36C78619R0024-0003002.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

Mill Springs National Cemetery Expansion

Nancy, Kentucky

Amec Foster Wheeler Project 6166-17-0636

December 2017

Prepared For:

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

1075 Big Shanty Road NW

Suite 100

Kennesaw, Georgia

Attention: Mr. Gregory P. Myers

690 Commonwealth Center Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

11003 Bluegrass Parkway Louisville, KY 40299 Tel: 1+ (502) 267-0700 amecfw.com

5 December 2017

Mr. Gregory P. Myers Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

1075 Big Shanty Road NW Suite 100 Kennesaw, Georgia 30144

Re: Geotechnical Exploration Report Mill Springs National Cemetery Expansion

Nancy, Pulaski County, Kentucky Amec Foster Wheeler Project Number 6166-17-0636

Dear Mr. Myers:

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., (Amec Foster Wheeler), has completed a geotechnical exploration in support of the referenced project. The attached report presents a summary of project information provided to us, a description of observed site and subsurface conditions, and our foundation and earthwork recommendations for use in design and construction of the proposed cemetery expansion. The report Appendix contains site and test boring location plans and our field and laboratory testing results.

Amec Foster Wheeler appreciates the opportunity to have provided these services, and we look forward to serving as your geotechnical consultant throughout project execution. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the information presented.

Sincerely, James H. Black, PE Project Manager

Mark J. Schuhmann, PE Senior Principal Engineer

Enclosure

Mill Springs National Cemetery Expansion December 2017 Amec Foster Wheeler Project 6166-17-0636 Report of Geotechnical Exploration Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF EXPLORATION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

3.0 EXPLORATORY FINDINGS

3.1 Surface Conditions

3.2 Site Geology

3.3 Subsurface Conditions

3.4 Groundwater Conditions

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

4.1 Abandoned Structures and Utilities

4.2 Existing Fill Material

5.0 SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Clearing and Subgrade Preparation

5.2 Compacted Fill

5.2.1 General

5.3 Site Drainage

5.4 Groundwater

5.5 Excavation

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Soil Bearing Shallow Foundations

6.2 Construction Considerations

6.3 Grade-supported Floor Slabs

7.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General

7.2 Design Methodology

7.3 Flexible Pavement

8.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

TABLES

Table 1. Boring Summary Table 2. Rock Core Summary Table 3. Flexible Pavement

FIGURES

Site and Boring Location Map .............................................................................................. Figure 1 Geologic Map ....................................................................................................................... Figure 2 Boring Location Map............................................................................................................. Figure 3

Appendix 1

ASFE Information Guide

Page ii

Appendix 2

Field Testing Procedures

Key to Symbols and Descriptions

Test Boring Records

Appendix 3

Laboratory Testing Procedures

Laboratory Testing Results Summary

Atterberg Limits Test Summary

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF EXPLORATION

Amec Foster Wheeler has completed geotechnical exploration services in support of the proposed

Mill Springs National Cemetery (MSNC) Expansion. The purpose was to obtain site-specific subsurface data, review available geologic information pertinent to the property, and develop foundation and site preparation recommendations for use in project design for the facility. Amec

Foster Wheeler’s scope of work included soil test borings, rock coring, laboratory testing recovered samples, analyzing resulting data, and preparing geotechnical recommendations reported herein.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

Project information for this exploration was provided in email correspondence. We were also provided with the following two drawings:

1. Draft Environmental Assessment, Mill Springs National Cemetery, Page 2, aerial view showing location of the expansion area.

2. Land Title Survey, James Oakes Property, dated 27 August 2012, topographic map of expansion area with elevation contours.

The proposed cemetery expansion is on a 28-acre parcel located north, west, and contiguous to the Mill Springs National Cemetery (MSNC). The address for the cemetery is 9144 West Highway

80, Nancy, Pulaski County, Kentucky. The property location is shown on Figure 1. The additional acreage will accommodate future MSNC expansion needs.

Proposed future development of the site is being planned. We understand that all or a portion of the site may be utilized at some point for cemetery expansion. Proposed development plans include excavation and fill operations, constructing an asphalt road, and a lightly-loaded open-air shelter with a roof. Additional geotechnical explorations should be performed at the structure sites if plans change and more significant structures are proposed.

We have assumed the open-air shelter will be supported on shallow spread footings with column loads less than 10 KIPS.

3.0 EXPLORATORY FINDINGS

3.1 Surface Conditions

Amec Foster Wheeler conducted site reconnaissance on 6 through 8 November 2017 to observe and document site surface conditions and perform the field drilling activities. Information gathered was used to aid subsurface data interpretation and identify conditions that could affect our geotechnical recommendations.

The proposed expansion area is relatively flat in the front (south) corner of the property. A residential house and associated structures occupied this area in 2013, and these structures have since been razed. An underground electric line is located on the east side from KY 80 for approximately 240 feet to an electric box, then the line turns northeast where it continues to the existing MSNC property. We understand the septic tank and lateral lines for the home have not been removed.

The expansion area to the northwest and north of the existing MSNC consists of ridge and valley terrain with open grass-covered areas on the ridges and wooded areas in the interior valleys and around the perimeter. Site drainage extends from the ridges down to the interior valleys, which generally drain to the north to a ditch that runs along the back of the property. Topographic relief in the this area of the expansion site ranges from a high of approximately 1,080 to 1,075 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to a low of 1,045 to 1,025 feet AMSL.

