S06_Attachment 1_Terracon Geotecnical Report - CJ205083 - Gravesite Expansion.pdf

REPORT COVER PAGE

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Gravesite Expansion – Marion National Cemetery Marion, Indiana

August 28, 2020 Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Prepared for:

Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC

Plymouth, Minnesota

Prepared by:

Earth Exploration, Inc. A Terracon Company

Indianapolis, Indiana

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 7770 West New York Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46214 P (317) 273 1690 terracon.com

REPORT COVER LETTER TO SIGN

August 28, 2020

Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC 13605 1st Avenue, Suite 100 Plymouth, Minnesota 55441

Attn: Mr. Edwin J. Brodmarkle, P.E.

P: (763) 412-4058 E: ebrodmarkle@ae-mn.com

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Gravesite Expansion – Marion National Cemetery 1700 East 38th Street Marion, Indiana Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Dear Mr. Broadmarkle:

We have completed the Geotechnical Engineering services for the above referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. PCJ205083, dated March 3, 2020. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations and pavements for the proposed project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Earth Exploration, Inc., A Terracon Company (EEI)

Yongwan Kwon, P.E. Gurkan Ozgurel, P.E.

Project Engineer Senior Associate

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

REPORT TOPICS

INTRODUCTION

SITE CONDITIONS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

EARTHWORK

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CONSIDERATIONS

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

PAVEMENTS

CORROSIVITY

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

GENERAL COMMENTS

FIGURES

ATTACHMENTS

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Note: Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

INTRODUC TION

Geotechnical Engineering Report Gravesite Expansion – Marion National Cemetery

1700 East 38th Street Marion, Indiana

Terracon Project No. CJ205083 August 28, 2020

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed improvements to be located at 1700 East 38th Street in Marion, Indiana. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

■ Subsurface soil conditions ■ Foundation design and construction

■ Groundwater conditions ■ Seismic site classification per IBC

■ Site preparation and earthwork

Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs and as separate graphs in the Exploration Results section.

SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps.

Item Description

Parcel Information The site is located at 1700 East 38th Street in Marion, Indiana.

Approximate Latitude/Longitude 40.521360°, -85.630883°.

See Site Location.

Existing Improvements The site is currently occupied by the Marion National Cemetery.

Current Ground Cover Grass.

Existing Topography Ground surface elevations at the boring locations ranged from about El. 832 to 838 based on survey information provided by RMA Surveying subcontracted by Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC (Anderson Engineering).

Gravesite Expansion – Marion National Cemetery ■ Marion, Indiana August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Our initial understanding of the project was provided in our proposal and was discussed in the project planning stage. Our final understanding of the project conditions is as follows:

Item Description

Information Provided

Information for the project was provided by Edwin Brodmarkle of Anderson Engineering in an email dated February 27, 2020.

■ Scope of Work

■ 817CM3022 Final SOW Rev2.docx

Project Description We understand that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is planning to expand the Marion National Cemetery.

Proposed Structures

The project consists of the construction of 2,000 in-ground full casket gravesites, 1,200 in-ground cremains, and 600 niche Columbaria burial plot(s). In addition, this project includes requisite infrastructure of utilities, signage, site furnishings and irrigation to support the new development.

Grading/Slopes A site grading plan was not provided. Based on our observations of the site and our understanding of the project, we anticipate less than about 1 to 2 feet of earth cuts/fills will be required to achieve finished grades.

Estimated Start of Construction The construction schedule was not available at the time of this report.

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface conditions based upon our review of the subsurface exploration, laboratory data, geologic setting and our understanding of the project. This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation of site preparation and foundation options. Conditions encountered at each exploration point are indicated on the individual logs. The individual logs can be found in the Exploration Results section and the GeoModel can be found in the Figures section of this report.

As part of our analyses, we identified the following model layers within the subsurface profile. For a more detailed view of the model layer depths at each boring location, refer to the GeoModel.

