Appendix_A_-_Geotech_Report.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE

INVESTIGATION REPORT

ROME AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY

FACILITY -- TOWER ROAD

TOWN OF POLAND, HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK

Prepared For:

ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING, P.C.

1005 W. Fayette Street

Suite 4A Syracuse, New York 13204

DEPT. of UNITED STATES AIR FORCE Rome Air Force Base 26 Electronics Pkwy

Rome, New York 13441

Prepared By:

C&S Engineers, Inc.

499 Col. Eileen Collins Blvd. Syracuse, New York 13212

C&S Project No.: 534.049.001 January 26, 2017

F:\Project\534 - N.K. BHANDARI,CONSULTING ENG., P.C\534049001 - AFRL - Newport Research Antenna Measure\Design\Technical\Geotechnical\Geotech Report - USAFRL-Tanner Hill.doc

NOTE

This report is written using U.S. Customary Units unless otherwise noted.

The professional services provided in this project include only the specific geotechnical aspects of the subsurface conditions at the site. The presence or implications of possible surface or subsurface contaminants from any source are outside the terms of reference for this geotechnical study and have not been investigated or addressed herein. Coal seam hazard evaluation, fire and gas hazard evaluation, site subsidence hazard evaluation, wetland impact study, septic field hazard or impact evaluation, slope stability and landslide hazard analysis, and a detailed site-specific seismic hazard evaluation are beyond the scope of work for this project.

The subsurface soil profile and design parameters provided in this report are estimated based on the results of the soil borings as indicated on the boring logs, visual classification of the recovered soil samples, geotechnical laboratory results (where applicable), analytical laboratory results (where applicable) and generally published soil and/or rock property correlations. Actual subsurface conditions beyond the soil borings and below the depths explored may vary, as well as subsurface conditions encountered in the field during and/or as a result of construction activity. If actual conditions vary from those presented in this report, the geotechnical engineer should be notified to identify if the recommendations provided herein are still applicable.

Prior to conducting any subsurface work, the Contractor is obligated to notify the local one-call system to have the location of known subsurface utilities identified.

In the event that subsurface work shall be conducted outside the right-of-way or jurisdiction that the local one-call system covers, the Contractor shall make arrangements with a private utility locating firm to identify the location of subsurface utilities.

Please contact the author if there are any questions with regards to the information provided herein.

This report was prepared by: C&S Engineers, Inc.

p: (315) 455-2000 e-mail: cbruening@cscos.com

It is a violation of the New York State Education Law for any person, unless they are acting under the direction of a licensed professional engineer, licensed architect, licensed landscape architect, or licensed land surveyor, to alter an item in any way. If an item bearing the stamp of a licensed professional is altered, the altering engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor shall stamp the document and include the notation "altered by" followed by their signature, the date of such alteration, and a specific description of the alteration.

Craig Thomas Bruening, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer NYSPE No.: 095602

(original document signed in blue ink) mailto:cbruening@cscos.com ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION & SITE DESCRIPTION

2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

2.1 EXPLORATION / DRILLING

2.2 SUBSURFACE SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS

2.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 TESTING PROGRAM

3.2 SOIL ANALYSIS

3.3 ROCK ANALYSIS

4.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 SOIL & ROCK PROPERTIES

4.2 FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY AND DEPTH

4.2.1 Frost Depth - Foundations

4.2.2 Frost Depth - Utility Lines

4.3 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION

4.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE – FOUNDATION WALLS / RETAINING WALLS

4.5 SITE DRAINAGE

4.6 SOIL EROSION

5.0 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 APPLICABLE FOUNDATIONS

5.2 CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE

5.3 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

5.3.1 Eccentric Loading

5.3.2 Lateral Resistance

5.4 DEEP FOUNDATIONS

6.0 RETAINING WALL ALTERNATIVES & CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 RETAINING WALL ALTERNATIVES

6.2 PRECAST CONCRETE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM

6.3 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE RETAINING WALL

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 WORK AREA PREPARATION

7.2 SUITABILITY OF ON-SITE SOIL AND CONTROLLED COMPACTED FILL

7.3 CUT AND FILL SLOPES

7.4 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS AND BURIED STRUCTURES

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A – Figures ATTACHMENT B – Boring Logs ATTACHMENT C – Geotechnical Laboratory Results ATTACHMENT D – Photographs – Rock Cores ATTACHMENT E – Friction Factors for Dissimilar Materials

GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

ROME AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY FACILITY -- TOWER ROAD

1.0 INTRODUCTION & SITE DESCRIPTION

C&S Engineers, Inc. (C&S) was retained by N.K. Bhandari, Architects & Engineers, P.C. (NKB) to provide geotechnical engineering services for the proposed new radar research facility at the Tower Road

Site. This facility is owned and operated by the Department of the United States Air Force – Rome Air

Force Base and is located at the eastern end of Tower Road in the Town of Poland, Herkimer County, New York as depicted on Figures 1 and 2 in Attachment A. The site consists of an open field with two buildings, several radar dishes and a gravel access roadway (Tower Road). Surrounding the site are mature woodlands. Surface elevations range from approximately 1,564.5 feet above mean sea level

(AMSL) at the middle portion of the open field to approximately 1,543.5 feet AMSL along the southeastern fence line based upon a survey map prepared by Thew Associates, Land Surveyors, titled

Map Showing Existing Topography – Newport Research Antenna Measurement Facility, Tanner Hill;

project number CK3761-12-16, dated 1/13/17. Surface slopes range from approximately 5 horizontal to 1 vertical (5H:1V) to 10H:1V in the area where the new facility is planned to be constructed.

