S06 - 0004 - Att4 - Building Drainage Report.pdf

DRAINAGE REPORT

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SUBMISSION

VA WILKES-BARRE EHRM PROJECT

DC BUILDING

VAMC, WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA

VA Project Number: 693-22-700 WSP Project Number: US-WSP-31800188.006

February 4, 2025

Prepared by Peter Bailey, P.E.

1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to detail the drainage design and calculations that were performed for the new DC (Data Center) Building site development as part of the overall EHRM (Electronic Health Records Modernization) project at the Wilkes-Barre, PA VA Campus. This document includes the following:

• Pre-development and post-development conditions

• Design storm event

• Water quality stormwater calculations

1.2 PROJECT SITE

The project site for the DC building is located in a courtyard towards the east side of the Wilkes-Barre VA campus between buildings 1, 11, 12, and 27. The DC building will be placed where buildings 35 and 42 are currently located after the buildings have been demolished. The site is bordered by an asphalt drive on all sides, with a retaining wall between the proposed DC site and the asphalt drive on the north, east, and south sides. The existing ground coverage is mainly grassy lawns between the existing concrete sidewalks running from building to building and other paved areas. See vicinity map Exhibit 1 in Appendix A.

1.3 DESIGN CRITERIA

The following design criteria were utilized for the preparation of the drainage calculations and report:

• City of Wilkes-Barre Stormwater Management Ordinance

• Pennsylvania Stormwater BMP Manual, December 30, 2006

• Site Design Manual, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, rev April 1, 2021

• Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act, December 2009

1.4 DESIGN METHODOLOGY

The EPA developed the technical guidance in EISA 438 to outline storm water runoff requirements for federal development or redevelopment projects. Any project on a federal facility with a footprint that exceeds 5,000 square feet are subject to these requirements. The intent is to maintain or restore the pre-development site hydrology during the development or redevelopment process. Implementation of EISA 438 is commonly achieved using green infrastructure/low impact development (GI/LID) best management practices (BMPs). The stormwater management design and calculations for the new DC building followed EISA 438.

The VA site design manual (PG 18-10) requires local stormwater management and permitting requirements to be researched. All applicable local requirements must be considered and the more stringent requirement between federal, state, and local regulations shall be used.

The water quality management for this project was designed in accordance with the Pennsylvania Stormwater BMP Manual (stormwater manual). During the design phase the VA provided direction to not include any LID BMPs near the hospital to limit standing water and associated vector concerns. See RFI response in Appendix B.

Additionally, the site soils have very low infiltration which further makes the use of LID BMPs infeasible for the project. See project geotechnical report in Appendix B.

2 PRE & POST-DEVELOPMENT

CONDITIONS

2.1 Pre-Development Condition

In the predevelopment condition, the site is mostly two existing buildings, with some pervious surface to the east consisting of grassy lawn with concrete sidewalks, a small asphalt parking area to the west, and a retaining wall enclosing the site to north, east, and south. The campus has an existing onsite conveyance system. The drainage outfall to the site is an existing drain inlet located southwest of building 42.

The pre-developed area is 0.23 acres of building coverage, 0.10 acres of pavement, and

0.14 acres of pervious landscaping, for a total of 0.47 acres.

According to NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site soils consist of Cut and Fill land made up of udorthents, cut and fill, and similar soils. The soils are classified as somewhat excessively drained and do not fall under a USDA NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group. See Web Soil Survey Map in Appendix B.

The Wilkes-Barre VA campus is not located within a mapped floodplain. See FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map in Appendix B.

The project site is located within the Type II rainfall distribution. See the NRCS (SCS) Rainfall Distribution Map in Appendix B.

According to the geotechnical investigation prepared by Rhea Engineers & Consultants, Inc. dated July 31, 2024, the site soil generally consists of 6 feet of fill composed primarily of sand and gravel with secondary silt and clay. This soil was underlain by micaceous fine-grain sandstone (mechanically broken rock) to the maximum explored depth of 9.5 feet in the first boring and 7.5 feet in the second. The VA campus is built over old mining shafts. The performed percolation infiltration test provided an average unfactored infiltration rate of 0.156 inches/hour; infiltration is not feasible for this site.

See Pre-developed Conditions Exhibit 2 in Appendix A.

2.2 Post-Development Condition

The post-development condition consists of all site and utility improvements to support the new DC building. Site development includes the following:

• Impervious surfaces: DC building, generator room, mechanical yards, asphalt parking area, and concrete sidewalks.

