MUHJ_10-4214_Install_Textile_Brakes_100__DS_DA_-_COMPILED_8-25-2017.pdf

Install Textile Brakes/BAK 15, F.7050 JBLE - Langley

Design Analysis 25 August 2017

JBLE - Langley Contract Number: FA4890-11-D0003-F352 Project Number: MUHJ 10-4214 Project Title: Install Textile Brakes/BAK 15, F.7050

100% Design Submittal Design Analysis / Basis of Design

25 August 2017

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

URS Group, Inc.

440 Monticello Avenue, Suite 1500 Norfolk, VA 23510 www.urscorp.com

Department of the Air Force JBLE – Langley

Department of the Air Force 633 Civil Engineering Squadron 37 Sweeney Boulevard Langley AFB, VA 23665-2107

Install Textile Brakes/BAK 15, F.7050 JBLE - Langley

Table of Contents

1.0 Scope of Work and General Approach

1.1 Project Overview

1.2 References, Codes and Standards

2.0 Civil Engineering

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Site Visit Observations

2.3 Proposed Modifications

3.0 Electrical Engineering

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Site Visit Observations

3.3 Proposed Modifications

4.0 Structural

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Site Specific Geotechnical Investigation

4.3 Foundation Loading

Appendices:

Appendix A – Geotechnical Report

Appendix B – Underground Utilities Report

Appendix C – Submittal Register

Appendix D – Warranty Schedule

Appendix E – Bid Schedule

Appendix F – Construction Schedule

Appendix G – Selected Design Criteria - AERAZUR T.O. 35E8-2-13-1

Install Textile Brakes/BAK 15, F.7050 JBLE - Langley

Task Order to Install Textile Brakes, F352 JBLE - Langley

100% Design Submittal

1.0 Scope of Work and General Approach

1.1 Project Overview

The intent of this project is to provide a complete biddable design package, detailed drawings, specifications, cost estimate, all associated calculations and analysis, bid schedule, and submittal register, in support of Task Order to Install Textile Brakes, F352 JBLE-Langley, MUHJ 10-4214. Langley Air Force Base (LAFB) provided the following documents that are to be directly site adapted to the LAFB runway overruns:

1. Aerazur T.O 35E8-2-13-1 – Technical Manual Textile Brake and Hook Cable Aircraft arresting System Type MB 60.9.9.C (Zodiac AAS Technical Manual)

2. AIRCRAFT ARRESTING SYSTEM, 61QSIIM/62 NI/TAAS/RADIO CONTROL, INSTL

DWGS, Robins AFB, Contract No. FA853212C0025 (Robins AFB BAK-15 and TAAS Installation Drawings)

3. Aerazur IMPLANTATION TYPE MB 60-9-9C TYPICAL INSTALLATION (Zodiac MB 60- 9-9C Installation Drawings)

The scope of work for the project includes the design of the following items:

Civil Engineering Design Services:

• The design of the site plans for the adaption/installation of the Zodiac Aerospace MB-60 Textile Module Break and the Zodiac Aerospace BAK 15 Stanchion/Net System including demolition, grading, paving, and installation of the new arresting system.

Electrical Engineering Design Services:

• Design support for the installation of the new arresting gear system including electrical, signal control (fiber optic), airfield lighting modifications, and obtaining electrical power for the new arresting system.

Structural Engineering Design Services:

• A structural evaluation of the foundations for the textile brake and BAK-15 systems shown in the installation drawings based on the site specific geotechnical investigation. Where the existing soil will not resist the sliding forced on the foundations, determine what soil modifications are required to meet the design loads.

Install Textile Brakes/BAK 15, F.7050 JBLE - Langley

1.2 References, Codes and Standards

All work will be in accordance with, but not limited to, criteria contained in current Air Force programming, design, and maintenance guidance. These documents include Air Force instructions, manuals, and Engineering Technical Letters, national building construction codes, and industry standards (ANSI, IEEE, NFPA, and others). The technical references for this project include:

• ANSI C2 National Electric Safety Code

• UFC 3-301-01 Structural Engineering

• NFPA 70 National Electric Code (NEC)

• UFC 3-201-01 Civil Engineering

• UFC 3-220-01 Geotechnical Engineering

• UFC 3-220-10N Soil Mechanics

• UFC 3-230-06A Subsurface Drainage, with Changes 1-2

• UFC 3-220-04FA Backfill for Subsurface Structures

• UFC 3-260-01 Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design

• UFC 3-260-18F Air Force Aircraft Arresting systems (AAS) IO&M

• UFC 3-535-01 Visual Air Navigation Facilities

• ETL 08-6 Design of Surface Drainage Facilities

• AFI 32-1023 Design and Constructing Military Construction Projects

• 24 CFR Part 51 Environmental Criteria and Standards

• AFI 32-1043 4 MARCH 2015 MANAGING, OPERATING, AND MAINTAINING AIRCRAFT

ARRESTING SYSTEMS

• Kk MIL-DTL-32392 DETAIL SPECIFICATION AIRCRAFT ARRESTING SYSTEM - TEXTILE

(TAAS)