Model Layer Layer Name General Description

Topsoil Topsoil (12 in)

1 Lean Clay Sandy lean clay with varying amount of gravel; stiff to hard; brown

2 Silty Clay Silty clay with varying amount of sand and gravel; soft to hard;

brown

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

Model Layer Layer Name General Description

3 Fat Clay Fat clay with sand; very stiff to hard; brown

4 Granular Sand with varying amount of silt and gravel, clayey sand; loose to dense; brown, gray

Groundwater level observations were made during and at completion of the sampling process.

No groundwater was encountered in any of the boring locations.

A review of the Soil Survey of Grant County, Indiana indicates that the groundwater level typically remains greater than 6½ feet below the ground surface. As additional input, a review of publicly available water well information from the Indiana Map GIS system (https://maps.indiana.edu) indicated the groundwater level is typically near 32 feet below the surface at Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) monitored well site (Well Reference No.: 2149) located within about ¼ miles of the project area.

It should be recognized that groundwater levels can fluctuate due to changes in precipitation, infiltration, surface run-off, and other hydrogeological factors. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

The final site layout and foundation elevations were not available at the time of this report. This information may have a significant impact on the geotechnical recommendations, therefore, we recommend the Geotechnical Engineer be retained to review the geotechnical recommendations and assist the design engineers in developing the final design plans when the aforementioned information is available. Based on the test boring information and our understanding of the foundation types considered for design, our geotechnical recommendations for the design of foundations for the planned elements are provided below.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

EARTHWORK

Earthwork is anticipated to include backfilling the excavations and miscellaneous fill placement.

The following sections provide recommendations for use in the preparation of specifications for the work. Recommendations include critical quality criteria, as necessary, to render the site in the state considered in our geotechnical engineering evaluation for foundations.

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

Site Preparation

As an initial step in preparing the site, we recommend the removal of all topsoil within the limits of the proposed construction. Based on the test boring logs, the topsoil was observed to be about 12 in. in thickness. However, the thickness of the surficial conditions will vary. In addition, we recommend root masses and soils containing organic matter (if any) be removed (grubbed) and the area be regraded to avoid leaving depressions and areas that may collect water. In our opinion, these removal activities should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the limits of the proposed construction. Following these excavation and removal activities, we anticipate the near surface subgrade conditions to primarily consist of cohesive soils. These soils are moisture-sensitive. To reduce the risk of softening of the near-surface soils especially when exposed to excessive moisture, we recommend that proper site drainage be provided at the time of construction (via the use of ditches and/or piping) and only stripping of the surface conditions in those areas which will be immediately developed. Additionally, we recommend that underground utilities in conflict with the proposed construction be appropriately abandoned or relocated. Where utilities are relocated, we recommend the resulting excavations be backfilled as recommended below. Furthermore, because otherwise relatively stiff cohesive subgrades will deteriorate when exposed to excessive moisture and repeated construction traffic, we recommend consideration for providing a drive for construction equipment separate from proposed drive alignments so as to not disturb the subgrade. In addition, we recommend that the Geotechnical Engineer be on-site during construction to evaluate the subgrade conditions following grubbing and topsoil removal.

Following these activities, we recommend the cohesive soil subgrades be evaluated via proof-rolling using a heavy rubber-tired vehicle, if feasible. The purpose of proofrolling is to provide a first-order evaluation of how the subgrade is anticipated to react to construction traffic and gain an additional understanding of the conditions for support of the planned improvements. We recommend that the exposed granular soils be compacted via several passes with a vibratory roller.

We anticipate cohesive soils with moisture contents of about 20 percent will be exposed upon removal of the surficial materials. Given the moisture content and cohesive soils observed in our test borings, we anticipate soft yielding areas to be exposed during proofrolling activities. Where yielding areas are delineated and are not improved with moisture conditioning and compaction, they should be undercut and replaced with structural fill, or chemical modification of the in-situ soil using lime, cement, kiln dust, or a combination thereof could be considered. In general, smaller yielding areas could be improved by removal and replacement of the existing soils. For larger areas, chemical modification is typically more economical.