The new facility will consist of a single story building, an antenna array and a tower with fixed radar dishes. Based upon the subsurface conditions encountered in the area where the new facility is planned, it is anticipated that the single story building and antenna array can be founded on spread footing foundations and that the tower with the fixed radar dishes should be supported with a drilled shaft foundation. The purpose of supporting the tower on such a robust foundation is to minimize and/or eliminate movement of the structure due to wind loading.

The subsurface geotechnical investigation program, as outlined in our scope of work (SOW) consisted of the following:

C&S hired a drilling subcontractor (CME Associates, Inc. [CME]) to advance three soil borings at the locations depicted on Figure 3 in Attachment A. The purpose of advancing the three soil borings was to identify the subsurface soil, rock and groundwater conditions at the site.

CME provided full-time inspection of the soil borings and conducted laboratory testing of select soil and rock samples (as approved by C&S) at their geotechnical laboratory.

C&S prepared this report describing the field investigation, summarizing and describing the laboratory results, and providing recommendations for foundations and development of the site.

The field work was conducted from December 28 to 29, 2016.

2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

2.1 Exploration / Drilling

To identify the in-situ subsurface soil and groundwater conditions a total of 3 soil borings (e.g. AFRL-B1 through AFRL-B3) were marked out / staked in the field as depicted on Figure 3 in Attachment A. The locations were chosen based on access, and distances from known subsurface utilities as identified by Air

Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) personnel. The borings were advanced by CME using an all-terrain vehicle mounted CME 55 drill rig. At boring AFRL-B3 continuous soil sampling was conducted using the Standard Penetration Test method (ASTM D-1586) by advancing a 24” long by 1-3/8” inside diameter split barrel sampler. For the remaining 2 borings, standard sampling (e.g., sampling conducted at 5-foot intervals) was conducted due to the subsurface conditions encountered at boring ARFL-B3. After each soil sample was retrieved, it was logged by CME’s inspector. Other information logged included blow counts, standard penetration resistance (N-Value), amount of sample recovered, relative moisture, depth to groundwater (if encountered), and other subsurface related data. All borings were advanced until sampler refusal occurred (e.g., 100 blows for less than 6-inch advancement) followed by advancing 3-¼” inside diameter hollow stem augers to the next sample interval or to refusal.

At boring AFRL-B3 rock coring was conducted using a NQ barrel in accordance with ASTM D2113.

The rock cores were observed and logged by CME’s inspector. Other information recorded for each run included: the run number; run depth interval in feet; run length in inches; recovery in inches; percent recovered; number of pieces greater than 1-inch; sum of the pieces ≥ 4-inches in inches; calculation of

Rock Quality Designation (RQD = sum of pieces ≥ 4-inches / Run Length x 100); and RQD.

2.2 Subsurface Soil and Rock Conditions

Soil descriptions provided below, on the boring logs in Attachment B and the geotechnical laboratory results in Attachment C are based on the Burmeister Soil Classification System. This system divides the soil into three general categories of Gravel, Sand, and Silt/Clay. The predominant fraction is listed first and if it is more than 50-percent of the matrix it will be capitalized. Modifiers are also provided to give a sense of the percentage of the remaining fractions. The modifiers are as follows:

Modifier Percentage Modifier Percentage trace 1 – 10 some 21 – 35 little 11 – 20 and 36 – 50

Based on the three soil borings advanced during this investigation the general soil and rock conditions encountered can be summarized as follows:

Depth Material Encountered

0 – 4” moist, brown, silty TOPSOIL

4” – 4’ moist, medium dense brown Silt and Clay, and coarse to fine Sand, little fine Gravel

4’ – 6’ moist, dense to very dense brown highly weathered Shale (Silt and Clay, and coarse to fine Sand, little fine Gravel)

6’ – 19’ moist, very dense brown to black weathered Shale (gravelly w/ rock flour)

19’ – 29’ soft, thinly laminated SHALE

According to the New York State Bedrock Map – Hudson, Mohawk Sheet the site is underlain by the

Utica Shale Formation which consists primarily of thin shale beds with occasional siltstone inter-beds.

Provided below is a summary of the depths at which bedrock was encountered and/or the depths at which refusal occurred with the sampling device or drilling became very difficult.

Boring Ground Surface

Elevation1

Depth of Split

Spoon Refusal2

Depth to Bedrock /

Auger Refusal3

Bedrock Elevation

Total Depth

Explored

Bottom of Boring

Elevation

AFRL-B1 ±1,560.5 9.8 19.3 ±1,541.2 19.3 ±1,541.2

AFRL-B2 ±1,559.2 9.4 19.3 ±1,539.9 19.3 ±1,539.9

AFRL-B3 ±1,563.8 6.9 19.0 ±1,544.8 29.0 ±1,534.8

Notes:

1. Elevations based upon a survey map prepared by Thew Associates, Land Surveyors, titled Map Showing

Existing Topography – Newport Research Antenna Measurement Facility, Tanner Hill; project number CK3761-12-16, dated 1/13/17.