• Technical Report TSC 13-2,Aircrafts Characteristics for Military Aircraft

• ECB 2014-20, dated 7 Oct 2014, Consolidated Quality Improvement ECB Requirements for

Design and Construction of Airfield and Heliport Project

• UFC 3-260-11FA MODEL DESIGN-BUILD (D-B) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR

AIRFIELD CONTRACTS

• Robins Air Force Base BAK-15 and TAAS Installation Drawings

• Zodiac MB 60-9-9C Installation Drawings

• Zodiac AAS Technical Manual https://transportation.erdc.dren.mil/triservicedotmil/documents/TSC%2013-2%20Military%20Aircraft%20Characteristics%20Dec%2013%20Rev%202.pdf http://wbdg.org/ccb/ARMYCOE/COEECB/ecb_2014_20.pdf

Install Textile Brakes/BAK 15, F.7050 JBLE - Langley

2.0 Civil Engineering

2.1 Introduction

The civil engineering portion of this project includes the production of design drawings, details, and specifications for the site adaption and installation of a new aircraft arresting system at JBLE – Langley. This work involves site plans for the 08 and 26 runway overruns including demolition, grading, paving, installation of the new arresting system, and utility adjustments where necessary.

2.2 Site Visit Observations

The runway 08 overrun consists of existing asphalt that is approximately 150’ wide by 1000’ feet long. The unpaved area outside of the 08 overrun visually appears to be free of any obstructions. The runway 26 overrun consists of existing asphalt that is also approximately 150’ wide by 1000’ feet long. The unpaved area outside of the existing 26 overrun contains multiple concrete structures. These structures include but are not limited to electrical pull stations, survey monuments, various concrete pads, signal control (fiber optic)manholes, and stormwater features. Each end of the runway also includes an existing arresting system. This system is made up of a concrete foundation on each side of the runway, a pendant that spans the runway, and two large anchor chains.

2.3 Proposed Modifications

The civil plans for the 100% design work are based on existing JBLE – Langley GIS data, survey data, test hole data, and site plans for the subject areas. The existing utilities on the plans have not been verified for accuracy, except where conduits for new components will be crossing identified utilities. In those cases, test holes were performed to determine precise locations and depths of the existing utility, which should reduce the risk of utility conflicts. The construction contractor will be required to locate all underground utility lines in the vicinity of the proposed foundations and utility routing prior to construction.

The existing site includes several existing concrete foundations that will need to be demolished prior to construction. The existing chain arresting system at each end of the runway will need to be demolished. This system includes a pendant that runs across the existing overrun along with a large anchor chain that runs down each side of the overrun. The existing chain will need to be removed and disposed of in accordance with JBLE – Langley guidelines and the pendant will need to be turned over to JBLE.

This proposed aircraft arresting system includes the Zodiac Aerospace MB-60 Textile Module Break and the Zodiac Aerospace BAK 15 Stanchion/Net System. These systems require multiple concrete foundations to be installed on each side of the existing 08 and 26 overruns.

These foundations have been designed by Zodiac Aerospace and the plans make reference to the appropriate Zodiac drawings for the design and locations of the proposed foundations.

Once the proposed foundations are installed the contractor will then install the components of the MB-60 and BAK-15 per the Robins AFB BAK-15 and TAAS installation drawings, the Zodiac MB 60-9-9C installation drawings and the Zodiac AAS Technical Manual.

The grading on the project will include an asphalt shoulder extension of the existing overrun.

This proposed shoulder is intended to encompass all of the components of the MB-60 and

Install Textile Brakes/BAK 15, F.7050 JBLE - Langley

BAK-15. This shoulder is not intended to be for aircraft, but only for lawn equipment and small vehicles. Outside of this paved shoulder area the ground will be graded to tie into existing grade at a slope not to exceed 2%. As part of the project there will be several electrical features (manholes, hand holes, transformer pads, and disconnect switches) installed in the Clear Zone.

These features shall be set per the grades provided on the electrical plans (to coordinate with Clear Zone project). The proposed grades shall slope down to the existing ground at a max. 2% slope. Grading shall not interfere with the existing drainage conveyance and where necessary the new grade shall tie in at the existing top of ditch bank.

2.4 References

See Appendix G for selected design criteria from AERAZUR T.O. 35E8-2-13-1, Install Textile Brakes/BAK 15, F.7050 JBLE - Langley

3.0 Electrical Engineering

3.1 Introduction

The electrical engineering portion of this project includes the production of design drawings, details, and specifications for the site adaption and installation of a new aircraft arresting system at JBLE – Langley. This work involves site plans for the 08 and 26 runway overruns including electrical, and airfield lighting modifications support for the installation of the new arresting system, and obtaining electrical power for the new arresting system.

3.2 Site Visit Observations

The electrical power necessary to support the new arresting gear system is a significant distance away for the site and currently not available directly on the airfield approach ends of the runways. The approach end’s airfield lighting system will have to be modified to support the arresting gear installation.

3.3 Proposed Modifications

The existing pre-threshold outer "wing / side" bar lighting will be removed and replaced with in-pavement inset type pre-threshold light system including new conduit, 5 KV series airfield lighting cabling, can bases, isolation transformers, connectors, concrete foundation.

