S06 - 0003 - Att2 - Geotech Report 2024.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

EHRM INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES

WILKES-BARRE VA MEDICAL CENTER

WILKES-BARRE, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Rhea Project No. 2459

Prepared for:

Spees Design Build

23830 Pacific Hwy S; Suite 203

Kent, WA 98032

Prepared by:

Rhea Engineers & Consultants, Inc.

333 Rouser Road, Suite 301

Moon Township, PA 15108

June 4, 2024 Revised: July 31, 2024

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/GSR/R1-GER i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................i LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. iii LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Foreword ............................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Revision Summary ................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Project Description ............................................................................... 1-2

2.0 SOIL, ROCK, AND GEOLOGIC SETTING........................................................... 2-1

2.1 Physiographic Setting ........................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Topography ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Local Geology ...................................................................................... 2-1

2.4 Soil .......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.5 Geotechnical Findings ......................................................................... 2-2

2.5.1 Landslides ................................................................................... 2-2

2.5.2 Mining and Mine Subsidence .................................................. 2-2

2.5.3 Sinkholes ..................................................................................... 2-3

2.5.4 Flood Potential ........................................................................... 2-3

2.5.5 Wetlands .................................................................................... 2-3

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ............................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Description ............................................................................................ 3-1

Table 1: Boring Depth Summary .......................................................... 3-1

3.2 Subsurface Conditions ......................................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 Soil Conditions............................................................................ 3-2

3.2.2 Rock Conditions ........................................................................ 3-2

3.2.3 Groundwater Level Tabulations ............................................... 3-2

3.3 Infiltration Testing .................................................................................. 3-3

4.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .............................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Geotechnical Laboratory Tests ........................................................... 4-1

Table 2: Summary of Completed Laboratory Tests ........................... 4-1

4.1.1 Moisture Content ....................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Classification Tests ..................................................................... 4-2 Table 3: Summary of Soil Classification Tests ...................................... 4-2

4.1.3 Atterberg Limits .......................................................................... 4-2

4.1.4 Rock UCS .................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4: Rock UCS Test Results ............................................................. 4-3

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/GSR/R1-GER ii

4.1.5 Standard Proctor Compaction Test ........................................ 4-3

4.1.6 Corrosion Tests on Soil ............................................................... 4-3 Table 5: Corrosivity Criteria and the Laboratory Results ................... 4-4

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA ........................ 5-1

5.1 Reuse of On-Site or Off-Site Soil ........................................................... 5-1

5.2 Pavement .............................................................................................. 5-1

5.3 Soil and Water Corrosion Protection .................................................. 5-2

5.4 Frost Depth ............................................................................................ 5-3

5.5 Seismic Design Parameters .................................................................. 5-3

Table 6: Seismic Parameters ................................................................ 5-3

5.6 Passive Earth Pressure ........................................................................... 5-4

5.7 Bearing Resistance and Settlement ................................................... 5-5

5.8 Skin Friction ............................................................................................ 5-6

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Reuse of On-Site or Off-Site Soil ........................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Soil ............................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Granular Material, Type 1 ......................................................... 6-2

6.1.3 Granular Material, Type 2 ......................................................... 6-2

6.1.4 Rock ............................................................................................ 6-3

6.1.5 Shale ........................................................................................... 6-3

6.1.6 Random Material ...................................................................... 6-4

6.2 Pavements ............................................................................................ 6-4

6.3 Soil and Water Corrosion Protection .................................................. 6-5

6.4 Frost Depth ............................................................................................ 6-5

6.5 Seismic Design Parameters .................................................................. 6-5

Table 6: Seismic Parameters (Duplicate) ........................................... 6-5

6.6 Passive Earth Pressure ........................................................................... 6-6

6.7 Bearing Resistance and Settlement ................................................... 6-6

6.8 Skin Friction ............................................................................................ 6-7

7.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 7-1

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/GSR/R1-GER iii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Site Location Map

FIGURE 2 Test and Structure Boring Location Map

FIGURE 3 Physiographic Settings Map

FIGURE 4 Digital Elevation and Contours Map

FIGURE 5 Geologic Formation Map

FIGURE 6 USDA NRCS Soils Map

FIGURE 7 Mine Map

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A gINT Logs/Cross Section

APPENDIX B Infiltration Field Report

APPENDIX C Laboratory Test Results

APPENDIX D Calculations/Analyses

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/GSR/R1-GER iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

2RC PennDOT 2RC Select Granular Material

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation

AMRL AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory amsl Above Mean Sea Level

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BFE below footing elevation bgs Below Ground Surface

BMP Best Management Practice

CBR California Bearing Ratio

CF Cut and fill land

Client Spees Design Build, Inc.

DFI Design Freezing Index dim dimensionless

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency ft feet

Geotechnics Geotechnics, Inc.

GER Geotechnical Engineering Report

GC-GM Silty, Clayey Gravel with Sand

GSR Geotechnical Summary Report

I.D. Inner Diameter in/hr inches per hour kcf kips per cubic foot kf kips per linear foot ksf kips per square foot

LL Liquid Limit

LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design

MDD Maximum Dry Density mm millimeter

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/GSR/R1-GER v

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Services

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

O.D. Outer Diameter

OGS Open-Graded Subbase ohm-cm ohm-centimeter

OM Optimum Moisture

PADCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources

PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

PI Plasticity Index

Pl Llewellyn Formation

PL Plastic Limit

PTM Pennsylvania Test Method ppm parts per million

Rhea Rhea Engineers & Consultants, Inc.

