Attachment 1 - Vol 1 Specifications AQRC169009 Installation ECF B3.pdf

New Jersey Air National Guard

Atlantic City ANG Base, NJ

177th Fighter Wing

Installation Entry Control Facility Project Number: AQRC169009

Contract Number: FA890321D005

November 1, 2024

SPECIFICATIONS

Type B-3 Final Submittal

Volume 1 of 2

Prepared by

Benham Project No.: 1550046201

M&H Project No.: 4498700-170096.01

This page intentionally left blank.

Project No. AQRC169009 Installation Entry Control Facility

Contract No. FA890321DO05 Atlantic City ANGB, NJ

TYPE B3 FINAL SUBMITTAL

SIGNATURE PAGE

Civil, Scott Hasburgh

Architecture, Aaron Fox

Structural, Donny Matthews

Mechanical & Plumbing, Jason

Watkins

Electrical, Zachary Rush

Technology (Security), Zachary

Rush

Technology (COMM), William

Green watkinsjm Image

1064sah Approved

Zjrush Snapshot

Zjrush Snapshot

Project No. AQRC169009

Contract No. FA890321D005

Installation Entry Control Facility

Atlantic City ANGB, NJ

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

1 NOV 2024

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 1

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 31 32 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

00 31 32A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS

01 30 00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 33 00A SUBMITTAL REGISTER

01 33 29 SUSTAINABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND REPORTING

01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

01 42 00 SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS

01 45 00 QUALITY CONTROL

01 45 35 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 57 19 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS

01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

01 91 00.15 BUILDING COMMISSIONING

01 91 19 BUILDING ENCLOSURE COMMISSIONING

DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 41 00 DEMOLITION

DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE

03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

03 42 13.00 10 PLANT-PRECAST CONCRETE PRODUCTS FOR BELOW GRADE

CONSTRUCTION

DIVISION 04 - MASONRY

04 20 00 UNIT MASONRY

DIVISION 05 - METALS

05 05 23.13 10 ULTRASONIC INSPECTION OF WELDMENTS

05 05 23.16 STRUCTURAL WELDING

05 12 00 STRUCTURAL STEEL

05 30 00 STEEL DECKS

05 40 00 COLD-FORMED METAL FRAMING

05 50 13 MISCELLANEOUS METAL FABRICATIONS

DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

06 10 00 ROUGH CARPENTRY

06 41 16.00 10 PLASTIC-LAMINATE-CLAD ARCHITECTURAL CABINETS

06 61 16 SOLID SURFACING FABRICATIONS

Installation Entry Control Facility

Atlantic City ANGB, NJ

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 13 53 ELASTOMERIC SHEET WATERPROOFING

07 21 13 BOARD AND BLOCK INSULATION

07 21 16 MINERAL FIBER BLANKET INSULATION

07 21 23 LOOSE FILL THERMAL INSULATION

07 22 00 ROOF AND DECK INSULATION

07 27 10 BUILDING AIR BARRIER SYSTEM

07 27 19.01 SELF-ADHERING AIR BARRIERS

07 27 26 FLUID-APPLIED MEMBRANE AIR BARRIERS

07 41 13 METAL ROOF PANELS

07 42 13 METAL WALL PANELS

07 60 00 FLASHING AND SHEET METAL

07 92 00 JOINT SEALANTS

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

08 11 13 STEEL FRAMES

08 14 00 WOOD DOORS

08 31 00 ACCESS DOORS AND PANELS

08 34 02 BULLET-RESISTANT COMPONENTS

08 71 00 DOOR HARDWARE

08 91 00 METAL WALL LOUVERS

DIVISION 09 - FINISHES

09 22 00 SUPPORTS FOR PLASTER AND GYPSUM BOARD

09 29 00 GYPSUM BOARD

09 30 10 CERAMIC, QUARRY, AND GLASS TILING

09 51 00 ACOUSTICAL CEILINGS

09 68 00 CARPETING

09 90 00 PAINTS AND COATINGS

DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES

10 14 00.10 EXTERIOR SIGNAGE

10 28 13 TOILET ACCESSORIES

10 44 16 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS

DIVISION 12 - FURNISHINGS

12 48 13 ENTRANCE FLOOR MATS AND FRAMES

12 93 00 SITE FURNISHINGS

VOLUME 2

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

22 00 00 PLUMBING, GENERAL PURPOSE

DIVISION 23 - HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC)

23 05 93 TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR HVAC

23 07 00 THERMAL INSULATION FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

23 08 00 COMMISSIONING OF MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS

23 09 00 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL FOR HVAC

23 09 13 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL DEVICES FOR HVAC

23 09 23.02 BACNET DIRECT DIGITAL CONTROL FOR HVAC AND OTHER BUILDING

CONTROL SYSTEMS

Installation Entry Control Facility

Atlantic City ANGB, NJ

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3

23 23 00 REFRIGERANT PIPING

23 30 00 HVAC AIR DISTRIBUTION

23 81 00 DECENTRALIZED UNITARY HVAC EQUIPMENT

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

26 08 00 APPARATUS INSPECTION AND TESTING

26 12 19.10 THREE-PHASE, LIQUID-FILLED PAD-MOUNTED TRANSFORMERS

26 20 00 INTERIOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

26 28 21.00 40 MANUAL TRANSFER SWITCHES

26 51 00 INTERIOR LIGHTING

26 56 00 EXTERIOR LIGHTING

DIVISION 27 - COMMUNICATIONS

27 10 00 BUILDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLING SYSTEM

DIVISION 28 - ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 08 10 ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEM ACCEPTANCE TESTING

28 10 05 ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEMS (ESS)

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

31 00 00 EARTHWORK

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 01 16.71 COLD MILLING ASPHALT PAVING AND MICRO-SURFACING

32 01 17.61 SEALING CRACKS IN ASPHALT PAVING

32 01 19.61 SEALING OF JOINTS IN RIGID PAVEMENT

32 05 33 LANDSCAPE ESTABLISHMENT

32 11 23 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE

32 12 13 BITUMINOUS TACK AND PRIME COATS

32 12 16.16 ROAD-MIX ASPHALT PAVING

32 13 13.06 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT FOR ROADS AND SITE

