Attachment_1_-_FA4418-17-R-0020_-_Specifications.pdf

SPECIFICATION

CES RENOVATION,

WS BLDG. 909

AT

JOINT BASE CHARLESTON

WEAPONS STATION, SOUTH CAROLINA

PROJECT No.: DKGV 11-2127

SUBMITTAL DATE: 28 February, 2017

ARCHITECTURE / PLANNING / INTERIOR DESIGN

493 King Street, Suite 100 Charleston, South Carolina 29403

Telephone: 843.577.6377 / Fax: 843.722.1768 Internet: www.glickboehmarchitecture.com

GBA Project No.: 1521

1179187112C Typewritten Text Solicitation FA4418-17-R-0020 Attachment 1

Project Design Team

Architect: Glick/Boehm & Associates, Inc.

493 King Street, Suite 100 Charleston, South Carolina 29403 843.577.6377

Mechanical / Plumbing / DWG Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Electrical Consultant: 1009 Anna Knapp Blvd., Suite 202 Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 843.849.1141

Civil Consultant / Forsberg Engineering Landscape Consultant: 1587 Savannah Hwy, Suite B Charleston, South Carolina 29407

843. 571.2622

Structural Consultant: ADC Engineering 1226 Yeamans Hall Road Hanahan, South Carolina 29406 843.566.0161

Environmental/Geotech: S&ME, Inc.

620 Wando Park Blvd.

Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 843.884.0005

DKGV 11-2127 CES Renovation, WS Bldg 909

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 01 15 LIST OF DRAWINGS

00 31 26 INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO PROPOSERS

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 11 00 JBCGS SUMMARY OF WORK

01 14 00 JBCGS WORK RESTRICTIONS

01 30 00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

01 32 16.00 20 JBCGS PROJECT SCHEDULE AND PROGRESS DOCUMENTATION

01 33 00 JBCGS SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 35 26 JBCGS GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

01 42 00 SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS

01 45 00 JBCGS QUALITY CONTROL FOR MINOR CONSTRUCTION

01 45 35 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 50 10 JBCGS ENVIRONMENTAL

01 54 00 JBCGS GREEN PROCUREMENT

01 57 20 JBCGS WASTE MANAGEMENT

01 57 50 JBCGS TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS

01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 41 00 DEMOLITION

02 41 13 SELECTIVE SITE DEMOLITION

02 82 16.00 20 ENGINEERING CONTROL OF ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS

DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE

03 15 00.00 10 CONCRETE ACCESSORIES

03 20 00.00 10 CONCRETE REINFORCING

03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

DIVISION 04 - MASONRY

04 20 00 MASONRY

DIVISION 05 - METALS

05 05 23 WELDING, STRUCTURAL

05 12 00 STRUCTURAL STEEL

05 30 00 STEEL DECKS

05 50 13 MISCELLANEOUS METAL FABRICATIONS

05 51 00 METAL STAIRS

05 52 00 METAL RAILINGS

DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

06 10 00 ROUGH CARPENTRY

06 20 00 FINISH CARPENTRY

06 41 16.00 10 PLASTIC-LAMINATE-CLAD ARCHITECTURAL CABINETS

06 61 16 SOLID SURFACING FABRICATIONS

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

07 17 00 BENTONITE WATERPROOFING

07 21 19 CLOSED CELL SPRAYED FOAM INSULATION

07 22 00 ROOF AND DECK INSULATION

07 25 00 WEATHER BARRIERS

07 41 13 METAL ROOF PANELS

07 42 13 METAL WALL PANELS

07 52 00 MODIFIED BITUMINOUS MEMBRANE ROOFING

07 60 00 FLASHING AND SHEET METAL

07 92 00 JOINT SEALANTS

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

08 11 13 STEEL DOORS AND FRAMES

08 14 00 WOOD DOORS

08 39 54 BLAST RESISTANT DOORS

08 43 13 BLAST RESISTANT ALUMINUM-FRAMED ENTRANCES AND STOREFRONTS

08 71 00 DOOR HARDWARE

08 81 00 GLAZING

08 91 00 METAL WALL LOUVERS

DIVISION 09 - FINISHES

09 22 00 SUPPORTS FOR PLASTER AND GYPSUM BOARD

09 24 23 STUCCO

09 29 00 GYPSUM BOARD

09 30 10 CERAMIC TILING

09 51 00 ACOUSTICAL CEILINGS

09 65 00 RESILIENT FLOORING

09 68 00 CARPET

09 90 00 PAINTS

DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES

10 14 00.10 EXTERIOR SIGNAGE

10 14 00.20 INTERIOR SIGNAGE

10 21 13 TOILET COMPARTMENTS

10 28 13 TOILET ACCESSORIES

10 44 16 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS

DIVISION 12 - FURNISHINGS

12 21 00 WINDOW BLINDS

DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING EQUIPMENT

14 24 23 HYDRAULIC PASSENGER ELEVATORS

DIVISION 21 - FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 13 13.00 20 WET PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, FIRE PROTECTION

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

22 00 00 PLUMBING, GENERAL PURPOSE

22 14 29.00 40 SUMP PUMPS

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

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2

23 00 00 AIR SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION, VENTILATION, AND EXHAUST SYSTEMS

23 05 48.00 40 VIBRATION AND SEISMIC CONTROLS FOR HVAC PIPING AND

EQUIPMENT

23 05 93 TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR HVAC

23 07 00 THERMAL INSULATION FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

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

CONTROL SYSTEMS

23 64 10 WATER CHILLERS, VAPOR COMPRESSION TYPE

23 64 26 CHILLED, CHILLED-HOT, AND CONDENSER WATER PIPING SYSTEMS

23 82 02.00 10 UNITARY HEATING AND COOLING EQUIPMENT

23 82 46.00 40 ELECTRIC UNIT HEATERS

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

26 00 00.00 20 BASIC ELECTRICAL MATERIALS AND METHODS

26 05 48.00 10 SEISMIC PROTECTION FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT

26 08 00 APPARATUS INSPECTION AND TESTING

26 09 23.00 40 LIGHTING CONTROL DEVICES

26 12 19.00 40 PAD-MOUNTED, LIQUID-FILLED, MEDIUM-VOLTAGE TRANSFORMERS

26 18 23.00 40 MEDIUM-VOLTAGE SURGE ARRESTERS

26 20 00 INTERIOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

26 24 16.00 40 PANELBOARDS

26 27 13.10 30 ELECTRIC METERS

26 41 00 LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEM

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 05 26.00 40 GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 31 76 FIRE DETECTION AND ALARM SYSTEM, ADDRESSABLE

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

31 00 00 EARTHWORK

31 32 11 SOIL SURFACE EROSION CONTROL

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 05 33 LANDSCAPE ESTABLISHMENT

32 10 00 BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT AND BASE COURSE SYSTEM

32 16 13 CONCRETE SIDEWALKS AND CURBS AND GUTTERS

32 17 24.00 10 PAVEMENT MARKINGS

32 92 23 SODDING

32 93 00 EXTERIOR PLANTS

DIVISION 33 - UTILITIES

33 11 00 WATER DISTRIBUTION

33 30 00 SANITARY SEWERS

33 71 01.00 40 OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION

33 71 02 UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION

33 77 36.00 40 MEDIUM-VOLTAGE UTILITY FUSES

-- End of Project Table of Contents --

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4

DOCUMENT 00 01 15

LIST OF DRAWINGS

02/11

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SUMMARY

This section lists the drawings for the project pursuant to contract clause "DFARS 252.236-7001, Contract Drawings, Maps and Specifications."

