Geotechnical Report USCG Curtis Bay 12-08-21.pdf

USCG YARD CURTIS BAY

2401 HAWKINS POINT ROAD

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AT YARD CURTIS BAY

Task Order Number 70Z04721FRDADAE00 Contract Number 70Z05018DAMFWHD02

Prepared For

United States Coast Guard Facilities Design & Construction Center

Norfolk, Virginia

Prepared By

Ms. Michelle Williams, Contracting Officer Ms. LeSean Gray, Contract Specialist U.S. Coast Guard Facilities Design & Construction Center 5505 Robin Hood Road, Suite K Norfolk, VA 23513

Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration USCG Yard Curtis Bay, Baltimore, Maryland 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21226 Task Order Number 70Z04721FDADAE00 Contract Number 70Z05018DAMFWHD02 Wood/HDR Project 335000038

Dear Ms. Williams and Ms. Gray:

Wood HDR Joint Venture is pleased to present this report of our Architect/Engineering (A/E) Services and geotechnical exploration at United States Coast Guard Yard Curtis Bay, in Baltimore, Maryland. This effort was conducted in general accordance with our proposal dated 24 August 2021. This report describes our exploratory effort, presents the results of field and laboratory testing as well as geotechnical analyses, and presents our conclusions and recommendations for design and construction of the proposed waterfront and landside work elements.

Please contact us if you have any questions. We look forward to our continued involvement as the project advances to construction.

Sincerely, Wood/HDR

Mackenzie R. Fioca Richard L. Curtis, P.E., D.GE Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Associate Geotechnical Engineer

Wood HDR Joint Venture 117 Horizon Drive, Suite 117

Raleigh, North Carolina 27615

Digitally signed by mackenzie.fioca Date: 2021.12.08 17:16:40 -05'00'

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

2.0 DATA GATHERING

2.1 DATA REVIEW

2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.3 FIELD EXPLORATION

2.4 TEST PIT

2.5 LABORATORY TESTING

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 SITE AND AREA GEOLOGY

3.2 SOIL SURVEY INFORMATION

3.3 INTERPRETED STRATIGRAPHY

3.3.1 Stratum 1 – Reworked/Densified Sands

3.3.2 Stratum 2 – Medium Dense to Very Dense Sand

3.3.3 Stratum 3 – Hard to Very Hard Silt

3.3.4 Waterside Boring

3.4 GROUNDWATER

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 DEMOLITION

4.2 SITE PREPARATION

4.2.1 Excavation

4.2.2 Fill Placement

4.2.3 Surface and Groundwater Control

4.3 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS

4.4 PIER FOUNDATIONS (DRIVEN PILES)

4.4.1 Pile Capacity

4.4.2 Pile Interaction

4.4.3 Pile Splicing

4.4.4 Pile Testing Program

4.5 MINOR STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS

4.6 BULKHEAD DESIGN

4.6.1 Design Parameters

4.6.2 Deadman Anchors

4.6.3 Grouted Soil Anchors

4.6.4 Environmental Corrosion Classification

4.7 PAVEMENT DESIGN

4.8 SEISMIC SITE CLASS AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT

4.9 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING

5.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

6.0 CLOSURE

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of SPT borings Table 2 Summary of lab test results Table 3 Pile Capacities Table 4 Soil parameters for preliminary design of sheet piles

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Boring Location Plan Figure 3 Subsurface Profile

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Appendix C Anne Arundel County Soil Survey by USDA-NRCS Appendix D Axial Capacity Curves and Program Output for Piles Appendix E Lateral Capacity/Bending Moment Curves and Program Output for Piles Appendix F Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) document

Geotechnical Exploration at USCG Yard Curtis Bay United States Coast Guard – FDCC Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Wood HDR Joint Venture (JV) presents this report of geotechnical exploration in general accordance with our proposal dated August 24, 2021. The proposed scope of work was based on information provided in the Scope of Work dated June 21, 2021, by the Facilities Design & Construction Center (FDCC). The objective of the exploration was to provide geotechnical guidance for the conceptual design of the proposed developments and improvements at the United States Coast Guard (USCG) Yard in Curtis Bay, Baltimore, Maryland.

1.1 Project Information

Based on the SOW, the USCG intends to make the following improvements at the Curtis Bay USCG Yard under a Design-Build Request for Proposal:

The project consists of waterfront and landside work elements

The waterfront scope includes the construction of finger piers, and modifications to the existing bulkhead and wharf in supporting of lifting Fast Response Cutter (FRC) vessels.

The landside work includes the construction of a two-bay FRC maintenance building and any associated site improvements.

Replacing of utility and communication systems and constructing new pavement for the travel way from the finger piers to the new FRC maintenance facility.

This geotechnical exploration was performed to assess the subsurface conditions and provide design and construction recommendations for the improvements above.

1.2 Scope of Work

The JV team completed a geotechnical field exploration program to characterize the subsurface conditions at the site. The scope of work included:

Develop a boring location plan, laid out exploration areas, and coordinated utilities locates through Maryland’s One-Call and the JV’s utility locating team.

Perform three standard penetration test (SPT) borings at the site.

o Two land side borings were planned to be advanced to proposed depths of 75 ft below current ground surface.

o One water side boring was advanced to a proposed depth of 50 ft below the mud line surface.

Collect samples of soil from the borings.

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038

Collect one bulk sample from a hand-dug excavation between 1 to 3 feet below ground surface.

Visually classify soil samples obtained during field exploration.

Conduct a laboratory testing program to confirm field classifications and obtain California Bearing Ratio (CBR) on anticipated subgrade.

Analyze field and laboratory data and develop recommendations for foundations for the planned construction.

Prepare this report to document our testing and results as well as design and construction recommendations.

2.0 DATA GATHERING

In developing our report, the JV team considered several sources of data.

2.1 Data Review

The following information was reviewed as part of this exploration:

Available aerial photographs since 1994 on Google Earth.