FACILITIES

32 16 19 CONCRETE CURBS, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS

32 17 23 PAVEMENT MARKINGS

32 31 13.53 HIGH-SECURITY FENCES (CHAIN LINK) AND GATES, BOLLARDS, AND

TRAFFIC SPIKES

32 92 19 SEEDING

DIVISION 33 - UTILITIES

33 11 00 WATER UTILITY DISTRIBUTION PIPING

33 30 00 SANITARY SEWERAGE

33 40 00 STORMWATER UTILITIES

33 71 02 UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION

33 82 00 TELECOMMUNICATIONS OUTSIDE PLANT (OSP)

DIVISION 34 - TRANSPORTATION

34 75 13.13 CRASH RATED ACTIVE VEHICLE BARRIERS AND CONTROLS

-- End of Project Table of Contents --

Installation Entry Control Facility

Atlantic City ANGB, NJ

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Contract No. FA890321D005 Atlantic City ANGB, NJ

SECTION 00 31 32

GEOTECHNICAL DATA

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

This Document with its referenced attachments is part of the Procurement and Contracting Requirements for Project.

Because subsurface conditions indicated by the soil borings are a sampling in relation to the entire construction area, and for other reasons, the A/E, the A/E's consultants, and the firm reporting the subsurface conditions do not warranty the conditions below the depths of the borings or that the strata logged from the borings are necessarily typical of the entire site. Any party using the information described in the soil borings and geotechnical report shall accept full responsibility for its use.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Project, prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated July 10, 2023, is available for viewing as appended to this Document.

a. The opinions expressed in this report are those of a geotechnical engineer and represent interpretations of subsoil conditions, tests, and results of analyses conducted by a geotechnical engineer.

b. Any party using information described in the geotechnical report shall make additional test borings and conduct other exploratory operations that may be required to determine the character of subsurface materials that may be encountered.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

-- End of Section --

DOCUMENT 00 31 32 Page 1 Type B3 Final

Contract No. FA890321D005 Atlantic City ANGB, NJ

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

DOCUMENT 00 31 32 Page 2 Type B3 Final

SUBMITTED TO:

Mead & Hunt, Inc.

2440 Deming Way Middleton, WI 53562

BY:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

940 W Adams St., #102 Chicago, IL 60607

(872) 713-8802 www.shannonwilson.com

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT

Installation Entry Control Facility, Atlantic City ANGB

ATLANTIC COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

July 10, 2023

Shannon & Wilson No: 109610-001

Installation Entry Control Facility, Atlantic City ANGB Geotechnical Design Report

109610-001 July 10, 2023 ii

Submitted To: Mead & Hunt, Inc.

2440 Deming Way Middleton, WI 53562 Attn: Scott Hasburgh, PE

Subject: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT, INSTALLATION ENTRY CONTROL

FACILITY, ATLANTIC CITY ANGB, ATLANTIC COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

Shannon & Wilson prepared this report and participated in this project as a subconsultant to Mead & Hunt. Our scope of services was specified in our agreement for subcontracted services, dated March 28, 2023, which included our proposal, dated June 21, 2022. The agreement is subject to terms and conditions in Mead & Hunt's prime agreement with the Atlantic City Air National Guard Base (ANGB), dated February 19, 2021. This report presents geotechnical design recommendations for the design of the new Installation Entry Control Facility at the Atlantic City ANGB and was prepared by the undersigned.

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

Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON

Jason Buenker, PhD Gerard J. Buechel, PE Associate Senior Vice President

KWS:JZB:GJB/jzb

109610-001 July 10, 2023 iii

CO

NT

EN

TS

CONTENTS

1 Introduction

1.1 Site Description

1.2 Project Description

1.3 Scope of Services

2 Field Exploration Program

2.1 Borings

2.2 Ground Penetrating Radar

2.2.1 Utility Mapping

2.2.2 Subsurface Condition Mapping

3 Laboratory Testing

4 Subsurface Conditions

4.1 Geologic Setting

4.2 Stratigraphy

4.3 Groundwater

4.4 Potential Variation

5 Engineering Recommendations

5.1 Seismic Design Criteria

5.2 Liquefaction Susceptibility

5.3 Spread Footing Bearing Capacity

5.4 Lateral Earth Pressure and Resistance Parameters

5.5 Pavement Design Parameters

6 Construction Considerations

6.1 Site Preparation

6.2 Earthwork

6.2.1 Subgrade Preparation

6.2.2 Structural Fill

6.2.3 Non-Structural Fill

6.3 Footing Subgrades

7 Limitations

8 References iv

CO

NT

EN

TS

Exhibits Exhibit 2-1: Summary of Borings Exhibit 2-2: Left: Scanning Pattern at Boring Locations; Right: Scanning at Boring B-4 Exhibit 5-1: ASCE 7-16 Seismic Design Parameters Exhibit 5-3: Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters

Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Site and Exploration Map Figure 3: Ground Penetrating Radar Interpretation Map Figure 4: Generalized Subsurface Profile A-A’ Figure 5: Bearing Capacity Versus Footing Width, Square Footing, L/B=1 Figure 6: Bearing Capacity Versus Footing Width, Strip Footing, L/B = 10

Appendices Appendix A: Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Data Appendix B: Ground Penetrating Radar Photos Important Information v

AC

RO

NY

MS

ACRONYMS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ANGB Air National Guard Base ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATD At time of drilling CBR California Bearing Ratio ECDI East Coast Drilling, Inc.

FS Factor of safety GPR Ground penetrating radar MCE Maximum credible earthquake NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection NJDOT New Jersey Department of Transportation OSHPD Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development PGA peak ground acceleration SPT Standard Penetration Test UFC United Facilities Criteria

109610-001 July 10, 2023

1 INTRODUCTION

This report presents our geotechnical study and design recommendations for the proposed Installation Access Control Facility at the Atlantic City ANGB in Atlantic County, New Jersey. The proposed Installation Access Control Facility is at the south-southwest corner of the base, as shown in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The project will replace an existing access control facility to the ANGB via Langley Road, located south of the project location.