1.2 CONTRACT DRAWINGS

Contract drawings are as follows:

GENERAL

1 of 145 G001 COVER SHEET 2 of 145 G100 MAPS, SHEET INDEX, & NOTES 3 of 145 G110 PROJECT / CODE INFORMATION 4 of 145 G111 FIRST FLOOR CODE PLAN 5 of 145 G112 SECOND FLOOR CODE PLAN

CIVIL

6 of 145 C101 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 7 of 145 C102 EROSION CONTROL PLAN 8 of 145 C103 DEMOLITION PLAN 9 of 145 C104 SITE PLAN 10 of 145 C105 GRADING PLAN 11 of 145 C106 UTILITY PLAN 12 of 145 C501 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS 13 of 145 C502 CIVIL SITE DETAILS 14 of 145 C503 CIVIL SITE DETAILS

LANDSCAPE

15 of 145 L101 LANDSCAPE PLAN 16 of 145 L102 PLANT DETAILS/NOTES

STRUCTURAL

17 of 145 S001 GENERAL NOTES 18 of 145 S101 FOUNDATION PLAN 19 of 145 S110 FIRST FLOOR SLAB PLAN 20 of 145 S111 FIRST FLOOR WALL PLAN 21 of 145 S112 FIRST FLOOR STRUCTURAL STEEL OPENING PLAN 22 of 145 S121 SECOND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN 23 of 145 S122 SECOND FLOOR WALL PLAN 24 of 145 S123 HIGH ROOF FRAMING PLAN 25 of 145 S501 TYPICAL COLD FORMED METAL STUD WALL FRAMING DETAILS 26 of 145 S502 TYPICAL MASONRY DETAILS 27 of 145 S503 TYPICAL MASONRY DETAILS 28 of 145 S504 TYPICAL CONCRETE DETAILS 29 of 145 S505 TYPICAL CONCRETE DETAILS 30 of 145 S506 TYPICAL STEEL DETAILS 31 of 145 S507 TYPICAL STEEL DETAILS 32 of 145 S601 DETAILS 33 of 145 S602 DETAILS 34 of 145 S603 ROOF DETAILS

DOCUMENT 00 01 15 Page 1

35 of 145 S604 DETAILS 36 of 145 S605 DETAILS

ARCHITECTURAL EXISTING

37 of 145 AE101 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN 38 of 145 AE102 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN 39 of 145 AE120 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 40 of 145 AE121 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 41 of 145 AE130 EXISTING ROOF PLAN 42 of 145 AE200 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 43 of 145 AE300 EXISTING BUILDING SECTIONS

ARCHITECTURAL DEMOLITION

44 of 145 AD101 DEMOLITION FIRST FLOOR PLAN 45 of 145 AD102 DEMOLITION SECOND FLOOR PLAN 46 of 145 AD120 DEMOLITION FIRST FLOOR REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 47 of 145 AD121 DEMOLITION SECOND FLOOR REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 48 of 145 AD130 DEMOLITION ROOF PLAN 49 of 145 AD200 DEMOLITION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 50 of 145 AD310 DEMOLITION WALL SECTIONS

ARCHITECTURAL

51 of 145 A000 GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION 52 of 145 A101 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 53 of 145 A101A FIRST FLOOR PLAN - AREA A/B 54 of 145 A101B FIRST FLOOR PLAN - AREA C 55 of 145 A101C FIRST FLOOR PLAN - AREA D 56 of 145 A102 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 57 of 145 A102A SECOND FLOOR PLAN - AREA A/B 58 of 145 A111 FIRST FLOOR DIMENSION PLAN 59 of 145 A112 SECOND FLOOR DIMENSION PLAN 60 of 145 A120 FIRST FLOOR REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 61 of 145 A121 SECOND FLOOR REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 62 of 145 A130 ROOF PLAN 63 of 145 A141 FIRST FLOOR FINISH PLAN 64 of 145 A142 SECOND FLOOR FINISH PLAN 65 of 145 A150 FIRST FLOOR FURNITURE PLAN 66 of 145 A151 SECOND FLOOR FURNITURE PLAN 67 of 145 A200 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 68 of 145 A210 ENLARGED ELEVATIONS 69 of 145 A300 BUILDING SECTIONS 70 of 145 A310 WALL SECTIONS 71 of 145 A311 WALL SECTIONS 72 of 145 A312 WALL SECTIONS 73 of 145 A313 WALL SECTIONS 74 of 145 A314 WALL SECTIONS 75 of 145 A315 WALL SECTIONS 76 of 145 A400 ENLARGED PLANS / ELEVATIONS - RESTROOMS 77 of 145 A401 ENLARGED PLANS / ELEVATIONS - BREAK ROOMS 78 of 145 A420 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 79 of 145 A500 TYPICAL MOUNTING HEIGHT DETAILS 80 of 145 A501 WALL TYPES AND TYPICAL DETAILS 81 of 145 A510 EXTERIOR WALL PLAN DETAILS 82 of 145 A511 EXTERIOR WALL PLAN DETAILS 83 of 145 A520 WALL SECTION DETAILS 84 of 145 A521 WALL SECTION DETAILS 85 of 145 A522 WALL SECTION DETAILS 86 of 145 A550 ROOFING DETAILS 87 of 145 A551 ROOFING DETAILS

DOCUMENT 00 01 15 Page 2

88 of 145 A552 ROOFING DETAILS 89 of 145 A560 CEILING DETAILS 90 of 145 A600 DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAILS 91 of 145 A610 FRAME DETAILS 92 of 145 A611 WINDOW INSTALLATION 93 of 145 A630 INTERIOR SIGNAGE SCHEDULE AND DETAILS 94 of 145 A631 INTERIOR SIGNAGE PLANS

95 of 145 A800 ENLARGED PLANS / SECTIONS - STAIR 1 96 of 145 A801 ENLARGED PLANS - STAIR 2 97 of 145 A802 STAIR SECTIONS - STAIR 2 98 of 145 A810 ENLARGED PLANS / SECTIONS - ELEVATOR 99 of 145 A811 ELEVATOR SECTIONS

