(AI) Geotech Report 2023.pdf

B549 Fuel Farm Replace Piping Naval Submarine Base, New London

Groton, Connecticut

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Draf t

July 12, 2023

Prepared for: NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic

Prepared by: AECOM

AECOM Project Number: 60708917Draf

Quality information

Document name Ref Prepared for Prepared by Date Reviewed by

Geotechnical Engineering Report Draft NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic Venisri Lolla, PE 07-12-2023 Victor Omelchenko, PE, DGE

Revision history

Revision Revision date Details Name Position

This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited for the sole use of our client (the “Client”) and in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Limited and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Limited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM Limited.

AECOM i

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK .....................................................................1-1

2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ...........................2-1

2.1 Existing Site Conditions..........................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Proposed Construction...........................................................................................................2-1

3 FIELD EXPLORATION.....................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Subsurface Exploration ..........................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Boring Stakeout and Subsurface Utility Clearance................................................................3-1

3.3 Drilling Methodology and Sampling .......................................................................................3-1

4 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION RESULTS....................................................................4-1

4.1 Site Geology ...........................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Subsurface Conditions ...........................................................................................................4-1

4.2.1 Soil Borings ...............................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Groundwater...........................................................................................................................4-1

4.4 Soil Laboratory Testing ..........................................................................................................4-2

4.4.1 Soil Classification Testing Results............................................................................4-2

4.4.2 California Bearing Ratio Testing Results..................................................................4-2

4.4.3 Corrosion Testing Results ........................................................................................4-2

5 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS............................................5-4

5.1 General Site Preparation........................................................................................................5-4

5.2 Subgrade Preparations ..........................................................................................................5-5

5.3 New Fill Placement and Compaction .....................................................................................5-5

5.4 Foundation Recommendations ..............................................................................................5-1

5.4.1 Lateral Loads on Wing Walls ....................................................................................5-1

5.5 Pavement Subgrade Preparations.........................................................................................5-2

6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................................6-1

6.1 Construction Monitoring .........................................................................................................6-1

7 LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................7-1Draf

AECOM ii

List of Figures and Appendices Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Plan Figure 2 - Soil Boring Location Plan Figure 3 - Design Earth Pressure for Restrained Walls Figure 4 - Design Earth Pressure for Unrestrained Walls Appendix A: Soil Boring Logs (4 pages), USCS Soil Identification Sheet (2 pages) Appendix B: Soil Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results (12 pages) Appendix C: Soil Environmental Laboratory Test Results (47 pages)

AECOM 1-1

1 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK

AECOM Technical Services Inc. (AECOM) was retained by the NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic to conduct a subsurface investigation and analysis for the B549 Fuel Farm Replace Piping project. The site is located between Crystal Lake Road and Tang Avenue within the Naval Submarine Base New London in Groton, Connecticut. AECOM’s scope of work for the subject project included drilling a total of five Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings, soil laboratory testing, and preparation of a geotechnical engineering report with the following information:

A. A soil boring location plan.

B. Soil boring logs.

C. Results of geotechnical and environmental soil laboratory testing.

D. Recommendations for support of the proposed fuel pipes valve supports and proposed road crossing utility bridge.

E. Recommendations for handling of groundwater in the design.

F. Recommendations for pavement subgrades.

G. Recommendations for earthwork requirements, including re-use of site soils for structural fill and backfill.

It is noted that soil boring B-2 was deleted due to conflict with existing utilities.

AECOM 2-1

2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

2.1 Existing Site Conditions

The site is located between Crystal Lake Road and Tang Avenue within the Naval Submarine Base New London in Groton, Connecticut. The site is occupied with existing structures, fuel tanks, paved roadways, and grass areas. The site is generally flat with elevations changes of about 2 feet based on elevations provided by Google Earth maps. A Site Vicinity Map is included as Figure 1.

2.2 Proposed Construction

AECOM understands that the proposed construction will include replacing the fuel farm pipelines and construction of utility bridges at two road crossings. The pipelines will be above ground and supported on concrete pipe stanchions (pedestals). The utility bridges will be designed as 5-inch galvanized bar grating over the fuel pipelines. Two concrete approach (entry and exit) ramps will be designed to be supported on prepared subgrades. The grating will be supported on wing wall structures. Based on the review of general structural details, foundation depth for the pedestals will be approximately 3 feet below the existing grades and wing walls will be about 4 feet below the existing grades.

AECOM 3-1

3 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.1 Subsurface Exploration

The NAVFAC project manager, Stephen Meagher, selected five boring locations for drilling. A total of four soil borings were drilled at the site by New England Boring Contractors, the fifth boring (B-2) was not drilled due to an existing utility conflict. The approximate boring locations are illustrated on the Boring Location Plan included as Figure 2. The soil test boring logs are included in Appendix A.

3.2 Boring Stakeout and Subsurface Utility Clearance

The boring locations were field located and staked by an AECOM representative. “Call Before You Dig 811” was contacted by the drilling subcontractor to mark the existing underground utilities around the staked boring locations. A private utility locator, Ground Penetrating Radar Systems, LLC (GPRS), was subcontracted by AECOM to clear the selected boring locations by marking all detected underground utilities within a 10-ft radius of the staked boring locations. The original proposed locations were moved within a 10-ft radius to avoid conflict with the existing utilities.

The as-drilled soil boring locations and elevations were not surveyed and should be considered approximate. The ground surface elevations at the soil boring locations were estimated from Google Earth and are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A.

3.3 Drilling Methodology and Sampling

New England Boring Contractors drilled the soil test borings on May 31, 2023. The borings were drilled with a Mobile B53 truck mounted drill rig using 4-inch diameter solid flight augers to advance the borings. Representative soil samples were obtained using a 2-inch outside diameter split-barrel spoon sampler in general accordance with ASTM D 1586 standards. Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were performed by driving the split-spoon sampler into the soil a distance of 18 and 24 inches over three or four six-inch intervals by means of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler through the second and third 6-inch intervals (i.e., the N-values) for each sample are indicated on the test boring logs included in Appendix A. Soil samples were obtained continuously from the borings to the final boring depths. The N-values provide an indication of the in-place density (granular materials) and consistency (cohesive materials) of the soils. The borings were backfilled with the soil cuttings upon drilling completion or after the 24-hour groundwater measurements were obtained.