Anne Arundel County Soil Survey by United States Department of Agriculture – National Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS).

United States Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Maps/Maryland Geologic Survey Maps

USGS Topographic Maps.

Soil Boring Site Plan/ Recurring Depot Availability Program (RDAP) Concept Plan provided by

USCG FDCC

RDAP Combined Request for Proposal (RFP) Drawings, Nov. 4, 2021.

FRC RDAP, CG Yard, MD, Section 01800, Design-Build Criteria Paragraphs – 1.8 Structural

2.2 Site Description

The project site is an active USCG shipyard located at 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21226. The site is located along the northeast side of Curtis Creek. A site location map is presented in Figure 1. The active yard site has existing buildings (including the marginal wharf and bulkhead) with roadways that are planned to be demolished for future construction of a RDAP facility, fencing, pavements, and utility work. The project scope includes waterfront work between Station 1+00 and 2+30. Future piers will extend approximately 165-feet beyond the current limits of the marginal west wharf. Future construction will also consist of future travel ways for a marine lift.

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038

The 113-acre USCG Yard site is located six miles southeast of downtown Baltimore, Maryland.

Established in 1899, this active facility provides support for the USCG, including the design, construction and repair of ships and boats. Previous site activities included operation of an on-site incinerator, manufacturing operations, and ship repair and maintenance. These activities contaminated soil and groundwater with hazardous chemicals. Following cleanup, operation and maintenance activities are ongoing.

The majority of the Yard’s present-day infrastructure was built from 1939-1945. During this time the Yard expanded from a 36-acre facility to 113-acres, acquired two dry-docks, new machine and fabrication shops, warehouses, piers, wharves, and a shipway. The present-day Yard industrial area is built upon 10,400 wood piles topped with 6-feet of concrete.

USGS mapping of the area in shows a similar shoreline at the site with several small buildings and buoy yard. Construction of and backfilling of the seawall would have added several feet (perhaps 2 to 4 feet) of fill behind the seawall and dredging of the harbor would have removed significant soil there. The ground surface behind the seawalls is currently about elevation 10 feet.

2.3 Field Exploration

The JV team conducted a reconnaissance of the site and performed three standard penetration test (SPT) borings. Two SPT borings were performed on the land side to a planned depth of 75 ft each below existing grade and one SPT boring was performed on the water side in the proximity of the new proposed boat ramp/finger piers to a planned depth of 50 ft below the mudline.

In addition to these SPT borings, one small hand-dug excavation hole was performed under the existing pavement/parking sections to obtain a bulk soil sample near the southwest proximity of the proposed building. This tests pit was performed by hand digging to a depth of 3 ft. A representative bulk sample was collected from this test pit. Soil boring logs are included in Appendix A. Approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2.

Borings B-1 and B-2 were advanced with an auger to a depth of 12 ft below ground surface before introduction of drilling fluids to facilitate the mud rotary method through the soils. In the water boring, B-3, the boring was advanced using mud rotary methods with temporary casing advanced with the drilling rig through the water and to a depth of about 13.5 feet below mudline. Soil samples were obtained at various intervals in general accordance with ASTM D1586 (Standard Test Method for SPT and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils). Auger refusal was encountered at a depth of about 62.4 feet in boring B-1. Table 1 includes a list of the SPT borings and test pits performed at the site.

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038

Table 1. Summary of SPT borings and test pits

Boring

ID

Date Completed

Northing (ft)

Easting (ft)

Approximate Ground Elevation

(ft)

Termination Depth/Auger Refusal (ft)

B-1 10/05/2021 4340156.96 364256.89 10 73.8 B-2 10/07/2021 4340114.33 364256.89 9 62.4* B-3 09/23/2021 4340022.84 364129.28 0** 50

Notes:

Northing and easting for all borings are approximated from the survey and Google Earth.

*B-2 encountered auger refusal at 62.4 feet below ground surface.

**B-3 elevation is mean water level, assumed to be Elev. 0 ft.

The JV’s field engineer observed drilling operations and classified soil samples. Upon completion of drilling, groundwater measurements were made in each boring. The borings were tremie grouted to the ground surface or mudline after the drilling was complete. The test pit location was backfilled with sand.

2.4 Test Pit

One test pit (2 ft by 2 ft) was performed by hand-excavating up to a depth of about 3 feet to collect one bulk sample of subgrade material (Strata 1).

2.5 Laboratory Testing

A limited soil laboratory program including moisture content (ASTM D2216), percent passing #200 sieve (ASTM D1140), sieve analyses (ASTM D6913) and Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318) were completed on 30 selected soil samples collected from SPT borings. A summary of the laboratory test results is provided in Table 2.

In addition to these laboratory tests, one standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D698) and one CBR test (D1883) were performed using the soil sample obtained from the hand-excavated test pit.

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038

Table 2: Summary of laboratory test results

Boring Number

Sample Number Depth (ft)

Natural Moisture Content

Atterberg Limits (%) Passing No.