• Pervious surfaces: Landscaping restoration areas adjacent to DC building and hardscape improvements.

The post-developed area is 0.16 acres of building coverage, 0.08 acres of pavement, and 0.23 acres of pervious landscaping, for a total of 0.47 acres. The total impervious area decreases by 0.09 acres during construction.

This project will decrease the impervious surface area from the existing condition, therefore decreasing the runoff from the area within the project limits.

See Post-developed Conditions Exhibit 3 in the Appendix A.

3 DESIGN STORM EVENT

3.1 Rainfall Data

The rainfall estimates for Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania are based on the NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 2, Version 3 precipitation frequency estimates found online at their Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center Precipitation Frequency Data Server (PFDS) for the VA Wilkes-Barre project address.

Return Interval (year)

24-hour Rainfall Total (inches)

1 2.29

2 2.75

5 3.41

10 3.99

25 4.92

50 5.79

100 6.82

3.2 Time of Concentration

See attached HydroCAD calculations in Appendix B.

4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

CALCULATIONS

4.1 Stormwater Facility Design Calculations

The stormwater calculations were prepared in accordance with the stormwater manual.

See water quality design calculations in Appendix B.

4.2 Water Quality BMP Selection

For this site, the water quality BMP selected is a proprietary structural BMP (Cascade Separator designed by Contech Engineered Solutions).

This BMP is located just southwest of the proposed DC Building and its sidewalk. The roof runoff from both the DC building and generator enclosure will be collected via roof drain lines, which will connect to the nearest storm structure. There are two area drains north and one area drain south of the DC building with graded low points that will collect runoff from the sidewalk and pervious areas. A stormwater drainage swale runs along the east side of the building to collect runoff from the sidewalk and pervious areas and convey the runoff into the area drain to the south. The runoff will flow through underground storm lines around the perimeter of the DC building until it reaches the structural storm BMP for treatment, where it will then flow west to connect to an existing storm structure. Any runoff to the west of the DC building will sheet flow to the existing asphalt parking lot to the west, where it will be collected by existing storm drains. For higher runoff storm events the BMP has an internal bypass structure that will release the excess runoff into the outlet pipe directly.

APPENDIX A - EXHIBITS

WSP USA Inc.

1201 Pacific Avenue Suite 550 Tacoma, WA 98402

TEL: (206) 431-2300

FAX: (206) 431-2250

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

VA WILKES-BARRE EHRM PROJECT

NEW DC BUILDING

EXHIBIT 1

VICINITY MAP

PROJECT

LOCATION

NOT TO SCALE

E

C

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

CO

M

M

CO

M

M

W

E

E

E

E

E

E

E E

W W

E

EE

E

E

E

E

E

SM

E C

E

SM

CO

M

M

CO

M

M

W W

W

E

E

E

C

GAZEBO

AC

AC

LP

E

PAVILION

ON CONCRETE

SLAB

E

SM

SDSD

S

CO

W

PRE-DEVELOPED AREA

AREA TYPE AREA (ACRE)

IMPERVIOUS 0.33

PERVIOUS 0.14

TOTAL 0.47

PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS EXHIBIT

WSP USA Inc.

1201 Pacific Avenue Suite 550 Tacoma, WA 98402

TEL: (206) 431-2300

FAX: (206) 431-2250

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

VA WILKES-BARRE EHRM PROJECT

NEW DC BUILDING

EXHIBIT 2

PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS

SCALE: 1" = 30'

PROJECT

LIMITS

Tc FLOWPATH

EXISTING

DRAINAGE INLET

BLDG 42

BLDG 35

BLDG 27

C

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

CO

M

M

CO

M

M

W

E

E

E

E

E

E

E E

W W

E

EE

E

E

E

E

E

SM

E C

E

SM

CO

M

M

CO

M

M

E

E

E

GAZEBO

E

PAVILION

ON CONCRETE

SLAB

E

SM

SDSD

S

W

C(B)

C(B

E

C(B)

C(B)

C H

W S

C H

W S

C(A)

C(A)

C(A)

W

W

W

W

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

F

F

SD

SD

C(B)

W

NOT A WALKWAY

NOT A WALKWAY

E

E

SD

C( B)

C( B)

C (B

C

(B

C (B

C

(B

WSP USA Inc.