After recovery, the soil samples were removed from the samplers and were visually classified by an AECOM engineer. Representative portions of the soil samples were sealed in glass jars and retained for further review. Selected soil samples were assigned for laboratory testing as discussed in Section 4.4. The visual classifications of the soil samples were based on texture and plasticity, in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A brief description of the USCS is also included in Appendix A. Draf

AECOM 4-1

4 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION RESULTS

4.1 Site Geology

The site is underlain by the Mamacocke formation which is interlayered light- to dark-gray, medium-grained gneiss, composed of plagioclase, quartz, and biotite. Sillimanite, garnet, hornblende, or microcline are present in certain layers. Upper portions locally contain quartz-sillimanite nodules or thin layers of quartzite, amphibolite, or calc-silicate rock. The boring depths explored for this project are shallow, hence, limited to exploring surficial deposits. The surficial deposits vary in thickness and mainly consist of sand and gravel and fines.

4.2 Subsurface Conditions

4.2.1 Soil Borings

The subsurface strata encountered during our subsurface exploration are described below for the purposes of our discussions in this report. It should be noted that these descriptions do not imply continuity of the materials encountered in the borings. The descriptions of the materials have been established to characterize similar subsurface conditions based on material gradations and parent geology. The subsurface materials encountered in the soil borings, along with the range of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-Values are described below.

Stratum A: Existing Fill

Existing Fill and Possible fill soils were encountered during our field exploration below the surface. The existing fill’s depth is approximately 8.5 feet below the existing ground surface). The Stratum A soils generally consist of medium dense to dense Silty Sand with Gravel (SM), Well Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SW-SM). The Standard Penetration Test N-values for the soils varied between 10 blows per foot (bpf) to 38 bpf. In boring B- 3 we encountered some cobbles and boulders in the existing fill soils.

Stratum B: Natural Soils

Natural soils were encountered during our field exploration below the existing fill and possible fill soils and extended to the maximum depth explored at the soil borings (extended to approximately 15 feet below existing grades). The Stratum B soils generally consist of medium dense to very dense Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM), Well Graded Sand with Silt (SW-SM) and Sandy Silt (ML). The Standard Penetration Test N-values for the soils varied between 35 blow per foot (bpf) to 100 blows per 6-inches.

4.3 Groundwater

Groundwater measurements were investigated during drilling operations, upon completion of the borings, and up to about 24 hours after drilling. A 1-inch diameter temporary PVC standpipe was installed in boring B-1 to obtain the stabilized 24-hour groundwater level and to prevent the boring sidewalls from caving in. The groundwater observations indicated water present at depths of 5 to

AECOM 4-2

8 feet below the existing ground surface. The groundwater observations are indicated on the boring logs in Appendix A.

It is possible that stabilized groundwater levels are higher. It should be noted that fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur as a result of seasonal variations in rainfall, proximity of the site to large bodies of water, evaporation, construction activity, surface runoff, and other site-specific factors.

4.4 Soil Laboratory Testing

Selected soil samples were tested by JayKay Testing in Spring Grove, PA to determine the physical and engineering properties of the on-site soils. The soil samples were tested for natural moisture content, grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, compaction characteristics using modified effort, California Bearing Ratio, and corrosion potential. The soil laboratory tests were conducted in accordance with applicable ASTM standards.

4.4.1 Soil Classification Testing Results

Selected split-spoon soil samples were tested to determine the classification of the on-site soils. The testing included moisture content determinations (ASTM D2216), Atterberg Limits tests (ASTM D4318), mechanical gradation analyses (ASTM D6913), and moisture-density relationships (ASTM D1557). The soil laboratory testing results are presented in Appendix B and are incorporated in the boring logs included in Appendix A.

4.4.2 California Bearing Ratio Testing Results

Two bulk soil sample were selected from soil borings B-1 and B-4 to obtain California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values. CBR values at 0.1-inch penetration for soils compacted to about 98 percent of modified proctor density per ASTM D1557 ranged from 25.7 to 44.5.

The testing results are presented in Appendix B.

4.4.3 Corrosion Testing Results

Two composite soil samples obtained from borings B-1 and B-4 were tested to determine the corrosion potential of the soils within the project area. B-1 sample was obtained from 8 to 10 feet below ground surface and B-4 sample was obtained from zero to 4 feet below ground surface. All the tests were performed in accordance with AASTHO criteria except the oxidation reduction potential which was performed in accordance with the ASTM standard. The soil laboratory test results for the corrosivity testing are included in in Appendix B and summarized in Table 4.1 below. Draf

AECOM 4-3

Table 4.1: Corrosion Test Results Summary

Boring Depth (ft)

Approximate Elevation (ft)

Resistivity Ohm-cm

Redox Potential mV pH Sulfide mg/Kg Chloride

(ppm) Sulfate (ppm)

B-1 8-10 13-15 6,450 197 5.85 Negative 33 16

B-4 0-4 (Bulk) 17-21 39,000 303 5.76 Negative 7 1

The geochemical properties of the soils at the project site need to be considered in the final design of the facilities of the project, including, structures, and foundations. The test results indicate a low sulfate and chloride concentration in the samples tested. According to AASHTO 2014, concentrations of sulfate greater than 1,000 ppm are considered to be corrosive. In addition, based on the American Concrete Institute (ACI 318), soils with water-soluble sulfate content of less than 150 parts per million (ppm) or less than 0.10% by weight are categorized as having an exposure class of S0 (negligible sulfate severity), and there is not a concern of injurious sulfate attack on concrete at this level of soil sulfate concentration. Concrete can be designed to meet the criteria for Exposure Category S0 as defined in ACI 318. Final selection of the cement grade and approval of the concrete mix should be performed by the project structural engineer.

The American Water Works Association (AWWA) standard C-105 (Polyethylene Encasement for Ductile-Iron Pipe System) and the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA) provide a 10-Point System to assess the corrosion potential of the soil based on the soil resistivity, redox potential, pH, sulfide/sulfate concentrations, and moisture of the soils. According to this system, sample B-1 and B-4 are both considered non-corrosive. Also, according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) NHI-16-072 - Table 5-14, soil samples B-1 and B-4 were moderately corrosive and noncorrosive, respectively, for buried steel elements.