RQD Rock Quality Designation

SB Structure Boring

Site Wilkes-Barre VA

SM Silty Sand with Gravel

Spees Spees Design Build, Inc.

SPT Standard Penetration Test

TB Test Boring

TOR top of rock

UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

VA Veterans Administration

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Foreword

When preparing a Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER), it is Rhea Engineers &

Consultants, Inc.’s (Rhea’s) standard practice to include, at a minimum, three geotechnical borings. This practice allows the geotechnical engineer to create a subsurface geologic profile based on the boring logs in three dimensions and account for deviations in soil, bedrock, and/or groundwater elevations as well as changes in material physical and engineering properties. Spees Design Build, Inc. (herein referred to as the Client) requested that Rhea only perform two geotechnical borings and a third unsampled infiltration boring. This subsurface investigation was done in support of the initial Geotechnical Summary Report (GSR). This GSR provided a summary of the subsurface conditions, results from the laboratory testing, and limited engineering recommendations regarding the use/reuse of on-site or off-site soil and pavement subbase suitability. It did not and was not intended to include any additional engineering recommendations.

Upon completion and delivery of the GSR, the Client contacted Rhea to inquire if the

GSR could be upgraded to a GER without including any additional geotechnical borings. The purpose of this upgrade would be to include additional engineering recommendations. These recommendations include frost depth penetration, seismic site parameters, passive earth pressure, bearing type, resistance, and settlement, and skin friction. Rhea notified the Client that it would be possible to perform this task.

However, Rhea expressed to the Client that since the standard minimum of borings had not been performed during the subsurface investigation, Rhea would not assume liability for unanticipated changes in subsurface conditions encountered during construction. These changes include deviations from assumed soil and/or rock strata depth and material physical and engineering properties. The Client accepted this limited liability upon acceptance of our proposal addendum.

1.2 Revision Summary

The following sections of the GER have been modified or added as part of the report revision:

+ 1.1 Foreword – Added

+ 1.2 Revision Summary – Added

+ 1.3 Project Description – Modified

+ 5.4 Frost Depth – Added

+ 5.5 Seismic Design Parameters – Added

+ 5.6 Passive Earth Pressure – Added

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 1-2

+ 5.7 Bearing Resistance and Settlement – Added

+ 5.8 Skin Friction – Added

+ 6.3 Soil and Water Corrosion Protection – Added

+ 6.4 Frost Depth – Added

+ 6.5 Seismic Design Parameters – Added

+ 6.6 Passive Earth Pressure – Added

+ 6.7 Bearing Resistance and Settlement – Added

+ 6.8 Skin Friction – Added

+ 7.0 References – Modified

1.3 Project Description

The purpose of this GER is to document the geotechnical work performed during the subsurface investigation and to present the geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades at the Wilkes-Barre Veterans

Administration (VA) Medical Center (herein referred to as the Site) located at 1111

East End in Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The Site Location Map

(Figure 1) can be found in the Attachments section of this report.

This GER report is prepared for the Client by Rhea.

The Site currently is occupied by the existing Building 35, a pre-fabricated structure that houses an American Legion facility. Another prefabricated structure borders

Building 35 to the south; the remaining portions of the Site consist of asphalt pavement driveways, parking areas, walking paths, and flat-to-sloping lawns. The

EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades Project proposes to demolish the existing Building

35 and construction of an MCR Building with an attached Generator Room and

Mechanical Yard. The project also includes the design and construction of Best

Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that there is not an increase in stormwater runoff resulting from the new construction.

The Test and Structure Boring Location Map (Figure 2) shows the structure boring

(SB) and test boring (TB) locations.

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 2-1

2.0 SOIL, ROCK, AND GEOLOGIC SETTING

2.1 Physiographic Setting

The Site is located in the Anthracite Valley Section of the Ridge and Valley Province.

The Appalachian Plateaus Province is characterized by unusually long, narrow, nearly parallel ridges and valley connected by water gaps (Barnes and Sevon, 2014).

The Anthracite Valley section, specifically, are narrow to wide, canoe-shaped valleys having irregular to linear hills, enclosed by steep-sloped mountain rims (Sevon and

Braun, 2000). The Anthracite Valley section contains trellis and parallel drainage patterns. The Physiographic Settings Map is shown in Figure 3.

2.2 Topography

The Site is located on the Wilkes-Barre East United States Geological Survey (USGS)

7.5 Minute series Topographic Maps. Building 35 is situated on a flat portion of the

Site with an approximate elevation of 905 feet (ft) above mean sea level (amsl); the lawn where the proposed BMP will be located slopes from approximately 905 to 890 ft amsl. The topography of the Site is shown in Figure 4.

2.3 Local Geology

The Site is located on the boundary of the Pennsylvanian Age Llewellyn Formation

(Pl). The Llewellyn Formation is the lateral equivalent to the Allegheny Formation

(part of the Conemaugh Group). The Pl is characterized by interbedded sandstone, siltstone, shale, conglomerate, and anthracite coal (Edmunds et al., 1979; Taylor, 1984; Inners, 1997). The generalized stratigraphic column for the Llewellyn

Formation within the Northern Anthracite field is shown in Figure 5.