200 Sieve

Soil Classification

LL PL PI

B-1 SS-2 1.5 6.8 NP NP NP 23.0 SM

B-1 SS-4 4.5 12.3 NP NP NP 66.3 ML

B-1 SS-5 6 19.8 NP NP NP 36.0 SM

B-1 SS-8 10.5 17.8 NP NP NP 11.6 SP-SM

B-1 SS-9 13.5 18.3 NP NP NP 29.6 SM

B-1 SS-10 18.5 22.8 NP NP NP 6.3 SP-SM

B-1 SS-12 28.5 20.4 NP NP NP 31.1 SM

B-1 SS-16 48.5 19.5 40 24 16 51.2 Cl

B-1 SS-19 63.5 21.7 46 28 18 * *CL-ML

B-1 SS-21 73.5 21.8 NP NP NP 63.4 ML

B-2 SS-3 3 11.7 NP NP NP 26.6 SM

B-2 SS-6 7.5 13.1 NP NP NP 40.6 SM

B-2 SS-9 13.5 22.1 NP NP NP 9.3 SP-SM

B-2 SS-11 22.5 16.7 NP NP NP 9.6 SP-SM

B-2 SS-12 28.5 9.3 26 17 9 51.2 CL

B-2 SS-14 38.5 18.3 NP NP NP 13.2 SM

B-2 SS-15 43.5 13.6 NP NP NP 7.0 SP-SM

B-2 SS-16 48.5 19.6 NP NP NP 9.3 SP-SM

B-2 SS-17 53.5 17.4 NP NP NP 12.6 SM

B-2 SS-19 62 19.9 44 27 17 94.7 ML

B-3 SS-2 2 35.8 NP NP NP 28.7 SM

B-3 SS-4 6 32.6 ** ** ** 10.4 **SP-SM

B-3 SS-5 8 28.5 NP NP NP 8.8 SP-SM

B-3 SS-7 7 24.9 NP NP NP 6.6 SP-SM

B-3 SS-8 18.5 32.3 NP NP NP 14.9 SM

B-3 SS-9 23.5 17.7 NP NP NP 6.7 SP-SM

B-3 SS-10 28.5 21.7 NP NP NP 12.2 SM

B-3 SS-11 33.5 21.5 NP NP NP 13.6 SM

B-3 SS-12 38.5 20.8 NP NP NP 12.4 SM

B-3 SS-13 43.5 18.9 NP NP NP 9.8 SP-SM

*Error on hydrometer test, insufficient sample to re-run; classification based on Atterberg limits only.

**Insufficient sample to run Atterberg limits; classification based on hydrometer only.

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038

Detailed test results are included in Appendix B and pertinent information is provided on the boring logs.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The following paragraphs describe subsurface conditions at the site.

3.1 Site and Area Geology

Based on the published data by USGS, the area is mapped as being underlain by the Potomac Group, including Raritan and Patapsco Formations, Arundel Clay, and Patuxent Formation. The Potomac Group consists of interbedded quartzose gravels; protoquartzitic to orthoquartzitic argillaceous sands; and white, dark gray and multicolored silts and clays. The Raritan and Patapsco Formations consist of gray, brown, and red variegated silts and clays; lenticular, cross-bedded, argillaceous, subrounded sands;

minor gravels; thickness 0 to 400 feet. The Arundel Clay consists of dark gray and maroon lignitic clays;

abundant siderite concretions; present only in Baltimore-Washington area; thickness 0 to 100 feet. The Patuxent Formation consists of white or light gray to orange-brown, moderately sorted, cross-bedded, argillaceous, angular sands and subrounded quartz gravels; silts and clays subordinate, predominately pale gray; thickness 0 to 250 feet.

3.2 Soil Survey Information

Soils data from the Web-based Soil Survey of Anne Arundel County produced by USDA-NRCS were reviewed as part of the exploration. The soil unit identified within the project area is defined as Urban Land and provides no useful insights into subsurface conditions. Urban Land is a designation used for soils that are in areas of high population density in the largely built environment. These soils can be significantly changed human-transported materials, human-altered materials or minimally altered or intact native soils. The soil survey information for the site is presented in Appendix C.

3.3 Interpreted Stratigraphy

The subsurface profile appears consistent with expectations based on the geology and mapping. Curtis Bay Yard appears to be present with a similar 1976 USGS mapping, so we anticipate most of the profile is natural shoreline sediments, though the upper few feet may have been densified or reworked by past construction. The underlying soils appear generally relatively consistent, with primarily fine sands and silts. For engineering analysis, we interpret the following three strata to the depth of investigation in our three borings.

3.3.1 Stratum 1 – Reworked/Densified Sands

In the two landside borings (B-1 and B-2), the upper foot consists of fine to coarse sandy soils with traces of gravel and generally silty fines. Soils are of moderate to high consistency, with SPT N-values

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038 ranging from about 26 to 32 blows per foot (bpf). We interpret these as mostly natural soils, that may have been reworked near the surface and/or densified by past construction activity. This layer was missing in the waterside boring (B-3).

3.3.2 Stratum 2 – Medium Dense to Very Dense Sand

The next stratum found throughout the landside borings consisted of alluvial fine to coarse medium dense to very dense sands with layers of silt or clay extending down to depths of 48.5 ft and 57 ft (approximate elevation of -38.5 at B-1 and -48 ft at B-2). SPT N-values ranged from 12 to greater than 50 bpf.

3.3.3 Stratum 3 – Hard to Very Hard Silt

Below depths of 48.5 ft at B-1 and 57 ft at B-2 to the boring termination, the fines content of the soils increased, transitioning from silty sand to clay or silt near the bottom of the boreholes. Consistencies of the clay/silt were hard to very hard, with SPT N-values ranging from 39 to greater than 50 bpf.

3.3.4 Waterside Boring

The waterside boring (B-3) encountered relatively clean sands throughout the depth explored. Sands encountered were fine to medium with some silt in the upper soils to an approximate depth of 23 ft below the mudline (approximate elevation of -50 ft). These upper soils were very loose with SPT N-values of 0 to 3 bpf. Between depths of 23 ft to about 27 ft, a very dense sand with gravel layer was encountered with an SPT N-value of greater than 50 bpf. Below the very dense sand/gravel layer, very dense silty sands were encountered with SPT N-values ranging from 60 to 88 bpf.

3.4 Groundwater

Groundwater in the generally sandy soils and given proximity to the shore is likely at about or slightly above the mean tide level with some rapid fluctuation due to infiltration in unpaved areas, especially ponds or ditches.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following conclusions and recommendations are based on our understanding of the proposed construction as well as the results of our data review, exploration, laboratory testing and analyses.