Our understanding of the project is based on a two-page document entitled Scope of Geotechnical Services, Atlantic City ANGB, NJ, Installation Entry Control Facility, and an eight-page document entitled 177th Fighter Wing, Installation Entry Control Facility, AQRC169009, which we received via email from Mead & Hunt on June 13, 2022. Mead & Hunt also provided preliminary project plans, dated May 5, 2023, that we received via email on June 13, 2023. We also received project survey on June 13, 2023.

1.1 Site Description

The proposed access control facility will be northeast of the intersection of Langley Road and Tilton Road (Atlantic 563), as shown in the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. The topography in the project vicinity is relatively flat with a gentle slope downward to the north. The existing entry control facility consists of a short, straight roadway that leads to the guard shack. During our site visit on May 2, 2023, we observed Jersey barriers and other temporary barricades in the roadway that control the flow of traffic toward the guard shack.

The layout for the proposed access control facility includes the current main gate and undeveloped land to the north. An existing parking lot and a historic fighter jet display are adjacent to the layout to the north and east (north of the existing guard shack); however, these features are not within the project layout.

1.2 Project Description

The new Installation Access Control Facility will consist of new guard buildings, roadway approaches, and traffic lanes. Based on information provided by Mead & Hunt, the existing straight roadway entry control facility does not conform to ANGB standards and will therefore be replaced with a longer, curved roadway entry control, with approach/response zones. The new entry control roadway will be about ¼ mile in length and 50- to 100- feet wide. Access to the roadway will be provided off Atlantic 563, running eastward for about 200 feet before it will turn back south to meet the new guard buildings. From the guard

109610-001 July 10, 2023 buildings the roadway continues south/southwest and curves back to the east in the vicinity of the existing entrance/guard shack. Reference Figure 2 for the proposal roadway layout.

1.3 Scope of Services

Our scope of services for the project consisted of site reconnaissance, field explorations, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and reporting. Engineering analyses were limited to seismic site characterization to develop seismic design criteria, shallow foundation axial and lateral capacity evaluations, parameters for slab foundation design, and pavement design parameters. No other analyses were performed. We also included construction considerations and other subsurface information in this report to support our design recommendations.

2 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM

The project field exploration program consisted of drilling soil borings and scanning the subsurface with ground penetrating radar. Information obtained during the field exploration program was used to characterize the subsurface conditions in the project vicinity. Figure 2 shows the field exploration locations.

2.1 Borings

We drilled six borings at the locations shown in Figure 2. The six borings are designated B-1 through B-6 and were drilled to 10 feet below ground surface, except B-3, which was drilled to 40 feet below ground surface. East Coast Drilling, Inc. (ECDI), of Mt. Laurel, New Jersey, drilled the borings using hollow stem auger drilling techniques. The borings were observed by a Shannon & Wilson field engineer during drilling. The field engineer collected standard penetration test (SPT) split-spoon samples and developed field boring logs of subsurface conditions observed during drilling. The logs were later reviewed and revised by senior engineers with updated soil classifications and laboratory testing. Appendix A presents our exploration logs and a soil description and log key detailing our sample classification system. A summary of the borings is presented in Exhibit 2-1.

109610-001 July 10, 2023

Exhibit 2-1: Summary of Borings

Boring Designation Depth (feet)

Date Completed

Northing1 (feet)

Easting1 (feet)

Ground Surface

Elevation2 (feet)

Groundwater Depth

ATD3

B-1 10 5/3/2023 222718 467670 54 - B-2 10 5/3/2023 222743 467863 55 - B-3 40 5/3/2023 222551 467954 58 18 B-4 10 5/3/2023 222290 467909 60 - B-5 10 5/3/2023 222149 467963 56 - B-6 10 5/3/2023 222189 468159 57 -

NOTES:

Northing and Easting was measured using a sub-meter GPS unit.

Ground surface elevation is based on survey received from Mead & Hunt on June 13, 2023.

Groundwater was not encountered in borings where Groundwater Depth ATD is not listed.

ATD = at time of drilling

We collected bulk samples adjacent to borings B-2, B-3, and B-4 to support laboratory testing that required large sample quantities. We collected the bulk samples between 2- and 8-feet below ground surface using hollow stem augers. The holes were backfilled with the remaining drill cuttings.

2.2 Ground Penetrating Radar

The field exploration program incorporated scanning using ground penetrating radar (GPR), which was performed by Underground Detective of Cincinnati, Ohio, using local personnel stationed in New Jersey. GPR is a geophysical imaging technique that uses radar pulses to create detailed subsurface images. It is a non-destructive and non-intrusive method of exploring and mapping the subsurface, providing information about the composition, structure, and features beneath the ground surface. GPR transmits short pulses of electromagnetic energy into the ground using an antenna. These pulses propagate through the subsurface and interact with different materials and objects, causing reflections and scattering. The GPR system then records the time and amplitude of the reflected signals, which are used to create a two-dimensional or three-dimensional image of the subsurface.

We used GPR for the following:

Utility Mapping: to detect and map buried utilities like pipes, cables, and conduits adjacent to our boring locations. This allows us to prevent accidental damage to existing utilities during drilling.

Subsurface Condition Mapping: To detect voids, cracks, and other subsurface anomalies, allowing us to identify potential subsurface hazards and obstructions.

109610-001 July 10, 2023

The GPR program consisted of subsurface scanning in select locations within the project footprint to perform utility mapping and evaluate subsurface conditions. Utility mapping was performed at the boring locations. Subsurface condition mapping was performed in two areas where structures may have previously existed, which are shown in the Ground Penetrating Radar Interpretation Map, Figure 3.