Primary electrical power will have to be obtained from an off airfield location at each end of the runway. The primary distribution and secondary service system at each end of the approach ends of the runways will consist of; a 45 KVA, 3 phase, pad mounted transformer, two way primary concrete encased ductbank, one active, one spare duct, 3-1/c-25KV-#1/0AWG copper, tape shielded medium voltage cabling with 1-1/c-600V-#1/0 AWG ground conductors, manholes / handholes every 500 liner feet from each pickup point indicated to close proximity to the arresting gear equipment locations, secondary main fused safety switch, secondary conductors in 2 way concrete encased ductbank, connection to arresting gear equipment.

See the drawings for additional information.

Install Textile Brakes/BAK 15, F.7050 JBLE - Langley

4.0 Structural

4.1 Introduction

The structural scope for this project is to evaluate the foundations for the textile brake and BAK- 15 systems shown in the installation drawings based on the site specific geotechnical investigation. Where the existing soil will not resist the sliding forced on the foundations, the necessary soil modifications will be determined to meet the design loads. No modifications will be made to the as designed foundations.

4.2 Site Specific Geotechnical Investigation

The site specific geotechnical investigation found three different soil stratums across the project site, clay fill, sand fill and native sands. The foundations were evaluated for vertical and horizontal loads using the soil parameters for sand fill provided in Table III of the subsurface investigation report, as the sand fill will have the least amount of lateral resistance to sliding.

4.3 Foundation Loading

The textile brake installation drawings and the technical manual provide lateral load criteria that each foundation element is required to resist. This loading criterion was used to evaluate the foundation for the site specific soil conditions. Based on the soil parameters provided in the subsurface investigation report, there is adequate sliding resistance in the existing sand fill material for each of the foundation elements.

The specifications for all of the Stanchion Foundations are detailed in the approved drawing package. The details for the foundation are located on Robins AFB BAK-15 and TAAS Installation Drawings, drawing 201326817.

Install Textile Brakes/BAK 15, F.7050 JBLE - Langley

A

Appendix A – Geotechnical Report

REPORT OF

SUBSURFACE

INVESTIGATION

AND

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING

SERVICES

Langley Runway Textile Brakes

Hampton, Virginia

G E T Project No: WM16-156G

November 18, 2016

PREPARED FOR:

URS Group Inc.

P.O. Box 201088

Austin, TX 78720

1592-E Penniman Road • Williamsburg, VA 23185 Phone: (757)-564-6452 www.getsolutionsinc.com

November 18, 2016

TO: URS Group, Inc P.O. Box 201088 Austin, TX 78720

Attn: Mr. Daniel Barb

RE: Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services Langley Runway Textile Brakes JBLE-Langley, Hampton, Virginia G E T Project No: WM16-156G

Dear Mr. Barb:

In compliance with your instructions, we have completed our Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services for the above referenced project. The results of this study, together with our recommendations, are presented in this report.

Often, because of design and construction details that occur on a project, questions arise concerning subsurface conditions. G E T Solutions, Inc. would be pleased to continue its role as Geotechnical Engineer during the project implementation.

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. We trust that the information contained herein meets your immediate need, and should you have any questions or if we could be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully Submitted, G E T Solutions, Inc.

Philip A. Wunderly, P.E.

Senior Project Engineer Virginia Lic No. 047135

Camille A. Kattan, P.E.

Principal Engineer Virginia Lic No. 018045

Copies: (1) Client

1592-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA 23185 Phone: (757)-564-6452 Fax: (757)-564-6453 info@getsolutionsinc.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Project Authorization

1.2 Project Location and Site Description

1.3 Project Construction Description

1.4 Purpose and Scope of Services

2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES

2.1 Field Investigation

2.2 Laboratory Testing

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

3.3 Groundwater Information

4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Foundation Discussion

4.2 Settlements

4.3 Foundation Excavations

4.4 Structural Fill and Placement

4.5 Below-Grade Soil Parameters

4.6 Seismic Evaluation

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns

5.2 Excavations

6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX I - BORING LOCATION PLANS

APPENDIX II - SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

APPENDIX III - BORING LOGS

APPENDIX IV - GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILES

Report of Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services November 18, 2016 Langley Runway Textile Brakes JBLE-Langley, Hampton, Virginia G E T Project No: WM16-156G

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Project Authorization

G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our subsurface investigation and geotechnical engineering services for the proposed Runway Textile Brake project located at Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia. The geotechnical engineering services were conducted in general accordance with the scope presented in G E T Proposal No. PVB16-227G Rev1 dated March 22, 2016. Authorization to proceed with our services was received in the form of a subcontract dated August, 15, 2016 and signed by Ms. Michelle Garland with URS.

1.2 Project Location and Site Description

The project site is located on Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia. Specifically, the project is located along either side of the asphalt overrun portion of both the west and east end of the runway. The project site consists of the cleared and graded, grass-covered borders of the asphalt pavement overrun sections of the primary runway. Several runway lights and utility vaults are currently located within these grass-covered borders. Based on our visual observations, the project site is relatively flat with grade changes limited to about 1 foot or less every 100 linear feet. Refer to the aerial imagery below, obtained from Google Earth, for the general site locations.

Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph of Site Vicinity

Approx. Project Site Location, EASTN

Approx. Project Site Location, WEST

Report of Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services November 18, 2016

JBLE-Langley, Hampton, Virginia G E T Project No: WM16-156G

1.3 Project Construction Description

The proposed construction at this site is expected to consist of building approximately twenty-four (24), reinforced, cast-in-place concrete pads of various dimensions. The top surface of the pads will be approximately flush with the existing ground surface. Pad thicknesses range from 8-inches to approximately 5 feet. Dimensions, in area, range from approximately 18 feet by 15 feet to approximately 3.25 feet by 3.25 feet. The concrete pads will be the foundations for the various components of an emergency aircraft-arresting system. Structural loading of the foundations is not known at this time. It is expected that the primary loading will be in the lateral direction as the pads will additionally act as anchors for resisting the horizontal movement of aircraft traveling off the ends of the runways. Vertical loading is expected to be minimal.

If any of the noted information is incorrect or has changed (particularly the dimensions of the concrete pads or pad loading), G E T Solutions, Inc. should be informed so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report, if appropriate.

1.4 Purpose and Scope of Services

The purpose of this study was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions at the proposed project site. The subsurface conditions encountered were evaluated with respect to the available project characteristics. In this regard, engineering assessments for the following items were formulated:

1) General assessment of the soils revealed by borings performed at the proposed project site.

2) General location and description of potentially deleterious material encountered in the borings that may interfere with construction progress or structure performance, including existing fills or surficial/subsurface organics.

3) Evaluation of soil subgrade with respect to support of the foundation pads. Design parameters for the foundations including allowable bearing pressures, below grade soil parameters and expected settlements.

4) Determine pertinent information regarding the groundwater conditions within the project site limits based on the data collected from temporary groundwater monitoring wells.

5) Construction considerations for foundation pad excavations and groundwater conditions.

6) Seismic Site Class definition in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC) 2012 requirements, available soil data, and our local experience.

Report of Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services November 18, 2016

JBLE-Langley, Hampton, Virginia G E T Project No: WM16-156G

The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site.

2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES

2.1 Field Investigation

In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated foundation design parameters, twenty-four (24) 30 to 50-foot deep Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings (designated as B-1 through B-24) were drilled at the approximate locations of the proposed concrete pads. Temporary groundwater monitoring wells were installed on both sides of the overrun pavement near the end of the concrete runway (designated as East-1, East-2, West-1 and West-2).

The SPT borings were performed with the use of hollow stem auger and rotary wash “mud” drilling procedures in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The tests were performed continuously from the existing ground surface to a depth of 10 to 12-feet, and at 5-foot intervals thereafter. The soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch inner diameter, 2-inch outer diameter, 30-inch long split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches, using an automatic hammer. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value (uncorrected for automatic hammer and overburden pressure).

A representative portion of each disturbed split-spoon sample was collected with each SPT, placed in a glass jar, sealed, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for review.

The boring locations were established by URS Group, Inc and staked in the field by a representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached “Boring Location Plans” (Appendix I), which were reproduced based on conceptual site drawings provided by the client.

2.2 Laboratory Testing

Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling were sealed in glass jars, labeled and transferred to our laboratory for classification and analysis. A Geologist performed the soil classification in general accordance with ASTM D 2487 and D 2488. A summary of the soil classification system is provided in Appendix II.

Thirteen (13) representative split spoon soil samples were selected and subjected to natural moisture, Atterberg limits, and -#200 sieve wash testing and analysis in order to corroborate the visual classification. These test results are tabulated below (Table I) and are also presented on the “Boring Logs” in Appendix III.

Report of Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services November 18, 2016

JBLE-Langley, Hampton, Virginia G E T Project No: WM16-156G

Table I - Laboratory Test Results

Boring No.

Depth(1)

(Feet)

Natural Moisture

Percent Passing

#200

Atterberg Limits

(LL/PL/PI)

USCS

Classification(2)

B-1 2-4 14 37 Not Tested SC

B-3 38-40 43 45 37/25/12 SM

B-4 4-6 34 9 Not Tested SP-SM B-5 4-6 30 46 Not Tested SC B-7 6-8 28 49 Not Tested SC

B-7 43-45 38 42 32/22/10 SC

B-10 2-4 23 46 Not Tested SC B-13 6-8 26 27 Not Tested SM B-16 4-6 21 30 Not Tested SC B-20 2-4 18 37 Not Tested SC B-21 4-6 22 27 Not Tested SC B-23 43-45 39 35 Non Plastic SM B-24 6-8 19 29 Not Tested SM

Notes: (1) Depth below existing grades

(2) Visual classification in absence of specific laboratory tests

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

The project site lies within a major physiographic province called the Atlantic Coastal Plain.

Numerous transgressions and regressions of the Atlantic Ocean have deposited marine, lagoonal, and fluvial (stream lain) sediments. The regional geology is very complex, and generally consists of interbedded layers of varying mixtures of sands, silts and clays.