4.1 Demolition

Existing construction including buildings, foundations, slabs, pavements, utilities, and related fill should be removed from the planned construction area. Aggregate base and existing fill materials may be stockpiled for re-use, but remaining materials should be wasted off-site. Burial of rubble, debris, etc. on

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038 the site is discouraged. A concrete crushing operation to recycle concrete elements is possible, but likely impractical for the small project.

Some of the existing structures may be founded on piles. We recommend that demolition methods attempt to remove pile caps and leave piles in place to allow precise location of the piles. Piles may be located differently and battered differently than shown on the historic documents and accurate locations will aid in avoiding conflicts with new foundations. NDT methods can be used to evaluate piles, including approximate lengths, if re-use is considered. If re-use is not considered, piles may be exposed and cut-off at least 5 ft below planned pile caps or slabs, but only after accurate locations have been obtained.

4.2 Site Preparation

After the planned demolition has taken place, all vegetation, including stumps and roots, as well as trash, debris, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the construction area. The topsoil from the grassed areas can be stockpiled for re-use. Burial of brush, trash, etc. on site is discouraged and such materials should be wasted off site.

After clearing and stripping, the areas to receive structures or pavements should be carefully assessed by a qualified geotechnical engineer or his representative. At that time, the engineer may require proofrolling of the subgrade with a fully loaded, tandem axle dump truck or other pneumatic-tired vehicle of similar size and weight (25 tons). The purpose of the proofrolling is to identify soft, weak, or excessively wet surficial soils present at the time of construction. Unacceptable materials detected during proofrolling operations should be treated as recommended by the engineer. Such treatment may include but not limited to moisture conditioning and re-compaction, undercut and replacement with compacted fill, or stabilization in-place. After proofrolling, we recommend densifying the entire work area by rolling with at least 3 passes of a large (Caterpillar CS56B or similar) vibratory, smooth drum roller.

The loose and very loose soils of Strata 2 will be subject to densification due to pile driving or other vibrations, which may impact existing structures and grades slightly.

4.2.1 Excavation

Excavation should be routine with conventional equipment. No rock or dense soils were encountered in the anticipated excavation volume. Sloping and shoring should follow OSHA and other applicable laws and standards.

4.2.2 Fill Placement

Excavated site soils, free of organic matter, trash, metal, or rocks/rubble pieces greater than 3 inches in any dimension should be acceptable for re-use as fill. Rock pieces should be surrounded by sufficient

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038 soil to separate and fill voids between such pieces and should represent only a small fraction of the fill.

Imported fill should be low-plasticity (PI<30) and free of organic or other deleterious material or rock pieces as above. The generally sandy site soils will provide relatively uniform drainage, however, if soil fills with greater fines (more than about 15 to 20 percent silt and/or clay) are used, care should be taken to avoid forming layers or areas that will trap infiltration and result in perched water conditions. Fill should be laboratory tested for Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) parameters.

Fill should be placed in thin (maximum 12-inch thick loose measure) lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor compaction test or to a minimum dry density of 95 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), whichever is greater. Where light compaction equipment is used, as may be necessary in utility trench excavations, the lift thickness should be reduced to achieve the required degree of compaction. The upper 12 inches of soil beneath all pavements should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the same standard, or 95 pcf, whichever is greater. The soil moisture content during fill placement should be within the range necessary to achieve the compaction targets but in no case more than 3 percent above or below the soil's optimum moisture content. All fill should be placed in horizontal lifts that are adequately benched into the prepared and scarified subgrade soils.

Fill placement should be observed by a soil technician under the direction of the geotechnical engineer.

Fill density and moisture tests should be performed for at least every 2 feet of fill lift and 10,000 square feet of area or every 100 feet of trench length. Areas that do not meet the compaction specifications should be recompacted to achieve the specified density and retested for compliance.

4.2.3 Surface and Groundwater Control

The generally sandy soils should drain and dry rapidly following rainfall, but we recommend maintaining positive drainage and rolling the site with a smooth drum roller at the end of shifts and before rainfall to reduce delays due to wet subgrades. Groundwater is not anticipated in most shallow excavations for footings or shallow utilities. It seems unlikely that excavation would extend into the groundwater, but such excavation will likely require well-points and/or sheeting to allow a stable excavation in the otherwise saturated sandy soils.

4.3 Building Foundations

The building may be designed for shallow foundation support based on an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) with foundations bearing at least 2.5 feet below finished grade. We recommend widths of not less than 24 inches for footings for ease of construction and to reduce the possibility of localized shear failures. Exterior footing bottoms should be at least 30 inches below exterior grades for protection against frost damage. Based on an assumed maximum column load on the order of 250 kips, total settlement at individual footing locations is expected to be on the order of ½ inch or less. Differential settlements between widely-spaced, similarly loaded columns are not expected to exceed ½ inch.

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038

Uplift resistance of spread footings can be developed from the effective weight of the footing and the overlying soils. A maximum total unit weight of 120 pcf should be used for the backfill. This unit weight should be reduced to the buoyant weight below the groundwater level. Additional uplift resistance may be achieved with helical anchors, if required.

4.4 Pier Foundations (Driven Piles)

For the new pier structures, we recommend pile foundations for support consisting of driven displacement piles to support the anticipated loads. We have considered prestressed concrete piles as discussed in the following sections.

4.4.1 Pile Capacity

The software A-Pile developed Ensoft, Inc. was used to analyze the axial capacities of 12-, 14- and 16-inch square prestressed concrete (PSC) piles and results, in the form of depth vs. predicted capacity plots and output report, are included in Appendix D. Piles will develop negligible compressive capacity contribution from the upper very loose soils to a depth of about 23 ft below the mudline (approximate elevation of -50 ft). Lateral capacities were calculated using the finite difference software LPILE developed by ENSOFT Inc. Results of the lateral pile calculations are provided in the form of shear force

vs. depth and bending moment vs. depth plots and are included in Appendix E, along with the program output report.