4.5 Photoionization Detector (PID) Screening

During drilling, the soil samples recovered from the borings were screened for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a photoionization detector (PID) at 2-ft intervals. The PID readings obtained in the field from the samples recovered were less than one part per million (ppm). The PID readings are included in the soil boring logs in Appendix A.

4.6 Environmental Testing

Four composite soil samples, one from each boring location, were obtained from zero to 6 feet depth. These four composite soil samples were tested for Connecticut Remediations Standard Regulations (RSRs). The environmental test results are included in Appendix C.

AECOM 4-4

5 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

The geotechnical engineering recommendations are based on the soil boring data and review of the available drawings.

5.1 General Site Preparation

Based on the soil borings drilled within the general area of the proposed structures, the subgrade soils are anticipated to generally consist of medium dense sandy fill soils with gravel of Stratum A. Based on discussions with the Client we understand that these existing fill soils were placed as controlled fill. It is AECOM’s professional opinion that concrete pedestals and wing wall foundations can be founded on these soils at the proposed subgrade elevations (3 to 4 feet below the existing grades) and designed for a design bearing pressure of up to 2500 psf; however, compaction testing of the existing fill soils should be performed during construction to verify that the soils have been adequately compacted. Loose existing fill soils should be removed and recompacted or replaced with AASHTO No. 57 crushed stone or washed gravel. We encountered organic soils at the transition from existing fill to natural soils. If these soils are encountered at the subgrades, they need to be undercut in their entirety and replaced with bedding stone such as AASHTO No. 57 crushed stone or washed gravel. Crushed stone or gravel should be completely wrapped in a woven geotextile stabilization fabric. The actual depth of undercutting should be evaluated by a qualified geotechnical engineer during construction.

Based on the test borings, it is anticipated that groundwater may be encountered during construction. Therefore, the contractor should be prepared to provide localized construction dewatering consisting of sump pits and sump pumps. The contractor should evaluate the appropriate dewatering system requirements.

Compacted fill and backfill soils should classify as ML, SM, SW-SM, SP, or more granular material, provided they are free of organic matter and other deleterious matter, not contaminated, and have a Liquid Limit (LL) and Plasticity Index (PI) of less than 40 and 15, respectively. Some moisture conditioning of these soils will be required to achieve the compaction requirements. Soils classifying CH, MH, or OH are not considered suitable as compacted fill or backfill. All backfill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 6 inches in thickness and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. In general, the moisture content of the fill materials should be maintained within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content.

Trench boxes and/or sloping of excavations may be needed. All temporary excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety generally is the responsibility of the contractor, who should be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations so that a safe working environment is maintained.

The contractor should avoid stockpiling excavated materials or having construction equipment immediately adjacent to the excavations. We recommend that stockpiled materials be kept back from the excavations a minimum distance equal to one-half the excavation depth to limit surcharging

AECOM 4-5

the excavation sidewalls. If this is impractical due to space constraints, the excavation sidewalls can be retained with bracing designed for the anticipated surcharge loads.

5.2 Subgrade Preparations

All structure subgrades should be stripped of vegetation, asphalt, roots, topsoil, construction debris, organics, and any other deleterious materials. The foundation excavations should extend to suitable bearing materials, and final bearing subgrades should be observed and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of the gravel bedding materials to verify their suitability to provide foundation support, as recommended herein.

If any unsuitable loose soils are encountered at the subgrade elevations, the loose soils should be undercut and recompacted, or replaced with AASHTO No. 57 crushed stone or washed gravel.

Crushed stone or gravel should be completely wrapped in a woven geotextile stabilization fabric.

The actual depth of undercutting or the need for “bridging” with crushed stone and geotextile cloth should be evaluated, monitored, and documented by a qualified geotechnical engineer during construction.

5.3 New Fill Placement and Compaction

All new compacted structural fill and backfill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 6 inches in thickness and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. In general, the moisture content of the fill materials should be maintained within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content. Materials to be used as compacted fill should be classified as ML, SM, SC or more granular, and should have a Liquid Limit (LL) and Plasticity Index (PI) of less than 40 and 15, respectively.

Existing fill of Stratum A and Native Soils of Stratum B are generally considered suitable for re-use as new compacted fill. Soils that classify as ML, SM, SC, or more granular are generally considered suitable for reuse as compacted fill, provided they are free of organic matter and other deleterious matter, not contaminated, and have a Liquid Limit (LL) and Plasticity Index (PI) of less than 40 and 15, respectively. Some moisture conditioning of these soils will be required to achieve the compaction requirements. Soils classifying CH, MH or OH are not considered suitable for reuse as compacted fill. The suitability of the onsite soils for reuse as fill should be determined by the geotechnical engineer during construction.Draf

AECOM 5-1

5.4 Foundation Recommendations

Considering the depth of the existing fill and the proposed grades, it is feasible to support the concrete pedestal footings and wing wall footings on spread footings founded on properly compacted existing fill soils, which we understand were installed as controlled fills. Spread footings founded on properly compacted existing fill may be designed using a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The net bearing pressure refers to the pressure transferred at the footing subgrade level and does not consider pressures from the surrounding overburden soils. We estimate that settlement of spread footings should not exceed approximately 1 inch. Differential settlement between adjacent foundation elements should not exceed approximately half this amount.

Spread footings should bear at least 42 inches below the adjacent exterior finished grades for frost protection. The bases of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil prior to the placement of concrete. A maximum allowable slope of 1H:1V should be maintained between the bottom edges of adjacent footings or underground utility trenches.

5.4.1 Lateral Loads on Wing Walls

Retaining walls that are restrained should be designed for at-rest earth pressures to resist backfill and surcharge loads. Assuming the new backfill consists of granular soils similar to existing fill soils (SM, SW-SM) restrained walls should be designed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 60H (psf), where H is the total wall height. For surcharge loads, 50 percent of any uniform areal surcharge placed at the top of the walls may be assumed to act as a uniform horizontal pressure over the entire height of the walls. Recommended typical design earth pressure details are included in Figure 3.