2. Depth of first sample interval where refusal occurred (100 blows over 6-inches or less).

3. Depth where very difficult drilling occurred with hollow stem augers.

Based upon the boring logs it is apparent that highly weathered Utica Shale is close to the ground surface in the area where the proposed facility will be constructed. At boring AFRL-B3 two rock core runs were conducted. The first run was from 19.0 feet to 24.0 feet below ground surface (bgs) followed by a second run from 24.0 feet to 29.0 feet bgs. Provided below is a summary of the rock characteristics as measured immediately after retrieving each rock core and photographs of rock cores are provided in Attachment D.

Boring Run Depth Length Rec % Rec Pcs ≥ 1” Pcs ≥ 4” RQD

AFRL-B3

1 19.0’-24.0’ 60” 58” 96% 17 6” 10%

2 24.0’-29.0’ 60” 60” 100% 11 12” 20%

Notes: Rec – Recovered Pcs – Pieces of rock core

RQD – Rock Quality Designation (RQD = Pcs ≥ 4”/Length x 100).

2.3 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater observation wells/piezometers were not installed since the proposed facility is not planning to have a basement and the facility is located at a geographical high point. In addition, conditions encountered while advancing the borings did not warrant the installation of groundwater observation wells/piezometers. Groundwater was only encountered in boring AFRL-B1 at a depth of approximately

17 feet bgs after the hollow stem augers had been advanced to a depth of approximately 19 feet bgs. This depth corresponds well to the top of the competent Utica Shale indicating that groundwater is most likely perched on top of the bedrock. During the time rock coring was being conducted, drilling water was not lost indicated that the soil and rock formation is not highly permeable. Although groundwater was not encountered in the remaining soil borings that were terminated on the top of rock upon achieving auger refusal, there is the possibility that perched groundwater and/or poorly drained surface water may be encountered while excavating for shallow spread footing foundations. The use of sumps and pump should be adequate to keep those excavations dry.

Additional information regarding the soil and rock encountered is provided on the boring logs in

Attachment B, the geotechnical laboratory results in Attachment C, and the photographic log of the rock cores in Attachment D.

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Testing Program

A total of 5 soil samples and one rock core were analyzed for one or more of the following parameters by

CME Associates, Inc. geotechnical laboratory using the associated testing method. The laboratory results are summarized below and provided in Attachment C.

Moisture Content (ASTM D2216)

Soil Gradation with Hydrometer (ASTM C136, D421 & D422)

Rock Core Compression (ASTM D7012)

3.2 Soil Analysis

The in-situ soil contains an appreciable amount of fine material (material passing the No. 200 sieve) ranging from 37% to 53% as depicted by the grain size analysis curves provided in Attachment C. Soil containing material passing the No. 200 sieve in quantities greater than 10% are often considered moisture sensitive and/or frost susceptible thus they can lose strength as the moisture content increases.

3.3 Rock Analysis

A portion of the rock core obtained from Boring AFRL-B3 – Run-2 was analyzed for strength characteristics by conducting an unconfined compression test. The results are presented below.

Boring Run No. &

Interval Tested

Description Diameter

(in) Length

(in)

L/D Ratio

2.0 – 2.5

ASTM

D7012

Load at Failure

(lb)

Unconfined Compressive

Strength

AFRL-B3

No. 2

27.0’-27.4’ soft, slightly weathered, thinly laminated gray SHALE

1.98 4.56 2.30 32,500

10,555 psi 1,520 ksf 760 tsf

The unconfined compressive strength provided above can be considered the ultimate strength for non-weathered intact bedrock. The RQD for the rock cores recovered at boring AFRL-B3 are 10% for Run-1 and 20% for Run-2, which indicates that the rock mass is of very poor quality. In addition, when comparing the unconfined compressive strength, RQD, joint spacing and other characteristics to Table

10.4.6.4-1 Geomechanics Classification of Rock Masses in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications (AASHTO LRFD BDS) the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) is 16 indicating that it is in Class

“V”. Class “V” rock is considered to be very poor rock as described in Table 10.4.6.4-3 Geomachanics

Rock Mass Classed Determined from Total Ratings in AASHTO LRFD BDS. Since the intact rock quality is considered to be very poor quality and the RQD values are very low, the unconfined compression result should be reduced to establish the ultimate bearing capacity and pull-out resistance of the in-situ rock. These values are provided below in the following section.

4.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Using the geotechnical laboratory results, standard penetration test results, correlations to generally published soil and/or rock property values and professional experience, various design parameters can be established.

4.1 Soil & Rock Properties

The following geotechnical design parameters were estimated by correlating the type of material encountered and its relative density to published values for similar soil and rock material.