Table 3, below, summarizes pile capacities for three PSC pile sizes of the length indicated. Since the boring encountered a dense gravel/sand layer immediately below the upper very loose sediments, jetting through this layer will likely be required to install piles. Our pile recommendations have assumed jetting through this layer and driving the piles at least an additional 5 feet. Lateral capacities are unfactored based on a top deflection of ½ inch at the mudline. The free-head condition will apply for piles outside caps and/or piles in a single row subject to transverse loading. Piles in a cap with staggered or multiple rows will likely approach the fixed head condition. Piles may be battered as much as 1 horizontal for 5 vertical to provide increased lateral resistance.

Table 3: Pile Capacities

Pile Type Pile Size

Allowable Compressive

Capacity

Allowable Uplift

Capacity

Unfactored Lateral

Capacity1

Pile Length2

Tip Elevation3

(inches) (tons) (tons) (tons) (feet) (feet)

Prestressed Concrete

(PSC)

12 25 5 1.8/4.5 ±60 -33 14 45 9 2.4/6.1 ±60 -33 16 65 11 3.1/8.0 ±60 -33

1Free Head/Fixed Head 2Assumes top of pile at water line 3Assumes water at Elevation 0 ft

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038

4.4.2 Pile Interaction

Piles that encounter other piles during driving can be damaged and their capacities significantly reduced. Such conflicts may not be readily apparent during driving. Therefore, design of new piles should consider locations of the existing piles as well as deadmen and tiebacks related to the existing seawall and any other subsurface obstructions known to exist. Existing pile locations and batters (horizontal displacements, whether planned or unplanned) as well as locations of tiebacks, deadmen, etc. should be confirmed after demolition. We recommend a minimum offset from existing or previously driven piles of 3D or 3 times the maximum dimension of the pile on a center to center basis (e.g. 3 feet for 12-inch piles driven square to each other or 4.3 feet for piles driven at diagonals, including any measured batter).

Non-destructive testing methods may be considered to determine the lengths of existing piles, either for re-use or to assess conflicts with battered piles. Group effects on compression or uplift should be negligible for the relatively small caps (up to about 6 piles) anticipated. However, for piles aligned in the direction of lateral load, that is, within 1.5 of the pile width (center to center) diameter each side of the next pile in line, lateral pile capacities at 3D should be reduced by 50 percent. At 8D, piles can consider the full lateral load. Interpolation may be used for intermediate spacing.

4.4.3 Pile Splicing

The recommended length of piles will not likely require splicing and we recommend against splicing in most cases. If, for special considerations, such as a pile failing to meet the driving resistance at the design length due to variable subsurface conditions, splicing is desired, we recommend a full length section of pile be driven initially to avoid driving splices into the more resistant soils at depth. We recommend splicing details conform to appropriate standards for the pile type. Quality control (QC) should include weld inspections.

4.4.4 Pile Testing Program

If design requirements approach the allowable values in Table 3, which are based on a factor of safety (FS) of 2.0, we recommend a pile load test program to confirm pile capacities. If an FS of 3 or greater is considered, the pile load test program may be omitted. We recommend dynamic pile load testing on at least two piles (of each size/type planned) in two different caps widely separated. The testing uses a pile driving analyzer to measure energy entering the pile and does an analysis based on transmission of energy down the pile. The load test results will confirm the ultimate capacity, required tip elevation, and driving criteria for the piles. Testing should employ the pile sizes, driving equipment, and personnel to be used for production pile installation.

Pile driving into clayey soils will soften soils such that the full skin friction from these soils will not be measured by the dynamic testing. It may take several days for the soils to recover. Restriking or a static load test after several days could be used to attain the full capacity, but the cost of additional testing may not justify the limited increase in pile capacity/decrease in required length that could be attained since most of the profile is sandy and not expected to be subject to this condition.

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038

The subsurface conditions will likely vary across the structure, so tip elevations will likely vary to meet the driving criteria developed. Driving criteria, determined by pile load test program, not tip elevations, should be used to define acceptance of each pile.

Driving equipment that provides the required resistance at a blow count ranging from 3 blows per inch (36 blows per foot) to 10 blows per inch (120 blows per foot) should be supplied at the end of initial drive, unless approved otherwise by the engineer after a satisfactory field trial. The pile hammer should be capable of driving to a resistance equal to at least twice the nominal bearing resistance, but not so large as to damage the piles. Piles should be driven to achieve the driving criteria as determined by the dynamic pile load tests or until practical refusal (20 blows per inch or less than one inch) as confirmed with the Engineer.

The pile driving monitoring program should ensure that the allowable stresses are not exceeded during driving and provide documentation regarding ultimate pile capacities. Wave Equation Analysis of Piles (WEAP) should be performed to evaluate the acceptability of the proposed driving system (including the hammer, follower, cap block and pile cushions) as well as to estimate the driving resistance. If there are changes in hammer type or driving system then, additional analyses should be performed before proceeding.

4.5 Minor Structure Foundations

Foundations for minor structures (sheds, guard shacks, etc.) may be designed for shallow support based on an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) with foundations bearing at least 30 inches below finished grade. Anchorage for uplift may be achieved with small helical anchors with capacities per suppliers’ recommendations, if required.

4.6 Bulkhead Design

The seawall or bulkhead is anticipated to be installed about 2 feet outboard of the existing wall, backfilled with sand jetted in lifts and anchored with deadmen or grouted anchors. Helical or screw anchors are not recommended in the aggressive corrosion conditions.

4.6.1 Design Parameters

We recommend the soil parameters indicated in Table 4 below for use in design of sheet piles based on our exploration and experience with similar projects. The parameters used in design will need to be confirmed by appropriate time of construction testing, including observations of pile driving, pile load testing, dead man excavations, anchor drilling, grouting, proof and performance testing of anchors, etc.