FIRE PROTECTION

100 of 145 FP001 FIRE PROTECTION NOTES & LEGENDS 101 of 145 FP101 FIRST FLOOR FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 102 of 145 FP201 SECOND FLOOR FIRE PROTECTION PLAN

PLUMBING

103 of 145 P001 PLUMBING NOTES & LEGENDS 104 of 145 P002 PLUMBING DETAILS 105 of 145 P050 FIRST FLOOR PLUMBING DEMOLITION PLAN 106 of 145 P051 SECOND FLOOR PLUMBING DEMOLITION PLAN 107 of 145 P101 FIRST FLOOR DOMESTIC WATER PLAN 108 of 145 P102 FIRST FLOOR SANITARY PLAN 109 of 145 P201 SECOND FLOOR DOMESTIC WATER PLAN 110 of 145 P202 SECOND FLOOR SANITARY PLAN

MECHANICAL

111 of 145 M001 HVAC - NOTES & LEGENDS 112 of 145 M002 HVAC SCHEDULES 113 of 145 M003 HVAC DETAILS 114 of 145 M004 HVAC DETAILS 115 of 145 M005 MECHANICAL SCHEMATICS 116 of 145 MOO6 HVAC SCHEMATICS 117 of 145 M050 FIRST FLOOR MECHANICAL DEMOLITION PLAN 118 of 145 M051 SECOND FLOOR MECHANICAL DEMOLITION PLAN 119 of 145 M101 FIRST FLOOR HVAC PLAN 120 of 145 M102 FIRST FLOOR AIR DISTRIBUTION PLAN 121 of 145 M201 SECOND FLOOR HVAC PLAN 122 of 145 M202 SECOND FLOOR AIR DISTRIBUTION PLAN

ELECTRICAL

123 of 145 E001 ELECTRICAL NOTES & LEGENDS 124 of 145 E002 ELECTRICAL SCHEDULES & LEGENDS 125 of 145 E003 ELECTRICAL DETAILS 126 of 145 E004 LIGHTNING PROTECTION DETAILS 127 of 145 E005 TELECOM DETAILS AND ENLARGED PLANS 128 of 145 E006 ELECTRICAL SERVICE DETAILS 129 of 145 E007 ELECTRICAL SERVICE DETAILS

130 of 145 E010 ELECTRICAL ONE-LINE DIAGRAMS 131 of 145 E020 ELECTRICAL PANEL SCHEDULES 132 of 145 E050 FIRST FLOOR ELECTRICAL DEMOLITION PLAN 133 of 145 E051 SECOND FLOOR ELECTRICAL DEMOLITION PLAN 134 of 145 E052 EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOS

135 OF 145 E060 SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN

DOCUMENT 00 01 15 Page 3

136 of 145 E100 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN 137 of 145 E101 FIRST FLOOR POWER & TELECOM PLAN 138 of 145 E102 SECOND FLOOR POWER & TELECOM PLAN 139 of 145 E201 FIRST FLOOR LIGHTING PLAN 140 of 145 E201A FIRST FLOOR LIGHTING CALCULATIONS 141 of 145 E202 SECOND FLOOR LIGHTING PLAN 142 of 145 E202A SECOND FLOOR LIGHTING CALCULATIONS 143 of 145 E301 FIRST FLOOR SYSTEMS PLAN 144 of 145 E302 SECOND FLOOR SYSTEMS PLAN 145 of 145 E400 LIGHTNING PROTECTION PLAN

-- End of Document --

DOCUMENT 00 01 15 Page 4

SECTION 00 31 26

INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO PROPOSERS

03/01

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SUMMARY

These documents furnish the following physical data as attachments.

a. Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Assessment Report CES Renovation, WS 909, Joint Base Charleston - Naval Weapons Station, dated October 21, 2015

b. Geotechnical Exploration, Naval Weapons Station Charleston, Building 909

Renovation, Goose Creek, SC, dated November 6, 2015.

1.2 PROPOSERS RESPONSIBILITY

Data and information furnished in the attached document produced by S&ME, Mount Pleasant, SC is for the Proposer's information. The Government shall not be responsible for any interpretation of, or conclusion drawn from, the data or information by the Proposer.

PART 2 NOT USED

PART 3 NOT USED

-- End of Section --

DOCUMENT 00 31 26 Page 1

S&ME asbestos report

A D

C E n g in e e ri n g I n c

Y e a m a n s H a ll

R d

H a n a h a n S

C

A sb es to s A n a ly si s S u m m a ry

C li e n t J o b

C li e n t N a m e

D a te A n a ly ze d

D a te R e ce iv e d

/1

/2

/1

/2

W S

B ld g

D S o u th e rn

P in e B o u le v a rd

C h a rl o tt e

N C

-9

-1

F a x

-5

-4

N V

L A

P L a b

C o d e

-0

P O

L A

R

IZ

E D

L

IG

H T

M

IC

R O

S C

O P

Y P e rf o rm e d b y E

P A

/R

-9

/1

M e th o d

N o n -A sb es to s

F ib ro u s N o n

-F ib ro u s

L a b I

D

S a m p le

A p p e a ra n c e

/T y p e

J o b N u m b er

-0

-6

A sb e st o s

C o m m e n ts

/T y p e

/T y p e

G L A

S S

O T

H E

R -1

A R

B

L A

C K

IB

R

O U

S N

D

A S

S

E

L L

U L

O S

E

H

E R

-1

B

R

B L

A

R O

U S

N D

A

S

L L

U L

O S

E

H

E R

-1

B

R

B L

A

R O

U S

N D

A

S

L L

U L

O S

E

H

E R

-1

C

R

B L

A

R O

U S

N D

P a g e o f

F o r h e te ro g en eo u s sa m p le s ea si ly s ep a r a te d i n to s u b sa m p le s, a n d f o r la y er ed s a m p le s, e a ch c o m p o n en t is a n a ly ze d s e p a r a te ly

N D

N o n e D et ec te d

A sb es to s

N o t

P r es e n t In

R ep r es e n ta ti v e

S a m p le

R

C F

R ef r a c to r y C er a m ic F ib r) h e re su lt s re la te o n ly t o t h e it e m s te st ed e sa m p le m a y n o t b e f u ll y r ep r es e n ta ti v e o f th e l a rg er m a te ri a l in q u e st io n

T h is s h ee t m a y n o t b e r ep r o d u c ed e x c ep t w it h p e rm is si o n f ro m S

M E

In c

T h is r ep o rt m y n o t b e u se d t o c la im p r o d u ct e n d o rs e m en t b y N

V L

A P o r a n y a g en c y o f th e U

.S

G o v e rn m en t.

lt h o u g h

P o la ri ze d L ig h t M ic ro sc o p y

P L

M /D is p e rs io n

S ta in in g

(M et h o d

E P

A

/R

-9 /1 is t h e s p ec if ie d m et h o d f o r a n a ly si s o f b u lk m a te ri a l sa m p le s fo r a sb es to s u n d e r th e