Unrestrained retaining walls with level backfill conditions can be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 40H (psf). Thirty-three percent of any surcharge placed within a horizontal distance from the top of the wall equal to the wall height may be assumed to act as a uniform horizontal pressure over the entire height of the wall. Retaining walls that are not restrained at the top and that have a sloping backfill above the top of the wall may be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 64H (psf), provided the slope above the wall is less than 2H:1V. Uniform horizontal pressure over the entire height of the wall as a result of surcharge loads may be assumed to be 54 percent of any surcharge placed within a horizontal distance from the top of the wall equal to the wall height. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 is recommended for the design of retaining walls. Recommended typical design earth pressure details are included in Figure 4.

The recommended values do not include lateral pressures due to hydrostatic water pressures generated by infiltrating surface water that may accumulate behind the retaining walls. Therefore, wall backfill materials should be free-draining, and provisions should be made to remove excess water that may accumulate behind earth-retaining structures.

Alternatively, walls can be designed for a full hydrostatic pressure in addition to soil loading.

AECOM 5-2

If drainage pipe is included behind walls, it should consist of perforated 4-inch-diameter drainage pipe placed at the base of the retaining walls, which should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of AASHTO No. 57 crushed stone and wrapped with geotextile filter cloth, as illustrated on Figure 4. Retaining wall drainage pipes should be directed to flow by gravity away from the wall. Weep holes can also be installed along the length of the wall at 8-foot center in-lieu of drainage pipe.

Retaining walls may be designed for a maximum soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf when founded on properly compacted existing fill soils. The retaining wall foundation subgrades should be prepared as previously detailed in Section 5.2 of this report.

Retaining wall foundation subgrades should be observed and approved by the geotechnical engineer.

Retaining wall footings should bear at least 42 inches below the adjacent exterior finished grades for frost protection. The bases of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil prior to the placement of concrete. A maximum allowable slope of 1H:1V should be maintained between the bottom edges of adjacent footings or underground utility trenches.

5.5 Pavement Subgrade Preparations

At the onset of any site grading, the entire area should be stripped of vegetation, asphalt, roots, topsoil, construction debris, and any deleterious materials. Following the removal of any unsuitable material, the geotechnical engineer should be present to verify the suitability of the subgrades to receive fill or pavement. Existing fill was encountered in the borings. This fill is generally suitable for subgrade support. Moisture conditioning and re-compaction may be required to stabilize the subgrades and undercutting of loose soils may be necessary to stabilize the subgrades to achieve the structural fill compaction requirements. The depth of undercutting, if necessary, will vary depending on the actual soil conditions encountered and should be determined in the field. All undercuts, if necessary, should be approved and performed under the observation of the geotechnical engineer.

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were conducted on two bulk soil sample collected from soil borings B-1 and B-4. We recommend that preliminary pavement design sections be based on an assumed CBR value of 10, which should be confirmed with additional CBR testing during construction. Draf

AECOM 6-1

6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Construction Monitoring

Monitoring of the construction is strongly recommended to address quality control/quality assurance issues and to promptly address non-conforming construction. Full-time construction monitoring should be provided during subgrades preparation and earthwork operations by a qualified geotechnical engineering firm that is familiar with the design and construction criteria for the project. The monitoring should include observation of the foundation bearing materials, subgrade conditions, subgrade preparation, excavation support systems, compaction testing of fill, etc. We can provide these services, upon request.

AECOM 7-1

7 LIMITATIONS

Interpretation of general subsurface soil conditions presented herein is based on our understanding of the proposed project as described in this report, soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the limited number of soil borings and other data discussed in this report. Although representative portions of the samples taken were tested, subsurface conditions may vary between exploration locations. This report does not reflect any variations that may occur between boring locations or across the site in areas not sampled. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. Groundwater conditions during construction may be different from the observations made in the borings. If variations occur, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations in this report.

This report has been prepared for the specific project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranty, express or implied, is provided. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing by AECOM.

AECOM

Figure 1- Site Vicinity Plan

N

SITE

SITE VICINITY PLAN

SCALE:

NTS

FIGURE :

1DATE:

07/12/2023

CHECKED BY:

VO

PROJECT NO.:

60708917

12420 Milestone Center Dr, Suite 150 Germantown, MD 20876 Tel: (301) 820-3000

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.

N4008522D0043 TO#N4008523F5045

B549 Fuel Farm Replace Piping, Naval Submarine Base, New London, Groton, CT

Draf t

Lolla, Venisri Rectangle

Lolla, Venisri Stamp

Lolla, Venisri Typewriter

SITE

Figure 2- Soil Boring Location Plan

N4008522D0043 TO#N4008523F5045

B549 Fuel Farm Replace Piping, Naval Submarine Base, New London, Groton, CT

SOIL BORING LOCATION PLAN

SCALE:

NTS

FIGURE :

2DATE:

07/12/2023

CHECKED BY:

VO

PROJECT NO.:

60708917

12420 Milestone Center Dr, Suite 150 Germantown, MD 20876 Tel: (301) 820-3000

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.

N

B-1

LEGEND:

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONDraf t

Lolla, Venisri Typewriter B-4

Lolla, Venisri Typewriter B-3

Lolla, Venisri Typewriter B-5

Lolla, Venisri Typewriter B-1

Lolla, Venisri Typewriter Note:

Boring B-2 was eliminated due to conflict with existing utilities

Figure 3- Design Earth Pressures for Restrained Walls

B549 Fuel Farm Replace Piping, Naval Submarine Base, New London, Groton, CT

07/12/2023 60708917

Draf t

Lolla, Venisri Typewriter

Lolla, Venisri

Figure 4- Design Earth Pressures for Unrestrained Walls

407/12/2023 VO 60708917

B549 Fuel Farm Replace Piping, Naval Submarine Base, New London, Groton, CT

Draf t

Lolla, Venisri

Appendix A – Soil Boring Logs (4 pages), USCS Soil Identification Sheet (2 pages)

DRAFT

0.0 - 0.1 ft: Topsoil (1.2 inches)

0.1 - 2.3 ft: (FILL) Sampled as moist, medium dense, brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, contains fine to coarse gravel

2.3 - 8.2 ft: (FILL) Sampled as moist, medium dense, black and olive brown, fine to coarse, WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT, contains fine gravel

6.5 ft: Changes to Wet

8.2 - 8.7 ft: Wet, dark brown, low plasticity, ORGANIC SOIL, contains fine sand, numerous organics

8.7 - 8.9 ft: Wet, gray to dark gray, fine to medium, POORLY GRADED SAND WITH

SILT

8.9 - 10.1 ft: Wet, gray, nonplastic, SANDY SILT, fine sand, contains mica

10.1 - 15.5 ft: Wet, dense, gray and black, fine to coarse, WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT, contains fine to coarse gravel

Auger and spoon refusal at 15.5 FT on 5/31/2023 at 11:15 HOURS.

