7' Grey gravel-to cobble-sized rock fragments; trace sand and silt (based on auger cuttings)

0.0' - 0.7'

Fill

R1 1.7' - 6.7' Run #1 Bedrock

Hard, slightly weathered, highly fratured, grey to brown sandstone

ADVANTAGE REPRESENTATIVE: T.C.Serfass

6520 Stonegate Drive, Suite 110, Allentown, PA 18106

(610) 366-7120 FAX: (610) 366-7121

www.advantageengineers.com

DATE DRILLED: April 20, 2013

DATE COMPILED: April 22, 2013

REMARKSSOIL DESCRIPTION

REC=90%

RQD=0%

Auger Refusal at 1.7 Feet

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

RIG TYPE: Truck-Mounted CME-55

-Concrete slab from 1.7 to 2.2 feet

End of Boring at 6.7 Feet

E

L

E

V

DEPTH

(feet)

S A

M P

L

N

U M

B

R

S

M P

D

P

T H ft

DEPTH SPT REMARKS

BLOWS

PER 6"

PROJECT NUMBER:

6520 Stonegate Drive, Suite 110, Allentown, PA 18106

(610) 366-7120 FAX: (610) 366-7121

www.advantageengineers.com

DATE DRILLED: April 20, 2013

DATE COMPILED: April 22, 2013

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

RIG TYPE: Truck-Mounted CME-55

Upgrades to Wilkes-Barre VA Hospital Clinic BORING NO.: B-2

130024701 CLIENT: Bray Mooney Consulting, Inc TOP OF GROUND: ±894'

Depth: Not Encountered Time: Completion

Topsoil

SOIL DESCRIPTION

See Subsurface Investigation Location Plan (Drawing: 130024701-A-102) GROUNDWATER DATA: Dry

Dark brown silty sand with organic material0.0' - 0.7'

0.7' - 2.0'

S1 0' - 2' 2-2-3-6 Fill

2' - 2.5' 50/6" Stratum I

Medium dense grey to brown gravel with silt and sand

2.0' - 3.0' Very dense brown to grey gravel with sand

Auger Refusal at 3.0 Feet

End of Boring at 3.0 Feet

S2

ADVANTAGE REPRESENTATIVE: T.C.Serfass

E

L

S A

M P

M

B

M P

P

T H ft

REMARKS

PROJECT NUMBER:

www.advantageengineers.com

Upgrades to Wilkes-Barre VA Hospital Clinic BORING NO.: B-3

130024701 CLIENT: Bray Mooney Consulting, Inc TOP OF GROUND: ±898'

Topsoil

SOIL DESCRIPTION

See Subsurface Investigation Location Plan (Drawing: 130024701-A-102) GROUNDWATER DATA: Dry

Depth: Not Encountered Time: Completion

S1 0' - 2' 1-1-3-5 Fill

Dark brown silty sand with organic material

Medium dense grey to brown gravel with silt and sand

0.0' - 1.0'

1.0' - 2.0'

S2 2' - 3.8' 10-24-21-50/3" Very dense grey to brown gravel with sand

2.0' - 4.8'

5 S3 4' - 4.8' 22-50/3" Stratum IVery dense grey to brown gravel with sand

Auger Refusal at 4.8 Feet

End of Boring at 4.8 Feet

DATE DRILLED: April 20, 2013

DATE COMPILED: April 22, 2013

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

RIG TYPE: Truck-Mounted CME-55

ADVANTAGE REPRESENTATIVE: T.C.Serfass

E

L

S A

M P

M

B

M P

P

T H ft

PROJECT NUMBER:

Upgrades to Wilkes-Barre VA Hospital Clinic BORING NO.: B-4

130024701 CLIENT: Bray Mooney Consulting, Inc TOP OF GROUND: ±900'

6520 Stonegate Drive, Suite 110, Allentown, PA 18106

(610) 366-7120 FAX: (610) 366-7121

www.advantageengineers.com

DATE DRILLED: April 20, 2013

ADVANTAGE REPRESENTATIVE: T.C.Serfass

DATE COMPILED: April 22, 2013

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

RIG TYPE: Truck-Mounted CME-55

Topsoil

SOIL DESCRIPTION

See Subsurface Investigation Location Plan (Drawing: 130024701-A-102)

S1 0' - 2' 1-1-2-3

Dark brown silty sand with organic material0.0' - 0.7'

Medium dense grey to brown gravel with silt and sand 0.7' - 5.0'

GROUNDWATER DATA: Dry

Depth: Not Encountered Time: Completion

Medium dense grey to brown gravel with silt and sand S2 2' - 4' 2-2-2-4

5 Fill

5.0' - 7.0'

Stratum I

Grey and brown cobble-to boulder-sized rock framents with silt and sand (based on auger cuttings)

Auger Refusal at 7.0 Feet

End of Boring at 7.0 Feet

E

L

S A

M P

M

B

M P

P

T H ft

PROJECT NUMBER:

www.advantageengineers.com

DATE DRILLED: April 20, 2013

DATE COMPILED: April 22, 2013

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

RIG TYPE: Truck-Mounted CME-55

ADVANTAGE REPRESENTATIVE: T.C.Serfass

Upgrades to Wilkes-Barre VA Hospital Clinic BORING NO.: B-5

130024701 CLIENT: Bray Mooney Consulting, Inc TOP OF GROUND: ±900'

GROUNDWATER DATA: Dry

Depth: Not Encountered Time: Completion

Topsoil

SOIL DESCRIPTION

See Subsurface Investigation Location Plan (Drawing: 130024701-A-102)

S1 0' - 2' 2-2-3-2

Dark brown silty sand with organic material0.0' - 0.7'

Medium dense grey to brown gravel with silt and sand 0.7' - 6.0'

S2 2' - 4' 4-6-5-3 Medium dense grey to brown gravel with silt and sand

S3 4' - 6' 3-4-6-12 FillMedium dense grey to brown gravel with silt and sand

Very dense grey gravel with sandS4 6' - 7.7' 14-14-19-50/2" Stratum I

6.0' - 8.0'

Auger Refusal at 8.0 Feet

End of Boring at 8.0 Feet

E

L

S A

M P

M

B

M P

P

T H ft

AUGER PROBE LOG SHEET 1 OF 1

PROJECT NAME: Upgrades to Wilkes-Barre VA Hospital Clinic

PROJECT NUMBER:

GROUNDWATER DATA: Dry

Depth: Not Encountered Time: Completion

AP-1

130024701 CLIENT: Bray Mooney Consulting, Inc TOP OF GROUND: ±894'

AUGER PROBE NO.:

See Subsurface Investigation Location Plan (Drawing: 130024701-A-102)

Topsoil0.0' - 0.7' Dark brown silty sand with organic material

0.7' - 3.0'

Stratum I

Grey and brown gravel-to cobble-sized rock fragments with sand (based on auger cutting)

Auger Refusal at 3.0 Feet

End of Auger Probe at 3.0 Feet

Infiltration Test @ 1.0' (2.4 inches/hour)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

6520 Stonegate Drive, Suite 110, Allentown, PA 18106

(610) 366-7120 FAX: (610) 366-7121

www.advantageengineers.com

DATE DRILLED: April 20, 2013

ADVANTAGE REPRESENTATIVE: T.C.Serfass

DATE COMPILED: April 22, 2013

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

RIG TYPE: Truck-Mounted CME-55

E

L

S A

M P

M

B

M P

P

T H ft