We have not been provided with the finished floor elevation of the proposed open-air shelter. We understand proposed site grading will require moderate cut on the ridges, and valley fill generally on the order of approximately 10 feet or less will be required to achieve final grade.

3.2 Site Geology

A review of the Geologic Map of the Delmer Quadrangle, Pulaski County, Kentucky, published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1971, indicates the site is underlain by Mississippian age Salem and Warsaw Formations on the ridges, and Muldraugh Member of the Borden Formation in the valleys (see Figure 2). The Salem and Warsaw Formations consist of limestone, siltstone, and shale. The limestone is light olive gray to medium and dark gray, thick-bedded to thinly cross-laminated, fossiliferous, and argillaceous (clayey) to arenaceous (sandy). The limestone occurs interbedded and gradational with light olive gray to dark gray silty limestone and calcareous siltstone. The siltstone is light olive gray to medium gray, thin to thick bedded, and calcareous. The shale is dark bluish gray to olive gray, fissile, silty, calcareous, and fossiliferous. Shale of the

Warsaw Formation is present near the base in the central part of the quadrangle as a single bedding set 10 to 15 feet thick or as thinner beds interbedded with thin lenses of limestone. The Muldraugh

Member consists of siltstone and chert. The siltstone is dark gray to medium gray, thin to thick bedded, irregularly bedded, and siliceous. The chert is yellowish gray to medium gray, weathers brown, dense, very fine grained and in thin to medium beds. The Somerset geologic quadrangle states the residual soil overlying the much of the limestone in the quadrangle is variable in thickness and may range from 0 to 20 feet thick within a horizontal distance of less than 10 feet.

3.3 Subsurface Conditions

Subsurface conditions were explored with 16 soil test borings drilled across the expansion site according to procedures described in Appendix 2. The soil borings were advanced at selected locations and extended to depths of 15 to 25 feet below existing ground surface, or to refusal, whichever was encountered first. The borings were performed using a rubber-tired all-terrain-vehicle (ATV) drill rig and solid flight augers. The drill rig was able to traverse the site and access the boring locations without using a bulldozer. Soft surface soil conditions were noted in the open area corresponding to borings B-1 through B-7 (drill support truck stuck between borings B-1 and

B-2). Firmer surface soil conditions were noted in the north open area, borings B-8 through B-

15A. Soil sampling to obtain information on the subsurface soils included standard penetration tests (SPT)s using an automatic hammer. Refusal was encountered in some of the soil borings.

Rock coring was performed in Borings B-8, B-11, B-13, B-14, and B-15, to confirm the presence and obtain samples of the bedrock for visual examination. A summary of the borings performed at the site is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Boring Summary

Boring

ID

Top of ground elevation

Proposed depth

Auger drilled depth

Top of rock depth

Begin rock core depth

(ft AMSL1) (ft BGE2) (ft BGE2) (ft BGE2) (ft AMSL1)

B-1 1081.6 15.0 15.0 --- ---

B-2 1068.9 15.0 15.0 --- ---

B-3 1080.6 15.0 18.8 12.0 ---

B-4 1068.4 15.0 15.0 --- ---

B-5 1073.8 25.0 23.6 16.5 ---

B-6 1053.5 15.0 15.0 --- ---

B-7 1059.0 15.0 15.0 --- ---

B-8 1073.9 15.0 14.0 12.5 14.0

B-9 1064.9 25.0 25.0 7.2 ---

B-10 1037.2 15.0 10.2 8.6 ---

B-11 1057.0 25.0 18.5 17.0 18.5

B-12 1033.1 15.0 7.5 6.0 ---

B-13 1039.0 15.0 5.0 1.5 5.0

B-14 1052.9 25.0 17.5 17.5 17.5

B-15 1068.8 25.0 24.3 11.5 ---

B-15A 1068.8 25.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

1-AMSL-Above mean sea level

2-BGE-Below ground elevation

The boring locations were determined in the field using a predetermined boring plan and a handheld global positioning system (GPS) cell phone application to obtain boring coordinates.

The boring locations are shown on Figure 3. The boring elevations were interpolated from the provided site plan. Boring locations and elevations should be considered approximate

Boring logs, located in Appendix 2, describe the subsurface conditions encountered. These descriptions represent our interpretation of subsurface conditions based on field logs, visual examination of recovered samples, and laboratory testing of representative samples. Contacts between various strata reported on the logs represent approximate contact positions, as transitions between strata may be gradual. Laboratory testing results are presented in Appendix

3.

We believe, based on our borings, two soil strata are present within the proposed expansion site.

These soil strata are described below.

Stratum I - Possible Fill: Possible fill material was encountered in borings B-1 and B-2. The fill consisted of lean clay that was generally orange and brown mottled and deemed possible fill due to the presence of fine roots. The fill ranged in depth from 3.7 to 8 feet below ground surface

(bgs).

SPT penetration resistances (N-values) within this layer ranged from 7 to 12 blows per foot (bpf), which corresponds to a medium stiff to stiff soil consistency. Possible fill was also encountered in boring B-8 to a depth of 5.5 feet, where a sand layer was encountered from a depth of 4.2 to

5.5 feet. The SPT N-value in the sand layer was 18 bpf, indicating a medium dense density.