Based on our review of existing geologic and soil boring data, the geologic stratigraphy encountered in our subsurface Investigations generally consisted of marine deposited sands and clays.

3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

The results of our soil test borings indicated the presence of approximately 6 inches of Topsoil material at all boring locations (both east and west ends of the runway). It is noted that the topsoil designation references the presence of surficial organic laden soil, and does not represent any particular quality specification. It is recommended that this material be tested for approval prior to use as such.

Beneath the Topsoil and extending to the boring termination depths of 30 and 50 feet below the existing site grades, soil materials were arranged as follows:

Report of Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services November 18, 2016

JBLE-Langley, Hampton, Virginia G E T Project No: WM16-156G

FILL Beneath the Topsoil material, approximately 2 to 7.5 feet of uncontrolled FILL material was encountered at all boring locations. At boring locations B-15 and B-19 (west end of the runway) the minimum thickness of the uncontrolled FILL was encountered: approximately 2 feet. At all other borings, the encountered thickness of the FILL material was a more uniform range of 4.5 to 7.5 feet. The uncontrolled FILL was comprised primarily of very loose to dense SAND (SC, SM) with varying amounts of Clay, Silt, Gravel and organics. The SPT N-values recorded within these granular soils ranged from 4 to 38 BPF (blows per foot). Isolated amounts of medium stiff to very stiff CLAY (CL) with varying amounts of Sand and organics were encountered in B-1, B-8, and B-9 (east end of runway) and B-14 (west end of runway). The N-values recorded within this cohesive FILL material ranged from 3 to 16 BPF.

Stratum I Stratum I extended beneath the uncontrolled FILL materials to depths of

10.5 to 16.5 feet below the existing site grades. The recovered soils were comprised of SAND (SC, SM) with varying amounts of Silt, Clay, Gravel, and fine marine shell fragments. The SPT N-values recorded within these granular soils ranged from 1 to 20 BPF, indicating a very loose to medium dense relative density. An isolated deposit of soft CLAY (CH) was encountered in boring B-19 (west end of the runway) at depths of 2 to 4 feet below existing grades.

At the eastern end of the runway, Stratum I was encountered from depths of 4.5-7.5 to 8-10.5 feet below existing grades. At the western end of the runway, Stratum I was encountered from depths of 2 to 13-16.5 feet below existing grades.

Stratum II Stratum II extended beneath Stratum I to boring termination depths of 30 to 50 feet below the existing site grades. The recovered soils consisted of the geologic stratum termed the “Yorktown Formation” and were comprised of SAND (SM and SC) with varying amounts of Silt, Clay and marine shell fragments. The N-values recorded within these granular soils ranged from 3 to 16 BPF, indicating a very loose to medium dense relative density.

At the eastern end of the runway, Stratum II was encountered from depths of 8 to 50 feet below existing grades. At the western end of the runway, Stratum II was encountered from depths of 13 to 50 feet below existing grades.

Report of Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services November 18, 2016

JBLE-Langley, Hampton, Virginia G E T Project No: WM16-156G

The subsurface description is of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soil strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included in Appendix III (Boring Logs) and in Appendix IV (Generalized Soil Profiles), which should be reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications shown on the records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations.

Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the transition may be gradual or occur between sample intervals.

3.3 Groundwater Information

The initial groundwater level was recorded at the boring locations during drilling and as observed through the relative wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations. The initial groundwater level was measured at depths ranging from 6 to 8 feet below current grades at the boring locations. The boreholes were backfilled upon completion for safety reasons. Therefore, these results may not be indicative of the static water level.

As subsurface soils begin to dry, moisture moves upwards through the soil profile by means of capillary action. Based on the subsurface soil composition (soils containing more than 30% of fines by weight), the initial groundwater readings could be in part attributed to the capillary action of the soils.

Additionally, temporary groundwater monitoring wells were installed on each side of the asphalt overrun at both the east and west end of the runway for the purpose of obtaining stabilized groundwater level readings. The initial and stabilized groundwater level readings (most recently obtained on November 7, 2016) obtained from the wells are presented in the Table II.

Table II - Groundwater Readings(1)

Well Initial Groundwater Reading, 10/17/2016 (ft)

Stabilized Groundwater Reading (date taken),

(ft) East-1

Runway, North Corner 5.4 4.0 (11/07/2016)

East-2 Runway, South Corner 4.5 5.0 (10/18/2016)

West-1 Runway, North Corner 6.4 3.5 (10/18/2016)

West-2 Runway, South Corner 6.6 3.7 (11/07/2016)

Notes: (1) Depth below existing site grades

Report of Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services November 18, 2016

JBLE-Langley, Hampton, Virginia G E T Project No: WM16-156G

Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences, such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved parking lots, sidewalks, etc.). In the project’s area, seasonal groundwater fluctuations of 3 feet are common; however, greater fluctuations have been documented. We recommend that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the construction to determine groundwater impact on the construction procedures, if necessary.

4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Our recommendations are based on the previously discussed project information, our interpretation of the soil test borings and laboratory data, and our observations during our reconnaissance of the site. If the proposed construction should vary from what was described, G E T Solutions, Inc. requests the opportunity to review our recommendations and make any necessary changes.