2.2.1 Utility Mapping

GPR scanning was performed within a 40-foot radius for the boring locations to map utilities in the vicinity of each boring. To perform utility mapping, Underground Detective pushed the GPR device around the boring locations in a pattern like Exhibit 2-2. When an anomaly was detected by the GPR, the Underground Detective placed a flag in the ground and/or painted the area to delineate the possible anomaly.

Exhibit 2-2: Left: Scanning Pattern at Boring Locations; Right: Scanning at Boring B-4

The utilities identified during our utility mapping generally corresponded to the utilities shown in the site plan provided by Mead & Hunt, as shown in Figure 2.

2.2.2 Subsurface Condition Mapping

GPR scanning was also performed in two areas where structures may have previously existed to detect abandoned utilities, structures and structural fragments, or other obstructions that may have been left in place during demolition of a structure. These two areas are presented in Figure 3. Like the procedure used to map utilities, Underground Detective placed a flag and/or paint in/on the ground as anomalies were detected, along with the depth at which the anomaly was observed.

Based on the subsurface conditions mapping, anomalies in the northern area (Area 1) appear to be located between about 1.5-and 8-feet below the ground surface, and anomalies in the southern area (Area 2) appear to be about 2-feet below the ground surface. The Area

109610-001 July 10, 2023

1 anomalies were mapped to be 3- to 5-feet wide and, in our opinion, are likely remains of an old structure which may include concrete footings, utilities, or other debris. The Area 2 anomalies are thin and linear, likely indicating abandoned utilities. We presented the locations of these anomalies on Figure 2 and 3, which represents our interpretation of subsurface conditions based on the GPR. The actual conditions may differ from our interpretation.

To better understand the anomalies in Area 1, we used a hand shovel to pothole shallow anomalies between about 1.5- and 3-feet below the ground surface. On the southern end of Area 1 we observed a 4-inch-diameter steel pipe about 1- to 1.5-feet below the ground surface. Near the center of Area 1, we observed a large piece of concrete that is about 3-feet below the ground surface. Figure 3 presents the locations of our potholes. We included photos of the potholing and other photos of the GPR scanning in Appendix B.

3 LABORATORY TESTING

We performed geotechnical laboratory testing on SPT and bulk samples collected during our field exploration program. Testing included the following:

Moisture content (ASTM D2216)

Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318)

Fines content determination (ASTM D1140)

Sieve analysis (ASTM D6913)

California Bearing Ratio (ASTM D1883)

Moisture density curves (ASTM D1557)

Appendix A presents the laboratory testing results. The boring logs in the appendix incorporate moisture contents, Atterberg limits, and fines content determinations, where performed.

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

We characterized subsurface conditions at the site based on our field explorations, laboratory data, and publicly available information provided by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) through their Geologic and Water Survey and other local sources. The sections below summarize our characterization.

109610-001 July 10, 2023

4.1 Geologic Setting

The site is in the Coastal Plain physiographic province of New Jersey, south of recent glaciations. The NJDEP (2016) maps surficial deposits at the site as Holocene beach and estuary deposits. NJDEP (2017) indicates bedrock below the site is Holocene-aged sedimentary rock; however, we did not encounter bedrock in our field explorations, which were drilled to a maximum of 40 feet below ground surface. Well 126, drilled to 166 feet below ground surface at the Atlantic City ANGB, and reported by NJDEP (1990) also did not encounter bedrock. The approximate location of Well 126 is 1000 feet north of the project location.

4.2 Stratigraphy

The mapped subsurface conditions are similar to stratigraphy encountered in our borings, which generally consisted of very loose to medium dense, clean to silty sand. We characterized this material into the following subunits:

Fill – Shallower sand tended to be very loose to loose and likely constitutes native sand material reworked and influenced by human activity during previous phases of site development. We observed Fill to less than 4 feet below ground surface in most borings, except for Boring B-3, which included Fill to 7 ½ feet below ground surface. We observed dense, gravelly sand Fill in Borings B-5 and B-6, which were drilled through asphalt pavement.

Holocene Beach Sand – This deeper native sand was generally medium dense, poorly graded to well-graded, and clean to silty.

The Generalized Subsurface Profile A-A’, Figure 4, presents our interpretation of stratigraphy at the site. This figure is based on our geologic interpretation of conditions observed in our borings and may not be reflective of the actual horizontal or vertical extents of soil layers, particularly of Fill materials that could change quickly over short distances.

We did not observe organic material in the retrieved soil samples except for the topsoil noted on the logs in Borings B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4.

4.3 Groundwater

We observed groundwater at 18 feet below ground surface in Boring B-3. We did not observe groundwater in the other borings. Because the borings were drilled using hollow stem auger drilling techniques that did not incorporate drilling mud, we anticipate that this groundwater level is reflective of actual groundwater conditions at the time of drilling. We also do not anticipate that this groundwater level constitutes perched water, because the

109610-001 July 10, 2023 subsurface conditions consist of relatively uniform sand stratigraphy, and we did not encounter clay layers in our borings that might act as confining strata.

Based on our review of groundwater data by NJDEP (2023) for wells in Atlantic County, NJ, we anticipate that local groundwater levels vary seasonally by 5 to 6 feet. We therefore recommend that groundwater be considered at about 12 feet below ground surface in Boring B-3 for design. This corresponds to a groundwater elevation of El. 46 feet.

4.4 Potential Variation

Our subsurface interpretation is based on the field exploration and laboratory testing program described previously. Our interpretations are specific to the locations and depths noted on the boring logs (Appendix A) and may not be applicable to all site areas. No number of explorations can precisely predict the characteristics, quality, or distribution of subsurface conditions. Potential variation includes, but is not limited to:

The conditions between and below explorations may be different.

The passage of time or intervening causes (both natural and manmade) may result in changes to site and subsurface conditions.

Groundwater levels at the site fluctuate seasonally and/or may be higher than measured.

SPT N-values in gravelly soils may not be representative. Actual soil density may be lower than estimated from the N-values if the test was performed in gravel or if cobbles or boulders are present.

If conditions different from those described in this section are encountered during construction, we should review our interpretation and reconsider our geotechnical recommendations.