Parameter Value

Stratum 1 - medium dense gravelly Sandy SILT

SPT N-Value 24

Unit Weight () 133 pcf

Angle of Internal Friction () 34°

Earth Pressure Coefficients Ka = 0.28; Kp = 3.54

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (kv) 150 pci

(assumes 0.25” settlement)

Unconfined Compressive Strength - Pocket Penetrometer (qu) NA

Cohesion (c) c = qu/2 = NA

Ultimate Bearing Capacity 7.5 tsf = 15.0 ksf

Allowable Bearing Capacity (factor of safety = 3.0, groundwater correction factor = 1.0)

2.5 tsf = 5.0 ksf

Stratum 2 - dense to very dense highly weathered SHALE

SPT N-Value 45

Unit Weight () 140 pcf

Angle of Internal Friction () 38°

Earth Pressure Coefficients Ka = 0.24; Kp = 4.20

Unconfined Compressive Strength - Pocket Penetrometer (qu) NA

Cohesion (c) c = qu/2 = NA

Ultimate Bearing Capacity 9.0 tsf = 18.0 ksf

Allowable Bearing Capacity (factor of safety = 3.0, groundwater correction factor = 1.0)

3.0 tsf = 6.0 ksf

Stratum 3 - very dense weathered SHALE

SPT N-Value > 50

Unit Weight () 145 pcf

Angle of Internal Friction () 40°

Earth Pressure Coefficients Ka = 0.22; Kp = 4.60

Unconfined Compressive Strength - Pocket Penetrometer (qu) NA

Cohesion (c) c = qu/2 = NA

Ultimate Bearing Capacity 10.0 tsf = 20.0 ksf

Allowable Bearing Capacity (factor of safety = 3.0, groundwater correction factor = 0.8)

3.3 tsf = 6.6 ksf

Stratum 4 - soft thinly laminated Utica SHALE

Unit Weight () 155 pcf

Ultimate Bearing Capacity 532 tsf = 1,065 ksf

Allowable Bearing Capacity (factor of safety = 3.0) 177 tsf = 355 ksf

Ultimate Skin Friction 3.0 tsf = 6.0 ksf

Allowable Skin Friction (factor of safety = 2.0) 1.5 tsf = 3.0 ksf

The ultimate bearing capacities of Stratums 1, 2, and 3 were calculated by modeling a 2-foot wide strip footing at the top of each layer. The base of the modeled footing is not within 1.5 times the width of the footing (1.5 x Bf) from the ground water surface, therefore the in-situ unit weight (not the buoyant weight) of each overlying strata was used to calculate the Effective Overburden Stresses. In addition, a groundwater correction factor was not required based on the geometry and modeled depth of the foundation. The ultimate bearing capacity for each material was calculated using the following bearing capacity formula developed by Terzaghi and modified by Meyerhoff:

Qult = (c x Nc x Sc) + (q x Nq x Sq) + (0.5 x x Bf x N x S)

Where: c = cohesion Nc = cohesive bearing capacity factor = 5.14 Nq = non-cohesive bearing capacity factor (1 when cohesive soils are encountered)

N = footing bearing capacity factor

Sc, Sq, S = footing shape factor q = effective overburden stress

= unit weight of soil directly beneath footing Bf = width of footing

The allowable bearing capacity was then calculated by dividing the ultimate bearing capacity by a factor of safety and multiplying it by the groundwater correction factor, where applicable.

For the Utica Shale, the ultimate bearing capacity was derived from the unconfined compression test and published values for similar rock. The unconfined compression test loads the rock specimen axially causing it to fail along the weakest plane (e.g., bedding, joints) within the sample. This results in a representative value for ultimate axial load or ultimate bearing capacity. Since the RQD values are very low and only one rock core contained pieces long enough to conduct this test, the ultimate bearing capacity was lowered to approximately 70-percent of the unconfined compressive strength or 532 tsf

(1,065 ksf). The allowable bearing capacity was then calculated by dividing the ultimate bearing capacity by a factor of safety of 3.0.

4.2 Frost Susceptibility and Depth

The subsurface soil encountered in the 3 borings consists primarily of gravelly Sandy SILT and CLAY which is a moisture sensitive and frost susceptible soil. Frost susceptibility of a soil is assessed using guidelines developed by Casagrande (1932) on the basis of the percentage by weight of the soil finer than

0.02 mm and its plasticity index and are classified as follows.

Frost Group Type of Soil / Material % finer than

0.02 mm by weight

Non-Frost Susceptible (NFS)

A Gravels, Crushed Stone, Crushed Rock 0 – 1.5

B Sands 0 – 3.0

Possibly Frost Susceptible (PFS)

A Gravels, Crushed Stone, Crushed Rock 1.5 – 3.0

B Sands 3.0 – 10.0

S1 Gravelly Soils 3.0 – 6.0

S2 Sandy Soils 3.0 – 6.0

F1 Gravelly Soils 6.0 – 10.0

F2 A Gravelly Soils 10.0 – 20.0

Frost Group Type of Soil / Material % finer than

0.02 mm by weight

B Sands 6.0 – 15.0

F3

A Gravelly Soils Over 20

B Sands, except very fine silty Sand Over 15

C Clays, PI < 12 --

F4

A All Silt Soils --

B Very fine silty Sand Over 15

C Clays, PI > 12 --

D Varved clays & other fine-grained, banded sediments --

Source: Pavement Design for Seasonal Frost Conditions, Departments of the Army and the Air Force, TM 5-818-2 & AFM 88-6, Chap. 4.