2.4 Soil

Figure 6 is a soils map of the Site areas based on data obtained from the United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/) (USDA NRCS, 2024).

The Site is entirely comprised of cut and fill land (CF), meaning that the ground surface has been disturbed by cut and fill activities.

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 2-2

2.5 Geotechnical Findings

The following section discusses the potential geotechnical hazards associated with the proposed construction.

2.5.1 Landslides

Figure 1 “The physiographic provinces and sections of Pennsylvania, and landslide susceptibility” from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources (PADCNR) Landslides in Pennsylvania (Delano and Wilshusen, 2001) identify Luzerne County as an area of low concern but may contain increased potential in localized areas. The Site is generally flat; areas exhibiting change in elevation are either generally sloping with no indication of slope instability or regulated by retaining walls. As such, landslides are not considered to be a hazard.

2.5.2 Mining and Mine Subsidence

The Site is underlain by the Mineral Springs Mining Operation, which was active from approximately 1870 to 1960. The Mineral Springs mine implemented primarily room and pillar extraction methodology; however, stripping was applied at economically viable areas near the surface (Advantage, 2015a).

Figure 7 contains a portion of the mine map for the Mineral Springs Mining

Operation, which excavated the Lower Red Ash coal seam using room and pillar mining. Previous analysis from the Final Geotechnical Engineering Report, VAMC

Wilkes-Barre Parking Structure (Advantage, 2015b), includes a mine profile containing the Top and Bottom Red Ash. Analysis of this profile indicates that the

Top Red Ash coal seam is located at an elevation of approximately 650 ft amsl or 250 ft below the existing grade at the Site.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has the following mine subsidence risk categories:

+ High Risk – Known mining located less than 100 feet below existing grades.

+ Medium Risk – Known mine located 100 – 300 feet below existing grades.

+ Low Risk – Known mine located greater than 300 feet below existing grades.

The Site is located approximately 200 feet above documented mine locations and therefore is classified as medium risk for mine related subsidence (Advantage, 2015a).

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 2-3

No visible indicators including visible building structural damage (wall/brick cracking, displacement) or land subsidence which may indicate mine subsidence were observed at the Site during the subsurface investigation.

2.5.3 Sinkholes

Sinkholes are features associated with karst environments. Karst environments are problematic subsurface conditions that occur in areas underlain by limestone and dolomite bedrock. The stratigraphic units underlying the Site consisting of interbedded of sandstone, siltstone, shale, conglomerate, and anthracite coal are not conducive to the formation of sinkholes. Sinkholes commonly associated with karst terrain are not anticipated to be a geotechnical hazard at the Site.

2.5.4 Flood Potential

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map

(https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home) (FEMA, 2024) defines the project area as an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard. Due to the low hazard rating, flooding is not anticipated to be a hazard.

2.5.5 Wetlands

Based on the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory

(NWI), no wetlands or riparian features are located at the Site.

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 3-1

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

3.1 Description

Two structural borings were drilled by Negley’s Geotechnical Service with Rhea staff on site to monitor and log the borings. The drilling was completed on April 8, 2024. A

CME tracked drill rig was used to advance each of the borings.

Continuous standard penetration test (SPT) sampling was conducted by driving a split-spoon spoon sampler [1.375-inch inner diameter (I.D.), 2.0-inch outer diameter

(O.D.)] with an automatic hammer with an assumed efficiency of 80 percent in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1586

“Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel

Sampling of Soils” (ASTM D1586, 2022). These soil samples were retrieved continuously until auger refusal was achieved. Rhea personnel placed the soil samples in labelled jars and visually classified the soil samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Continuous SPT sampling was conducted while advancing 3-inch I.D. hollow stem augers. SPT samples were driven after advancing the augers to the desired sample depth.

A test boring was drilled so that infiltration testing could be performed. This boring was advanced to a depth of 5 ft below ground surface (bgs) using unsampled augering and was completed on April 8, 2024.

The locations of the TB and SBs can be found in Figure 2. The gINT Boring Logs are included in Appendix A. Table 1 below provides a summary of SBs and the TB completed at the Site.

Table 1: Boring Depth Summary

Boring Depth Summary

Boring ID

Number Purpose

Surface Elevation

(ft amsl)

Soil Sampling/

Augering (ft)

Rock Coring

(ft)

SB-1 Structural 905.3 9.5 25.3

SB-2 Structural 903.4 7.5 25.0

TB-1 Infiltration 894.2 5.0 0.0

Total 22.0 50.3

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 3-2

3.2 Subsurface Conditions

3.2.1 Soil Conditions

SB-1 is located between the northwest corner of the existing VA facility building and the asphalt pavement and corresponds to the northwest corner of the proposed building. SB-2 is located in the lawn near the southeast corner of the existing VA facility building and corresponds to the southeast corner of the proposed building. In both borings, the soil from 0.0 to 6.0 ft bgs consists of fill composed primarily of sand and gravel with secondary silt and clay components. The laboratory testing of the material from SB-1 resulted in USCS classifications of Silty, Clayey Gravel with Sand

(GC-GM); the material from SB-2 resulted in a USCS classification of Silty Sand with

Gravel (SM). Both materials had an American Association of State Highway and

Transportation (AASHTO) classification of A-2-4, respectively. The results of these tests are further discussed in Section 4.1 of this report. The N60 SPT blow counts ranged from 9 to >67 blows per foot correlating to “loose” and “very dense” densities for granular soils. In SB-1, anthracite coal fragments were encountered from 0.0 to

3.9 ft bgs and micaceous sandstone fragments from 3.9 to 6.0 ft bgs.