5 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

This section provides geotechnical design recommendations to support the project design by Mead & Hunt. The design recommendations are based on our current understanding of the project. If additional or revised information about the project configuration becomes available, the recommendations presented in this section may require revisions. Shannon & Wilson should be apprised of changes to the project so that we can evaluate our recommendations for applicability and revise recommendations as needed.

We understand that project design criteria consist of the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), including the Pavement Design for Airfields (UFC, 2001), Structural Engineering (2023), and Geotechnical Engineering (UFC, 2021). This code incorporates design criteria by American

109610-001 July 10, 2023

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7, including seismic design factors; therefore, we performed our seismic evaluation in accordance with ASCE 7-16. We also incorporated local design criteria by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT, 2016) where appropriate.

5.1 Seismic Design Criteria

We evaluated seismic design criteria for the project in accordance with ASCE 7-16 (ASCE, 2016). The ASCE 7-16 design criteria are based on ground motion response spectra for a maximum credible earthquake (MCE) corresponding to ground motions with a maximum probability exceedance of 2 percent in 50 years, with a deterministic cap in some regions.

The ASCE response spectra used for design is based on spectral values that generally correspond to 2/3rds of the MCE spectral values.

We developed ground motions for the MCE using an online hazard tool by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) for ASCE 7-16. Inputs for the hazard tool include the site location and site classification. Site classification is based on the time-weighted average shear wave velocity of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface. We evaluated the time-weighted average shear wave velocity using shear wave velocity correlations with SPT N-values, overburden pressure, and soil type. Because our deepest boring extends to only 40 feet below ground surface, we extrapolated the N-value data using best-fit regressions from the shallower data coupled with engineering judgement.

Based on our calculations, we classified the site as Site Class D.

We recommend using the seismic design parameters provided in Exhibit 5-1 for design of the entry control facility. These design parameters are based on the MCE for Site Class D conditions.

Exhibit 5-1: ASCE 7-16 Seismic Design Parameters Parameter Value

Peak Horizontal ground acceleration coefficient1 PGA 0.067 0.2-sec period spectral acceleration coefficient1 Ss 0.129 1.0-sec period spectral acceleration coefficient1 S1 0.041 Site coefficient for the peak ground acceleration coefficient2 Fpga 1.6 Site coefficient for 0.2-sec period spectral acceleration2 Fa 1.6 Site coefficient for 1.0-sec period spectral acceleration2 Fv 2.4 Effective peak ground acceleration coefficient PGAD = 0.4*SMS 0.083 Design earthquake response spectral acceleration coefficient at 0.2-sec period SDS = 0.67*Fa*Ss 0.138 Design earthquake response spectral acceleration coefficient at 1.0-sec period SD1 = 0.67*Fv*S1 0.065

NOTES:

PGA = peak ground acceleration

109610-001 July 10, 2023

The parameters in the table above are intended for structural design. To evaluate liquefaction and other ground failures related to geotechnical design, the PGA should be taken as PGAM (PGAM = FPGA*PGA = 0.107). The design value PGA (PGAD) should be used for earth pressures and other cases where soil and structure are interacting.

5.2 Liquefaction Susceptibility

Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which pore pressure in loose, saturated, granular soil increases during ground shaking to a level near the initial effective stress, resulting in a reduction of shear strength of the soil (quicksand-like conditions). The loss in shear strength may generate ground settlement, lateral spreading (ground movement on gentle slopes), bearing capacity failure, and/or landslides. Liquefaction potential depends on soil index properties, soil density, the depth of the deposit, age and other factors that consider the following:

The potential for liquefaction is highest for saturated, loose soil deposits.

Increasing soil plasticity decreases the potential for liquefaction.

Clean, coarse-grained granular soils are less susceptible to liquefaction due to their high permeability.

The potential for liquefaction decreases with increasing density, age, and depth.

We evaluated the liquefaction potential of soil underlying the project site based on the subsurface information and site geology. Our evaluation considered soil index properties determined from laboratory testing, and groundwater levels observed in our borings. In our opinion, the soils underlying the site are not susceptible to liquefaction during the design seismic event, largely because of the low PGAM applicable to the site.

5.3 Spread Footing Bearing Capacity

We anticipate that guard buildings installed for the project will be founded on spread footings. We performed bearing capacity calculations considering the proposed footings under Strength, Service, and Extreme Event loads. We evaluated spread footing capacity consistent with UFC (2021), which incorporates a factor of safety (FS) equal to 3 for static conditions. Where the UFC is silent regarding design criteria, we incorporated equivalent design criteria from the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT, 2016), including extreme event FS that is consistent with load and resistance factor design guidance from American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 2020). We recommend that footings be embedded a minimum of 36 inches to provide frost heave protection, with embedment defined as the minimum distance from the ground line to the top of the footing, in accordance with NJDOT (2016).

109610-001 July 10, 2023

Figure 4 and Figure 5 present our bearing capacity recommendations as plots of footing size and shape versus bearing capacity. Figure 4 should be used for square footings where footing length (L) divided by footing width (B) equals L/B = 1. Figure 5 should be used for strip footings where L/B ≥ 10.

The figures include recommendations for total footing settlement under service loads. We anticipate differential settlement over the footing width would be about half the total footing settlement, assuming the subgrade is prepared properly and in accordance with our recommendations in the next section. Most of the settlement will occur as immediate settlement as the load from the proposed roadway and structures is applied, based on the coarseness of the underlying soils and groundwater depth.

5.4 Lateral Earth Pressure and Resistance Parameters

Subgrade walls constructed for the guard buildings will be subjected to lateral earth pressures. We estimated the lateral earth pressure parameters for static and seismic conditions using equations provided in AASHTO (2020). Exhibit 5-3 summarizes the parameters.

Our earth pressure recommendations assume that subgrade walls are shallow, and that groundwater is located below the bottom of the subgrade wall. This assumption should be reviewed if deep excavations below the water table are planned for the project.