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

Fill Material Types

Earthen materials used for structural and general fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Soil Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Fill Designation Low Plasticity

Cohesive CL, CL-ML Structural or General

High Plasticity Cohesive 2 CH, MH General

Granular

SW, SP

SW-SM, SP-SM

Structural or General

On-Site Soils CL, CL-ML, SP, SP- SM, SP-SC Structural

On-Site Soils SC, CH General

1. Structural and general fill should consist of approved materials free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for evaluation prior to use on this site.

2. Fat clay with sand (CH) was observed within the 6 feet of the surface in Boring B-8. Soils classified as CH or MH should not be used within 2 feet below the base of footings and 1 foot below finished grade in other structural fill areas.

Fill Compaction Requirements

Structural fill should meet the following compaction requirements.

Item Recommendation Fill Designation Structural Fill General Fill

Maximum Lift Thickness 1, 2

8 in. or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelled compaction equipment is used

Minimum Compaction Requirements 1, 2

95% of the modified Proctor density

(ASTM D 1557)

90% of the modified Proctor density

(ASTM D 1557)

Water Content Range ±2% of optimum

1. The acceptable thickness of loose lifts of fill and/or number of passes required by the compaction equipment to achieve compaction to the density recommended in this report will be a function of the type of compaction equipment and techniques used, the soil type, as well as proper control of the soil moisture content and the season in which construction takes place.

2. Periodic field density tests performed by the Geotechnical Engineer during fill placement are recommended to determine the adequacy of the compaction effort.

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

Grading and Drainage

Effective drainage by collection or grading away from the structure during and after construction should be maintained throughout the life of the structure. Water retained next to the foundations can result in soil movements greater than those discussed in this report. Greater movements can result in unacceptable differential foundation movements.

Earthwork Construction Considerations

Shallow excavations for the proposed structure are anticipated to be accomplished with conventional construction equipment. Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade water content prior to construction of foundations. Construction traffic over the completed subgrades should be avoided. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. Water collecting over or adjacent to construction areas should be removed. If the subgrade freezes, desiccates, saturates, or is disturbed, the affected material should be removed, or the materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to foundation construction.

The groundwater table could affect over-excavation efforts, especially where unsuitable bearing conditions require over-excavation and replacement of lower strength soils. A temporary dewatering system could be necessary to achieve the recommended depth of over-excavation.

As a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” and its appendices, and in accordance with any applicable local, and/or state regulations.

Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the information provided herein be interpreted to mean Terracon is assuming responsibility for construction site safety, or the contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied nor inferred.

Construction Observation and Testing

The earthwork efforts should be monitored under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer.

Monitoring should include documentation of adequate removal of surface materials, and mitigation of areas determined by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction to requiring improvement.

Each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked, as necessary, until approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts. Each lift of fill should be tested for density and water content.

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

In areas of foundation excavations, the bearing subgrade should be evaluated under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer. If unanticipated conditions are encountered, the Geotechnical Engineer should prescribe mitigation options.

In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction, the continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the project provides the continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer’s evaluation of subsurface conditions including assessing variations and associated design changes.

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Based on our observations of the test boring locations, fat clay is anticipated to be present at the foundation subgrade near the area of Boring B-8. Where fat clay is observed at the foundation grade, we recommend these soils be undercut by 2 feet, and the foundation grade be reestablished with compacted granular fill or lean concrete.

If the site has been prepared in accordance with the requirements noted in Earthwork, the following design parameters are applicable for shallow foundations.

Design Parameters – Compressive Loads

Item Description Maximum Net Allowable Bearing pressure 1, 2

2,500 psf when founded on required bearing stratum as describes below.

Required Bearing Stratum 3, 4

Shallow foundations should bear on natural stiff or greater consistency cohesive soils, loose to medium dense granular soils, or new structural fill placed on suitable soils. Bearing stratum should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer.

Ultimate Coefficient of Sliding Friction 5 0.4 (native clay)

0.5 (granular material)

Minimum Embedment below

Finished Grade 6 36 inches

Estimated Total Settlement from Structural Loads 2, 7 Not anticipated to exceed 1 in.