Stratum II - Lean Clay/Silt, Silt, and Fat Clay/Elastic Silt: Stratum II soils were encountered below the topsoil surface or fill in the borings. This stratum extended to depths ranging from 4.5 to more than 15 feet bgs. The Stratum II soils consisted of a lean clay/silt, silt, and fat clay/elastic silt that was orange and brown, brown with gray and brown. Sandy zones were noted in the

Stratum II soils in borings B-4, B-5, and B-14. Stratum II soils were generally moist. Very moist to wet conditions were noted with depth in some of the borings. SPT resistances (N-values) within this layer generally ranged from 5 to 13 bpf, which corresponds to a medium stiff to stiff soil consistency. N-values less than 5 indicating very soft to soft soils generally corresponded to the very moist to wet soils encountered with depth. Higher N-values ranging in the 20s and 30s to more than 50 bpf generally corresponded to soils that contain shale fragments and represent weathered rock or the regolith zone. The soils/highly-weathered shales encountered in the regolith were generally stratified deposits with highly-weathered to weathered shale remnants.

The moisture content of the samples tested generally ranged from 26 to 59 percent. A moisture content of 18 percent corresponded to the clayey sand layer encountered in boring B-5. Soil plasticity tests (Atterberg limits) were performed on five samples within this stratum. The liquid limits values generally ranged from 41 to 55 percent. The plasticity index (liquid limit minus plastic limit) values generally ranged from 14 to 24, which generally corresponds to a low plasticity clay.

A liquid limit of 86 percent and a plasticity index of 48, which generally corresponds to a moderate plasticity clay, was returned for the sample at a depth of 1 to 2.5 feet in boring B-8. The Atterberg limit results generally show the classification of the Stratum II soils tested be on the dividing line between silts and clays. The Atterberg result in Boring B-4 shows the soil tested to be an elastic silt. These soils were described in the field and by laboratory review as fat, lean, and silty lean clays with some horizons noted to contain little to some silt. The symbols and text on the boring logs reflect the Atterberg limits results for the tested samples. No changes were made to the descriptions where testing was not performed.

Top of weathered rock

Depths and elevations for the top of weathered rock and top of competent refusal material are presented in Table 2 for the borings where rock coring was performed. The top of weathered rock and top of competent refusal material are based on the boring data and visual examination of the recovered rock core.

Table 2. Rock Core Summary

Boring

ID

Top of ground elevation

Top of weathered rock

Top of weathered rock elevation

Begin rock core elevation

Top of competent rock material

Top of competent rock elevation

(ft

AMSL1)

(ft BGE2) (ft AMSL1) (ft AMSL1) (ft BGE2) (ft AMSL1)

B8 1073.9 12.5 1061.4 1059.9 Not

Encountered

B11 1057.0 17.0 1040.0 1038.5 17.0 1040.0

B13 1039.0 4.5 1034.5 1034.0 5.03 1034.0

B14 1052.9 17.5 1035.4 1035.4 17.5 1035.4

B15A 1068.8 10 1058.8 1058.8 10.03 1058.8

1-AMSL-Above mean sea level

2-BGE-Below ground elevation

3-SPT Refusal (more than 50 blows for 6 inches) encountered above this depth

Refusal material encountered in the borings drilled at the site consisted predominantly of shale in borings B-8 and B-15A, and limestone in borings B11, B-13, and B-14. The shale was gray, very soft to moderately hard, with highly-weathered to weathered zones. Of the 1-foot of recovery in boring B-8, the shale was noted to be moderately hard and interbedded with clay seams. Based on the poor recovery of 1-foot, the rock in this interval contains very highly weathered shale or clay seams that were washed away during coring. The recovered shale rock in boring B-15A was more durable, as indicated by the 80 percent recovery for the 5-foot run. A highly-weathered zone with clay seams was observed at a depth of 10.5 to 11 feet in this core. Rock was encountered at a depth of 11.5 feet in the adjacent boring B-15, but was noted to be layered with soft zones. Boring B-15 was able to be augered to a depth of 24.3 feet bgs. The rock quality designation (RQD) of the recovered core in borings B-8 and B-15A was 0 and 50 percent, respectively. The results of borings B-1 through B-9 indicate varying soil depths ranging from 7.2 feet (B-9) to more than 15 feet bgs. The solid flight augers were generally able to penetrate the shale rock in the deeper borings to depths of 20 to 25 feet bgs. The rock encountered in borings

B-15 and B-15A appears to represent a transition zone to more competent rock to the north.

The refusal material encountered in borings B-11, B-13, and B-14 consisted predominantly of limestone. The limestone was light gray and moderately hard to hard. The limestone contained occasional clay and shale layers or shaley zones in borings B-11 and B-13, and was interbedded with shale in boring B-14. Recovery of the limestone was 90 percent in the 3 rock cores. The

RQD of the rock core was 70 percent for borings B-11 and B-13, and 27 percent in boring B-14.

The results of borings B-10 through B-14 indicate varying soil depths ranging in depth from 1.5 feet (B-13) to 17.5 feet (B-14) bgs. In contrast to the shale rock described above, the solid flight augers were generally met with solid resistance at the limestone rock surface, and were generally only able to penetrate the limestone rock a depth of 1.5 feet before solid auger refusal was encountered.

3.4 Groundwater Conditions

Water and perched water were encountered in some of the borings at the time of exploration.