Exhibit 5-3: Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters Parameter Recommended Value

Backfill Unit Weight 120 pcf Backfill Soil Friction Angle 32° Nominal Coefficient of Sliding 1,2 0.62

Earth Pressure Coefficients 3 Static Active Earth Pressure Coefficient 0.28 Seismic Active Earth Pressure Coefficient 0.36 Static At-Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient 0.47 Seismic At-Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient 0.53 Nominal Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient 3 6.88

NOTES:

1. Assumes the foundation subgrade has a friction angle equal to 32 degrees.

2. Value assumes the foundation is cast directly on subgrade soil. This value should be reduced by 20% if the foundation is precast.

3. Per AASHTO, a resistance factor of 0.5 should be applied to the nominal passive resistance under the strength limit state. The resistance factor for the extreme event limit state is 1.0.

Subgrade walls may also be subject to surcharge pressures from construction, pedestrian, or vehicle traffic. Shannon & Wilson is available to provide recommendations for surcharge pressure evaluation or evaluate surcharge pressures upon request.

109610-001 July 10, 2023

5.5 Pavement Design Parameters

We developed pavement design parameters for the approach roadway in accordance with UFC (2001). We assumed the pavement would consist of flexible hot mix asphalt placed over aggregate base placed over the native subgrade. Based on laboratory testing results presented in Appendix A, we recommend a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 11 for native soil subgrade and fill material repurposed from native soil (such as the fill present in Boring B-3), which consist of clean to silty sand. We recommend a corresponding modulus of soil reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch for these materials. Based on UFC (2001), clean to silty sands have a frost group classification of F3.

6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

The applicability of our geotechnical design recommendations is predicated on quality construction practices. We recommend that the following construction considerations be incorporated into project plans and other construction documents.

6.1 Site Preparation

The site should be cleared and grubbed prior to the construction of new facilities. The site should be stripped of topsoil, unsuitable soils, soil containing organic matter, and debris.

Existing buildings, concrete slabs, and foundations that may interfere with the proposed construction should be removed, including existing surface or subsurface structures, foundations, existing concrete, and utility poles.

Many existing underground utilities are at or near the site. The utilities may be active or abandoned. These utilities could require abandonment, relocation, or replacement prior to construction. Existing utilities that are not relocated could require additional protection against heavy surface loads caused by construction activities, pavements, or structures.

Our GPR scanning identified several utilities and concrete debris from former developments in the project vicinity, which we discussed in Section 2 and mapped on Figure 3. However, our GPR scanning was restricted to two isolated zones and was not intended as a comprehensive investigation of all existing utilities or underground obstructions at the site.

Additional GPR scanning or utility potholing may be required to further define the extent of existing utilities or underground obstructions.

109610-001 July 10, 2023

6.2 Earthwork

6.2.1 Subgrade Preparation

After the site is cleared and grubbed, the exposed native soil should be carefully observed to check that unsuitable materials have been removed. Exposed soil should then be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to near-optimum moisture content, and compacted with heavy compaction equipment. The upper 6 inches of the exposed soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD per ASTM D 1557 (ASTM, 2012). Prior to the placement of fill, ponded water should be drained from the area.

6.2.2 Structural Fill

Fill placed to construct building pads, or the roadway subgrade should consist of structural fill. Structural fill should consist of sand, gravel, crushed stone, crushed gravel, or a mixture of these materials. The material should not contain organic or foreign materials. The fill material should contain no particles exceeding 4 inches in the largest dimension. No more than 30 percent of the material should be retained on a ¾-inch sieve. Of the material passing the ¾-inch sieve, not more than 30 percent should pass the No. 200 sieve. Based on our borings and laboratory test results, the native onsite soil would generally be suitable for use as Structural Fill. Not all native soil will be appropriate for use as Structural Fill and segregation earthwork may be required to isolate material that can potentially serve as Structural Fill from material that is only suitable for lesser fill.

Structural fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a dense and unyielding condition. Thinner lifts may be required depending on the contractor’s equipment and the moisture content and quality of the fill material. Fill should be placed and compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557.

If subgrade or fill soils become loosened, disturbed, and/or pumping, additional excavation to expose competent, undisturbed soils and replacement with properly compacted structural fill would be required. We recommend that a representative from our firm be present during structural fill placement to observe the work and perform in-place density testing.

6.2.3 Non-Structural Fill

Fill placed in landscaping areas or in areas where subgrade support is not required may be non-structural fill. Non-structural fill may consist of clay, silt, sand, gravel, or a mixture of these materials. The material should not contain organic or foreign materials.

109610-001 July 10, 2023

Non-structural fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a dense and unyielding condition. Thinner lifts may be required depending on the contractor’s equipment and the moisture content and quality of the fill material. Fill should be placed and compacted to at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557.

6.3 Footing Subgrades

The recommended bearing pressures presented in this report require preparation of the footing subgrade. Footings should bear on undisturbed, dense, and unyielding structural fill or a prepared subgrade of native sand. Footing excavations should be trimmed neat and leveled. Any loose or softened material should be removed from the footing excavation prior to placing rebar and/or concrete. Footing excavations should be protected from water.

Each footing subgrade should be evaluated by a representative from our firm to observe that subgrade soils conform to our assumptions, suitable bearing conditions exist, and that all loose or soft soil has been removed. The footing subgrade evaluation should be performed prior to placement of the reinforcing steel.

7 LIMITATIONS

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Mead and Hunt and other members of the design team for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, the analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering principles and practice in this area at the time this report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. These conclusions and recommendations were based on our understanding of the project as described in this report and the site conditions as observed at the time of our explorations.

The scope of our present work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands, or hazardous or toxic substances in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air, on or below or around this site, or for the evaluation or disposal of contaminated soils or groundwater should any be encountered.

109610-001 July 10, 2023

8 REFERENCES

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2020, AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications (9th ed.): Washington, D. C., AASHTO, 2 v.

American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017, Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures: Reston, Va., American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16, 2 v.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) – Geologic and Water Survey, 1990, Records of selected wells in Atlantic County, New Jersey: NJDEP, Geological Survey Report GSR 22, 89 p.