The finished wall should be provided with drainage to limit differential hydraulic forces. Alternately design using buoyant soil unit weights and hydrostatic pressure based on seawater (about 65 pcf) should be considered. Without drainage, rainfall and infiltration may raise water levels to near the top of the wall.

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038

Table 4: Soil parameters for preliminary design of sheet piles

Strata Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3

Approximate Depth, feet Ground surface to 1

1 to 48.5/57

48.5/57 to termination depths sat/moist), pcf 125 120 120 Submerged unit weight sub), pcf 60 55 55

Angle of Internal Friction ( '), degrees 34 32 20

Cohesion, psf - - -

Active Pressure Coefficient, Ka

0.28 0.31 0.49

At-Rest Pressure Coefficient, Ko

0.44 0.47 0.66

Passive Pressure Coefficient, Kp

3.54 3.25 2.04

Wall Friction ( Concrete 20 17 14

Wall Friction ( Steel 17 14 11 psf – pounds per square foot, pcf – pounds per cubic foot

4.6.2 Deadman Anchors

Deadmen or anchor blocks are commonly used to anchor seawalls but have the disadvantage of relatively shallow tension bars that can conflict with utilities or be damaged by future excavation.

Deadman anchors should be located at least 1.5 times the exposed wall height at maximum scour behind the wall and may be designed considering a third of the passive resistance. Tension bars should be tensioned to a load of at least 1.5 times the design load at installation.

4.6.3 Grouted Soil Anchors

Grouted anchors are installed by drilling at a slight down grade (typically 15 to 30 degrees, but steeper possible) into the subsurface to an anchorage bond zone which must begin at least 5 feet behind the critical potential failure surface, which can be approximated as the active failure wedge or, in this case, extending upward from the base of the wall (at the scour line) at an angle of 30 degrees from the vertical.

Load should not be transferred from the anchor bond zone into what is termed the “no-load” zone (also referred to as the unbonded length).

The actual capacity achieved in the field will depend on the method of drilling including quality of drill hole cleaning and period of time that the drill hole is left open, the diameter of the drill hole, use of drilling mud, the method and pressure used in grouting, and the length of the anchor bond zone. The

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038 selection of these items should be left to the discretion of the specialty contractor, who can warrant an anchor capacity. For preliminary design, we anticipate a minimum anchor capacity on a 4 to 6-inch diameter drill hole will be about 1.5 ksf. Proof and performance load testing of the anchors is recommended with proof testing of at least 5 percent of the anchors to 150 percent of the design load and performance testing and lock-off of all anchors to at least 120 percent of the design load. Strata 1, 3, and 4 should generally provide good anchorage but Strata 2 may provide acceptable anchorage, though grout takes may be considerably higher to achieve required pressure and resistance. Sheet piles must be designed for the vertical component of anchor loads.

Anchor design should consider possible conflicts with piles, utilities, or other subsurface structures and recognize limitations on and possible variation in drilling the anchors.

4.6.4 Environmental Corrosion Classification

The environmental classification is “Extremely Aggressive” for steel or concrete based on seawater.

Anchors especially should be designed with appropriate corrosion protection for the extremely aggressive environment, since deterioration will not be easily detected by inspection.

4.7 Pavement Design

With site preparation as outlined in this report, pavements may be designed based on a CBR of 4. The existing piles from the original development will need to be identified and cutoff as recommended in the grading and site preparation section. A uniform subgrade is critical for pavement performance.

Therefore, the upper foot of subgrade (in fill and excavation areas) should be prepared and densified as outlined above. Subgrade should be sloped to drain and all pavements (rigid or flexible) should include a drainage layer provided with outlets at the edges, low points, and drainage structures, though design should prevent backing up of water into the pavement drainage layer from such outlets due to high stormwater levels.

We recommend a minimum pavement section (for cars and light trucks, generally protected from heavy truck traffic) of 2 inches of surface course over 6 inches of Graded Aggregate Base. We recommend a minimum rigid pavement section of 8 inches of concrete with a flexural strength of 600 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for dumpster pads and other low frequency rigid pavements. Pavement sections for heavy truck traffic should be designed based on the anticipated traffic and expected life following Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) or American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards.

4.8 Seismic Site Class and Liquefaction Potential Assessment

The International Building Code (IBC) 2018 and ASCE 7-16 describes six Site Class Definitions that range from hard rock (A) to potentially unstable soil (F). Each site class is described by the average shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or soil undrained shear strength in the top 100 feet of the site profile. The shear wave velocity is related to the site column shear modulus, whereas the standard penetration resistance and undrained shear strength can be empirically related to the shear wave velocity. Each site class is associated with amplification factors that represent the effects that site stiffness (shear modulus) has on the presumed earthquake bedrock motion.

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038

The seismic site class per IBC 2018/ASCE 7-16 for the land-side portion of the site is estimated to be Site Class C based on the SPT N-values from this study (borings B-1 and B-2).

Liquefaction occurs when seismic shaking creates excess pore pressures in loose, cohesionless soils.

Although zones of relatively clean sands were encountered in the borings, these sands were found to be medium dense to very dense and therefore, not likely susceptible to liquefaction. Also, according to published data from the Maryland Geological Survey, all but the northeastern corner of the state is considered as a region of negligible seismicity. Based on these findings, the relative risk of liquefaction potential at this site is considered low.

4.9 Construction Inspection and Testing

The geotechnical engineer or his representative (experienced soil technician) should be present on site for the following observations and testing:

Proofrolling, densification, and site preparation.

Fill material testing/approval and fill compaction testing.

Pile tests and installation of test and production piles.

Anchor installation and testing.

Pavement installation and base compaction.

Observations of excavations (if any).

Installation of underground utilities, including bedding and backfill compaction (if any).

In addition, we anticipate supplementary consultation geotechnical issues that may arise at the time of construction.