Micaceous fine-grain sandstone, expressed as mechanically broken rock in the gINT

Logs, was encountered at a depth of 6.0 ft bgs in both borings. In SB-1, auger refusal in this material was obtained at a depth of 9.5 ft bgs; in SB-2, it was obtained at a depth of 7.5 ft bgs.

3.2.2 Rock Conditions

The bedrock encountered in both borings consists of dull- medium hard to hard, fine-grain sandstone. The bedrock weathering decreases as depth increases, with the most weathered portions near the top of the boring and the most fresh portions near the bottom. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) exhibited the inverse correlation; as depth increased, so did the RQD. Coal was encountered in SB-2 at a depth of 25.0 to

25.7 ft bgs; carbonaceous content was exhibited in both borings below 876 ft amsl.

SB-2 also exhibited a slicken side fracture at a depth of 29.9 ft bgs.

3.2.3 Groundwater Level Tabulations

Evaluation of the soil samples recovered during the SPT sampling at each boring show that the soil moisture content decreased as the depth below ground surface increased. In SB-1, the soil was dry below 3.9 ft bgs; in SB-2, the soil was dry below

6.0 ft bgs. Additionally, no groundwater was observed in the soil borings prior to the start of rock coring. These observations indicate that groundwater was not present in the soil during the subsurface investigation.

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 3-3

During rock coring, loss of drill water circulation was observed in both borings within the top five feet. Had groundwater been perched within the weathered upper portion of the bedrock, no loss of drill water circulation would have been observed. As such, the loss of drill water indicated that groundwater was not present in bedrock during the subsurface investigation.

3.3 Infiltration Testing

A percolation infiltration test, modified from “Appendix C – Site Evaluation and Soil

Testing” of the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual

(PADEP, 2006), was performed at the proposed BMP location to evaluate its infiltration rate. The drilling subcontractor, under supervision of Rhea staff, advanced boring TB-1 to a depth of 5 ft using unsampled hollow stem augering.

Following advancing the borehole, the borehole was filled with potable water and infiltration test rates were determined to range from 0.25 to 0.125 inches per hour

(in/hr) with an average unfactored infiltration rate of 0.156 in/hr.

As per “Appendix C – Site Evaluation and Soil Testing” (PADEP, 2006), soils used for infiltration should have unfactored infiltration rates between 0.1 and 10 in/hr.

Additionally, the BMP manual states that a minimum factor of safety of two is to be used for any type of infiltration testing.

The Infiltration Field Testing Report can be found in Appendix B of this report.

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 4-1

4.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

4.1 Geotechnical Laboratory Tests

Soil and water samples collected during the subsurface investigation were stored and transferred to a certified AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory (AMRL), Geotechnics, Inc. (Geotechnics), located in East Pittsburgh, PA. Table 2 below shows the completed laboratory analyses.

Table 2: Summary of Completed Laboratory Tests

Summary of Completed Laboratory Tests

Boring ID

Testing Procedure

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

S ie v e A n a ly si s

A tt e rb e rg

L im it s

H y d ro m e te r T e st s

M o d if ie d P ro ct o r

R o ck

U n co n fi n e d

C o m p re ss iv e S tr e n g th

(U

S

S o il

C o rr o si v it y S u it

SB-1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

SB-2 3 1 1 1 0 1 0

Total Tests 6 2 2 2 1 2 1

4.1.1 Moisture Content

“Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass” (ASTM D2216, 2019) tests were completed on specific jar samples obtained during the subsurface investigation from Borings SB-1 and SB-2.

A total of six samples were tested for moisture content. The moisture content of the soil samples from SB-1 ranged from 4.8 percent to 8.7 percent; the moisture content of the soil samples from SB-2 ranged from 4.4 to 12.0 percent.

The moisture content test results for soil samples obtained from the structure borings are presented in Appendix C of this report.

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 4-2

4.1.2 Classification Tests

Sieve and Hydrometer analyses and Soil classification tests (ASTM D6913, 2017;

ASTM D7928, 2021) were completed for two samples. Table 3 below shows the summary of soil classification test results, and the detailed lab results are included in Appendix C of this report.

Table 3: Summary of Soil Classification Tests

Summary of Soil Classification Tests

B o ri n g I

D

D p th b g s (f t)

Group Symbol Composition as per AASHTO

Atterberg Limits on (- #40 soil)

U S

S

A A

S H

T O

G ra v e l

S a n d

F in e s

(S il t

C la y

S il t

C la y

L iq u id l im it

L L

P la st ic

L im it

P L

P la st ic it y I n d e x

P I)

SB-1 0.0 – 6.0 GC-GM A-2-4 63.23 22.08 14.69 11.11 3.58 22 16 6

SB-2 0.0 – 6.0 SM A-2-4 54.76 25.93 19.30 15.89 3.41 29 25 4

Sieve analysis results show that the material is primarily composed of gravel

[material passing a 3-inch sieve but retained on a 2-millimeter (mm) sieve], with secondary sand (material passing a 2-mm sieve but retained on a 0.075-mm sieve) and fines (material passing a 0.075-mm sieve) components. The fines sampled during the laboratory testing were primarily silt (material passing the 0.075-mm sieve but with a particle size greater than 0.002 mm).