In general, soils that contain more than 10% silt (material passing the #200 sieve – 0.075 mm) are considered moisture sensitive and frost susceptible. The above table further refines this general rule by indicating the amount of material passing the #635 sieve – 0.020 mm and/or the plasticity index. The first four groups (i.e., NFS, PFS, S1, S2) are considered to be non-frost susceptible to low frost susceptible while “F” type soils will be susceptible to frost (e.g., heaving, settlement) with F4 group soils behaving the worst. The issues with frost susceptible soil is that in winter, frost heaving can occur; and in the spring, thaw softening can occur. The issues with heaving are that it can put undue stress on foundations and/or pavements causing them to possibly move and/or fail (e.g., small localized cracking to loss of stability). In addition, the spring thaw causes the bearing soil to soften or lose strength thereby allowing foundations to settle, shift and/or become unstable. For frost heaving to occur, the following conditions must be met:

Sufficiently cold climate to allow freezing temperatures to penetrated below the ground surface;

Water must be present that can collect within the soil matrix at a depth that will freeze;

The soil must be frost susceptible and within the freezing zone.

For this site Stratum 1 and Stratum 2 contains approximately 37% to 53% silt and clay material based upon the results of the grain size analysis. In addition, approximately 31% to 51% of the material tested is smaller than 0.020 mm. This subsequently classifies the in-situ soil as a group F4-A frost susceptible soil. This type of soil is highly susceptible to frost action and should not be relied on to carry structural loads unless the bottoms of the foundations are located below the maximum frost penetration depth.

According to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Extreme Frost Depth Map, the site is located very close to the 60-inch contour line. Further review of the Air Freezing Index (AFI) data indicates that the 50-year AFI (98th percentile) for Little Falls and Utica Airport is 1,520°F Degree Days as reported by NOAA (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/fpsf/AFI-pubreturn.pdf). Using the AFI50-year, the frost penetration depth was estimated to be as follows:

Surface Condition Frost Penetration (in)

Bare Ground / Pavement, No Snow ± 57

Turf Cover, No Snow ± 43

Turf Cover, 12-inch Snow ± 32 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/fpsf/AFI-pubreturn.pdf

4.2.1 Frost Depth - Foundations

Since frost depth is a function of the soil type and the ground not being covered by snow or other vegetative matter (e.g., lawn, etc…), it is recommended that a minimum depth of 60-inches be used for exterior foundations especially for critical structures that must remain stationary. For foundations that are located within the interior of a building, the minimum depth can be 2 feet below the finished floor provided that the building remains heated in the winter and the footing is a minimum of 60-inches away from the exterior foundation wall.

For locations where building foundations bear upon soil and are less than 60-inches below ground surface frost protection measures should be implemented. Horizontal insulation consisting of rigid polystyrene

(Styrofoam Hi-load 40, or equivalent) and be a minimum of 5.5-inches in thickness and a minimum buried width of 60-inches. The horizontal insulation should be placed around the building foundation walls to the top of the footing. The buried width is the sum of the vertical portion along the foundation element and the horizontal projection. A minimum burial depth of 1.5-feet is recommended. All horizontal projections should be sloped down and away from the building at a minimum of 1% to promote drainage away from the structure.

4.2.2 Frost Depth - Utility Lines

The minimum burial depth of un-insulated utility lines, including water and sewer pipelines, should not be less than the frost penetration depth of approximately 5.0 feet. Insulation should be provided if pipelines are buried with soil cover less than the frost penetration depth. The insulation should be rigid polystyrene composition (Styrofoam Hi-load 40 or equivalent) and be a minimum of 4-inches in thickness. It is recommended that the minimum depth to the top of the insulation be no less than 1.5-feet below finished grade. In addition, a 1-foot layer of highly non-permeable material (e.g., clay, clayey silt) should be placed and compacted over the insulation to minimize infiltration. Depending upon the insulation properties, additional layers may be required. For pipelines the insulation will extend outwards from the center line of the pipe. The total width of the insulation to be centered over the center line of the pipe can be calculated below.

W = [d + (2 x (F - I))] where: d = pipe diameter (ft) F = seasonal frost penetration depth (ft) I = insulation depth below finished grade (ft)

4.3 Seismic Site Classification

The Building Code of New York State (Building Code) requires that a seismic site classification be assigned in most cases when new building construction occurs. Section 1615.1.5 of the Building Code outlines the procedures for determining the seismic site classification and allows for the soil shear wave velocity (vs) values, standard penetration resistance (N) values or soil undrained shear strength (su) values to be used for determining the site classification.

For this project a site seismic soil boring was not advanced since the Utica Shale was encountered at a depth of approximately 20-feet bgs. To determine the seismic site classification the N-value obtained from the standard penetration test (SPT) (conducted in accordance with ASTM D 1586) was used. For samples where the SPT was in excess of 100 blows per foot, a value of 100 was used since the material consisted of highly weathered to weathered Utica Shale. Upon encountering the Utica Shale, an N-value of 100 was used to further assess the Seismic Site Classification.

The average N value for each layer was calculated and used in equation 16-45 of the New York State

Building Code to calculate an overall standard penetration resistance of 86.13. This value was then compared to the values in Table 1615.1.1 to identify the overall Seismic Site Classification as CLASS C.

The New York State Building Code (NYSBC) and the International Building Code (IBC) were reviewed to further determine the seismic site criteria. The NYSBC exactly follows the IBC and contains updated ground motion maps which were used for this evaluation. The seismic design category is based upon the short period response (SDS) and the 1-second period response (SD1) accelerations using the following equations.