NJDEP – Geologic and Water Survey, 2016, Surficial geologic map of New Jersey: NJDEP, scale: 1:1,000,000, 1 sheet.

NJDEP – Geologic and Water Survey, 2017, Bedrock geologic map of New Jersey: NJDEP, scale: 1:1,000,000, 1 sheet.

NJDEP – Geologic and Water Survey, 2023, Groundwater Monitoring Network: NJDEP, available: https://www.nj.gov/dep/njgs/geodata/dgs05-2.htm.

New Jersey Department of Transportation, 2016, Design manual for bridges & structures, 6th Edition: New Jersey Department of Transportation, BDC16MB-01, 490 p.

U.S. Department of Defense, 2001, Unified facilities criteria (UFC): pavement design for airfields: UFC 3-260-02, June 30, 538 p.

U.S. Department of Defense, 2021, Unified facilities criteria (UFC): geotechnical engineering:

UFC 3-220-01, November 3, 35 p.

U.S. Department of Defense, 2023, Unified facilities criteria (UFC): structural engineering:

UFC 3-320-04, April 11, 230 p.

https://www.nj.gov/dep/njgs/geodata/dgs05-2.htm

© 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2023 Maxar ©CNES (2023) Distribution Airbus DS

PROJECT

LOCATION

Tilton Rd

Amelia Earhart B lvd

Delilah Rd

Atlantic City Expy

Black Horse Pike

VICINITY MAP

Installation Entry Control Facility Atlantic City ANGB

Atlantic County, New Jersey

June 2023 109610-001

Fi le na m e:

C

:\U se rs \jr s\ C

AD

G ro up

D ro pb ox

\J D riv e\

_S

EA

\1

0\

1\

-0

V ic in ity M ap .d w g

D at e:

6-

-2

L og in

: J R

S

Project Location

0 2,000 4,000

Approximate Scale in Feet

FIG. 1

New Jersey

Newark

Atlantic 563 Tilton Road

La ng le y

R oa d

Ea rh ar t D riv e

59 58

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4 B-5

B-6

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

C O

M M

C O

M M

C O

M M

C O

M M

C O

M M

COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM

COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM

COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMM

COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM

COMM

COMM

M

M

M

COMM

COMM

COMM

E

E E

E E

E E E

E E

E E

E

E E

E

E

E

E

C I

C I

D D

D D

S

SS

S

W W

W W

W

W W W W W W W WW W

W W W W W W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W

W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W

A A'

Fi le na m e:

C

:\U se rs \jr s\ C

AD

G ro up

D ro pb ox

\J D riv e\

_S

EA

\1

0\

1\

-0

E xp lo ra tio ns .d ay ou t:

Fi gu re e:

6-

-2 in : J

R S

SITE AND EXPLORATION MAP

Installation Entry Control Facility Atlantic City ANGB

Atlantic County, New Jersey

June 2023 109610-001

FIG. 2

0 80 160

Scale in Feet

B-1 Boring Designation and Approximate Location

LEGEND

NOTE

Figure adapted from "Sheet COA 1" of 177 FW

INSTALLATION ENTRY CONTROL FACILITY,

AQRC169009, Atlantic City AMGB, New Jersey, dated 12/30/2022, AT22EC_C-AF01.dwg, AT22EC_C-AF01-Base GIS.dwg, , AT22EC_C-UP01_Utilities-GIS, and AT22EC_V-SV01,dwg, received 6/13/2023.

A Generalized Subsurface Profile

Atlantic 563 Tilton Road

La ng le y

R oa d

Ea rh ar t D riv e

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4 B-5

B-6

Unconfirmed Anomaly 5.5- to 6-Feet Below Ground Surface

Unconfirmed Anomaly 8.5-Feet Below Ground Surface

Unconfirmed Anomaly 1.5- to 2-Feet Below Ground Surface

Possible Electric Utility Line

Possible Water Line

Unconfirmed Anomaly 1.5- to 2-Feet Below Ground Surface

Unconfirmed Anomaly 2- to 2.5-Feet Below Ground Surface

Confirmed 4" Diameter Steel Pipe 1-to 1.5-Feet Below Ground Surface

Confirmed Concrete 3- to 3.5-Feet Below Ground Surface

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

C O

M M

C O

M M

C O

M M

C O

M M

C O

M M

COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM

COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM

COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMM

COMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMM

COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM

COMM

COMM

M

M

M

COMM

COMM

COMM

E

E E

E E

E E E

E E

E E

E

E E

E

E

E

E

C I

C I

D D

D D

S

SS

S

W W

W W

W

W W W W W W W WW W

W W W W W W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W

W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W

AREA 1

Pothole 1 Pothole 2

AREA 2

Fi le na m e:

C

:\U se rs \jr s\ C

AD

G ro up

D ro pb ox

\J D riv e\

_S

EA

\1

0\

1\

-0

E xp lo ra tio ns .d ou t:

Fi gu e:

6-

-2 in : J

R S

GROUND PENETRATING RADAR

DATA INTERPRETATION

Installation Entry Control Facility Atlantic City ANGB

Atlantic County, New Jersey

June 2023 109610-001

FIG. 3

B-1 Boring Designation and Approximate Location

LEGEND

0 80 160

Scale in Feet

NOTE

Figure adapted from "Sheet COA 1" of 177 FW

INSTALLATION ENTRY CONTROL FACILITY,

AQRC169009, Atlantic City AMGB, New Jersey, dated 12/30/2022, AT22EC_C-AF01.dwg, AT22EC_C-AF01-Base GIS.dwg, , AT22EC_C-UP01_Utilities-GIS, and AT22EC_V-SV01,dwg, received 6/13/2023.