1201 Pacific Avenue Suite 550 Tacoma, WA 98402

TEL: (206) 431-2300

FAX: (206) 431-2250

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

POST-DEVELOPED AREA

AREA TYPE AREA (ACRE)

IMPERVIOUS 0.24

PERVIOUS 0.23

TOTAL 0.47

POST-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS EXHIBIT

NEW DC

BUILDING

VA WILKES-BARRE EHRM PROJECT

NEW DC BUILDING

EXHIBIT 3

POST-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS

SCALE: 1" = 30'

Tc FLOWPATH

PROPOSED

STRUCTURAL

STORM BMP

EXISTING

DRAINAGE INLET

BLDG 27

APPENDIX B – CALCULATIONS AND

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Spees Design Build 23830 Pacific Hwy S., Suite 203 Kent, Washington 98032 P: (206) 590-2118

Project: 693-22-700 VA PA Wilkes-Barre EHRM Infra

1111 East End Blvd Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18711

RFI #44: MCR Building Drainage RFI

Status Open

To Robert Calarco (Department of Veterans Affairs - Wilkes-Barre)

From Megan Cary (Blue Architecture)

Date Initiated Jan 24, 2025 Due Date Jan 27, 2025

Location Project Stage

Cost Impact Schedule Impact

Spec Section Cost Code

Drawing Number Reference

Linked Drawings

Received From Peter Bailey (WSP USA Solutions Inc.)

Copies To Peter Bailey (WSP USA Solutions Inc.), Robert Calarco (Department of Veterans Affairs - Wilkes- Barre)

Activity

Question Question from Megan Cary Blue Architecture on Friday, Jan 24, 2025 at 08:55 AM PST The EHRM project on the Wilkes-Barre campus includes demolition of temporary buildings 35 and 42 and construction of a new MCR building in their place.

The site soils are classified as cut and fill soils that aren’t suitable for infiltration thus making LID BMPs infeasible.

The proposed MCR building improvements will result in a net decrease in impervious area from the existing condition and therefore decrease the stormwater runoff.

The MCR building drainage design was discussed during the 100% construction documents submittal design review meeting on August 20, 2024. The VA staff indicated the preference for not having any LID BMPs near the hospital due to potential vector concerns from potential standing water. Several staff stated there has been a recent issue of legionnaires disease at this campus.

The direction provided to the design team was to design a structural BMP for water quality (instead of a LID BMP for onsite stormwater management) and connect the outfall to the existing onsite storm drain system.

Please confirm this approach is the preferred direction for the new MCR building storm drain design.

Awaiting an Official Response

All Replies Response from Robert Calarco Department of Veterans Affairs - Wilkes-Barre on Thursday, Jan 30, 2025 at 09:23 AM

PST

The approach described in the RFI is the preferred direction for the new MCR building storm drain design.

Spees Design Build Page 1 of 1 Printed On: Jan 30, 2025 09:23 AM PST

Type II 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=2.74"VA Wilkes-Barre EHRM Project -PA Type II 24-hr event Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Contech Engineered Solutions

Page 1HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 00447 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Summary for Subcatchment 1S: DCIA - Developed Site

Runoff = 0.90 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af, Depth= 2.51"

Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=2.74"

Area (ac) CN Description

* 0.240 98

0.240 100.00% Impervious Area

Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)

6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1S: DCIA - Developed Site

Runoff

Hydrograph

Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210

F lo w

(c fs

Type II 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=2.74"

Runoff Area=0.240 ac Runoff Volume=0.050 af

Runoff Depth=2.51" Tc=6.0 min

CN=98

0.90 cfs

Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.81"VA Wilkes-Barre EHRM Project -PA Type II 24-hr event Printed 1/30/2025Prepared by Contech Engineered Solutions

Page 1HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 00447 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Summary for Subcatchment 1S: DCIA - Developed Site

Runoff = 2.27 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.131 af, Depth= 6.57"

Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.81"

Area (ac) CN Description

* 0.240 98

0.240 100.00% Impervious Area

Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)

6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1S: DCIA - Developed Site

Runoff

Hydrograph

Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210

F lo w

(c fs

Type II 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.81"

Runoff Area=0.240 ac Runoff Volume=0.131 af

Runoff Depth=6.57" Tc=6.0 min

CN=98

2.27 cfs

B–2 (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986)

1203312033

2500125001

2608326083

CTCT

DEDE

FLFL

Type I

Type IA

Type II

Type III

III

III

III

I

IA

I I

III

Rainfall

Distribution

Figure B-2 Approximate geographic boundaries for NRCS (SCS) rainfall distributions

Rainfall data sources This section lists the most current 24-hour rainfall data published by the National Weather Service (NWS) for various parts of the country. Because NWS Technical Paper 40 (TP-40) is out of print, the 24-hour rainfall maps for areas east of the 105th meridian are included here as figures B-3 through B-8. For the area generally west of the 105th meridian, TP-40 has been superseded by NOAA Atlas 2, the Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the Western United States, published by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration.