Temporary well installed upon completion.

SM

SW-

SM

OL/OH

SP-

SM

ML

SW-

SM

A

B

33 29

Bulk Sample Collected 0-4 feet, Composite Environmental Sample Collected from 0.0-

6.0 feet.

0.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

2.0ft: Split Sample S-2;

S-2A (2.0-2.3');

S-2B (2.3-4.0') 2.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm 2.0ft: Additional sample collected for environmen-tal testing 4.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

6.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

8.0ft: Split Sample S-5;

S-5A (8.0-8.2');

S-5B (8.2-8.7');

S-5C (8.7-8.9'):

S-5D (8.9-10.0') 8.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

10.0ft: Obstruction encountered, auger and spoon refusal. Boring was offset approximately 3.0-feet and resumed drilling at 10.0 feet.

10.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm 10.0ft: Split Sample S-6;

S-6A (10.0-10.1');

S-6B (10.1-12') 12.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

14.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

15.5ft: Auger and spoon refusal.

15.9S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

4- 6- 8- 10 (N=14)

5- 7- 9- 10 (N=16)

8- 10- 11- 9 (N=21)

4- 4- 6- 7 (N=10)

19- 24- 35- 38 (N=59)

18- 14- 24- 29 (N=38)

37- 39- 42- 48 (N=81)

47- 49- 100/6" (N=49+100/6")

(33%)

(42%)

(8%)

(29%)

(83%)

(33%)

(58%)

(22%)

HAMMER TYPE/WEIGHT: Safety Hammer/140lbs

Date

5.1 DRILL RIG: Mobil B-53

BIT TYPE/SIZE: NA/NA

CHECKED BY: K. Bell

Date Time

COORDINATES: N E

Groundwater Observations

6.5-05-31-2023Encountered

DRILL METHOD: 4" Solid Flight Auger

24-hour -

Event

LOGGED BY: R. Munschauer

06-01-2023

DRILLER: Mike St. John

DATE STARTED: 5/31/2023

DATE COMPLETED: 5/31/2023

DRILLING CONTRACTOR: NEBC

CASING TYPE: N/A

CASING SIZE: N/A

Depth (ft)

BOREHOLE DEPTH: 15.5 FT

SURFACE ELEVATION: 23 FT

Cave in Depth (ft)

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.

PROJECT: B549 Fuel Farm Replace Piping

PROJECT LOCATION: Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, CT

PROJECT NUMBER: 60708917

RC = Rock Core

B = Bulk Sample

T = Shelby Tube SampleG = Geoprobe

S = Split Spoon Sample

12420 Milestone Center Drive, Suite 150 Germantown, MD 20876 Phone: 301.820.3000 Fax: 301.820.3009

SHEET 1 of 1

A E

C O

M S

O

IL

R O

C K

N E

W L

O N

D O

N .G

P J

A E

C O

M P

L O

G .G

D T

/2

6/

R E

V -0

SC = Sonic CorePS = Piston Sample

P = Pitcher Sample

H = Hand Auger Sample

Log of Boring B-1

DESCRIPTION

U

S C

S

S T

R A

T U

M SAMPLES

Li qu id L im it

P la st ic

L im it

D E

P T

H

F T

G R

A P

H

IC

REMARKS

AND TESTS

M oi st ur e C on te nt

E

LE

V

F T

N U

M B

E R

T Y

P E

BLOWS

R E

C

IN

P oc ke t P en ts f)

F in es C on te nt

0.1 - 2.3 ft: (FILL) Dry, dense, brown to dark grayish brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND, contains fine gravel

1.0 ft: Changes to Moist

2.3 - 6.0 ft: (FILL) Moist, dense, light gray to dark brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND, contains fine to coarse gravel, contains cob-bles, contains boulders

4.0 ft: Changes to Loose

Boring completed at 6.0 FT on 5/31/2023 at

09:00 HOURS.

Boring backfilled with cuttings upon completion.

SM

SM

Composite Environmental Sample Collected from 0.0-6.0 feet.

0.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

2.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

4.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

4.5ft: Obstruction encountered, auger and spoon refusal.

Boring was offset approximately 3.0-feet and resumed drilling at 4.0 feet.

S-1

S-2

S-3

8- 15- 21- 12 (N=36)

21- 23- 25- 75 (N=48)

3- 4- 4- 5 (N=8)

(67%)

(71%)

(25%)

HAMMER TYPE/WEIGHT: Safety Hammer/140lbs

Date

Dry DRILL RIG: Mobil B-53

BIT TYPE/SIZE: NA/NA

CHECKED BY: K. Bell

Date Time

COORDINATES: N E

Groundwater Observations

Dry-05-31-2023Completion

DRILL METHOD: 4" Solid Flight Auger

During Drilling

Event

LOGGED BY: R. Munschauer

05-31-2023

DRILLER: Mike St. John

DATE STARTED: 5/31/2023

DATE COMPLETED: 5/31/2023

DRILLING CONTRACTOR: NEBC

CASING TYPE: N/A

CASING SIZE: N/A

Depth (ft)

BOREHOLE DEPTH: 6.0 FT

SURFACE ELEVATION: 22 FT

Cave in Depth (ft)

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.