4.1 Foundation Discussion

Provided that the construction procedures are properly performed, the proposed foundation pads may bear upon firm granular natural soil or suitable, granular, in-place FILL material. The in-place FILL and natural soils comprised of CLAY (CL and CH) are not considered suitable for bearing support when within 2 feet of the excavation base and must be removed from all foundation excavations (CL and CH soils were encountered only at boring locations B-1, B-8, B-9, B-14, and B-19). The foundations may be designed using a net allowable soil pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf).

In using net pressures, the weight of the foundations and arresting system components need not be considered.

The proposed foundation pads should be designed adequately enough to resist the overturning moments and uplift forces of the applied lateral loads. Hence, larger pad dimensions and/or deeper embedment may be necessary to provide adequate safety factors against overturning moments and resistance to lateral forces.

4.2 Settlements

Provided that the recommendations outlined in this report are properly performed and as the vertical loading is negligible, the resulting total settlement of the proposed foundation pads will be minimal. The settlements were estimated on the basis of the results of the field penetration tests and our experience in the local area.

The foundation pads will primarily be founded on uncontrolled FILL materials. These materials are often considered unreliable due to the non-homogeneous content and uncertainty with the means of placement. As such, careful field control during construction will contribute substantially towards minimizing any potential for additional settlement.

Report of Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services November 18, 2016

JBLE-Langley, Hampton, Virginia G E T Project No: WM16-156G

4.3 Foundation Excavations

In preparation for the foundations construction, excavations should extend into firm granular natural soil or granular in-place FILL material. FILL material was encountered as deep as 7.5 feet below existing grades. All foundation excavations should be observed by a Geotechnical Engineer. At that time, the Geotechnical Engineer should explore the extent of excessively loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable material within the exposed excavations Also, at the time of the excavation observations, the Geotechnical Engineer should advance hand auger borings in the bases of the excavations to determine the materials within 2 feet of the embedment depth.

If pockets of unstable or unsuitable soils (such as the CLAY FILL and natural soils) requiring undercut are encountered in the foundations excavations, the elevation of the base of the proposed foundation pad should be re-established by means of backfilling with “flowable fill”, VDOT No. 57 stone, or a suitable structural fill material compacted to a dry density of at least 98% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698), as described in Section 4.4 of this report, prior to concrete placement. This construction procedure will provide for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf.

If groundwater or perched water conditions are encountered within the base of the foundations excavations it is likely undercut and replacement with VDOT No. 57 stone will be required. In addition, the contractor would need to implement a dewatering program.

Based on the results of our field exploration program, it is expected that the embedment depth of several of the foundation pads will be located at or below the stabilized groundwater levels (at the time of this reporting 3 to 5 feet below current grades) and will bear in wet granular soils. In these instances the bearing soils may require some stabilization to provide a suitable bearing surface. This stabilization is commonly accomplished by over excavation and adding 12 inches or more of bedding stone (Type VDOT No. 57).

Immediately prior to any reinforcement placement, it is suggested that the bearing surfaces of all foundations be compacted using hand operated mechanical tampers. In this manner, any localized areas, which have been loosened by excavation operations, should be adequately re-compacted. The compaction testing in the base of the foundation may be waived by the inspector, where firm bearing soils are observed during the foundation inspections.

Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory foundation excavations should be protected against any detrimental change in condition, such as physical disturbance, rain or frost.

Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be allowed to pond. If possible, all foundation concrete should be placed the same day the excavation is made. If this is not possible, the foundation excavations should be adequately protected.

Report of Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services November 18, 2016

JBLE-Langley, Hampton, Virginia G E T Project No: WM16-156G

4.4 Structural Fill and Placement

Any material to be used for structural fill should be evaluated and tested by an independent testing laboratory prior to placement to determine if they are suitable for the intended use. Suitable structural fill material should consist of sand or gravel containing less than 20% by weight of fines (SP, SM, SW, GP, GW - with dimensions not to exceed 2 inches in diameter), having a liquid limit less than 20 and plastic limit less than 6, and should be free of rubble, organics, clay, debris and other unsuitable material.

All structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 98% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density, in accordance with ASTM D 698. The moisture content of the structural fill should be within +/- 2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content at the time of placement. In general, the compaction should be accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 8 to 10-inch loose lifts and mechanically compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. A qualified inspector should perform field density tests on each lift as necessary to assure that adequate compaction is achieved.

4.5 Below-Grade Soil Parameters

With regard to the design of the below ground foundation pads, the estimated soil parameters presented below (Table III) can be used. These parameters were developed based on the understanding that the bearing soils will be clean and free of loose soils and the perimeter walls of the excavations will be stable during the concrete placement.

Additionally, the estimated soil parameters shown in this report (Table III) were developed based on the soil conditions and the N-values encountered at the boring locations. Soil conditions as well as soil parameters at other locations than those encountered at the boring locations may be different.