East of 105th meridian

Hershfield, D.M. 1961. Rainfall frequency atlas of the United States for durations from 30 minutes to 24 hours and return periods from 1 to 100 years. U.S.

Dept. Commerce, Weather Bur. Tech. Pap. No. 40.

Washington, DC. 155 p.

West of 105th meridian

Miller, J.F., R.H. Frederick, and R.J. Tracey. 1973.

Precipitation-frequency atlas of the Western United States. Vol. I Montana; Vol. II, Wyoming; Vol III, Colo-rado; Vol. IV, New Mexico; Vol V, Idaho; Vol. VI, Utah;

Vol. VII, Nevada; Vol. VIII, Arizona; Vol. IX, Washing-ton; Vol. X, Oregon; Vol. XI, California. U.S. Dept. of

Commerce, National Weather Service, NOAA Atlas 2.

Silver Spring, MD.

Alaska

Miller, John F. 1963. Probable maximum precipitation and rainfall-frequency data for Alaska for areas to 400 square miles, durations to 24 hours and return periods from 1 to 100 years. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Weather Bur. Tech. Pap. No. 47. Washington, DC. 69 p.

Hawaii

Weather Bureau. 1962. Rainfall-frequency atlas of the Hawaiian Islands for areas to 200 square miles, dura-tions to 24 hours and return periods from 1 to 100 years. U.S. Dept. Commerce, Weather Bur. Tech. Pap.

No. 43. Washington, DC. 60 p.

Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands

Weather Bureau. 1961. Generalized estimates of prob-able maximum precipitation and rainfall-frequency data for Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands for areas to 400 square miles, durations to 24 hours, and return periods from 1 to 100 years. U.S. Dept. Commerce, Weather Bur. Tech. Pap. No. 42. Washington, DC. 94 P.

Project Location

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet

Ü

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS

Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99

With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR

Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X

Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X

Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X

Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D

NO SCREENArea of Minimal Flood HazardZone X

Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D

Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer

Levee, Dike, or Floodwall

Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance

17.5 Water Surface Elevation

Coastal Transect

Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature

Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)

Effective LOMRs

Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary

Digital Data Available

No Digital Data Available

Unmapped

This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards

The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 3/30/2023 at 5:03 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes.

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL

STRUCTURES

OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS

B 20.2

The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location.

1:6,000

75°50'26"W 41°15'5"N

75°49'49"W 41°14'37"N

Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020

Soil Map—Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

7/2/2024

429570 429640 429710 429780 429850 429920 429990 430060 430130 430200 430270

429570 429640 429710 429780 429850 429920 429990 430060 430130 430200 430270

41° 15' 1'' N

0'

6' ' W

41° 15' 1'' N

9'

5' ' W

41° 14' 45'' N

0'

6' ' W

41° 14' 45'' N

9'

5' ' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84 0 150 300 600 900

Feet 0 45 90 180 270

Meters Map Scale: 1:3,330 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Project Site

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Points

Special Point Features Blowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line Features

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 4, 2023

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 21, 2022—Jun 5, 2022

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Soil Map—Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

7/2/2024

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

ArB Arnot-Rock outcrop complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes

0.0 0.1%

ArD Arnot-Rock outcrop complex, 8 to 25 percent slopes

8.3 23.8%

CF Cut and fill land 25.5 73.3%

WrB Wurtsboro channery loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes

1.0 2.9%

Totals for Area of Interest 34.8 100.0%

Soil Map—Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

CF—Cut and fill land

Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 9yg0 Elevation: 490 to 2,260 feet Mean annual precipitation: 36 to 46 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 56 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 170 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition Udorthents, cut and fill, and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Udorthents, Cut And Fill

Setting Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 70 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None

Data Source Information

Soil Survey Area: Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 4, 2023

Map Unit Description: Cut and fill land---Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

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…