E P

A A sb es to s

H a za r d

E m e rg en cy

R e sp o n se A ct th er e h a v e b ee n r ep o rt s th a t th is m et h o d m a y n o t i d e n ti fy a sb e st o s w h en f ib er s iz es a re e x tr em el y s m a ll o r i f th ey a re b o u n d i n a r es in o u s m a te ri l.

u ch m a te ri a ls i n c lu d fl o r ti le m a st ic a n d a sp h a lt ic r o o fi n g

C u rr en tl y r ea n a ly si s b y T r a n sm is si o n

E le ct r o n

M ic ro sc o p y

T E

M to v er if y r es u lt s o f o r

N o n e D et e ct ed f o r th se te ri a ls i s r ec o m m e n d ed

A n a ly ze d b y

J a n e W a si le w sk i

J n e W a si le w sk i

L a b o ra to ry

M a n a g er A d d it io n a l C o m m en ts

N n -A sb es to s

F ib ro u s N o n

-F ib ro u s

L a b I

D

S a m p le

A p p e a ra n c e

/T y p e

J o b N u m b er

-0

-6

A sb e st o s

C o m m e n ts

/T y p e

/T y p

Y

N T

H E

T

IC

H E

R -1

A F

B

L A

R

O U

S N

D

N

T H

E T

IC

H E

R

-1

B F

B

L A

R

O U

S N

D

N

T H

E T

IC

H E

R

-1

B F

B

L A

R

O U

S N

D

P a g e o f

F o r h e te ro g en eo u s sa m p le s ea si ly s ep a r a te d i n to s u b sa m p le s, a n d f o r la y er ed s a m p le s, e a ch c o m p o n en t is a n a ly ze d s e p a r a te ly

N D

N o n e D et ec te d

A sb es to s

N o t

P r es e n t In

R ep r es e n ta ti v e

S a m p le

R

C F

R ef r a c to r y C er a m ic F ib r) e re su lt s re la te o n ly t o t h e it e m s te st ed e sa m p le m a y n o t b e f u ll y r ep r es e n ta ti v e o f th e l a rg er m a te ri a l in q u e st io n

T h is s h ee t m a y n o t b e r ep r o d u c ed e x c ep t w it h p e rm is si o n f ro m S

M E

In c

T h is r ep rt y n o t b e u se d t o c la im p r o d u ct e n d o rs e m en t b y N

V L

A P o r a n y a g en c y o f th e U

.S

G o v e rn m en t.

lt h o u g h

P o la ri ze d L ig h t M ic ro sc o p y

P L

M /D is p e rs io n

S ta in in g

(M et h o d

E P

A

/R

-9 /1 is t h e s p ec if ie d m et h o d f o r a n a ly si s o f b u lk m a te ri a l sa m p le s fo r a sb es to s u n d e r th e

E P

A A sb es to s

H a za r d

E m e rg en cy

R e sp o n se A ct th er e h a v e b ee n r ep o rt s th a t th is m et h o d m a y n o t i d e n ti fy a sb e st o s w h en f ib er s iz es a re e x tr em el y s m a ll o r i f th ey a re b o u n d i n a r es in o u s m a te ri l.

u ch m a te ri a ls i n c lu d fl o r ti le m a st ic a n d a sp h a lt ic r o o fi n g

C u rr en tl y r ea n a ly si s b y T r a n sm is si o n

E le ct r o n

M ic ro sc o p y

T E

M to v er if y r es u lt s o f o r

N o n e D et e ct ed f o r th se te ri a ls i s r ec o m m e n d ed

A n a ly ze d b y

J a n e W a si le w sk i

J n e W a si le w sk i

L a b o ra to ry

M a n a g er A d d it io n a l C o m m en ts

Geotechnical Exploration

Naval Weapons Station Charleston

Building 909 Renovation

Goose Creek, South Carolina

S&ME Project No. 1413-15-117

Prepared for:

Glick Boehm & Associates, Inc.

493 King Street, Suite 100

Charleston, South Carolina 29403

Prepared by:

S&ME, Inc.

620 Wando Park Boulevard

Mt Pleasant, SC 29464

November 6, 2015

S&ME, Inc. | 620 Wando Park Boulevard | Mt Pleasant, SC 29464 | p 843.884.0005 | f 843.881.6149 | www.smeinc.com

November 6, 2015

Glick Boehm & Associates, Inc.

493 King Street, Suite 100

Charleston, South Carolina 29403

Attention: Mr. Gary J. Boehm, AIA, CSI, LEED AP

Reference: Geotechnical Exploration

Building 909 Renovation

Naval Weapons Station Charleston

Dear Mr. Boehm:

We have completed our geotechnical exploration for the proposed renovation of Building 909 at Naval

Weapons Station (NWS) Charleston in Goose Creek, South Carolina. Our services were performed pursuant to S&ME Proposal No. 14-1500488 dated June 23, 2015. The purpose of our services was to explore the site subsurface conditions, evaluate those conditions, perform seismic analysis for the proposed renovation, and provide recommendations for support of the minor auxiliary structures. This report presents our understanding of the project, the site and subsurface conditions encountered, and our conclusions and recommendations.

Project Information

We understand the existing approximately 13,000 sq-ft Building 909 at the NWS will be renovated to create a consolidated Civil Engineering Squadron office. The renovation will be done in accordance with the applicable ASCE document for seismic considerations. Additional improvements may include minor elements such as a porte cochére. The design of these improvements is preliminary at this time; however, we assume that they will be relatively lightly loaded.

Project information is based on the Design Work Order provided by Mr. Rob Still of ADC Engineering to

Ms. Tracey Turner of our firm in an email dated June 22, 2015.

Methods of Exploration

Our exploration included a site reconnaissance by a geotechnical engineer and the performance of two cone penetrometer test (CPT) and one seismic cone penetrometer test (SCPT) soundings. The soundings were performed around the perimeter of the existing building to depths from approximately 75 to 100 ft below the existing ground surface.

In a CPT sounding (ASTM D 5778), an electronically instrumented cone penetrometer is hydraulically pushed through the soil to measure point stress, pore water pressure, and sleeve friction. The CPT data is

Building 909 Renovation

Naval Weapons Station Charleston

November 6, 2015 2 used to determine soil stratigraphy and to estimate soil parameters such as preconsolidation stress, friction angle, and undrained shear strength. Shear wave velocity measurement were taken in sounding

C-2 at 1-m intervals.

The test locations were established in the field by S&ME personnel measuring distances and estimating right angles from existing site features. The approximate test locations are shown on the Test Location

Plan in the appendix. A more detailed description of our field testing procedures, the SCPT and CPT Logs are also included in the appendix.