Pothole 1 Pothole Designation and Approximate Location

El ev at io n in

F ee t

A (North)

A' (South)

Existing Ground Surface

(Proj. 31.5' E)

05-03-23

B-2

(Proj. 1.5' E)

05-03-23

B-3

(Proj. 123' E)

05-03-23

B-4

(Proj. 114.5' E)

05-03-23

B-5

GROUND PENETRATING RADAR

AREA 1

GROUND PENETRATING RADAR

AREA 2

05-03-23

B-6 (Proj. 85' W)

Fi le na m e:

C

:\U se rs \jr s\ C

AD

G ro up

D ro pb ox

\J D riv e\

_S

EA

\1

0\

1\

-0

E xp lo ra tio ns .d ou t:

Fi gu e:

6-

-2 in : J

R S

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE

PROFILE A-A'

Installation Entry Control Facility Atlantic City ANGB

Atlantic County, New Jersey

June 2023 109610-001

FIG. 4

0 50 100

Horizontal Scale in Feet

NOTE

Ground surface adapted from AT22EC_V-SV01,dwg, received 6/13/2023.

0 25 50

Vertical Scale in Feet

Vertical Exaggeration = 2x

B-2

05-08-13

(Proj. 31.5' E)

USCS Symbol

Water Level at Time of Drilling

LEGEND

Boring Designation Projected Distance

Standard Penetration Test Blows/Foot

Approximate Geologic Contact

Bottom of Boring Date Completed

GEOLOGIC EXPLANATION

Fill

Holocene Beach Sand

-0

F ig . 5

.x ls m

/1 6/

FIG. 5

Ju ne

Li m it St at e

Sl id in g

Sh ea r Pa ss iv e Pr es s.

B ea rin g

C ap ac ity

Se rv ic e

St re ng th

Ex tre m e

Ev en t

N /A 2.

1.

N /A 2.

1.

1.

3.

1.

N O

TE

S

1.

ps f -p ou nd s pe r s qu ar e fo ot ; p cf po un ds p er c ub ic fo ot

; k sf ki ps p er s qu ar e fo ot (1 k ip po un ds

W e re co m m en d us in g th e fo llo w in g fa ct or s of s af et y (F

S) fo r f oo tin g de si gn ; t he p lo tte d be ar in g ca pa ci tie s us e th e be ar in g

FS

v al ue s.

Th e be ar in g ca pa ci tie s ar e ba se d on a s oi l f ric tio n an gl e of de gr ee s, a s oi l c oh es io n of p sf

, a to ta l u ni t w ei gh t o f 1 pc f, a Po is so n' s ra tio o f 0

.3 , a nd a s oi l e la st ic m od ul us o f 5 k sf

W e as su m ed th at th e bo tto m o f t he fo ot in g w as fe et be lo w th e gr ou nd s ur fa ce

2. 3.

In st al la tio n

En try

C on tro l F ac ilit y At la nt ic C ity A

N G

B At la nt ic C ou nt y, N ew J er se y B

EA

R

IN

G

C

AP

AC

IT

Y

VE

R

SU

S

FO

O

TI

N G

W

ID

TH

SQ

U

AR

E

FO

O

TI

N G

, L /B

-0

FI

G

. 5

SH

AN

N

O N

W

IL

SO

N , I

N C

Ge ote ch nic al an d E nv iro nm en tal C on su lta nts

05101520253035

Allowable Bearing Capacity (ksf)

Fo ot in g w id th , B

(f ee t)

Se rv ic e

Lo ad

C ap ac ity fo r 0

.5 -in ch s et tle m en t Se rv ic e Lo ad C ap ac ity fo r 1 -in ch s et tle m en t St re ng th C ap ac ity Ex tre m e Ev en t C ap ac ity

-0

F ig . 6

.x ls m

/1 6/

In st al la tio n

En try

C on tro l F ac ilit y At la nt ic C ity A

N G

B At la nt ic C ou nt y, N ew J er se y B

EA

R

IN

G

C

AP

AC

IT

Y

VE

R

SU

S

FO

O

TI

N G

W

ID

TH

ST

R

IP

F O

O

TI

N G

, L /B

-0

FI

G

. 6

N O

TE

S

1.

ps f -p ou nd s pe r s qu ar e fo ot ; p cf po un ds p er c ub ic fo ot

; k sf ki ps p er s qu ar e fo ot (1 k ip po un ds

W e re co m m en d us in g th e fo llo w in g fa ct or s of s af et y (F

S) fo r f oo tin g de si gn ; t he p lo tte d be ar in g ca pa ci tie s us e th e be ar in g

FS

v al ue s.

Th e be ar in g ca pa ci tie s ar e ba se d on a s oi l f ric tio n an gl e of de gr ee s, a s oi l c oh es io n of p sf

, a to ta l u ni t w ei gh t o f 1 pc f, a Po is so n' s ra tio o f 0

.3 , a nd a s oi l e la st ic m od ul us o f 5 k sf

W e as su m ed th at th e bo tto m o f t he fo ot in g w as fe et be lo w th e gr ou nd s ur fa ce

2. 3.

FIG. 6

Ju ne

Li m it St at e

Sl id in g

Sh ea r Pa ss iv e Pr es s.

B ea rin g

C ap ac ity

Se rv ic e

St re ng th

Ex tre m e

Ev en t

N /A 2.

1.

N /A 2.

1.

1.

3.

1.

SH

AN

N O

N

W

IL

SO

N

, I N

C

Ge ote ch nic al an d E nv iro nm en tal

C on su lta nts

051015202530354045

Allowable Bearing Capacity (ksf)

Fo ot in g w id th , B

(f ee t)

Se rv ic e

Lo ad

C ap ac ity fo r 0

.5 -in ch s et tle m en t Se rv ic e Lo ad C ap ac ity fo r 1 -in ch s et tle m en t St re ng th C ap ac ity Ex tre m e Ev en t C ap ac ity

109610-001 July 10, 2023 A-i

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : F

IE

LD

E

XP

LO

RA

TI

ON

A

ND

L

AB

OR

AT

OR

Y

TE

ST

IN

G

DA

TA

Appendix A: Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Data

Appendix A

Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Data

CONTENTS

Figure A-1: Soil Description and Log Key

Figure A-2: Log of Boring B-1

Figure A-3: Log of Boring B-2

Figure A-4: Log of Boring…