Based on the AASHTO classification system per Appendix D-9 of Pennsylvania

Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Publication (Pub) 222 (PennDOT Pub 222, 2022), the subgrade soils at the Site is A-2-4 (good).

4.1.3 Atterberg Limits

Liquid limit (LL) tests and plastic limit (PL) tests were completed on soil samples obtained from the borings. A summary of Atterberg limits and Hydrometer (ASTM

D4318, 2018) test results are included in Table 3 above. Detailed laboratory results are included in Appendix C of this report.

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 4-3

Atterberg limit tests completed show that the soils have plasticity indexes (PIs) that range from 4 to 6. LL for the soils range from 22 to 29. Based on the AASHTO

Plasticity Chart D-10 (PennDOT Pub 222, 2022), the soils tested from SB-1 and SB-

2 have low compressibility characteristics.

4.1.4 Rock UCS

Rock unconfined compressive strength (UCS) (Method C of ASTM D7012, 2023) tests were completed on micaceous sandstone samples from each boring. These samples were selected from the highest point (i.e. closest to the ground surface) where an intact sample four inches in length could be recovered. Table 4 below shows the results of these tests, and the detailed lab results are included in Appendix C of this report.

Table 4: Rock UCS Test Results

Rock UCS Test Results

Boring ID Compressive Strength (psi) Fracture Type

SB-1 9,030 Cone/Shear

SB-2 3,860 Cone/Split

4.1.5 Standard Proctor Compaction Test

A Standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D4718, 2023; ASTM D698, 2021) was completed on a bag sample from material collected from SB-1 from 0.0 to 6.0 ft. This test provides the relationship between the moisture content of the soil and its corresponding density. This test was performed in the “Standard” variation due to the assumed light loads imposed on the Site soils. Detailed laboratory results are included in Appendix C of this report.

The Standard Proctor test completed on the sample shows a corrected maximum dry density (MDD) of 143.4 pcf at an optimum moisture (OM) of 4.2 percent.

4.1.6 Corrosion Tests on Soil

A bulk soil sample was collected from SB-1 and analyzed for water-soluble chloride and sulfate ion content, pH, and minimum resistivity according to AASHTO T 288

Standard Method of Test for Determining Minimum Laboratory Soil Resistivity, AASHTO T 289 Standard Method of Test for Determining pH of Soil for Use in

Corrosion Testing, AASHTO T 290 Standard Method of Test for Determining Water-

Soluble Sulfate Ion Content in Soil, and AASHTO T 291 Standard Method of Test for

Determining Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content in Soil (AASHTO T 288, 2012;

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 4-4

AASHTO T 289, 2004; AASHTO T 290, 1995; AASHTO T 291, 1994). Table 5 below summarizes the results of these tests, and the detailed lab results are included in

Appendix C of this report.

Table 5: Corrosivity Criteria and the Laboratory Results

Corrosivity Criteria and the Laboratory Results

Test Type

Tests on Soil Sample

Potentially corrosive as per DM-4

SB-1

pH < 5.5 8.02

Sulfate >1000 ppm 62.5 ppm

Chloride1 >1000 ppm 21.89 ppm

Sulfate1 >100 ppm 62.5 ppm

Min. Resistivity <200 ohm-cm 4100 ohm-cm

Notes: 1- Only if resistivity is between 2,000 and 5,000 ohm-centimeters (ohm-cm); ppm- parts per million; Reference: PennDOT Pub 15M DM-4, 10.7.5.6P (PennDOT DM-4, 2019)

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 5-1

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION

OF DATA

The following section analyzes the information from the literature research, the field data collected, and the laboratory testing results.

5.1 Reuse of On-Site or Off-Site Soil

Based on the results of the Sieve, Hydrometer, and Atterberg limits test, the soil encountered in SB-1 can be defined as “Granular Material, Type 2” and the soil encountered in SB-2 can be defined as “Granular Material, Type 1”, per Section 206.2

“Material” of PennDOT Pub 408/2020 (PennDOT Pub 408/2020, 2024). If reasonably free of organic matter, coal, carbonaceous materials, or other objectionable materials, this material is suitable for use as embankment, fill, or backfill, unless specified otherwise.

Based on review of the geologic history of the Site as well as visual observations made during the subsurface investigation, if rock is encountered, it is likely to be defined as “Rock” (PennDOT Pub 408/2020, 2024). Any rock excavated during construction may be suitable for use as embankment, fill, or backfill if reasonably free of organic matter, coal, carbonaceous materials, or other objectionable materials, unless specified otherwise.

A Standard Proctor test was performed on a bag sample recovered from 0.0 to 6.0 ft bgs from SB-1. The results of this test show that the tested material has a MDD of

143.4, achieved at an OM content of 4.2 percent. Additionally, a classification test suite was performed on samples recovered from both borings; the results of both tests showed similar particle size gradations and AASHTO classifications of A-2-4. Based on these results, material at the Site with similar particle size gradations can be expected to have similar MDD and OM. However, soils planned for use for embankment, fill, or backfill should always be sampled and tested to verify its suitability.

The Laboratory Test Results used in this analysis can be found in Appendix C of this report.