Estimated Differential Settlement 2, 7 Not anticipated to exceed ½ in.

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

1. The maximum net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. Maximum net allowable bearing pressure based on a Factor of Safety (FS) = 3.

2. Values provided are considered preliminary since the locations and loads of structures were not available at the time of this report.

3. Soft soils should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill, or the foundations could be lowered to a suitable bearing stratum. If very loose soils are encountered during foundation excavation activities that are not able to be compacted in-place, the foundation should be lowered to a suitable bearing stratum. Structural fill should meet the USCS classification and compaction requirements provided in the Earthwork section of this report.

4. Where granular soils are observed at the foundation subgrade, we recommend the foundation subgrade be compacted in-place with a vibratory plate compactor prior to placing concrete due to potential disturbance of granular soils during excavation.

5. Ultimate coefficient of sliding friction can be used to compute sliding resistance where foundations are placed on suitable soil/materials. Sliding friction should be neglected for foundations subject to net uplift conditions.

6. Embedment necessary to minimize the effects of frost and/or seasonal water content variations. For sloping ground, maintain depth below the lowest adjacent exterior grade within 5 horizontal feet of the structure.

7. Settlements were estimated assuming relatively light to moderate structural loads, and our experience with similar construction. Actual settlements will depend on actual loads and construction methods.

Foundation Construction Considerations

As noted in Earthwork, the footing excavations should be evaluated under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer. The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil, prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Care should be taken to prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during construction. Excessively wet or dry material or any loose/disturbed material in the bottom of the footing excavations should be removed/reconditioned before foundation concrete is placed.

If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered at the base of the planned footing excavation, the excavation should be extended deeper to suitable soils, and the footings could bear directly on these soils at the lower level or on lean concrete backfill placed in the excavations. This improvement option should not be used in fill soils (or other materials where excavation sidewall collapse is likely) or where deep excavation will prevent suitable observation of the bearing surface. This concept is illustrated on the sketch below.

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

Over-excavation for structural fill placement below footings should be conducted as shown below.

The over-excavation should be backfilled up to the footing base elevation, with structural fill placed, as recommended in the Earthwork section.

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CONSIDERATIONS

We understand that pipe is generally planned to be installed using conventional cut-and-cover techniques. Based on the information obtained at Borings B-1 through B-8, the open-cut activities will potentially encounter mixed soil conditions.

As previously mentioned, the condition of the subgrade will be a function of the care and workmanship of the contractor in protecting the subgrade from water. It should be noted that even stiff cohesive soils may quickly become disturbed due to foot traffic and soften in areas where wet granular layers are encountered near the subgrade. The following subgrade preparation recommendations are provided assuming the subgrade has been dewatered prior to excavation, where necessary. Where granular soils are encountered at the subgrade, we recommend that the granular soils be compacted via several passes of a vibratory plate compactor. As stated previously, moisture sensitive cohesive soils are anticipated at or near the subgrade along a portion of the alignment. In the event that these soils are exposed to water, they will be difficult to compact in-situ. If continued wet weather persist and continued difficult subgrade conditions are observed despite good faith efforts being made by the contractor to correct the condition, we recommend that the pipe subgrades be undercut and grade be reestablished by placing an open-graded crushed aggregate such as No. 8 stone.

If soft soils are encountered at the subgrade, these soils should be undercut and replaced as stated above. We recommend that fill placed for this purpose be compacted. Further, to reduce the potential for softening of the subgrade soils and additional undercutting, it is recommended that the construction activities in these areas be scheduled such that the pipe subgrade is

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10 undercut, then reestablished as soon as practical. This will require having all backfill materials present during the excavation activities.

Bedding and Backfill

For the pipe, we recommend a minimum of 6 in. of granular bedding be placed in the excavation to provide uniform support for the pipe elements. We recommend granular soils for backfill. This is because of their ease of compaction as compared to cohesive soils which reduces the risk of settlement. In addition, periodic field density tests and observations by the Geotechnical Engineer are recommended during backfill placement to verify the adequacy of compactive effort.