PROJECT: B549 Fuel Farm Replace Piping

PROJECT LOCATION: Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, CT

PROJECT NUMBER: 60708917

RC = Rock Core

B = Bulk Sample

T = Shelby Tube SampleG = Geoprobe

S = Split Spoon Sample

12420 Milestone Center Drive, Suite 150 Germantown, MD 20876 Phone: 301.820.3000 Fax: 301.820.3009

SHEET 1 of 1

A E

C O

M S

O

IL

R O

C K

N E

W L

O N

D O

N .G

P J

A E

C O

M P

L O

G .G

D T

/2

6/

R E

V -0

SC = Sonic CorePS = Piston Sample

P = Pitcher Sample

H = Hand Auger Sample

Log of Boring B-3

DESCRIPTION

U

S C

S

S T

R A

T U

M SAMPLES

Li qu id L im it

P la st ic

L im it

D E

P T

H

F T

2.5

5.0

G R

A P

H

IC

REMARKS

AND TESTS

M oi st ur e C on te nt

E

LE

V

F T

N U

M B

E R

T Y

P E

BLOWS

R E

C

IN

P oc ke t P en ts f)

F in es C on te nt

0.1 - 4.1 ft: (FILL) Sampled as moist, medium dense, dark brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, contains fine to coarse gravel

4.1 - 6.0 ft: (FILL) Sampled as moist, medium dense, brown, fine to coarse, WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT, contains fine gravel

6.0 - 8.4 ft: (FILL) Sampled as moist, medium dense, dark, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND, contains fine gravel

7.0 ft: Changes to Wet

8.4 - 8.9 ft: Wet, dark brown, low plasticity, ORGANIC SILT WITH SAND, contains fine and coarse sand, numerous organics

8.9 - 9.4 ft: Wet, gray, fine to medium, POORLY GRADED SAND, contains fine gravel

9.4 - 12.5 ft: Wet, gray to dark gray, nonplastic, SANDY SILT, fine to coarse sand, contains mica

10.0 ft: Changes to Hard, gray

12.5 - 15.2 ft: Wet, dense, light brown, nonplastic, SILT, fine sand, contains mica

15.2 - 16.0 ft: Wet, light gray, medium, POORLY GRADED SAND, contains mica

Boring completed at 16.0 FT on 5/31/2023 at

13:55 HOURS.

Boring backfilled with cuttings upon completion.

SM

SW-

SM

SM

OL

SP

ML

ML

SP

Bulk Sample Collected 0-4 feet Composite Environmental Sample Collected from 0.0-

6.0 feet.

0.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

2.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

4.0ft: No recovery in sample S-3, driller pushed spoon to collect sample.

4.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm 4.0ft: Split Sample S-3;

S-3A (4.0-4.1');

S-3B (4.1-6.0') 6.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

8.0ft: Split Sample S-5;

S-5A (8.0-8.4');

S-5B (8.4-8.9');

S-5C (8.9-9.4'):

S-5D (9.4-10.0') 8.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

10.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

12.0ft: Split Sample S-7;

S-7A (12.0-12.6');

S-7B (12.6'14.0') 12.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

14.0ft: Split Sample S-8;

S-8A (14.0-15.2');

S-8B (15.2'16.0') 14.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

21.6

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

6- 8- 13- 13 (N=21)

15- 18- 20- 12 (N=38)

13- 9- 8- 8 (N=17)

15- 14- 13- 17 (N=27)

17- 18- 20- 25 (N=38)

19- 21- 25- 23 (N=46)

14- 17- 18- 24 (N=35)

21- 25- 24- 28 (N=49)

(71%)

(29%)

(NR)

(29%)

(92%)

(67%)

(33%)

(75%)

HAMMER TYPE/WEIGHT: Safety Hammer/140lbs

Date

8.0 DRILL RIG: Mobil B-53

BIT TYPE/SIZE: NA/NA

CHECKED BY: K. Bell

Date Time

COORDINATES: N E

Groundwater Observations

7.0-05-31-2023Encountered

DRILL METHOD: 4" Solid Flight Auger

Completion -

Event

LOGGED BY: R. Munschauer

05-31-2023

DRILLER: Mike St. John

DATE STARTED: 5/31/2023

DATE COMPLETED: 5/31/2023

DRILLING CONTRACTOR: NEBC

CASING TYPE: N/A

CASING SIZE: N/A

Depth (ft)

BOREHOLE DEPTH: 16.0 FT

SURFACE ELEVATION: 21 FT

Cave in Depth (ft)

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.

PROJECT: B549 Fuel Farm Replace Piping

PROJECT LOCATION: Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, CT

PROJECT NUMBER: 60708917

RC = Rock Core

B = Bulk Sample

T = Shelby Tube SampleG = Geoprobe

S = Split Spoon Sample

12420 Milestone Center Drive, Suite 150 Germantown, MD 20876 Phone: 301.820.3000 Fax: 301.820.3009

SHEET 1 of 1

A E

C O

M S

O

IL

R O

C K

N E

W L

O N

D O

N .G

P J

A E

C O

M P

L O

G .G

D T

/2

6/

R E

V -0

SC = Sonic CorePS = Piston Sample

P = Pitcher Sample

H = Hand Auger Sample

Log of Boring B-4

DESCRIPTION

U

S C

S

S T

R A

T U

M SAMPLES

Li qu id L im it

P la st ic

L im it

D E

P T

H

F T

G R

A P

H

IC

REMARKS

AND TESTS

M oi st ur e C on te nt

E

LE

V

F T

N U

M B

E R

T Y

P E

BLOWS

R E

C

IN

P oc ke t P en ts f)

F in es C on te nt

0.1 - 6.0 ft: (FILL) Sampled as moist, medium dense, brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, contains fine to coarse gravel

Boring completed at 6.0 FT on 5/31/2023 at

09:45 HOURS.

Boring backfilled with cuttings upon completion.

SM

Composite Environmental Sample Collected from 0.0-6.0 feet.

0.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

2.0ft: Low recovery in sampe S-2 due to gravel lodged in sampler shoe, driller pushed spoon to collect additional sample.

2.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

4.0ft: PID=<0.1 ppm

11.1

S-1

S-2

S-3

11- 12- 12- 13 (N=24)

5- 5- 7- 6 (N=12)

6- 7- 8- 8 (N=15)

(75%)

(4%)

(25%)

HAMMER TYPE/WEIGHT: Safety Hammer/140lbs

Date

Dry DRILL RIG: Mobil B-53

BIT TYPE/SIZE: NA/NA

CHECKED BY: K. Bell

Date Time

COORDINATES: N E

Groundwater Observations

Dry-05-31-2023Completion

DRILL METHOD: 4" Solid Flight Auger

During Drilling

Event

LOGGED BY: R. Munschauer

05-31-2023

DRILLER: Mike St. John

DATE STARTED: 5/31/2023

DATE COMPLETED: 5/31/2023

DRILLING CONTRACTOR: NEBC

CASING TYPE: N/A

CASING SIZE: N/A

Depth (ft)

BOREHOLE DEPTH: 6.0 FT

SURFACE ELEVATION: 24 FT

Cave in Depth (ft)

AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.