5.2 Pavement

Based on the laboratory testing and classifications, the soil sampled from SB-1 meets the requirements for “Granular Material, Type 2” and the soil sampled from SB-2

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 5-2 meets the requirements for “Granular Material, Type 1”, per Section 206.2 “Material”

(PennDOT Pub 408/2020, 2024).

The AASHTO Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures, per Appendix D-9

(PennDOT Pub 222, 2022), provides generalized ratings for subgrade suitability depending on the soil’s AASHTO classification. According to the laboratory classifications, the Site soils are identified as AASHTO classification A-2-4 which have a “Excellent to Good” general subgrade rating.

Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures, NCHRP 1-37A Final Report, Appendix CC-1: Correlation of CBR values of soil index properties (ARA, 2004) outlines the following equation.

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) = 28.09 * (D60)0.358

Where D60 is the particle diameter in millimeters where 60 of the material is finer.

The D60 of the material from 0.0 to 6.0 ft bgs from SB-1 and SB-2 are 4.5 mm and 9 mm, respectively. Using the previous equation, the CBR values for the material from

SB-1 and SB-2 are

CBR = 28.09 * (9)0.358 = 61.7 (SB – 1)

CBR = 28.09 * (4.5) 0.358 = 48.1 (SB – 2)

While these CBR values provide a generalized concept of the CBR capacity of the material sampled at the Site, they should not be used as a substitute for laboratory and/or in-situ CBR values. It is strongly recommended that soil representative of the proposed pavement subgrade should be submitted for laboratory CBR testing for use during pavement design.

5.3 Soil and Water Corrosion Protection

Soils can have a wide range of acidity, reaching anywhere from 2.5 to 10. As pH levels of 5.5 or below can lead to extreme corrosion rates and premature pitting of metallic objects, a neutral pH of about 7 is most desirable to minimize this potential for corrosion damage. When sulfates are greater than 1000 ppm, the soil is potentially corrosive.

Other factors that can affect the corrosiveness of soils are levels of sulfates and chloride salts in comparison to resistivity. Soils are considered corrosive if soil resistivity is between 2000 and 5000 ohm-cm and the sulfate or chloride concentration is over 200 and 100 ppm, respectively.

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 5-3

Based on the analytical results for chloride, sulfate, and minimum resistivity in the soil sample from SB-1, the soil does not meet any of the criteria to be considered corrosive.

5.4 Frost Depth

The frost depth at the Site can be correlated using Figure 9.1 “Design Chart for

Determination of Frost Penetration.” of PennDOT Pub 242 (PennDOT Pub 242, 2023)

The Design Freezing Index (DFI) is determined using Appendix D “Design Freezing

Index and Frost Heave Worksheet” (PennDOT Pub 242, 2023). Of the three locations listed for Luzerne County, the Scranton Wilkes-Barre (Airport WB) has the nearest listed elevation; therefore, the listed DFI of 921 for the Scranton Wilkes-Barre

(Airport WB) was used.

Using Figure 9.1 (PennDOT Pub 242, 2023), a DFI value of 921 correlates to a frost penetration depth of approximately 43 inches.

The calculation narrative for the frost penetration depth is included in Appendix D of this report.

5.5 Seismic Design Parameters

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-16 defines six site classes, Site

Class A through Site Class F, based on the upper 100 feet of soil and rock below the base of a structure (ASCE, 2017). Site A is a competent site (hard rock), and Site F is a seismically vulnerable site (site requiring soil response analyses).

Based on the evaluation of SPT results, the Site is classified as Site Class “C – Very dense soil and soft rock.” The determination of Site Class characterization from SPT observations is shown in Appendix D of this report. Table 6 below shows the parameters to be used for seismic analyses. These seismic parameters are obtained from www.seismicmaps.org (US Seismic Design Maps, 2024). The Seismic Design

Maps report is included in Appendix D of this report.

Table 6: Seismic Parameters

Seismic Parameters

Description Value

Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-16

Risk Category IV http://www.seismicmaps.org/

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 5-4

Description Value

Site Class C – Very dense soil and soft rock

Site Latitude 41.24793755 N

Site Longitude 75.83504047 W

Ss, Spectral acceleration for a Short Period 0.125 g

S1 Spectral acceleration for a 1-second period 0.044 g

5.6 Passive Earth Pressure

Lateral earth pressure is determined by AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design

(LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Ed. (AASHTO LRFD, 2017), Equation

3.11.5.1-1:

𝑝𝑝 = 𝑘𝑝𝛾𝑠𝑧

Where pp is the passive lateral earth pressure in kips per square foot (ksf), γs is the unit weight of soil in kips per cubic foot (kcf), z is the depth below the surface in feet

(ft), and kp is the coefficient of passive lateral earth pressure [dimensionless (dim)].

Figure 3.11.5.4-1 “Computational Procedures for Passive Earth Pressures for Vertical and Sloping Walls with Horizontal Backfill (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1982a)”

(AASHTO LRFD, 2017) uses the angle of internal friction and the angle of back of wall to the horizon to determine the coefficient of passive lateral earth pressure.