5.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

Our evaluation of foundation design and construction conditions has been based on our understanding of the site, the available project information, our previous experience relevant to the project site, our assumptions and the data obtained during our field exploration as described herein. Appendix F contains important information prepared by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) regarding studies of the type performed. The general subsurface conditions used were based on interpolation of the subsurface data at our borings. The design recommendations in this report have been developed on the basis of the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions. If project criteria or locations change, we must be permitted to determine if our recommendations are still applicable or if they must be modified. The findings of such a review will be presented in a supplemental report.

Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that conditions will differ from those at the boring location, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions. Therefore, experienced geotechnical engineers

Baltimore, MD

JV Project Number: 335000038 must observe earthwork and foundation construction to assess if the conditions anticipated in design actually exist.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings derived, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied. This company is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions or recommendations of others based on these data.

6.0 CLOSURE

Our services were performed in accordance with a proposal dated August 24, 2021, and authorized by USCG. We prepared this report for the exclusive use of USCG, for the site and criteria stated herein. Your questions or interpretation regarding any portion of the report should be addressed directly by us.

Reliance upon, usage, or implementation of the information or recommendations stated in this report by any member of the project team should not be undertaken without direct consultation of the client and the JV. The JV accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

FIGURES

U

SC

G Y ar d

C ur tis B ay

H aw ki ns

P oi nt R oa d

B al tim or e , M ar yl an d

SI

TE

L O

CA

TI

O N

P

LA

N

PR

O

JE

C

T:

D

A

TE

8, FI

G

U R

E

U

SC

G Y ar d

C ur tis ay

H aw ki ns

P oi nt R oa d

B al tim or e , M ar yl an

O

R

IN

G L

O C

A

TI

O N

P

LA

N

PR

O

JE

C

T:

D

A

TE

N ov em be r 1

1, FI

G

U R

E

Al lu vi um

Al lu vi um

Fi ll

Au ge rR ef us al

.4

Bo rin g Te rm in at ed

.8

Bo rin g Te rm in at ed

As su m ed W at er

El ev at io n

Appendix A Boring Logs

Appendix

These results relate only to the items tested. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from Wood. Te st ed

B y:

D W

C he ck ed

B y:

M L

C lie nt Pr oj ec t

Pr oj ec t N o.

Fi gu re

U

SC

G 33

SO

U

R C

E

SA

M

PL

E

D

EP

TH

/E

LE

V.

D

AT

E

SA

M

PL

ED

U

SC

S

M

AT

ER

IA

L D

ES

C

R

IP

TI

O

N N

M

LL

PI

WATER CONTENT

0481216202428323640

N U

M

BE

R O

F

BL

O W

S

PLASTICITY INDEX

0102030405060

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

C L-

M L

CL or O L

CH or O H

M L or O

L M

H o r O H

D as he d lin e in di ca te s th e ap pr ox im at e up pe r l im it bo un da ry fo r n at ur al s oi ls

4 7

LI

Q

U

ID

A N

D P

LA

ST

IC

L

IM

IT

S

TE

ST

R

EP

O

R T

B -1

SS

-2

1.

/3 /2

SM

Li gh t B ro w n

Si lty

S A

N D

6.

N V

N P

La b

N o.

C ur tis B ay Y ar

Th es e re su lts re la te o nl y to th e ite m s te st ed . T hi s re po rt sh al l n ot b e re pr od uc ed

, e xc ep t i n fu ll, w ith ou t w rit te n ap pr ov al fr om

W oo d.

Tested By: BE Checked By: ML

11/3/21

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

Light Brown Silty SAND 0.750" 0.500" 0.375"

#4 #10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #140 #200

100.0 100.0

93.9 91.2 89.3 87.6 76.5 39.2 27.0 24.5 23.0

NP NV NP

2.7144 0.6836 0.3355

0.2947 0.1921 0.0075

0.0033 101.62 33.33

SM A-2-4(0)

Lab No.111020 F.M.=1.76

USCG

Curtis Bay Yard

335000038

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 1.50' Sample Number: SS-2 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

PE

R

C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse % Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium % Sand

Fine Silt % Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 8.8 1.9 12.8 53.5 11.0 12.0 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

Sieve Analysis (ASTM D422-63) st ed

B y:

D W

C he ck ed

B y:

M L

C lie nt Pr oj ec t

Pr oj ec t N o.

Fi gu re

U

SC

G 33

SO

U

R C

E

SA

M

PL

E

D

EP

TH

/E

LE

V.

D

AT

E

SA

M

PL

ED

U

SC

S

M

AT

ER

IA

L D

ES

C

R

IP

TI

O

N N

M

LL

PI

WATER CONTENT

0481216202428323640

N U

M

BE

R O

F

BL

O W

S

PLASTICITY INDEX

0102030405060

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

C L-

M L

CL or O L

CH or O H

M L or O

L M

H o r O H

D as he d lin e in di ca te s th e ap pr ox im at e up pe r l im it bo un da ry fo r n at ur al s oi ls

4 7

LI

Q

U

ID

A N

D P

LA

ST

IC

L

IM

IT

S

TE

ST

R

EP

O

R T

B -1

SS

-4

4.

/1 0/

M

L Li gh t B ro w n Sa nd y

SI

LT

.3

N V

N P

La b

N o.

C ur tis B ay Y e re su lts re la te o nl y to th e ite m s te st ed . T hi s re po rt sh al l n ot b e re pr od uc ed

, e xc ep t i n fu ll, w ith ou t w rit te n ap pr ov al fr om

W oo d.

Tested By: BE Checked By: ML

11/10/21

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

Light Brown Sandy SILT 0.375"

#4 #10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #140 #200

100.0 96.2 95.2 94.3 91.4 83.3 78.3 74.0 66.3

NP NV NP

0.3812 0.2801 0.0508

0.0210 0.0038 0.0018

0.0015 33.93 0.18

ML A-4(0)

Lab No.111021 F.M.=0.56

USCG

Curtis Bay Yard

335000038

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 4.50' Sample Number: SS-4 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

PE

R

C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse % Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium % Sand

Fine Silt % Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 3.8 1.0 3.8 25.1 33.9 32.4 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2 st ed

B y:

D W

C he ck ed

B y:

M L

C lie nt Pr oj ec t

Pr oj ec t N o.