Water was encountered at a depth of approximately 15 feet in B-4, 13.8 feet in B-6, and 23.5 feet in B-9. Perched water was encountered at a depth of approximately 9 feet in B-2, 7.5 feet in B-

3, 9 feet in B-8, 6 feet in B-15, and 3.5 feet in B-15A. The water level can vary due to seasonal rainfall events, and shallow pockets of perched water might be encountered during construction.

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

As previously discussed, a cemetery expansion is proposed for future development of the site.

We understand proposed development plans include excavation and fill operations, designation of burial areas, construction of an asphalt road, and a lightly-loaded open-air shelter with a roof.

Additional geotechnical explorations should be performed at the structure sites if plans change and more significant structures are proposed. The borings advanced during the exploration encountered conditions that pose concern from a geotechnical perspective. These concerns are described below.

4.1 Abandoned Structures and Utilities

An underground electric line and junction box is present on the east side of the front expansion area. The underground line extends from KY80 to the north approximately 140 feet then crosses to the existing cemetery. The former home on this north section of the area has been razed and we understand the septic tank and lateral lines may still be in place. Septic tanks and lateral lines are a buried structure, perched water, and soft soil concern. Our experience indicates new structures often perform poorly and exhibit cracking when constructed over old foundations, abandoned underground utilities, or other structures. The cracking is typically located in the area immediately over the old structures, resulting from variable support conditions. Adequate performance of the proposed structure will require the site be prepared properly to provide relatively uniform subgrade support. This preparation includes removing existing utilities, foundations, grade slabs, and old unstable fill encountered during site excavations. Abandoned utility pipes should be removed or plugged, so they will not serve as conduits for subsurface erosion that could result in formation of voids or depressions, with adverse effects on foundations and floor slabs.

4.2 Existing Fill Material

The borings indicated possible fill was present to a depth of 3.5 feet bgs in B-1 and B-2. These soils were noted to contain traces of fine roots. A sand layer encountered in B-8 from a depth of

4.2 to 5.5 feet indicates possible fill material to this depth.

As stated above, a residential home was demolished on the site. The open fields have been cleared for a number of years, and the frontage along KY80 in this area is developed. Therefore, the possibility exists that fill may be present beneath the project site that contains unstable zones or deleterious materials in unexplored areas. This possibility imposes an unquantifiable risk of objectionable foundation, slab, or pavement performance due to the fill’s unknown aspects. The standard geotechnical recommendation for uncontrolled fill is to excavate and remove the fill and replace with compacted engineered fill.

Where fill was encountered in the borings it generally exhibited a stiff soil consistency. The expansion improvements can be constructed on the fill provided foundation excavations are carefully monitored for unsuitable fill and the bottoms of excavations are probed to identify soft areas or hard materials near the surface. Stringent inspection of the footing excavations and detailed proof-rolling of the area should be performed as part of site development.

5.0 SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Clearing and Subgrade Preparation

Site preparation will generally involve topsoil stripping, excavations and fill, proof-rolling and preparing subgrade, removing and disposing of existing unsuitable materials (if encountered), and controlling groundwater.

We recommend the following measures within areas designated for structures or pavements:

• Establish positive site drainage prior to beginning clearing and grubbing.

• Strip all organic material, debris, and old fill containing deleterious material from the construction area. Waste these materials from the site or stockpile the organic materials for use as topsoil in landscape areas.

• Stripping operations should extend for a distance of at least 10 feet beyond the limits of the proposed improvements where possible.

• Remove all foundations and floor slabs foundations, cisterns, septic tanks, and abandoned utilities encountered during site preparation. Remove abandoned utility pipes or plug with concrete to prevent future subsurface erosion.

• Demolish and remove any existing partial basements or below-grade construction encountered during site excavations. Existing basements should be excavated with sides stepped in 1- to 2-foot increments where they occur under future building areas. Existing basements and other areas should be backfilled with properly-compacted fill.

• Waste the undercut deleterious materials from the site.

• Proof-roll the exposed subgrade after the initial clearing and undercutting is achieved, to evaluate subgrade stabilization requirements and the extent of stabilization needed.

• The proof-rolling should be performed with heavy, rubber-tired equipment, such as a loaded dump truck, and it should make several passes over each section.

• Undercut and replace soft, organic, highly-plastic soil or old unstable fill encountered, and backfill the resulting excavation with compacted engineered fill.

• Soft areas or unsuitable materials detected during proof-rolling should be undercut to firm ground or stabilized with crushed stone, and the resulting excavation backfilled with engineered fill placed as described below.

• While thorough proof-rolling should identify shallow, unacceptable soil subgrade area(s), deposits of organic material that could be buried below ground surface or voids within buried brick and concrete rubble may not be identified by the proof-rolling process. Any undiscovered buried debris could lead to unacceptable long-term settlements if not identified and replaced with engineered fill.

• Retain the geotechnical engineer to observe the undercutting and proof-rolling operations and make recommendations for any unstable or unsuitable conditions encountered.

5.2 Compacted Fill

Engineered fill should consist of relatively homogeneous soil derived from on-site excavations or imported fill. Acceptable soil types include approved CL, CL/ML, MH and CH/MH soils. We recommend, prior to beginning fill construction, obtaining and testing representative samples of the proposed fill materials to determine their laboratory compaction characteristics, plasticity, and natural moisture content. These tests are needed to determine if the proposed fill material is acceptable and for quality control during compaction.