Site And Subsurface Conditions

Site Conditions

The site is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Red Bank Road and W. Old Tom Road on the Naval Weapons Station in Goose Creek, South Carolina. The site is bordered by W. Old Tom Road to the south, Red Bank road to the east, existing parking and an open area to the west, and a moderately wooded area to the north. At the time of our exploration, the site was developed with a single-story, masonry structure (Building 909). The area around the building was open and covered in low grasses and asphalt pavement with the existing building in the center of the site and with a few trees scattered about the site.

Topographic information was not provided; however, the site appeared to be relatively level at the time of our exploration with a slight mound on the north side (back) of the building.

Subsurface Conditions

Details of the subsurface conditions encountered by the soundings and borings are shown on the logs in the Appendix. These logs represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based upon field data.

Stratification lines on the logs represent approximate boundaries between soil types1; however, the actual transition may be gradual. The general subsurface conditions and their pertinent characteristics are discussed in the following paragraphs.

The exploration initially encountered relatively clean sand with varying amounts of silt and clay to a depth of approximately 27 ft below the existing ground surface. A 4 to 7-ft thick soft clay layer was encountered within the upper 10 ft. Beneath the sand, the exploration generally encountered soft to stiff clay to the top of the Cooper Marl2. Soundings C-2 and C-3 encountered an approximately 7-ft thick sand layer at a depth of about 40 ft within the stiff clay. The marl was encountered at depths of approximately 67 ft on

1 Soil Behavior Type is calculated based on empirical correlations with tip resistance, sleeve friction, and pore pressure. A CPT may define a soil based on its behavior as one type while its grain size and plasticity, the traditional basis for soil classification, may define it as a different type.

2 The Cooper Marl, locally referred to as “marl”, is a relatively incompressible, thick ( 200 ft) stratum which underlies the area, and is typically the bearing stratum for deep foundations in Charleston.

Naval Weapons Station Charleston

November 6, 2015 3 the east side of the building to 79 on the west side and continued until the deepest explored depth of approximately 100 ft below the existing ground surface.

Subsurface Water

Subsurface water was measured upon completion of the soundings at depths of approximately 6 to 9 ft below the existing ground surface. Subsurface water levels at the sites will fluctuate during the year due to such things as seasonal and climatic variations and with construction activity in the area.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The exploration indicates the site is adaptable for the proposed construction. Our analysis indicates the sands at this site are liquefiable3, and liquefaction-induced settlements are possible. Low consistency soils were encountered in the upper 10 ft; however, the improvements are assumed to be relatively lightly loaded and do not induce large settlements. Building improvement foundations may be designed as conventional shallow foundations provided the risks associated with liquefaction are accepted or mitigated.

The following presents our geotechnical recommendations regarding site grading and structural support.

During review of these recommendations, it should be kept in mind that with any previously developed site, unexpected subsurface conditions will be encountered. These conditions could include such things as deeper fill deposits, buried debris, or remnants of previous development. These unexpected conditions can normally be handled during construction by field engineering.

Site Preparation

Site preparation in the new construction areas should begin with the removal of unsuitable surface materials. This should include removing pavements, clearing vegetation, stripping organic-laden topsoil, grubbing roots, and undercutting unsuitable surface soils. Utilities to be abandoned should be completely removed from improvement areas, and voids created should be cleaned and backfilled with well-compacted controlled fill.

The exposed subgrade should be evaluated by proofrolling with a heavily-loaded tandem-axle dump truck or similar rubber-tired equipment under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer. Areas that pump or rut excessively should be densified in place or stabilized as recommended by the Geotechnical

Engineer. Areas that cannot be proofrolled should be evaluated with probing, hand-auger borings, and dynamic cone penetration (DCP) testing. The site has been previously developed, so thorough proofrolling will be very important and some undercutting and replacement should be expected.

Controlled Fill

Controlled fill material should be cohesionless soil containing no more than 15% fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve) by weight and having a maximum dry density of at least 100 pcf as determined by a

3 Liquefaction, the loss of a soil’s shear strength due to the increase in porewater pressure resulting from seismic vibrations, is always a potential concern in coastal South Carolina.

Naval Weapons Station Charleston

November 6, 2015 4 laboratory modified Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 1557). The soil should be relatively free of organics, deleterious matter, and elongated or flat particles susceptible to degradation. All fill should be placed in uniform lifts of 10 in. or less (loose measure) and compacted to at least 95% of the modified

Proctor maximum dry density.

Fill placement should be observed by a qualified engineering technician working under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer. In addition to this visual evaluation, the technician should perform a sufficient number of in-place field density tests to confirm the contractor’s equipment and methods are capable of achieving the required degree of compaction.

Seismic Considerations

Site Class and Site Specific Seismic Response Analysis

We understand the existing structure will be evaluated to determine its compliance with existing seismic codes using the procedure in ASCE 31-03.

Based on the shear wave velocity measurements (average of 700 ft/s), a Seismic Site Class D designation is appropriate for design based on Section 3.5.2.3.1 of ASCE 31; however, our analysis indicates the sands at this site are liquefiable, therefore designating it a Seismic Site Class F. According to ASCE 31, any site with a Site Class F designation should be evaluated as a Site Class E. We performed a site-specific-seismic-response analysis to evaluate the response of the site soils for a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The computer program STRATA4 was used to perform the site response analysis. STRATA computes the response of a horizontally layered soil system subjected to a horizontal acceleration time history. Required input includes acceleration time histories and soil profiles (layer thicknesses, shear wave velocities, modulus reduction and damping curves). The soil profile was based on our interpretation of the sounding data, and the input acceleration time histories were synthetically generated using a United

States Geologic Survey (USGS) website. The synthetic time histories correspond to the ASCE 7-02 base motion hazard levels. The time histories were spectrally matched for the earthquake at spectral acceleration (Sa) frequencies of 5.0 Hz and 1.0 Hz.

The USGS web application generates six acceleration time histories at once. We used all six in our site response analysis and varied the depth of input (i.e., the thickness of the soil column above rock) and the soil properties (i.e., shear wave velocity, modulus and damping reduction curves). A ground surface response spectrum was computed for each model, and the site-specific-response spectrum was determined. For comparison, the ASCE 31 general-procedure-design-response spectrum for a Site Class E and the site-specific-design-response spectrum with ASCE 31 limitations are plotted in Figure 2 in the appendix.

Section 3.5.2.3.1 of ASCE 31 limits the amount of permissible reduction of the ASCE 31 general procedure design response accelerations and specifies the ASCE 31 short period spectral response acceleration (SDS) for a site-specific-response analysis. The limitations include a reduction of not more than 70% of the

4 STRATA is a one-dimensional, equivalent linear software package that estimates the response of a soil column to a vertically propagating shear wave (Kottke et al., 2013).

Naval Weapons Station Charleston

November 6, 2015 5 general-procedure spectrum and a SDS equal to two-thirds of the site-specific spectrum SDS. The following table presents the SDS accelerations and the design 1-second period spectral response accelerations (SD1) for the site-specific and general-procedures.