Fi gu re

U

SC

G 33

SO

U

R C

E

SA

M

PL

E

D

EP

TH

/E

LE

V.

D

AT

E

SA

M

PL

ED

U

SC

S

M

AT

ER

IA

L D

ES

C

R

IP

TI

O

N N

M

LL

PI

WATER CONTENT

0481216202428323640

N U

M

BE

R O

F

BL

O W

S

PLASTICITY INDEX

0102030405060

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

C L-

M L

CL or O L

CH or O H

M L or O

L M

H o r O H

D as he d lin e in di ca te s th e ap pr ox im at e up pe r l im it bo un da ry fo r n at ur al s oi ls

4 7

LI

Q

U

ID

A N

D P

LA

ST

IC

L

IM

IT

S

TE

ST

R

EP

O

R T

B -1

SS

-5

6.

/9 /2

SM

Li gh t B ro w n

Si lty

S A

N D

.8

N V

N P

La b

N o.

C ur tis B ay Y e re su lts re la te o nl y to th e ite m s te st ed . T hi s re po rt sh al l n ot b e re pr od uc ed

, e xc ep t i n fu ll, w ith ou t w rit te n ap pr ov al fr om

W oo d.

Tested By: BE Checked By: ML

11/9/21

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

Light Brown Silty SAND 0.375"

#4 #10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #140 #200

100.0 99.4 99.0 98.4 97.7 94.7 64.9 49.3 36.0

NP NV NP

0.2249 0.2060 0.1366

0.1078 0.0610 0.0054

0.0025 55.16 10.99

SM A-4(0)

Lab No.111022 F.M.=0.44

USCG

Curtis Bay Yard

335000038

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 6.00' Sample Number: SS-5 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

PE

R

C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse % Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium % Sand

Fine Silt % Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 1.3 61.7 21.4 14.6 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2 without written approval from Wood. C lie nt

Pr oj ec t

Pr oj ec t N o.

Fi gu re

U

SC

G 33

SO

U

R C

E

SA

M

PL

E

D

EP

TH

/E

LE

V.

D

AT

E

SA

M

PL

ED

U

SC

S

M

AT

ER

IA

L D

ES

C

R

IP

TI

O

N N

M

LL

PI

WATER CONTENT

0481216202428323640

N U

M

BE

R O

F

BL

O W

S

PLASTICITY INDEX

0102030405060

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

C L-

M L

CL or O L

CH or O H

M L or O

L M

H o r O H

D as he d lin e in di ca te s th e ap pr ox im at e up pe r l im it bo un da ry fo r n at ur al s oi ls

4 7

LI

Q

U

ID

A N

D P

LA

ST

IC

L

IM

IT

S

TE

ST

R

EP

O

R T

B -1

SS

-8

.5

0'

SP

-S M

W hi te P oo rly

G ra de d

SA

N

D w ith S

IL

T

.8

N V

N P

C ur tis B ay Y e re su lts re la te o nl y to th e ite m s te st ed . T hi s re po rt sh al l n ot b e re pr od uc ed

, e xc ep t i n fu ll, w ith ou t w rit te n ap pr ov al fr om

W oo d.

Tested By: BE Checked By: ML

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

White Poorly Graded SAND with SILT 0.375"

#4 #10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #140 #200

100.0 100.0

99.9 99.8 99.8 92.8 32.8 15.6 11.4

NP NV NP

0.2418 0.2299 0.1882

0.1744 0.1452 0.1029

0.0594 3.17 1.89

SP-SM A-2-4(0)

Lab No.111023 F.M.=0.72

USCG

Curtis Bay Yard

335000038

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 10.50' Sample Number: SS-8 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

PE

R

C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse % Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium % Sand

Fine Silt % Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 88.4 6.8 4.6 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2 st ed

B y:

D W

C he ck ed

B y:

M L

C lie nt Pr oj ec t

Pr oj ec t N o.

Fi gu re

U

SC

G 33

SO

U

R C

E

SA

M

PL

E

D

EP

TH

/E

LE

V.

D

AT

E

SA

M

PL

ED

U

SC

S

M

AT

ER

IA

L D

ES

C

R

IP

TI

O

N N

M

LL

PI

WATER CONTENT

0481216202428323640

N U

M

BE

R O

F

BL

O W

S

PLASTICITY INDEX

0102030405060

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

C L-

M L

CL or O L

CH or O H

M L or O

L M

H o r O H

D as he d lin e in di ca te s th e ap pr ox im at e up pe r l im it bo un da ry fo r n at ur al s oi ls

4 7

LI

Q

U

ID

A N

D P

LA

ST

IC

L

IM

IT

S

TE

ST

R

EP

O

R T

B -1

SS

-9

.5

/1 0/

SM

Li gh t B ro w n

Si lty

S A

N D

.3

N V

N P

La b

N o.

C ur tis B ay Y e re su lts re la te o nl y to th e ite m s te st ed . T hi s re po rt sh al l n ot b e re pr od uc ed

, e xc ep t i n fu ll, w ith ou t w rit te n ap pr ov al fr om

W oo d.

Tested By: BE Checked By: ML

11/10/21

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

Light Brown Silty SAND 0.500" 0.375"

#4 #10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #140 #200

100.0 98.6 98.5 98.3 93.3 81.7 40.3 32.0 29.9 29.6

NP NV NP

0.6665 0.4992 0.3242

0.2881 0.1087 0.0052

0.0025 127.88 14.37

SM A-2-4(0)

Lab No.111024 F.M.=1.35

USCG

Curtis Bay Yard

335000038

Material…