Based on the laboratory testing conducted to date the on-site silt (ML, MH) and clay (CL, CH) soil meet the above requirements for fill and are anticipated to be produced by site grading and foundation excavations. An off-site borrow source meeting the requirements in the preceding paragraph may be used to meet site subgrades if needed.

The following criteria are recommended for structural soil fill construction:

• The fill is free from debris or other deleterious material.

• Limit fill materials to a Plasticity Index less than 35, a maximum particle size of 6 inches, and less than 3 percent by weight fibrous, organic matter.

• Construct compacted fill by spreading suitable soil in maximum 8-inch-thick loose lifts.

• Compact the fill within structural areas to at least 98 percent of the standard maximum dry density (American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] D698). Compact backfill or fill within paved areas to at least 98 percent of the standard maximum dry density.

• Heavy compaction equipment should not operate within 5 feet of below-grade structures to avoid inducing excessive lateral pressures.

• Maintain the moisture content of the fill soils to within optimum to ±2 percentage points of the soils' optimum moisture content.

• Perform 1 in-place density test in every 10,000 square feet for each lift of fill soil.

• Retain the geotechnical engineer to observe, document, and test fill placement and compaction operations.

5.2.1 General

• Maintain positive surface drainage to prevent water from ponding on the surface during all earthwork operations.

• Roll the fill surface with a rubber-tired or steel-drummed roller to improve surface runoff, if precipitation is expected.

• Contact the geotechnical engineer should the subgrade soils become excessively wet, dry, or frozen.

5.3 Site Drainage

Positive site drainage should be provided during construction. The site should be maintained in a well-drained condition during and after construction, to inhibit water from ponding on the soil subgrade. Ponding water could lead to deterioration of the soil subgrade, necessitating over-excavation of the softened soil.

5.4 Groundwater

Water was encountered at a depth of approximately 15 feet in B-4, 13.8 feet in B-6, and 23.5 feet in B-9. Perched water was encountered at a depth of approximately 9 feet in B-2, 7.5 feet in B-

3, 9 feet in B-8, 6 feet in B-15, and 3.5 feet in B-15A. However, groundwater levels can fluctuate due to seasonal rainfall events, and shallow pockets of perched water might be encountered (i.e., less than 10 feet deep), as well as groundwater at or near the soil/rock interface. The site should be maintained in a well-drained condition during and after construction, to inhibit water from ponding on soil subgrades and foundation excavations. Ponding water could lead to the deterioration of soil subgrade, necessitating over-excavation of the softened soil.

5.5 Excavation

Deep, confined excavations are not anticipated for construction. The following information is provided in case this condition arises. Temporary excavation support may be required for utility and deep pit construction around and within the site. Sheeting and shoring will be necessary for any areas where the slope cannot be laid back. Design of this system is beyond the scope of this study; however, the design and contractor construction methods must comply with the latest

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements for worker protection and excavation support. Excavations, where necessary below the bearing elevation of any adjacent roads or structures, must be braced so as to protect existing facilities. Design of any necessary bracing is outside the scope of this study and should be the contractor‘s responsibility.

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Soil Bearing Shallow Foundations

We understand a lightly-loaded open-air shelter with a roof will be constructed in the expansion area. The location, dimensions, and loads for the structure are unknown.

The following recommendations are provided assuming the site has been prepared as recommended in this report. We recommend the shelter be supported by conventional shallow spread footings bearing on medium stiff to stiff, existing soil or newly-placed and properly-compacted fill. Column footings bearing on these materials may be sized for a maximum allowable net bearing pressure estimated to be up to 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf); however, soft zones were encountered in some areas of the site at varying depths. Once the grading plan and location of the structure site is selected, we should be provided the information for review.

Given the variability in the soil consistency and depths to top of rock, a separate geotechnical exploration for the structure may be needed.

A detailed settlement analysis was beyond the scope of this report; however, based on the structure loads listed previously, the recommended bearing pressure, and empirical correlations for the soil types encountered during our field activities, we estimate total post-construction settlements of foundations bearing on native soils or approved fill material will be less than about

1 inch, with differential settlements less than ½ inch. We recommend the structure be designed to accommodate these settlement magnitudes. Our experience and published data indicate these settlement magnitudes should be within the tolerable range for this structure.

6.2 Construction Considerations

Additional design considerations for project shallow foundation systems are outlined as follows:

• Design column footings with a minimum horizontal dimension of 24 inches.

• Found all exterior footings at least 24 inches below finished exterior grade to provide protective embedment and help reduce potential damage from frost heave or shrinkage or swelling due to moisture fluctuations.

• Place a "lean" concrete mud-mat over the bearing soils if the excavations must remain open overnight or for an extended period of time.

• Level the foundation bearing area.

• Remove loose soil, debris, and excess surface water from the bearing surface prior to concrete placement.

• Possible fill soils were encountered in our borings. We recommend the fill be evaluated on a case-by-case basis prior to reinforcing steel and concrete placement.

• Retain the geotechnical engineer to observe the undercutting and proof-rolling operations and make recommendations for any unstable or unsuitable conditions encountered.