ASCE 31 Design Response Accelerations

Site-Specific Procedure General-Procedure Site Class E

Sds (g) Sd1 (g) Sds (g) Sd1 (g)

0.65 0.47 0.93 0.70

Liquefaction Analysis

A liquefaction analysis was performed based on the design earthquake prescribed by the 2012 edition of the International Building Code (IBC 2012) 5 and the simplified procedure as presented in Youd et al.

(2001). An age correction factor, which increases the liquefaction resistance of older sand deposits of the type that were encountered at this site, was applied. This analysis indicates the sand at this site have the potential to liquefy during the design seismic event.

To help evaluate the consequences of liquefaction, the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) was computed.

The LPI is an empirical tool used to evaluate the site liquefaction hazard and the potential for liquefaction-induced damages6. The LPI considers the factor of safety against liquefaction, the depth to the liquefiable soils, and the thickness of the liquefiable soils to compute an index that ranges from 0 to 100. An LPI of 0 means there is no risk of liquefaction; an LPI of 100 means the entire profile is expected to liquefy. The level of risk is generally defined as:

LPI < 5 – surface manifestation and liquefaction-induced damage not expected.

LPI ≤ 15 – moderate liquefaction with some surface manifestation possible.

LPI > 15 – severe liquefaction and foundation damage is likely.

The LPI for this site is between 15 and 18, which indicates the liquefaction risk is moderate to severe, surface manifestations are possible, and foundation damage is likely. Our analysis indicates free-field liquefaction-induced settlements on the order of 4 in. are possible.

Observations from past earthquakes are helpful to put the liquefaction risk in perspective. Post-earthquake reconnaissance observations indicate that structures can survive substantial liquefaction-induced settlement without suffering a collapse or catastrophic failure; however, the performance may be significantly compromised, and the damage may be such that the structure must be replaced.

5 The IBC design earthquake has a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. This is statistically equivalent to an event that occurs about once every 2,475 years. Our liquefaction analysis was based on an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.3 and ground surface acceleration of 0.91g.

6 Iwasaki et al. 1982, Toprak & Holzer (2003).

Naval Weapons Station Charleston

November 6, 2015 6

Considering the requirements within the IBC 2012 for a Seismic Design Category D and the performance of structures that survived with less stringent ductility and detailing requirements, we believe that a code-compliant structure constructed on this site would survive the predicted liquefaction and meet the collapse-prevention objectives of the building code, albeit with some associated cracking and distortion.

If the structure cannot be designed to accommodate the predicted settlements without collapse, the existing building will require underpinning with micropiles. We would be happy to provide micropile recommendations, if needed.

Section 1613.3.2 of the IBC 2012 classifies sites with the potential for liquefaction as Seismic Site Class F.

However, the IBC 2012 allows the design spectral response accelerations for a site to be determined without regard to liquefaction provided buildings have a fundamental period of less than or equal to 0.5 seconds and the risks of liquefaction are considered in design. The proposed building should meet this criteria; however, this must be confirmed by the Structural Engineer. The site should be considered as Site

Class F. Provided the above criteria are met, the design accelerations may be calculated on the basis of a

Site Class D assumption. The spectral response accelerations and site coefficients for the site are given below.

IBC 2012 Seismic Parameters

Site Class Ss S1 Fa Fv PGAM SDS SD1

F 1.36g 0.44g 1.00 1.56 0.910g 0.90g 0.46g

Shallow Foundation Recommendations

The proposed building may be supported with conventional shallow foundations bearing in suitable natural soils and well-compacted fill provided our site preparation, fill placement and compaction, and the liquefaction risks are accepted. A maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf may be used for sizing footings. The allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for transient loads.

Building footings should bear a minimum depth of 12 in. below finished exterior grades to develop the design bearing pressure. Wall and column footings should be a minimum of 18 and 24 in. wide, respectively. This recommendation is made to help prevent a "localized" or "punching" shear failure condition, which could exist with very narrow footings.

All foundation excavation bottoms must be evaluated by a representative of the Geotechnical Engineer prior to steel and concrete placement. This evaluation should include probing, hand-auger borings, and dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing. This evaluation will help determine if individual footings are directly underlain by suitable bearing material. Any loose material should be properly compacted or undercut and replaced with well-compacted controlled fill or crushed aggregate such as No. 57 stone. If practical, concrete placement should be completed the same day as the footing excavation. Slag is not recommended as backfill due to its potentially expansive nature. Existing fill soils are present, and the site has been previously developed. Therefore, footing evaluation will be very important and some undercutting should be expected.

Naval Weapons Station Charleston

November 6, 2015 7

Our analysis indicates, post-construction, static (i.e. not seismically-induced) settlement due to the assumed new improvements will be on the order of 1 in. Differential settlement is typically assumed to be about half of the total settlement. If actual structural loads will be greater than those assumed in this report or if new fill will be required for grading, we should be provided with this information so that we can reevaluate settlement. This is important because higher structural loads or additional fill will cause additional settlement.

Excavation

Subsurface water was encountered at depths of approximately 6 to 9 ft below the existing ground surface.

If subsurface water is encountered during excavation, the water level should be maintained at least 1 ft below excavations to help maintain bottom stability. Water can probably be controlled at the site by pumping from sumps located within the excavation. The effects of dewatering on nearby structures should be evaluated and are the responsibility of the designer of any dewatering system.

All excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, including OSHA (29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. The contractor is usually solely responsible for site safety. This information is provided only as a service, and under no circumstances should S&ME be assumed to be responsible for construction site safety.

Limitations of Report

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for specific application to this project. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon applicable standards of our practice in this geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.

The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based, in part, upon data obtained from our subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of subsurface variations will not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, then we should be given the opportunity to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed structures are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions modified or verified in writing.

We recommend that S&ME be retained to review the final design plans and specifications to confirm that earthwork and foundation recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented.

Naval Weapons Station Charleston

November 6, 2015 8

Closure

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, please call.

Sincerely, S&ME, Inc.

Alyson K. Yetman, E.I.T. Michael S. Ulmer, P.E.

Project Professional Principal Engineer / Project Manager

AKY/MSU/taj

Appendix

Test Location Plan (Figure 1)

Site Specific Acceleration Response Spectra (Figure 2)

CPT Sounding Logs

Field Testing Procedures

Figure

TEST LOCATION PLAN

NWS Charleston

CPT / Sounding Locations

Not to Scale

November 2015

Project No.

1413-15-117

This site plan provided by the client and aerial photograph was adapted by S&ME, Inc. The test locations are approximate. This plan should not be used for estimation of distances or quantities.