SDS =

x SMS = x FA x SS Where: SMS = Max earthquake spectral response acceleration - short periods

3 3 SM1 = Max earthquake spectral response acceleration - 1-sec periods

SD1 =

x SM1 = x FV x S1 FA & FV = Site coefficients (provided in NYSBC)

3 3 SS & S1 = Mapped spectral responses (provided in NYSBC)

From the spectral response maps provided in the NYSBC, Ss is approximately 0.19g and S1 is approximately 0.06g. Using a Site Classification of Class C, Fa is 1.2 and Fv is 1.7. Based on these values, SDS = 0.152g and SD1 = 0.071g. These results correspond to the following Seismic Design

Categories as listed in the NYSBC and should be used when designing the superstructure of the buildings.

Earthquake Spectral Response

Seismic Use Group

I II III

SDS < 0.167g A A A

0.167g ≤ SDS < 0.33g B B C

0.33g ≤ SDS < 0.50g C C D

0.50g ≤ SDS Da D D

SD1 < 0.067g A A A

0.067g ≤ SD1 < 0.133g B B C

0.133g ≤ SD1 < 0.20g C C D

0.20g ≤ SD1 D D D

4.4 Lateral Earth Pressure – Foundation Walls / Retaining Walls

Active and Passive Lateral Earth Pressure can be calculated using the following equations and the soil property values provided in Section 4.1. It is assumed that the wall areas will be pre-drained so that there is no hydrostatic pressure behind the walls.

Pa = x H2 x Ka

Pp = x H2 x Kp

Po = x H2 x Ko

2 2 2

Where: Pa = Active Lateral Earth Pressure Pp = Passive Lateral Earth Pressure

Po = At-Rest Lateral Earth Pressure = Unit Weight of Soil Adjacent to Footing H = Height of Permanent Soil Ka = Active Earth Pressure Coefficient Kp = Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient Ko = At-Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient = 0.50

These equations assume that the fill material (native in-situ soil or off-site borrow material) is compacted to approximately 95% of modified proctor density (ASTM D1557) and that the ground surface behind the wall is horizontal. If the ground surface slopes away from the wall (up or down) then the earth pressure coefficients and lateral earth pressures must be recalculated taking into account that geometry. For flexible walls the active earth pressure may be used and for rigid walls the at-rest pressure (Po) should be used. For live loads (e.g., vehicular traffic, machinery,…) operate near the buried structure and/or top of the retaining wall, the horizontal pressure due to live load should be superimposed on the static earth pressure.

4.5 Site Drainage

The area where the proposed facility will be constructed grades downward to the southeast towards

Tower Road. The final grading plan for the proposed facility is not yet known; however, grading should be conducted to allow surface water runoff to be directed around the new facility towards the existing drainage swale along Tower Road. This can be accomplished by installing surface berms and/or swales.

Roof leaders should also be routed to discharge away from building foundations and/or equipment foundations.

4.6 Soil Erosion

The soils encountered in the exploration are highly erodible because they are low plasticity silts - very fine particles that are not sticky. The project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must include approved temporary and permanent erosion protection measures. This may include surface water diversion and conveyance in protected channels or pipes, protection with vegetation; geotextiles or graded filters and gravel, cobbles or riprap as the potential water velocity dictates. Silt fences will also be required at potential runoff locations in accordance with the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation guidance.

5.0 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

This project consists of constructing a new single story radar control/research building, an antenna array and a radar tower in an area to the west of the existing radar control/research building as depicted on

Figure 3 in Attachment A.

5.1 Applicable Foundations

The following types of foundations are applicable for use at this site for the types of structures listed.

These types of foundations are further discussed in the subsections that follow.

Foundation Type Application

Slab on Grade Lightly loaded exterior equipment pads that can tolerate movement First floor of single story structure

Shallow Spread Footing Single story structure & antenna array with frost wall to support columns

Drilled Shafts Radar tower to eliminate/minimize lateral movement

5.2 Concrete Slab-on-Grade

For lightly loaded equipment pads, it is anticipated that the subgrade for concrete slabs-on-grade will be the medium dense gravelly sandy Silt and Clay that underlies the topsoil throughout the proposed building area. Although this in-situ soil is frost susceptible, the use of flexible connectors between the equipment and conduits servicing the equipment should be able to withstand the movement cause by frost heaving or thaw softening. For the single story build, a slab-on-grade can be used for the first floor provided that it is protected from frost with a perimeter frost wall founded on a spread footing. In addition, the interior of the building must remain heated during the winter months to avoid frost heaving around the perimeter of the slab thus causing cracks.

The allowable bearing capacity for the medium dense gravelly sandy Silt and Clay material is provided in

Section 4; however, slab-on-grade foundations are governed by considerations of tolerable settlements rather than bearing capacity. The modulus of subgrade reaction, kv, is commonly used to characterize the vertical stiffness of the soil below a slab-on grade foundation. The modulus of subgrade reaction is not a fundamental soil property but depends on a number of factors. The estimated value for the modulus of vertical subgrade reaction for the medium dense gravelly sandy Silt and Clay is provided in Section 4 and is based on the geotechnical data available provided that the subgrade is prepared as outlined in Sections

7.1 and 7.2 below.