The foundation pads will primarily be embedded within uncontrolled FILL materials. These materials are considered to be unreliable due to the non-homogeneous content and uncertainty with the means of placement. As such, more conservative soil parameters have been estimated in order to account for the unreliability and uncertainty of the uncontrolled FILL materials. If the conservative estimated soil parameters are found to be unacceptable with regard to the design tolerances of the proposed arresting system, ground improvement techniques such as removal and replacement of FILL or the use of a deep foundation system may be necessary. G E T Solutions, Inc. will be glad to provide recommendations for such ground improvement alternatives if necessary.

Report of Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services November 18, 2016

JBLE-Langley, Hampton, Virginia G E T Project No: WM16-156G

Table III - Below-Grade Estimated Soil Parameters

Soil Type CLAY

(CL, CH)

SAND

(SM, SC)

SAND

(SM, SC)

Stratum FILL, I FILL I Approximate Depth

(ft below existing grade) 0.5 to 2.5-7.5 0.5-7.5 to 7.5-16 4.5-7.5 to 8-10.5

Boring Locations Isolated in B-1,B-8, B-9, B-14 ALL ALL

Average SPT N-value 5 8 4 Estimated Moist Unit Weight

(pcf) 115 120 118

Estimated Saturated Unit Weight (pcf) 120 125 125

Estimated Buoyant Unit Weight (pcf) 58 63 63

Friction Angle, (degrees) 5 28 32

Cohesion, c (pcf) 150 0 0

Active Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure, Ka

0.84 0.36 0.31

At-rest Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure, Ko

0.90 0.53 0.47

Passive Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure, Kp

1.2 2.8 3.3

4.6 Seismic Evaluation

Based on our experience within the vicinity of the project site and the recovered soils at this location, it is our opinion that this site may be classified as a Site Class “D” in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 as referenced by the 2012 International Building Code. However, the seismic evaluation requires soils information associated with the upper 100 feet. If the site classification is critical to the design of the project it will be necessary to perform a 100-foot deep Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) boring with shear wave velocity testing to substantiate the site classification.

Report of Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services November 18, 2016

JBLE-Langley, Hampton, Virginia G E T Project No: WM16-156G

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns

It is expected that dewatering may be required for excavations that extend below the level of the groundwater table. Dewatering from excavations above the groundwater level (at the time of this reporting the stabilized readings were from 3 to 5 feet below current grades) is expected to be accomplished by pumping from sumps. Dewatering at depths below the groundwater level may require well-pointing and/or shoring. It is noted that several of the foundation pads will be embedded at depths that may extend below the groundwater level.

If water collects in foundation excavations, it will be necessary to remove the water from the excavations, remove the saturated soils, and re-test the adequacy of the bearing surface soils to support the design bearing pressure prior to concrete placement. In these instances, VDOT No. 57 stone would be recommended for use in re-establishing the foundation subgrade elevations.

5.2 Excavations

In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October, 1989), the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its “Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P”. This document was issued to better insure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that all excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavation or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new (OSHA) guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties.

The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor’s responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.

We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. G E T Solutions, Inc. is not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

Report of Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services November 18, 2016

JBLE-Langley, Hampton, Virginia G E T Project No: WM16-156G

6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

The recommendations submitted in this report are based on the available soil information obtained by G E T Solutions, Inc. and the information supplied by the client and their consultants for the proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, G E T Solutions, Inc. should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. If G E T Solutions, Inc. is not retained to perform these functions, G E T Solutions, Inc. can not be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the geotechnical recommendations for the project.

The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications or professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties are implied or expressed.

After the plans and specifications are more complete, the Geotechnical Engineer should be provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to assure our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents, in order that the earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented. At that time, it may be necessary to submit supplementary recommendations. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of URS Group, Inc. and their consultants for the specific application to the proposed Langley Runway Textile Brakes project located on Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia.

APPENDICES

I BORING LOCATION PLANS

II SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

III BORING LOGS

IV GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILES

APPENDIX I

BORING LOCATION PLANS

Boring Location Plan, EAST

Project: Langley Runway Textile Brakes Hampton, Virginia Scale: As Drawn Project No: WM16-156G Date: 11/07/2016 Client: URS Group, Inc. Plot By: PW

N

ASPHALT OVERRUN

B-1 B-3

B-5 B-4

B-2

B-7

B-8

B-6

B-9 B-11

C O

N C

R

ETE

R U

N W

A Y

B-10 B-12

East-1

East-2

Boring Location Well Location

Boring Location Plan, WEST

Project: Langley Runway Textile Brakes Hampton, Virginia Scale: As Drawn Project No: WM16-156G Date: 11/07/2016 Client: URS Group, Inc. Plot By: PW

B-17 N

ASPHALT OVERRUN

C O

N C

R

ETE

R U

N W

A Y

B-18

B-15

B-16

B-14 B-13

B-19 B-20

B-23

B-22

B-21 B-24

Boring Location Well Location

West-1

West-2

APPENDIX II

SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Very Loose 4 blows/ft. or less Very Soft 2 blows/ft. or less Loose 5 to 10 blows/ft. Soft 3 to 4 blows/ft.

Medium Dense 11 to 30 blows/ft. Medium Stiff 5 to 8 blows/ft.

Dense 31 to 50 blows/ft. Stiff 9 to 15 blows/ft.

Very Dense 51 blows/ft. or more Very Stiff 16 to 30 blows/ft.