Test Location

C-1

C-2

C-3

Figure

Project No.: 1413-15-117 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years

NWS Building 909 Renovation

Goose Creek, South Carolina

Acceleration Response Spectra, 5% Damping

November Date:

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4

S p e c te ra l A c c e le ra ti o n g

Period (sec)

Final Design Site-Specific ARS SDS = 0.650g SD1 = 0.474g

Design Response Spectra with ASCE 31-03 / ASCE 7-02 Limitations NWS Building 909 Renovation Goose Creek, South Carolina

General Procedure ARS Site Class E SDS = 0.928g SD1 = 0.699g PGA = 0.371g

Sands-Clean Sand to Silty Sand

Silt Mixtures-Clay Silt to Silty Clay

Sands-Clean Sand to Silty Sand

Silt Mixtures-Clay Silt to Silty Clay

Electronic Filename: 1413-15-117_Glick-Boehm & Associates

Depth (ft)

Tip Resistence qt

(tsf) 40 80 120 160

Cone Size: 1.75 9 ft

SBTFr

MAI = 5

Sleeve Friction fs

(tsf)

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 20 40 60 u0

Pore Pressure u2

(tsf) 0 20 40 60

Friction Ratio Rf

2 4 6 8

Nov. 2, 2015

CPT Truck/A. Feix

Total Depth:

Termination Criteria:

Date:

Estimated Water Depth:

Rig/Operator:

S&ME Project No: 1413-15-117

NWS Building 909 North Charleston, South Carolina

C-1

75.0 ft Target Depth

C P

T R

E P

O R

T

S T

A N

D A

R D

S

B T

F R

3-

-1

_C P

T .G

P J

S

M E

.G D

T

1/ 3/

Depth (ft)

101 100

Equivalent N60

Cone Penetration Test C-1

Silt Mixtures-Clay Silt to Silty Clay

Silt Mixtures-Clay Silt to Silty Clay

Sand Mixtures-Silty Sand to Sandy Silt

Electronic Filename: 1413-15-117_Glick-Boehm & Associates

Depth (ft)

Tip Resistence qt

(tsf) 40 80 120 160

Cone Size: 1.75 9 ft

SBTFr

MAI = 5

Sleeve Friction fs

(tsf)

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 20 40 60 u0

Pore Pressure u2

(tsf) 0 20 40 60

Friction Ratio Rf

2 4 6 8

Nov. 2, 2015

CPT Truck/A. Feix

Total Depth:

Termination Criteria:

Date:

Estimated Water Depth:

Rig/Operator:

S&ME Project No: 1413-15-117

NWS Building 909 North Charleston, South Carolina

C-1

75.0 ft Target Depth

C P

T R

E P

O R

T

S T

A N

D A

R D

S

B T

F R

3-

-1

_C P

T .G

P J

S

M E

.G D

T

1/ 3/

Depth (ft)

101 100

Equivalent

Cone Penetration Test C-1

Sands-Clean Sand to Silty Sand

Clays-Clay to Silty Clay

Clays-Clay to Silty Clay

Silt Mixtures-Clay Silt to Silty Clay

Clays-Clay to Silty Clay

Silt Mixtures-Clay Silt to Silty Clay

Electronic Filename: 1413-15-117_Glick-Boehm & Associates

Depth (ft)

Tip Resistence qt

(tsf) 40 80 120 160

Cone Size: 1.75 6 ft

SBTFr

MAI = 5

Sleeve Friction fs

(tsf)

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 20 40 60 u0

Pore Pressure u2

(tsf) 0 20 40 60

Friction Ratio Rf

2 4 6 8

Nov. 2, 2015

CPT Truck/A. Feix

Total Depth:

Termination Criteria:

Date:

Estimated Water Depth:

Rig/Operator:

S&ME Project No: 1413-15-117

NWS Building 909 North Charleston, South Carolina

C-2

100.1 ft Target Depth

C P

T R

E P

O R

T

S T

A N

D A

R D

S

B T

F R

3-

-1

_C P

T .G

P J

S

M E

.G D

T

1/ 3/

Depth (ft)

Shear Wave Velocity Vs

(ft/sec) 400 800 1200 1600

Cone Penetration Test C-2

Silt Mixtures-Clay Silt to Silty Clay

Sand Mixtures-Silty Sand to Sandy Silt

Sand Mixtures-Silty Sand to Sandy Silt

Electronic Filename: 1413-15-117_Glick-Boehm & Associates

Depth (ft)

Tip Resistence qt

(tsf) 40 80 120 160

Cone Size: 1.75 6 ft

SBTFr

MAI = 5

Sleeve Friction fs

(tsf)

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 20 40 60 u0

Pore Pressure u2

(tsf) 0 20 40 60

Friction Ratio Rf

2 4 6 8

Nov. 2, 2015

CPT Truck/A. Feix

Total Depth:

Termination Criteria:

Date:

Estimated Water Depth:

Rig/Operator:

S&ME Project No: 1413-15-117

NWS Building 909 North Charleston, South Carolina

C-2

100.1 ft Target Depth

C P

T R

E P

O R

T

S T

A N

D A

R D

S

B T

F R

3-

-1

_C P

T .G

P J

S

M E

.G D

T

1/ 3/

Depth (ft)

Shear Wave Velocity Vs

(ft/sec) 400 800 1200 1600

Cone Penetration Test C-2

Very Stiff Fine Grained Soils

Sands-Clean Sand to Silty Sand

Silt Mixtures-Clay Silt to Silty Clay

Sands-Clean Sand to Silty Sand

Silt Mixtures-Clay Silt to Silty Clay

Sand Mixtures-Silty Sand to Sandy Silt

Silt Mixtures-Clay Silt to Silty Clay

Silt Mixtures-Clay Silt to Silty Clay

Electronic Filename: 1413-15-117_Glick-Boehm & Associates

Depth (ft)

Tip Resistence qt

(tsf) 40 80 120 160

Cone Size: 1.75

7.5 ft

SBTFr

MAI = 5

Sleeve Friction fs

(tsf)

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 20 40 60 u0

Pore Pressure u2

(tsf) 0 20 40 60

Friction Ratio Rf

2 4 6 8

Nov. 2, 2015

CPT Truck/A. Feix

Total Depth:

Termination Criteria:

Date:

Estimated Water Depth:

Rig/Operator:

S&ME Project No: 1413-15-117

NWS Building 909 North Charleston, South Carolina

C-3

84.5 ft Target Depth

C P

T R

E P

O R

T

S T

A N

D A

R D

S

B T

F R

3-

-1

_C P

T .G

P J

S

M E

.G D

T

1/ 3/

Depth (ft)

101 100

Equivalent

Cone Penetration Test C-3

Clays-Clay to Silty Clay

Silt Mixtures-Clay Silt to Silty Clay

Clays-Clay to Silty Clay

Sand Mixtures-Silty Sand to Sandy Silt

Electronic Filename: 1413-15-117_Glick-Boehm & Associates

Depth (ft)

Tip Resistence qt

(tsf) 40 80 120 160

Cone Size: 1.75

7.5 ft

SBTFr

MAI = 5

Sleeve Friction fs

(tsf)