Lateral loads applied to the foundations can be resisted by passive pressure developed against the face of the footing and by friction acting between the base of the concrete foundation and the underlying subgrade. For foundations embedded in existing soil or approved engineered fill, passive resistance against the face of the footing can be based on passive pressure coefficient

(kp) of 2.0 and a moist soil unit weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot (PCF). Foundation concrete must be cast “neat” against the unformed sides of the excavation to develop full passive resistance. A safety factor of at least 1.5 should be included in the design analysis for horizontal loads.

Uplift loads can be resisted by the mass of the foundation concrete and by the weight of the material overlying the foundation members. Where engineered fill (i.e., soil fill compacted to at least 98 percent of its maximum standard Proctor dry density) is used for backfill over the foundation members, the mass of the fill can be calculated based on a soil unit weight of 120

PCF. The volume of the soil mass can be based on a theoretical shear surface extending upward from the top, outside edge of the footing at an angle of 30 degrees off vertical. Alternatively, if non-engineered fill is used above the footing, a soil unit weight of 80 PCF can be used within a shear zone defined by a vertical projection of the foundation limits.

Based on water level data generated during this study, we do not expect shallow foundation excavations will experience significant groundwater inflows. However, perched pockets of groundwater or wet weather springs could be encountered depending on the depth of the excavation, as well as weather conditions immediately prior to and during construction. In any event, it will be necessary for the contractor to maintain excavations in a dewatered condition during inspection and prior to concrete placement. The bottom of the excavations must be thoroughly cleaned prior to concrete placement. Concrete should not be cast if excavations contain loose soil, debris, or water. Foundation excavations should be opened and cast with concrete on the same day whenever possible. Soil excavations, if they must remain open for an extended period, must be protected from rainfall, excessive drying, and surface water infiltration.

A representative of the geotechnical engineer should examine footing excavations to assess the bearing surface condition prior placing concrete.

6.3 Grade-supported Floor Slabs

A grade-supported floor slab is suitable for the proposed shelter, provided the subgrade is prepared according to the recommendations contained within this report. We have not been provided the maximum floor load, and have assumed it will be lightly loaded. The following features are recommended as part of the floor slab construction:

• The slab thickness and reinforcing can be designed based on an estimated subgrade reaction modulus of 100 pounds per cubic inch.

• Provide joints in the slabs around columns and along footing supported walls.

• Use joints containing dowels or keys to permit rotation between parts of the slab while reducing sharp vertical displacements. This detail does not apply to joints at foundation elements.

• Place a 6-inch layer of clean, compacted gravel or crushed stone beneath the slab to enhance support and provide a working base. The actual thickness of the gravel layer should be based on design requirements.

• Keep the crushed stone or gravel moist, but not wet, immediately prior to grade slab concrete placement to minimize curling of the slab due to differential curing conditions between the top and bottom of the slab.

• Retain the geotechnical engineer to review subgrade conditions prior to slab construction and make recommendations for any unsuitable conditions encountered.

7.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General

The subgrade soils must have sufficient strength for pavement to perform satisfactorily, and sufficient stability to resist deterioration from construction traffic while supporting the paving equipment. The completed pavement sections must resist freeze/thaw cycles and wheel loads from post-construction traffic. Construction traffic loading is generally more severe than post-construction traffic loading.

The recommended pavement sections given below are based on the assumption the pavement subgrade soils have been prepared as recommended in Section 5 of this report.

Minimizing water infiltration into the subgrade and rapidly removing subsurface water are essential for successful long-term pavement performance. The subgrade and the pavement surface should have a minimum slope of one-quarter inch per foot to promote surface drainage.

Pavement edges should be provided a means of water outlet by extending the aggregate base course through to daylight or to surface drainage features such as storm inlets. The materials should conform to and be placed and compacted in accordance with the applicable sections of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet 2014 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge

Construction.

7.2 Design Methodology

We have used the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (1993) as a basis for our pavement thickness analysis.

The AASHTO design guide was developed based on the findings of the American Association of

State Highway Officials (AASHO) Road Test. It defines pavement performance in terms of the present serviceability index (PSI), which varies from 0 to 5. The PSI of newly-constructed flexible

(asphaltic concrete) and rigid (concrete) pavements was found to be about 4.2 and 4.5, respectively, in the Road Test. The end of service life was considered to be reached at a terminal

PSI value of 2.0. Serviceability loss (ΔPSI), the required input parameter, is the difference between the initial and terminal serviceabilities.

The AASHTO design guide incorporates a reliability factor to account for uncertainties in traffic prediction and pavement performance. The reliability factor (R) indicates the probability the pavement will not reach the terminal serviceability level before the end of the design period. We have assumed a design reliability of 85 percent at an overall standard deviation (So) of 0.45 for flexible pavements.

7.3 Flexible Pavement

The total flexible pavement thickness requirement is a function of the resilient modulus (Mr) of the subgrade soils. We have estimated Mr through the empirical correlation with the California Bearing

Ratio (CBR) suggested by AASHTO for fine-grained soils with a soaked CBR of 10 or less. No laboratory CBR tests were performed for this project. Our experience indicates a soil subgrade prepared as recommended in this report may be modeled using a CBR value of 2.

The total pavement thickness requirement is obtained from the AASHTO nomograph in terms of a structural number (SN), a weighted sum of the pavement layer thicknesses accounting for their structural and drainage properties. We have assumed layer coefficients of 0.44 and 0.14 for plant mix asphalt and crushed stone, respectively, and a drainage coefficient of 1.0 for the crushed stone base. The possible effect of drainage on the asphaltic concrete surface is not considered.