For bedding purposes, we recommend the use of a granular soil satisfying a USCS symbol of "SP," "SW," “SW-SM,” or “SP-SM.” The soils classified using these designations at the test boring locations are anticipated to be suitable for this purpose. However, given the limited quantity of granular soil layers observed at the test boring locations, we anticipate that imported granular fill will be required. The quantity of imported backfill with be a function of the contractor’s excavation method. A significant quantity of backfill could be required if the excavation slopes are laid back.

Additionally, granular backfill should be placed and compacted around the pipe in uniform layers, not exceeding 6 in. in loose lift thickness. Furthermore, the use of cohesive soils for backfill above the pipe, if considered, should be limited to areas outside of the pavement, other utilities, and non-settlement sensitive areas.

We recommend that the imported granular soil at the base of the excavation, for the bedding material, and soils used for structural backfill surrounding the pipe elements be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor). In other areas, the backfill could be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density, provided some settlement of the backfill is tolerable. In addition, we recommend that the pipe manufacturer be contacted to discuss special bedding and backfill requirements.

Dewatering

It should be noted that the test borings were performed at widely spaced intervals. Based on the groundwater conditions and soils types observed at the boring locations, dewatering may not be necessary during the construction of the sewer elements and structures. However, groundwater levels can fluctuate due to changes in precipitation, infiltration, surface run-off, and other hydrogeological factors. Within the cohesive soils, dewatering is anticipated to consist of multiple pumps and filtered sumps possibly in combination with collection trenches. Within the wet granular soils, the use of well points and/or high-volume pumps placed in multiple sump pits outside the limits of the excavation should be anticipated throughout the project area to maintain excavations “in the dry.” We recommend that the groundwater level be lowered a depth of 2 feet below the planned invert prior to the excavations being made.

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

The intent of our evaluation was to provide geotechnical design-related recommendations for the proposed elements. The scope of this evaluation was not to provide dewatering recommendations for contractors. Dewatering is a responsibility of the contractor based on their means and methods and considers the requirements of subgrade preparation discussed herein. It may be necessary for the dewatering contractor to obtain additional subsurface information to assist with the design of their dewatering plan. The effectiveness of the subgrade preparation activities discussed above will be directly dependent on the adequacy of the contactor’s dewatering efforts.

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Design Parameters

Structures with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed for earth pressures at least equal to values indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will be influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Two wall restraint conditions are shown in the diagram below. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of free-standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes wall movement. The "at-rest" condition assumes no wall movement and is commonly used for walls restrained at the top. For design of retaining walls, we recommend the parameters provided below.

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12

We recommend backfill placed against below grade walls consist of clean well-graded granular soils. For the lateral earth pressure design parameters for the granular soil provided above to be valid, we recommend that clean well-graded granular backfill extend horizontally behind the wall a distance of at least the height of the wall. Lastly, we recommend drains be provided at the foundation grade at the back of the structure backfill envelope and just behind the face of the wall.

We understand that cohesive soils may be utilized for backfill by site designers. The use of cohesive soils as backfill against below grade walls will result in higher earth pressures and would require special design for water drainage behind the walls. Furthermore, the use of cohesive soils as backfill will result in undrained conditions behind the wall. Thus, the weight of water should be accounted for in the design of below grade walls.

PAVEMENTS

General Pavement Comments

We anticipate the pavement subgrade will generally consist of cohesive soils and/or structural fill used to raise site grades. Based on the subgrade conditions, it is our opinion that the pavement design will be controlled by the cohesive soils or structural fill.

Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters

Earth Pressure

Condition 1 Backfill Type 2

Earth Pressure

Coefficient 2

Surcharge Pressure 3, 4, 5

(psf)

Equivalent Fluid Pressure 3, 5

(pcf)

Unsaturated Submerged

Active (Ka)

Clean well-graded granular soil 0.33 (0.33)S 40 80

Low plasticity cohesive soil 0.4 (0.4)S 55 85

Passive (Kp)

Clean well-graded granular soil 3.0 -- 360 230

Low plasticity cohesive soil 2.5 -- 330 205

At-Rest (Ko)

Clean well-graded granular soil 0.5 (0.50)S 60 90

Low plasticity cohesive soil 0.6 (0.6)S 80 95

1. For active earth pressure, the wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements 0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height. For passive earth pressure, the wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance.