PROJECT: B549 Fuel Farm Replace Piping

PROJECT LOCATION: Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, CT

PROJECT NUMBER: 60708917

RC = Rock Core

B = Bulk Sample

T = Shelby Tube SampleG = Geoprobe

S = Split Spoon Sample

12420 Milestone Center Drive, Suite 150 Germantown, MD 20876 Phone: 301.820.3000 Fax: 301.820.3009

SHEET 1 of 1

A E

C O

M S

O

IL

R O

C K

N E

W L

O N

D O

N .G

P J

A E

C O

M P

L O

G .G

D T

/2

6/

R E

V -0

SC = Sonic CorePS = Piston Sample

P = Pitcher Sample

H = Hand Auger Sample

Log of Boring B-5

DESCRIPTION

U

S C

S

S T

R A

T U

M SAMPLES

Li qu id L im it

P la st ic

L im it

D E

P T

H

F T

2.5

5.0

G R

A P

H

IC

REMARKS

AND TESTS

M oi st ur e C on te nt

E

LE

V

F T

N U

M B

E R

T Y

P E

BLOWS

R E

C

IN

P oc ke t P en ts f)

F in es C on te nt

December 15, 2022 AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

Copyright 2022

IDENTIFICATION OF SOIL

I. DEFINITION OF SOIL GROUP NAMES (ASTM D-2487)

Major Component Minor Component Group/Graphic Symbol Group Name

Coarse- Grained Soils

More than 50% retained on No.

200 sieve

Gravels – > 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Fine, No. 4 to ¾” Coarse, ¾” to 3”

Clean Gravels < 5% fines

GW WELL GRADED GRAVEL

GP POORLY GRADED GRAVEL

Gravels with fines 5 - 12% fines

GW-GM WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT

GW-GC WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY

GP-GM POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT

GP-GC POORLYGRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY

Gravels with fines > 12% fines

GM SILTY GRAVEL

GC CLAYEY GRAVEL

Sands – > = 50% of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Coarse, No. 10 to No. 4 Medium, No. 40 to No. 10 Fine, No. 200 to No. 40

Clean Sands < 5% fines

SW WELL GRADED SAND

SP POORLY GRADED SAND

Sands with fines 5 - 12% fines

SW-SM WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT

SW-SC WELL GRADED SAND WITH CLAY

SP-SM POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT

SP-SC POORLYGRADED SAND WITH CLAY

Sands with fines > 12% fines

SM SILTY SAND

SC CLAYEY SAND

Fine-Grained Soils

50% or more passes the No.

200 sieve

Silts and Clays – Liquid Limit < 50 Low to medium plasticity

Inorganic

CL LEAN CLAY

ML SILT

Organic OL ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT

Silts and Clays – Liquid Limit >= 50 Medium to high plasticity

Inorganic

CH FAT CLAY

MH ELASTIC SILT

Organic OH ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT

Organic Soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color and organic odor PT PEAT

Other Symbol

FILL

II. DEFINITION OF SOIL COMPONENT PROPORTIONS (ASTM D-2487)

Adjective Criteria Example

GRAVELLY

SANDY >30% to <50% coarse grained component in a fine-grained soil SANDY FAT CLAY

CLAYEY

SILTY >12% to <50% fine grained component in a coarse-grained soil CLAYEY GRAVEL

WITH GRAVEL

WITH SAND >15% to <30% coarse grained component in a fine-grained soil SILT WITH SAND

WITH GRAVEL

WITH SAND >15% to <50% coarse grained component in a coarse-grained soil POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH

SAND

WITH SILT

WITH CLAY >5% to <12% fine grained component in a coarse-grained soil POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT

December 15, 2022 AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

Copyright 2022

III. RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY

Granular Soils Cohesive Soils (N Values/Pocket Penetrometer Values, tsf) N = 0 to 4 Very Loose N = 0 to 1 / <0.25 Very Soft N = 5 to 10 Loose N = 2 to 4 / 0.25 to 0.5 Soft N = 11 to 30 Medium Dense N = 5 to 8 / 0.5 to 1 Medium Stiff N = 31 to 50 Dense N = 9 to 15 / 1 to 2 Stiff N = >50 Very Dense N = 16 to 30 / 2 to 4 Very Stiff N = >30 / > 4 Hard

IV. GLOSSARY OF MISCELLANEOUS TERMS

Moisture: Dry, moist or wet to indicate visual appearance of specimen.

Color: Overall color, with modifiers such as light to dark or variation in coloration such as mottled, streaks etc.

Symbols: Based on Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A dual symbol “-“indicates the soil belongs to two groups. A borderline symbol “/” indicates the soil belongs to two possible groups.

Fill: Man-made deposit containing soil, rock and often foreign matter.

Probable Fill: Soils which contain no visually detected foreign matter but which are suspect with regard to origin.

Disintegrated Rock (DR): Residual materials with a SPT resistance between 60 blows per foot (bpf) and refusal.

Partially Weathered Rock (PWR): Residual materials with a SPT resistance between 100 bpf and refusal.

Refusal: Refusal is defined as a SPT of 100 blows for 2” or less penetration.

Boulders: Rounded pieces of rock larger than 12 inches.

Cobbles: Rounded pieces of rock ranging from 3 to 12 inch.

Lenses: 0 to ½ inch seam within a material in a test pit.

Layers: ½ to 12 inch seam within a material in a test pit.

Pocket: Discontinuous body within a material in a test pit.