Detailed vehicle loading information has not been provided. We have assumed less than 25,000

ESALs (18 kip Equivalent Single Axle Loads) for the facility pavements. You should notify us if these assumed traffic loads are not correct, so we may review our pavement recommendations based on expected traffic loads.

Based on the assumed ESAL applications during the 20-year analysis period, the stated assumed design values, and our experience with similar projects, we recommend the following pavement thicknesses:

Table 3. Flexible Pavement

Material

Light duty

(≤ 25K ESALs) thickness

Asphalt surface (in) 1.5

Asphalt base (in) 2.0

Crushed stone base (in) compacted to at least 98 percent of its maximum standard Proctor

(ASTM D 698) dry density

8.0

Total pavement thickness 11.5

Prepared By: JHB

Checked By: MJS

8.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

The provided recommendations are based in part on project information provided to Amec Foster

Wheeler, and only apply to the specific project and site discussed in this report. You should notify us if the project information section in this report contains incorrect information or if additional information is available, convey the correct or additional information to us, and retain us to review our recommendations. We can then modify our recommendations if they are inappropriate for the proposed project.

Assessment of site environmental conditions or the presence of contaminants in the soil, rock, surface water or groundwater of the site was beyond the scope of this exploration.

There is always a possibility, regardless of a geotechnical exploration’s thoroughness, that conditions between borings will be different from those at specific boring locations and conditions will not be as anticipated by the designers or contractors. The construction process may itself alter soil conditions. Therefore, experienced geotechnical personnel should observe and document the construction procedures used and the conditions encountered. Unanticipated conditions and inadequate procedures should be reported to the design team along with timely recommendations to solve the problems created. We recommend the owner retain Amec Foster

Wheeler to provide this service based on our familiarity with the project, the subsurface conditions, and the intent of the recommendations.

We recommend this complete report be provided to the various design team members, the contractors, and the project owner. Potential contractors should be informed of this report in the

"instructions to bidders" section of the bid documents. The report should not be included or referenced in the actual contract documents.

We wish to remind you that our exploration services include storing the samples collected and making them available for inspection for 30 days. The samples are then discarded unless you request otherwise.

11/22/2017 1:27:28 PM

VA_MillCreek_Fig1 Imagery: USGS 24k TOPO - Faubush, Delmer, KY - 1976

0 2,000 Feet

0 250 500 MetersI

PROJECT:

FIGURE

CLIENT LOGO: DRAWN BY:

CHK'D BY:

DATE:

Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

11003 Bluegrass Pkwy. Suite 690 Louisville, KY 40299 Tel: (502) 267-0700 Fax: (502) 267-5900

Cemetery Proposed Expansion

CLIENT:

U.S.

Department of Veterans

Affairs

PROJECTION:

NAD 1983 StatePlane Kentucky FIPS 1600 Feet

MS

daniel.conn

SCALE:

1:24,000

MILL SPRINGS NATIONAL CEMETERY EXPANSION

6166170636

USGS Topographic Map -1976 Faubush, Delmer, KY.1 inch = 2,000 feet

LEGEND:

SITE

TITLE:

Msw Mbm

11/21/2017 4:49:24 PM

VA_MillCreek_Fig2 Imagery: USGS - Delmer, KY - 1974

0 200 400 600 800 Feet

0 50 100 MetersI

PROJECT:

FIGURE

CLIENT LOGO: DRAWN BY:

CHK'D BY:

DATE:

Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

11003 Bluegrass Pkwy. Suite 690 Louisville, KY 40299 Tel: (502) 267-0700 Fax: (502) 267-5900

Cemetery Proposed Expansion

CLIENT:

U.S.

Department of Veterans

Affairs

PROJECTION:

NAD 1983 StatePlane Kentucky FIPS 1600 Feet

MS

daniel.conn

SCALE:

1:7,200

MILL SPRINGS NATIONAL CEMETERY EXPANSION

6166170636

USGS Geologic Map -1971 Delmer, KY.1 inch = 600 feet

LEGEND:

SITE

!U

!U

!U

!U

!U

!U

!U

!U

!U

!U

!U

!U

!U

!U

!U

!U

7 15A

11/22/2017 1:33:23 PM

VA_MillCreek_Fig3 Imagery: USGS 24k TOPO - Faubush, Delmer, KY - 6/7/2016

0 200 Feet

0 50 MetersI

PROJECT:

FIGURE

CLIENT LOGO: DRAWN BY:

CHK'D BY:

DATE:

Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

11003 Bluegrass Pkwy. Suite 690 Louisville, KY 40299 Tel: (502) 267-0700 Fax: (502) 267-5900

!U Soil Boring !U Soil Borings with Rock Core

Cemetery Proposed Expansion

CLIENT:

U.S.

Department of Veterans

Affairs

PROJECTION:

NAD 1983 StatePlane Kentucky FIPS 1600 Feet

MS

daniel.conn

SCALE:

1:2,519

MILL SPRINGS NATIONAL CEMETERY EXPANSION

6166170636

Boring Locat ion Map - 2016 Aeria l Delmer, KY.1 inch = 210 feet

LEGEND:

Appendix 1

ASFE Information Guide

Appendix 2

Field Testing Procedures Key to Symbols and Descriptions Test Boring Records

FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Operations: The general field procedures employed by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure are summarized in ASTM D420 which is entitled Investigating and Sampling Soils and Rocks for Engineering Purposes. This recommended practice lists recognized methods for determining soil and rock distribution and ground water conditions. These methods include geophysical and in situ methods as well as borings.