2. These values assume uniform horizontal backfill, compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor density (ASTM D 1557), rendering a maximum unit weight of 120 pcf (granular) or 135 pcf (cohesive).

3. No safety factor is included in these values.

4. Uniform surcharge, where S is the surcharge pressure in psf.

5. Loading from heavy equipment is not included.

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13

Provided the subgrade is prepared and fill placed in accordance with the recommendations noted in the Earthwork section, the existing soils or structural fill should provide adequate support for the pavement. These soils are considered to present a fair subgrade condition.

Pavement Design Parameters

Traffic patterns and anticipated loading conditions were not available at the time of this report.

However, we have assumed that traffic loads will be produced primarily by automobile traffic and pickup trucks. For light duty and heavy duty pavements, an ESAL of 30,000 and 200,000 was used, respectively. The pavement design period is 20 years.

Because of environmental effects on the subgrade (e.g., saturation of the soils immediately below the pavement through surface water, freeze-thaw cycles), we recommend a design CBR value of 3 be used. Pavement performance is affected by various factors. In addition to providing preventive maintenance, the civil engineer should consider the following recommendations in the design and layout of pavements:

■ Final grade adjacent to paved areas should slope down from the edges at a minimum of 2 percent;

■ Subgrade and pavement surfaces should have a minimum of 2 percent slope to promote proper surface drainage;

■ Install joint sealant and seal cracks as soon as reasonably possible;

■ Slope landscaped areas away from pavements to reduce moisture migration to subgrade soils;

Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Section Thickness

The following table provides our recommended minimum flexible pavement sections for light- duty and heavy-duty use:

Asphaltic Concrete Design

Layer Minimum Thickness (in.) 1

Light-Duty (Auto Traffic) Heavy-Duty (Driveways, Heavy-duty Truck)

AC Surface Course 2 1 2

Intermediate 3 2 3

Compacted Aggregate Base, No.53 4, 5, 6 8 8

TOTAL 11 13

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14

1. The individual and total material thickness values presented herein represent minimum thickness values, not averages.

2. The asphalt surface mix should be an INDOT 402 HMA Surface, Type B with PG64-22 grade binder for light-duty and heavy-duty asphalt pavement.

3. The asphalt base mix should be INDOT 402 Intermediate, Type B with PG64-22 grade binder for light -duty and heavy-duty asphalt pavement.

4. The compacted aggregate base should consist of crushed stone complying with INDOT 300 Aggregate Pavement and Base specifications.

5. The aggregate base course is permeable material and water will soak through the material. It has been our experience that the permeability of typical dense-graded aggregate is higher than the cohesive subgrade.

If the base course is left exposed to inclement weather or heavy traffic for an extend period time, reconditioning and possible undercutting may be needed prior to paving.

6. All crushed stone should be provided by a state-qualified quarry/pit. Construction methods should be in accordance with INDOT Standard Specifications.

Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Section Thickness

The following table provides our recommended minimum rigid pavement sections for light-duty and heavy-duty use:

Portland Cement Concrete Design

Layer Thickness (in.) 1

Light-Duty (Auto Traffic) Heavy-Duty (Driveways, Heavy-duty Truck)

PCC 2 5 6 3

Compacted Aggregate Base, No.53 4 6 6

TOTAL 11 12

1. The individual and total material thickness values presented herein represent minimum thickness values, not averages.

2. Refer to Section 502 of ISS 2020. The concrete should be air entrained and have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi after 28 days of laboratory curing per ASTM C-31.

3. In the areas of anticipated heavy traffic, fire trucks, delivery trucks, or concentrated loads (e.g. dumpster pads), and areas with repeated turning or maneuvering of heavy vehicles, a minimum concrete thickness of 7 in. is recommended but should be evaluated further when loading conditions are known.