Each slab-on-grade, should be supported on at least 18 inches of well compacted, freely draining, well-graded 3/4-inch minus crushed gravel base course, placed upon a separation and stabilization geotextile fabric (woven or non-woven) over hard non-yielding subgrade soils or controlled compacted fill. The compacted gravel base course material should be compacted to 100% of the maximum dry density determined by the standard proctor method (ASTM D698) or a hard non-yielding surface. Slabs-on-grade should not be located closer than 10 feet from the top edge of a slope. Depending on the design load and severity of a constructed slope, a slope stability evaluation may also be required to identify if the slab-on-grade and equipment could cause the slope to become unstable.

5.3 Shallow Foundations

Shallow spread footings and/or raft foundations are applicable for this site provided they bear upon the dense to very dense highly weathered Shale or very dense weathered Shale. The allowable bearing capacities of these materials are provided in Section 4. Using the allowable bearing capacity, settlement was modeled to be less than 1-inch. For foundations that will be exposed to the yearly freeze/thaw cycle, it is recommended that the bottom of those foundations bear a minimum of 5.0 feet (60-inches) below finished grade. For foundations that are located within the interior of a building, the minimum depth can be 2 feet below the finished floor provided that the building remains heated in the winter and the footing is a minimum of 5.0 feet away from the exterior foundation wall. These minimum depths can also be reduced provided insulation techniques are provided as described in Section 4. It is recommended that qualified geotechnical personnel, independent of the contractor, review footing designs, subgrade conditions and foundation preparation prior to placing concrete to confirm that the ground conditions are as described in this report. In addition, shallow foundations constructed at the top of a slope should not be located closer than 10 feet from the top edge of a slope. Depending on the design load and severity of a constructed slope, a slope stability evaluation may also be required to identify if the loads being applied to a shallow foundation causes the slope to become unstable.

5.3.1 Eccentric Loading

Shallow foundations subjected to horizontal loads should be designed in a manner such that the resultant loading falls within the middle 1/2 and preferably within the middle 1/3 of the footing width. The following equations can be used to locate where the resultant force acts on the footing.

Xb max: Maximum distance from centerline of footing to the resultant force must be less than Bf/4

(middle half of footing) and preferably Bf/6 (middle third of footing) (Bf: width of footing)

Xb = Sum of Moments about “A” ( MA)

Sum of the Resistive Forces ( FR) e: Distance from “Point A” to resultant force must be greater than Bf/4 (middle half of footing) and preferably

Bf/6 (middle third of footing) (Bf: width of footing) e = Bf

- Xb

Qmax: Maximum eccentric load due to horizontal forces

(Lf: length of footing)

Qmax =

FR

x 1 + 6 x Xb

Bf x Lf Lf

Qmax

≤ Allowable Bearing Capacity

5.3.2 Lateral Resistance

The Allowable Lateral Resistance of footings subjected to lateral loads is estimated by calculating the sliding resistance (SR) of the footing along the base and the passive earth pressure (Pp) resistance of permanent soil acting on the side of the buried structure opposite the applied lateral load and adding the results. The following equations can be used to calculate the Allowable Lateral Resistance.

SR =

Ptot x tan

Pp = x H2 x Kp

FOS 2

Where: Ptot = Total Vertical Load

= Friction Factor – See Attachment E FOS = Factor of Safety = 1.25

= Unit Weight of Soil Adjacent to Footing H = Height of Permanent Soil Kp = Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient

5.4 Deep Foundations

Deep foundations that are applicable for this site for the radar tower in order to minimize/eliminate movement due to wind loading. The most applicable deep foundation for this structure consists of drilled shafts otherwise known as drilled cast-in-place (CIP) concrete piles. Highly weathered to weathered

Shale was encountered from a depth of approximately 4-feet bgs to 19-feet bgs based upon the results of the boring logs with auger refusal occurred at a depth of approximately 19-feet bgs. Based upon the boring logs and depth of auger refusal, the bedrock surface appears to range from elevation ±1540-feet to elevation ±1,545-feet. For design purposes, elevation ±1,542 should be used for the top of rock elevation.

The drilled shaft will be installed to the desired depth and a CIP concrete pile will be constructed. While the drilled shaft is being excavated, temporary casing will be needed to keep the overburden and weathered bedrock from sloughing into the shaft. In addition, pumping may also be required depending upon the amount of ground water seepage that occurs. The recommended ultimate and allowable bearing capacities and skin friction are provided in Section 4. For bearing it is recommended that skin friction be neglected since the pile must move to mobilize this resistance. For uplift it is recommended that skin friction and the weight of the pile be used to calculate the resistance for a single pile. Although cobbles and boulders were not encountered during drilling, they may exist on site and could pose issues while advancing the drilled shafts.

Settlement of individual drilled shafts (modeled using a 3-foot diameter base) is anticipated to be less than

1/4-inches. Since the drilled shafts will be bearing within rock, group effects will not be an issue for piles spaced 3 diameters or greater center-to-center. For the drilled shafts it will be necessary to inspect and confirm that a competent end bearing surface has been encountered prior to constructing the CIP concrete pile. Since the proposed site grades are unknown, it is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be consulted to calculate drag-down loads where piles will be installed where proposed fill will be 5-feet or greater in thickness.

For lateral loads factors such as the rigidity of the pile relative to surrounding soil, fixity condition at the pile head, structural capacity of the pile to withstand bending moments, mobilization of soil resistance, tolerable deflection at the pile head and pile group effects must be taken into account. The design parameters for designing lateral pile capacities are provided in Section 4.