Borings are drilled to obtain subsurface samples using one of several alternative techniques depending upon the subsurface conditions. These techniques included a continuous 3¼ inch inside diameter (I.D.)

hollow stem augers.

These drilling methods are not capable of penetrating through material designated as "refusal materials." Refusal, thus indicated, may result from hard cemented soil, soft weathered rock, coarse gravel or boulders, thin rock seams, or the upper surface of sound continuous rock. Core drilling procedures are required to determine the character and continuity of refusal materials.

The subsurface conditions encountered during drilling are reported on a field test boring record by the chief driller. The record contains information concerning the boring method, samples attempted and recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such as coarse gravel, cobbles, etc., and observations between samples. Therefore, these boring records contain both factual and interpretive information. The field boring records are on file in our office.

The soil and rock samples plus the field boring records are reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. The engineer classifies the soils in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D2488 and prepares the final boring records which are the basis for all evaluations and recommendations.

The final boring records represent our interpretation of the contents of the field records based on the results of the engineering examinations and tests of the field samples. These records depict subsurface conditions at the specific locations and at the particular time when drilled. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these boring locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface soil and ground water conditions at these boring locations. The lines designating the interface between soil or refusal materials on the records and on profiles represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. The final boring records are included with this report.

The detailed data collection methods used during this exploration are discussed below.

Soil Test Borings: Soil test borings were made at the site at locations shown on the attached Boring Location Plan. Soil sampling and penetration testing were performed in accordance with ASTM D1586.

The borings were made by mechanically twisting a hollow stem steel auger into the soil. At regular intervals, the drilling tools were removed and soil samples obtained with a standard 1.4 inch I.D., 2 inch outside diameter (O.D.), split tube sampler. The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final foot was recorded and is designated the "penetration resistance.” The penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, is an index to the soil strength and foundation supporting capability. The raw number of hammer blows correspond to the Nm values.

FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES (continued)

Representative portions of the soil samples, thus obtained, were placed in glass jars and transported to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the samples were examined to verify the driller's field classifications.

Test Boring Records are attached which graphically show the soil descriptions and penetration resistances.

Water Level Readings: Water table readings are normally taken in conjunction with borings and are recorded on the Test Boring Records. These readings indicate the approximate location of the hydrostatic water table at the time of our field investigation. Where impervious (more clayey) soils are encountered the amount of water seepage into the boring is small, and it is generally not possible to establish the location of the hydrostatic water table through water level readings. The ground water table may also be dependent upon the amount of precipitation at the site during a particular period of time. Fluctuations in the water table should be expected with variations in precipitation, surface run-off, evaporation and other factors.

The time of boring, water level reported on the boring records is determined by field crews as the drilling tools are advanced. The time of boring water level is detected by changes in the drilling rate, soil samples obtained, or by measurement after the drilling tools are withdrawn. Additional water table readings may be obtained after the borings are completed. A time lag of 24 hours may allow stabilization of the ground water table which has been disrupted by the drilling operations. The readings are taken by dropping a weighted line down the boring or using an electrical probe to detect the water level surface.

Occasionally, the borings will cave-in, preventing water level readings from being obtained or trapping drilling water above the caved-in zone. The cave-in depth is also measured and recorded on the boring records.

GW

Typical Names

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts.

Geoprobe Sample (GP) or Bulk Sample (BK)

Grab Sample

(GS)

Moderately Specimen can be scratched with pocket Hard: knife or sharp pick with light or moderate pressure. Core breaks with moderate hammer pressure.

KEY TO SYMBOLS AND DESCRIPTIONS

CL-CH

Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity.

Organic clays of medium to high plasticity

Peat and other highly organic soils; and The upper portion of a soil, usually dark colored and rich in organic material.

A sedimentary rock consisting predominantly of calcium carbonate

A sedimentary rock consisting of sand consolidated with some cement (clay or quartz etc.)

A fine-grained rock of consolidated silt.

Coal

No. of Blows

0 to 4 5 to 10 11 to 30 31 to 50 Over 50

No. of Blows

0 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 8 9 to 15 16 to 30 Over 30

WH - Weight of Hammer

Incompetent Competent

Fairly Continuous Continuous

Description Core

Recovery

< 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 75% 75 - 90% 90 - 100%

Very Poor Poor Fair

Good Very Good

Relative Hardness of Rock

Undisturbed Sample (UD or SH)

Split Spoon Sample (SS or SPT)

Rock Quality Classification

Consistency

Very Soft Soft

Medium Stiff Stiff

Very Stiff Hard

(RQD)

Rock Core (RC)

Water Table at time of drilling

Relative Density

Very Loose Loose

Medium Dense Dense

Very Dense

SILT & CLAY

Correlation of Penetration Resistance (N) with Relative Density and Consistency

Auger Cuttings

(AU)

Hard: Specimen can be scratched with a pocket knife or sharp pick with difficulty (heavy pressure). Heavy hammer blows required to break specimen.

Very Soft: Specimen can be…