4. Compacted Aggregate Base should meet ISS 2020, Sections 301 Aggregate Base.

In general, PCC used in isolated areas such as dumpster pads and apron slabs does not require reinforcement. However, if PCC is selected in general pavement areas, proper design and detailing of longitudinal and traverse control joints, tie bars, and joint dowels will be required. In

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 15 this situation, we could be contacted to provide more specific and detailed recommendations. In general, we recommend the following for PCC:

■ Contraction joints should be constructed in the rigid pavement in accordance with ACI 330R-08 requirements. Construction joints should be ¼ of the depth of the concrete and should be cut as soon as the slab can support the weight of a laborer and saw;

■ Expansion (isolation) joints must be full depth and should only be used to isolate fixed objects abutting or within the paved area. When they must be located in areas that encounter wheel loads, the pavement edges at the joint should be thickened by two inches wherever practical. The transition in thickness should occur over a minimum distance of five feet;

■ Contraction joints should have a maximum spacing no greater than 15 feet, as described in ACI 330R-08;

■ Dowels should be provided at construction joints; and

■ Isolation joints are recommended for concrete pavement areas that abut fixed objects such as around light poles, curb inlets, etc.

Pavement Drainage

Pavements should be sloped to provide drainage of surface water. Water allowed to pond on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to premature pavement deterioration. In addition, the pavement subgrade should be graded to provide positive drainage within the granular base section. Appropriate sub-drainage or connection to a suitable daylight outlet should be provided to remove water from the granular subbase.

Pavement Maintenance

The pavement sections provided in this report represent minimum recommended thicknesses and, as such, periodic maintenance should be anticipated. Therefore, preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program.

Maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration and to preserve the pavement investment. Maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g., crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g., surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the priority when implementing a pavement maintenance program.

Additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of a cost-effective program. Even with periodic maintenance, some movements and related cracking may still occur, and repairs may be required.

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 16

CORROSIVITY

The following table lists the result of pH, conductivity, laboratory resistivity, sulfate content, and chloride content. The results of the corrosivity analyses using USDA Handbook 60 are also presented in the Exploration Results section of this report. The test results are provided to assist in determining the type and degree of corrosion protection that may be required.

CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS SUMMARY

Boring No.

Sample Depth 1

(feet)

Soil Description pH

Conductivity (mmho/cm)

Laboratory Resistivity

(W-cm)

Sulfate Content (ppm)

Chloride Content (ppm)

B-2 1 – 2½ Silty Clay 7.2 0.10 11,000 10 8.0 B-6 1 – 2½ Silty Clay 7.8 0.21 4,800 35 3.0

1. Below the existing ground surface.

Results of the sulfate testing indicate samples of the on-site soils tested classify as S0 according to Table 19.3.1.1 of Section 318 of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. Concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, Section 318, Chapter 19.

As stated previously, these test results are provided to assist in determining the type and degree of corrosion protection that may be required. We recommend that a certified corrosion engineer be employed to determine the need for corrosion protection and to design appropriate protective measures, if required.

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure.

The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7 and the International Building Code (IBC).

Based on the soil properties encountered at the site and as described on the exploration logs and results, it is our professional opinion that the Seismic Site Classification is D. Subsurface explorations at this site were extended to a maximum depth of 20 feet. The site properties below the boring depth to 100 feet were estimated based on our experience and knowledge of geologic conditions of the general area. Additional deeper borings or geophysical testing may be performed to confirm the conditions below the current boring depth.

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 17

GENERAL COMMENTS

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural variations will occur between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather.

The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction.

Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.

Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third-party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client.

Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client and is not intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.

Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

FIGURES

Contents:

GeoModel

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

M

S L

(f ee t)

Gravesite Expansion - Marion National Cemetery Marion, IN Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the geotechnical engineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface conditions as required for the subsequent geotechnical engineering for this project.

Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground surface.