Section C3.11.5.5 “Equivalent-Fluid Method of Estimating Rankine Lateral Earth

Pressures” (PennDOT DM-4, 2019) states that backfill should contain less than 5 percent fines due to low permeability and potential frost susceptibility. For this analysis, Rhea has used the PennDOT assumed internal friction angle for open-graded subbase of 30 degrees and a moist density of 0.120 kcf, as per Section C3.11.5.5

(PennDOT DM-4, 2019). The angle of back of wall to the horizon is assumed to be 90 degrees, as per conversations with the structural engineer.

Interpreting Figure 3.11.5.4-1 (AASHTO LRFD, 2017) using the aforementioned values provides a coefficient of passive lateral earth pressure of 6.5. Equation

3.11.5.1-1 (AASHTO LRFD, 2017) should be used as the following:

𝑝𝑝 = 𝑘𝑝𝛾𝑠𝑧 = 6.5(0.120)𝑧 = 0.78𝑧

The calculation process is included in Appendix D of this report.

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 5-5

5.7 Bearing Resistance and Settlement

The structural engineer notified Rhea that the proposed shallow foundations would consist of a 30-inch strip footer at a depth below the calculated frost depth. This footer would support an LRFD force of 8.4 kips per linear foot (kf); for a 30-inch-wide footer, this would require a factored bearing resistance of 3.4 ksf. Rhea assumed a minimal strip footer thickness of 8 inches; therefore, the bottom of foundation elevation (BFE) is 4.25 feet bgs.

Rhea analyzed borings SB-1 and SB-2 to determine the allowable bearing resistance and settlement for the proposed strip footer at the BFE. Of the two borings, the material at the target elevation in SB-2 was less dense; as such, this boring was used to determine the minimum allowable bearing resistance and settlement. The gINT log for SB-2 show that the material at the BFE was classified as Silty Sand with

Gravel (SM) and had an N60 count of 12. Table 10.4.6.2.4-1 “Correlation of SPT N160

Values to Drained Friction Angle of Granular Soils (modified after Bowles, 1977)”

(AASHTO LRFD, 2017) provides a correlation between the N60 blow counts and the internal friction angle. Interpolation of these correlations for an N60 value of 12 provides an internal friction angle of 31 degrees. Rhea assumed a unit soil weight of

125 pounds per cubic foot, as per PennDOT Publication 293 “Geotechnical

Engineering Manual”, Section 5.5.3.2 “Soil Unit Weights” (PennDOT Pub 293, 2022).

A conservative cohesion value of zero was used. Foundation perimeter drains should be constructed; as such, Rhea assumed that the depth of water below the bottom of the footing (Zw) was equal to zero. Rhea assumed that the footing was not loaded eccentrically.

The nominal bearing resistance was calculated using Equation 10.6.3.1.2a-10

“Modified General bearing capacity equation” (PennDOT DM-4, 2019) and the previously discussed soil conditions. Using this equation, Rhea calculated a nominal bearing resistance of 7.59 ksf. Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 “Resistance Factors for Geotechnical

Resistance of Shallow Foundations at the Strength Limit State” (PennDOT DM-4, 2019) provides a bearing resistance factor of 0.45 for granular material using SPT data. As such, Rhea calculated a factored bearing resistance of 3.42 ksf.

When calculating the settlement of the foundation, the layer coefficient was derived using Figure 10.6.2.4.2-2 “Settlement Influence Factor µ1 (after Christian and

Carrier, 1978)” (PennDOT DM-4, 2019). The average Youngs Modulus of Elasticity value was calculated using Table C10.4.6.3-1 “Elastic Constants of Various Soils

(modified after U.S. Department of the Navy, 1982; Bowles, 1988)” (AASHTO LRFD, 2017) using the material correlation for “Sandy gravel and gravels” and a N60 value of 12. The height of the soil layer below the footing was determined by subtracting the top of rock (TOR) elevation from the BFE. Rhea calculated an anticipated

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 5-6 settlement of 0.34 inches of settlement for the allowable factored bearing capacity of

3.42 ksf.

The detailed calculations for the factored bearing resistance and settlement can be found in Appendix D of this report.

5.8 Skin Friction

The structural engineering requested that Rhea provide the skin friction for the base of the base of the proposed mechanical walls. The structural engineer also notified

Rhea that the base of these walls would be cast in place at a depth of 4 feet bgs. As such, Rhea assumed the wall bases would bear on the Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) detailed in Section 5.7 of this report.

As per Section 10.6.3.4 “Failure by Sliding” (AASHTO LRFD, 2017), sliding resistance between a shallow foundation and a granular soil is governed by the coefficient of friction between the foundation soil and the footing. The equation to determine the coefficient of friction is as follows:

tan 𝛿 = 𝐶 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑𝑓

Where tan δ is the coefficient of friction (dim), C is the correction factor for concrete-soil interference (dim), and φf is the internal friction angle of the drained soil in degrees.

As per Section 10.6.3.4 (AASHTO LRFD, 2017), C can be assumed to be equal to 1.0.

Rhea assumes a φf of 31 degrees, as determined in Section 5.7 of this report.

Therefore, the coefficient of friction is as follows:

tan 𝛿 = 1 ∗ tan(31) = 0.6

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 6-1

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following section summarizes the preliminary geotechnical design and recommendations developed for the EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades project. It is assumed that the general earthwork and the pavement construction will be in accordance with PennDOT Pub 408/2020 (PennDOT Pub 408/2020, 2024).