Hard 31 blows/ft. or more

Boulders 8 inch diameter or more Cobbles 3 to 8 inch diameter Gravel Coarse 1 to 3 inch diameter

Medium 1/2 to 1 inch diameter Fine 1/4 to

1/2 inch diameter Sand Coarse 2.00 mm to 1/4 inch

(diameter of pencil lead) Medium 0.42 to 2.00 mm

(diameter of broom straw) Fine 0.074 to 0.42 mm

(diameter of human hair) Silt 0.002 to 0.074 mm

(cannot see particles)

GW - Well-graded Gravel CL - Lean Clay GP - Poorly graded Gravel CL-ML - Silty Clay GW-GM - Well-graded Gravel w/Silt ML - Silt GW-GC - Well-graded Gravel w/Clay OL - Organic Clay/Silt GP-GM - Poorly graded Gravel w/Silt Less than 5 percent GW, GP, SW,SP GP-GC - Poorly graded Gravel w/Clay CH - Fat Clay More than 12 percent GM, GC, SM, SC GM - Silty Gravel MH - Elastic Silt 5 to 12 percent GC - Clayey Gravel OH - Organic Clay/Silt GC-GM - Silty, Clayey Gravel SW - Well-graded Sand SP - Poorly graded Sand PT - Peat SW-SM - Well-graded Sand w/Silt SW-SC - Well-graded Sand w/Clay SP-SM - Poorly graded Sand w/Silt SP-SC - Poorly graded Sand w/Clay SM - Silty Sand SC - Clayey Sand SC-SM - Silty, Clayey Sand

CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488)

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as tidal influences and man-made influences, such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved parking lots, side walks, etc.).

Little Some

Mostly 50-100

Borderline cases requiring dual symbols

Plasticity Chart

Strata Changes In the column “Description” on the boring log, the horizontal lines represent approximate strata changes.

Groundwater Readings

Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No.

200 sieve size), coarse-grained soils are classified as follows:

15-25 30-45

Few

COHESIVE SOILS

(CLAY, SILT and Combinations)

Relative Proportions Descriptive Term Percent

0-5 5-10

Jacksonville Office 415A Western Boulevard Jacksonville, NC 28546

(910) 478-9915

Virginia Beach Office 204 Grayson Road

Virginia Beach, VA 23462

(757) 518-1703

Relative Density

NON COHESIVE SOILS

(SILT, SAND, GRAVEL and Combinations)

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4” I.D., 2” O.D., 30” long split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment (4 increments for each soil sample) of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value.

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

Standard Penetration Test (SPT), N-value

1592 Penniman Rd. Suite E Williamsburg, VA 23185

Particle Size Identification

Consistency

GET Revision 12/12/07

Coarse Grained Soils Fine-Grained Soils

Highly Organic Soils

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Liquid Limit 50% or greater

Trace

Williamsburg Office

(757) 564-6452

Elizabeth City Office 106 Capital Trace, Suite E Elizabeth City, NC 27909

(252) 335-9765

APPENDIX III

BORING LOGS

6-in Topsoil

Orange-brown, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC) with trace organics, loose to medium dense "FILL"

Brown, moist, Lean CLAY (CL) with trace Sand and organics, very stiff "FILL"

Orange-brown and gray, moist to wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), loose

Wet below 8-ft

Gray, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), contains marine shell fragments, loose "Yorktown Formation"

Boring terminated at 30 feet below existing grade.

6-5-4-7 (9)

9-11-12-12 (23)

9-8-8-8 (16)

6-6-4-3 (10)

1-2-3-3 (5)

2-3-6-11 (9)

2-2-3-4 (5)

2-3-3-4 (6)

3-3-5-5 (8)

3-4-3-6 (7)

0.5

4.0

6.5

10.0

30.0

INITIAL (ft) : 8 CAVE-IN (ft) :

Notes:

BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan

AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

#2

S am pl e

R ec ov er y (in

GROUNDWATER*:

PROJECT LOCATION: Hampton, VA

CLIENT: URS Group, Inc.

PROJECT NAME: Langley Runway Textile Brakes

DATE COMPLETED: 10/14/2016

SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (ft):

D ep th ft)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit

Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road

Virginia Beach, VA 23642 757-518-1703

E le va tio n (f t)

S am pl e

T yp e

S am pl e

ID

S tr at a

Le ge nd

The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level.

T hi s in fo rm at io n pe rt ai ns o nl y to t hi s bo rin g an d s ho ul d no t be in te rp re te d a s be in g in di ci tiv e of t he s ite

DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc.

DATE STARTED: 10/14/2016

LOGGED BY: P. Wunderly

PROJECT NUMBER: WM16-156G

Williamsburg 1592-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA 23185

757-564-6452

Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC 27909

252-335-9765

Jacksonville 415-A Western Blvd

Jacksonville, NC 28546 910-478-9915

TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SPT - Standard Penetration Test

DRILLING METHOD(S): Rotary wash "mud"

Plastic Limit x x

B lo w C ou nt s (N

-V al ue s)

RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

BORING ID

B-1 EAST

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Orange-brown, moist, Clayey fine to…