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 20 40 60 u0

Pore Pressure u2

(tsf) 0 20 40 60

Friction Ratio Rf

2 4 6 8

Nov. 2, 2015

CPT Truck/A. Feix

Total Depth:

Termination Criteria:

Date:

Estimated Water Depth:

Rig/Operator:

S&ME Project No: 1413-15-117

NWS Building 909 North Charleston, South Carolina

C-3

84.5 ft Target Depth

C P

T R

E P

O R

T

S T

A N

D A

R D

S

B T

F R

3-

-1

_C P

T .G

P J

S

M E

.G D

T

1/ 3/

Depth (ft)

101 100

Equivalent

Cone Penetration Test C-3

FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES

Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) Sounding

The cone penetrometer test soundings (ASTM D 5778) were performed by hydraulically pushing an electronically instrumented cone penetrometer through the soil at a constant rate. As the cone penetrometer tip was advanced through the soil, nearly continuous readings of point stress, sleeve friction and pore water pressure were recorded and stored in the on-site computers. Using theoretical and empirical relationships, CPT data can be used to determine soil stratigraphy and estimate soil properties and parameters such as effective stress, friction angle, Young’s Modulus and undrained shear strength.

The consistency and relative density designations, which are based on the cone tip resistance, qt for sands and cohesive soils (silts and clays) are as follows:

SANDS SILTS AND CLAYS

Cone Tip Resistance, qt (tsf)

Relative Density Cone Tip Resistance, qt (tsf)

Consistency

<20 Very Loose <5 Very Soft

20 – 40 Loose 5 – 10 Soft

10 – 15 Firm 40 – 120 Medium Dense

15 – 30 Stiff

120 – 200 Dense 30 –60 Very Stiff

>200 Very Dense >60 Hard

CPT Correlations References are in parenthesis next to the appropriate equation.

General pa = atmospheric pressure (for unit normalization) qt = corrected cone tip resistance (tsf) fs = friction sleeve resistance (tsf) Rf = 100% * (fs/qt) u2 = pore pressure behind cone tip (tsf) u0 = hydrostatic pressure Bq = (u2-u0)/(qt-σv0) Qt = (qt-σv0)/ σ’v0 Fr = 100% * fs/(qt- σv0) Ic = ((3.47-logQt)2+(logFr+1.22)2)0.5

N-Value N60 = (qt/pa)/[8.5(1-Ic/4.6)] (6)

(6) Jefferies, M.G. and Davies, M.P., (1993), “Use of CPTu to estimate equivalent SPT N60”, ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 16, No. 4

Min Max

2 3.60 N/A 3 2.95 3.60 4 2.60 2.95 5 2.05 2.60 6 1.31 2.05 7 N/A 1.31 8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand (High OCR or cemented)

CPT Soil Classification Legend

Robertson's Soil Behavior Type (SBT), 1990

Group # Description Ic

Sensitive, fine grained N/A Organic soils - peats Clays - silty clay to clay Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Sand mixtures - silty sand to sandy silt Sands - clean sand to silty sand Gravelly sand to dense sand

N/A Very stiff, fine grained (High OCR or cemented) N/A

Soil behavior type is based on empirical data and may not be representative of soil classification based on plasticity and grain size distribution.

Relative Density and Consistency Table SANDS SILTS and CLAYS

Cone Tip Stress, qt (tsf) Relative Density Cone Tip Stress, qt (tsf) Consistency Less than 20 Very Loose Less than 5 Very Soft

20 - 40 Loose 5 - 15 Soft to Firm 40 - 120 Medium Dense 15 - 30 Stiff 120 - 200 Dense 30 - 60 Very Stiff

Greater than 200 Very Dense Greater than 60 Hard

SECTION 01 11 00

JBCGS SUMMARY OF WORK

06/15

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SUBMITTALS

Government approval is required for submittals with a "G" designation;

submittals not having a "G" designation are for Contractor Quality Control approval. Submit the following in accordance with Section 01 33 00

SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES:

SD-01 Preconstruction Submittals

Utility Outage; G

Road Closure Requests; G

Air Force Work Clearance Permit; G

Contractor's Proposed Laydown Area Plan; G

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The work includes complete renovation of building 909 including demolition of interior walls, all existing interior finishes, windows, interior and exterior doors, roofing, mechanical, plumbing, lighting and electrical systems. Installation of new walls, interior finishes, windows, interior and exterior doors, roofing, mechanical, plumbing, lighting, electrical systems and fire sprinkler system. Construct new interior stair and elevator shaft with machine room less hydraulic elevator. Exterior building finishes include new split-face block base around entire building, new stucco and new metal panels at second floor area. Site work includes site demolition, new sidewalks, overlay of existing parking lot, new asphalt parking areas and new fire service.

1.3 LOCATION

The work is located at Building 909 at the north corner of the intersection of Old Tom Road and Redbank Road., Joint Base Charleston, Weapons Station, approximately as indicated. The exact location will be shown by the Contracting Officer

1.4 OCCUPANCY OF PREMISES

The Building will not be occupied during performance of work under this Contract.

Before work is started, the Contractor shall arrange with the Contracting Officer a sequence of procedure, means of access, space for storage of materials and equipment, and use of approaches, corridors, and stairways.

1.5 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS

Contractor shall distribute copies of the Environmental Goals to each subcontractor and the Contracting Officer. The overall goal for design, SECTION 01 11 00 Page 1 construction, and operation is to produce a building that meets the functional program needs and incorporates the principles of sustainability. Specifically:

a. Preserve and restore the site ecosystem and biodiversity; avoid site degradation and erosion. Minimize offsite environmental impact.

b. Use the minimum amount of energy, water, and materials feasible to meet the design intent. Select energy and water efficient equipment and strategies.

c. Use environmentally preferable products and decrease toxicity level of materials used.

d. Use renewable energy and material resources.

e. Optimize operational performance (through commissioning efforts) in order to ensure energy efficient equipment operates as intended. Consider the durability, maintainability, and flexibility of building systems.

f. Manage construction site and storage of materials to ensure no negative impact on the indoor environmental quality of the building.

g. Reduce construction waste through reuse, recycling, and supplier take-back.

1.6 EXISTING WORK

In addition to "FAR 52.236-9, Protection of Existing Vegetation, Structures, Equipment, Utilities, and Improvements":

a. Remove or alter existing work in such a manner as to prevent injury or damage to any portions of the existing work which remain.

b. Repair or replace portions of existing work which have been altered during construction operations to match existing or adjoining work, as approved by the Contracting Officer. At the completion of operations, existing work must be in a condition equal to or better than that which existed before new work started.

1.7 LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

Obtain digging permits prior to start of excavation, and comply with Installation requirements for locating and marking underground utilities.

Contact local utility locating service a minimum of 15 days prior to excavating, to mark utilities, and within sufficient time required if work occurs on a Monday or after a…