NOTES:

B-1 B-2

B-3 B-4

B-5 B-6

B-7

B-8

GEOMODEL

This is not a cross section. This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only. See individual logs for more detailed conditions.

Fat clay with sand; very stiff to hard; brown3

Sand with varying amount of silt, gravel, clayey sand; loose to dense; brown, gray4

LEGEND

Topsoil

Sandy Lean Clay

Poorly-graded Sand with Silt

Poorly-graded Sand with Gravel

Silty Clay

Poorly-graded Sand

Clayey Sand

Poorly-graded Sand with Clay

Fat Clay with Sand

Fill

Model Layer General DescriptionLayer Name lean clay with varying amount of sand and gravel; stiff to hard; brown1

Silty clay with varying amount of sand and gravel; soft to hard; brown2

Fat Clay

Granular

Lean Clay

Silty Clay

3.5

8.5

5.5

14.5

SIGNATUREATTACHMENTS

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 1 of 2

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) Planned Location

8 20 See Exploration Plan

Boring Layout and Elevations: The boring locations were marked in the field by EEI personnel using hand held GPS equipment with a horizontal accuracy of about 10 feet based on the coordinates obtained by overlaying the conceptual site plan provided by the client onto Google Earth ProTM. Furthermore, ground surface elevations at the boring locations were provided by RMA Surveying subcontracted by Anderson Engineering.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the borings with a track-mounted rotary drill rig using continuous flight hollow stem augers. Four samples were obtained in the upper 10 feet of each boring and at intervals of 5 feet thereafter. In the split-spoon sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch outer diameter split-barrel sampling spoon was driven into the ground by a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value. The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths. Following the completion of our exploratory activities, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings, bentonite chips plug at surface.

The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information was recorded on the field boring logs. The samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory for testing and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs were prepared from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the Geotechnical Engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on observations and tests of the samples in our laboratory.

Laboratory Testing

The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned laboratory tests to understand the engineering properties of the various soil strata, as necessary, for this project. Procedural standards noted below are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods were applied because of local practice or professional judgment. Standards noted below include reference to other, related standards. Such references are not necessarily applicable to describe the specific test performed.

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 2 of 2

■ Hand penetrometer readings (i.e., qp, which provide an indication of the shear strength characteristics of cohesive-type soils);

■ Natural moisture content tests (W%);

■ Grain size distribution;

■ Atterberg limit determinations (LL, PL);

■ Unconfined compression test (qu); and

■ Corrosivity analyses o pH analysis o Conductivity o Sulfate content o Chloride content o Laboratory resistivity.

The laboratory testing program often included examination of soil samples by an engineer. Based on the material’s texture and plasticity, we described and classified the soil samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

Contents:

Site Location Plan Exploration Plan

Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.

SITE LOCATION

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.

When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.

The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.

SITE LOCA TION

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

EXPLORATION PLAN

August 28, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. CJ205083

Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.

When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.

The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.

SITE

EXPLORATION P LAN

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

EXPLORATION P LANEXPLORATION RESULTS

Boring Logs (B-1 through B-8) Grain Size Distribution Unconfined Compressive Strength (2) Report of Analysis - Corrosivity

4-5-7 N=12

3-2-3 N=5

7-7-6 N=13

6-6-7 N=13

7-9-12 N=21

10-12-12 N=24

4.5

(HP) 6.70UC 3.9 6215.0 109 31-16-15

TOPSOIL, (12 in)

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace gravel, trace sand, brown, hard

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), trace gravel, fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose to medium dense, poorly graded

SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, medium dense, poorly graded

Boring Terminated at 20 Feet

1.0

3.5

14.0

20.0

836+/-

833.5+/-

823+/-

817+/-

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

G E

O S

M A

R T

L O

G -N

O W

E

LL

C J2

G

R A

V E

S

IT

E E

X P

A N

S I.G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/2

/2

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

STRENGTH TEST

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

LA

B

O R

A T

O R

Y H

P ts f)

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

T E

S T

T Y

P E

S T

R A

IN

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 40.5221° Longitude:…