V. SAMPLE TYPE/SYMBOL

Description Name Symbol

BULK SAMPLE/HAND AUGER B

AUGER CUTTINGS AU

DENISON BARREL

PISTON SAMPLE

SHELBY TUBE

D

PS

T

GEOPROBE G

PITCHER BARREL P

ROCK CORE RC

SPLIT SPOON S

SONIC CORE SC

VI. OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

MC Moisture Content LL Liquid Limit PL Plastic Limit PI Plasticity Index

Appendix B – Soil Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results (12 pages)

Jay Kay Testing Project Number: 60708917 (Task 002)

Location:

Sample Date: Summary of Laboratory Testing

Sample Identification Depth Att Limits (Oven-Dried) Compaction

B-1 Bulk 0 4 15.9 - 33 29 4 - 123.9 10.7 A-2-4 - 34.1 SM

B-1 S-5 Composite 8 10 - - - - - - - - - - - -

B-4 Bulk 0 4 - - 28 24 4 - 129.0 9.2 A-2-4 - 28.6 SM

B-4 S-5B 8.4 8.9 34.9 3.45 40 (25) 29 (22) 11 (3) - - - A-6 - 77.2 OL

B-4 S-6 10 12 21.6 - 20 19 1 - - - A-4 - 65.2 ML

B-5 S-3 4 6 11.1 - 18 NP NP - - - A-1-b - 20.3 SM

B o tt o m ft

(814) 404-9283 www.jaykaytesting.com

F in e s

U

S C

S C la s s if ic a ti o n

A S

T M

D -2

A

S

H T

O C la s s if ic a ti o n

M -1 p e c if ic

G ra v it y

A S

T M

D -8

L iq u id

L im it

A

S T

M D

-4

P la s ti c L im it

A

S T

M D

-4

M C

A

S T

M D

-2

O rg a n ic

M a tt e r, A S

T M

D -2

06/20/23 ri n g

I D a m p le p ft

Tested by: ST/JT Reviewed by: KB Jay Kay Testing

P la s ti c it y I n d e x

A

S T

M D

-4 x im u m

D ry

D e n s it y lb

/f t³ ti m u m

M o is tu re

C o n te n t, .0 m m

Jay Kay Testing Project Number: 60708917 (Task 002)

Location:

Sample Date: Summary of Atterberg Limit Testing

Atterberg Limit Results

Boring ID Sample ID Boring ID Sample ID

= B-1 Bulk 0 4 33 29 4 n B-4 Bulk 0 4 28 24 4 p B-4 S-5B 8.4 8.9 40 29 11

B-4 S-6 10 12 20 19 1

B-5 S-3 4 6 18 NP NP

Tested by: ST/JT Reviewed by: KB

B549 Fuel Farm Replace Piping

(814) 404-9283 www.jaykaytesting.com

Btm LL PL PI

Jay Kay Testing 06/20/23

Top Btm LL PL PI Top

ML

CL

MH or OH

CL-ML

ASTM D-4318

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

P la s ti c it y I n d e x

P I)

Liquid Limit,% (LL)

Project Number: 60708917 (Task 002) Jay Kay Testing

Boring ID Sample ID Top Btm Location: -

B-1 Bulk 0' 4' Sample Date:

Sieve Size Pass, %

- mm %

6"

3"

2"

1.5"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4

#10

#20

#40

#60

#100

#200

% Gravel % Sand D10 -

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine D30 - CC

16.3 7.6 = 23.9 2.9 13.5 25.6 = 42.0 D60 - CU

Liquid Limit, %

Plastic Limit, %

Plasticity Index, %

USCS (D-2487) AASHTO (M-145)

SM A-2-4

Soil Description (D-2487)

NMC Sample Type* Data 4

OM Data 2 Data 5

______________ Data 3 Data 6

+ 3/8"

06/20/23 Tested by: ST/JT Reviewed by: KB Jay Kay Testing

20.3%

Dark brown silty SAND with gravel

15.9% - -

0.147 42.3

0.074 34.1

Total Total -

0.85 68.0

0.42 59.7

0.25 50.1

9.51 79.7

4.75 76.1

2.00 73.2

25.4 84.9

19.0 83.7

12.7 81.7

75.0 94.1

50.8 89.4

37.5 88.1

ASTM D-6913

GRAVEL

Diameter

SAND

U.S. Standard Sieve

CLAY/SILT

Hydrometer

150.0 100.0

3" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #200 0.002

0.0010.010.1110100

P e rc e n t

F in e r

Particle Size, mm

ML

CL MH or OHCL-ML

A-Line: 9.49

PI: 4

Plasticity: SILT

ASTM D-4318

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

P la s ti c it y I n d e x

P I)

Liquid Limit, % (LL)Draf

Boring ID Sample ID Top Btm Location: -

B-4 Bulk 0' 4' Sample Date:

Sieve Size Pass, %

- mm %

6"

3"

2"

1.5"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4

#10

#20

#40

#60

#100

#200

% Gravel % Sand D10 -

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine D30 - CC

8.3 9.6 = 17.9 5.3 19.7 28.5 = 53.5 D60 - CU

Liquid Limit, %

Plastic Limit, %

Plasticity Index, %

USCS (D-2487) AASHTO (M-145)

SM A-2-4

Soil Description (D-2487)

NMC Sample Type* Data 4

OM Data 2 Data 5

______________ Data 3 Data 6

+ 3/8"

06/20/23 Tested by: ST/JT Reviewed by: KB Jay Kay Testing

13.2%

Brown silty SAND with gravel

Total Total -

0.25 46.9

0.147 38.4

0.074 28.6

2.00 76.8

0.85 68.5

0.42 57.1

12.7 88.9

9.51 86.8

4.75 82.1

37.5 96.1

25.4 93.8

19.0 91.7

150.0 100.0

75.0 98.6

50.8 98.1

ASTM D-6913

GRAVEL

Diameter

SAND

U.S. Standard Sieve

CLAY/SILT

Hydrometer

3" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #200 0.002

0.0010.010.1110100

P e rc e n t

F in e r

Particle Size, mm

ML

CL MH or OHCL-ML

A-Line: 5.84

PI: 4

Plasticity: SILT

ASTM D-4318

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

P la s ti c it y I n d e x

P I)

Boring ID Sample ID Top Btm Location: -

B-4 S-5B 8.4' 8.9' Sample Date:

Sieve Size Pass, %

- mm %

6"

3"

2"

1.5"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4

#10

#20

#40

#60

#100

#200

% Gravel % Sand D10 -

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine D30 - CC

0.0 0.0 = 0.0 0.2 2.7 19.9 = 22.8 D60 - CU

Liquid Limit, %

Plastic Limit, %

Plasticity Index, %

USCS (D-2487) AASHTO (M-145)

OL A-6

Soil Description (D-2487)

NMC Sample Type*…