6.1 Reuse of On-Site or Off-Site Soil

The suitability of reuse for on-site or off-site soil depends on the purpose for which the soil will be used and its installation method. While Rhea provides general recommendations regarding the reuse of on-site soils, the Client or on-site

Representative is responsible for performing the testing necessary to determine the soil type and appropriate placement and compaction method.

The PADEP regulates the placement of off-site fill. Refer to the Management of Fill

Policy (PADEP, 2021) to verify the material’s status as “clean fill” and suitability for use.

The following materials are suitable for embankment and subgrade fill unless otherwise specified, provided that they are reasonably free of organic matter, coal, carbonaceous material, or other objectionable material. The material may also need to be dried, wetted, or thawed as necessary to be found suitable. Suitability and compaction methods are derived from Section 206 “Placement and Compaction of

Embankment and Fill” (PennDOT Pub 408/2020, 2024).

6.1.1 Soil

+ Soil is defined as material consisting of earth having 20 percent or more of the material passing the No. 200 sieve and having a minimum dry density of 95 pcf oven-dried mass determined, according to Pennsylvania Test

Method (PTM) No. 106 (PennDOT PTM No. 106, 2017). Material must have a maximum LL of 65, determined according to the AASHTO T 89, and a PI greater than the LL minus 30, determined according to AASHTO

T 90 for soils with a LL of 41 to 65.

+ Compaction of soil meeting the above criteria should follow Sections

206.3(b)1 “General” and 206.3(b)1.a “Soil” (PennDOT Pub 408/2020, 2024).

+ Prior to the placement and compaction of off-site soil, the Representative should verify the material is homogenous in nature and obtain test results for gradation, OM, and MDD. Should the material exhibit changes from

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 6-2 the tested material, the material should be retested for the previously mentioned engineering properties.

+ Prior to the placement and compaction of on-site soil, the material should be blended to provide a uniform, homogenous gradation and tested for gradation, OM, and MDD. Should the material exhibit changes from the tested material, the material should be retested for the previously

6.1.2 Granular Material, Type 1

+ Granular Material, Type 1 is defined as material consisting of natural or synthetic mineral aggregates having greater than 70 percent of the material passing the 3/8-inch sieve (less than 30 percent retained on the

3/8-inch sieve) and less than 20 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, except for AASHTO No. 8 coarse aggregate and PennDOT 2RC select granular material (2RC).

+ Compaction of granular material meeting the above criteria should follow

Sections 206.3(b)1 “General” and 206.3(b)1.b “Granular Material, Type 1”

+ Prior to the placement and compaction of off-site material, the

Representative should verify the material is homogenous in nature and obtain test results for gradation, OM, and MDD. Should the material exhibit changes from the tested material, the material should be retested for the previously mentioned engineering properties.

+ Prior to the placement and compaction of on-site material, the material should be blended to exhibit a uniform, homogenous gradation and tested for gradation, OM, and MDD. Should the material exhibit changes from the tested material, the material should be retested for the previously

6.1.3 Granular Material, Type 2

+ Granular Material, Type 2 is defined as material consisting of natural or synthetic mineral aggregates having less than or equal to 70 percent of the material passing the 3/8-inch sieve (greater than or equal to 30 percent retained on the 3/8-inch sieve) and less than 20 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Also includes AASHTO Nos. 8 and 57 coarse aggregate, or PennDOT No. 2A or Open-Graded Subbase (OGS) coarse aggregate meeting the requirements specified in Section 703.2 (PennDOT Pub

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 6-3

408/2020, 2024), 2RC meeting the requirements specified in Section 703.3

(PennDOT Pub 408/2020, 2024), and structure backfill.

Sections 206.3(b)1 “General” and 206.3(b)1.c “Granular Material, Type 2”

+ Prior to the placement and compaction of off-site material approved for use, the on-site Representative should verify the material is homogenous in nature and obtain test results for gradation. Should the material exhibit changes from the tested material, the material should be retested for the previously mentioned engineering properties.

+ Prior to the placement and compaction of on-site material, the material should be blended to exhibit a uniform, homogenous gradation and tested for gradation. Should the material exhibit changes from the tested material, the material should be retested for the previously mentioned engineering properties.

6.1.4 Rock

+ Rock includes natural material that cannot be excavated without blasting or using rippers; also, boulders, detached stones, and concrete and masonry units of a size that cannot be readily incorporated into compacted six-inch layers and having insufficient soil to fill the voids in each layer.

Sections 206.3(b)1 “General” and 206.3(b)1.d “Rock” (PennDOT Pub

408/2020, 2024).

+ Prior to the placement and compaction of on-site and/or off-site rock, the

Representative should verify the material conforms to the standards specified above. If the rock contains oversized particles which cannot be incorporated into a six-inch compacted lift, the oversized material must be removed or reduced in size until appropriate.

6.1.5 Shale

+ Shale includes rock-like material formed by natural consolidation of mud, clay, silt, and fine sand; usually thinly laminated, comparatively soft, and easily split.

T/Clients/SPEES/2459/Reports/Geotechnical Report/R1–GER 6-4

Sections 206.3(b)1 “General” and 206.3(b)1.e “Shale” (PennDOT Pub

408/2020, 2024).

+ Prior to the placement and compaction of on-site and/or off-site shale, the

Representative should verify the material conforms to the standards specified above. If the rock contains oversized particles which cannot be incorporated into a six-inch compacted lift, the…