6.0 RETAINING WALL ALTERNATIVES & CONSIDERATIONS

The proposed grading for the area that will be developed has not been determined; however, based upon the existing topography there is the possibility that retaining walls may be required. If a retaining wall is required, the Geotechnical Engineer should evaluate the design for overall global stability (e.g., slope stability) as well as for sliding and overturning based upon the geometry and loading (e.g., earth pressure, surcharge, etc…). The overall global stability is modeled either using Wedge Analysis and/or a slope stability program (e.g., SLIDE by Rocscience) with the proposed loading conditions. Wedge Analysis is used to determine the forces that can cause overturning and sliding such that the factored resistive forces are greater than the factored applied loads. For global stability the critical failure plane/circle is determined by the using either Bishop’s or Janbu’s method of slices such that the most critical failure plane/circle has a Factor-of-Safety of 1.35 or greater.

6.1 Retaining Wall Alternatives

Two types of retaining wall systems were evaluated for this site based upon the subsurface conditions encountered. A plain smooth or aesthetic textured finish can be provided for each retaining wall system.

These types included the following and will be discussed separately below:

Precast Concrete Retaining Wall System

Gravity Cast-in-place Concrete/Counterfort Retaining Wall

6.2 Precast Concrete Retaining Wall System

This type of wall relies on the bearing soils to be stable and capable of supporting the concrete and/or concrete and backfill material mass without causing global instability. The following three types of precast concrete retaining wall systems were evaluated.

A mass concrete block retaining wall system, such as Redi-Rock™, incorporates large concrete blocks that interlock together to form a gravity retaining wall.

A T-Wall™ concrete retaining wall system uses precast concrete sections in the shape of a “T”.

The top portion of the “T” forms the retaining wall surface while friction is developed between the backfill material and the stem of the “T”.

A Double-Wall™ concrete retaining wall system uses precast concrete modular sections that have a front and rear wall with 2 or 3 webs connecting each wall. The modules are placed and void between the front and rear walls are filled with controlled compacted fill.

6.3 Cast-in-place Concrete Retaining Wall

These types of walls are constructed in two stages such that the foundation/footing is first formed, concrete is poured into the forms and allowed to cure (harden) to a specific strength before forming and pouring the stem or wall. This type of wall also relies on the bearing soils to be stable and capable of supporting the wall system along with the loading induced by the retained earth and surcharge without causing global stability. Backfilling of the wall does not occur until the concrete has reached a desired minimum strength.

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Work Area Preparation

The site will require some clearing and grubbing prior to other construction activities commencing.

Deleterious material (e.g., trees, brush, bushes, grass, topsoil, roots, etc…) should be removed from the limits of construction. Topsoil and organic soil should be stockpiled outside the limits of construction for later use to dress landscaped areas.

The final grading plan for the new facility area has not be established; however, based on the existing surface topography and that it is preferred to have level areas for each of the three structures, some excavation and/or filling will be required to achieve the planned surface grades. Upon stripping the topsoil layer in areas to achieve the planned subgrade, the subgrade soil shall be proof rolled/tamped and compacted to a hard non-yielding surface. If pumping or weaving is observed while proof rolling or tamping, the unsuitable soil shall be removed and replaced with controlled compacted fill consisting of material containing less than 10-percent Silt (material passing the No. 200 sieve) or material with a plasticity index of 4 or less. After the subgrade has been inspected and identified as being acceptable, unnecessary trafficking of vehicles across the subgrade should be avoided. In addition, the contractor should be advised that the in-situ soils are moisture sensitive/frost susceptible and precautions should be implemented to minimize exposed subgrade soils from becoming excessively wet or dry prior to placing fill.

7.2 Suitability of On-Site Soil and Controlled Compacted Fill

The in-situ soils contain appreciable amounts of Silt and Clay (37% to 51%) thereby making them highly moisture sensitive and should not be used for controlled compacted fill to support structures. If the contractor plans to use the on-site material, they should be made aware that special handling (e.g., wetting or drying) may be required to obtain a moisture content that will allow the material to be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density determined by the modified proctor method (ASTM

D1557).

Prior to using the in-situ soils or offsite borrow material as controlled compacted fill a modified proctor test (ASTM D1557) should be conducted of each anticipated fill material to identify the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. This information is subsequently used to determine if the material placed meets the compaction requirements during backfilling operations.

Controlled compacted fill material used to achieve final grades should be placed and compacted as follows:

Compaction

Equipment

Maximum Loose

Lift Thickness Percent Compaction

Walk Behind 6-inches 95% Maximum Dry Density by Modified

Proctor Method (ASTM D1557) Self-Propelled 8-inches

Depending upon the compaction results, the thickness of the loose lift may be changed during construction provided the compaction requirement is being achieved. Full time monitoring and compaction testing by qualified geotechnical personnel, independent of the contractor, should also be conducted during fill placement or proof-rolling operations to confirm that the specifications are being achieved.

Backfilling around buried concrete walls should not begin until the concrete has reached the minimum

28-day strength. Heavy rollers and/or compacting equipment should not operate within 2-feet of the structure. Caution should be exercised while placing the backfill to avoid lateral loads induced by the compaction equipment. To avoid differential lateral pressures against walls that were not designed to retain soil, the backfill should be brought up evenly on each side of the wall.

Compacted fill may settle due to self weight and/or any additional loads applied to the fill. The anticipated settlement depends on the type of fill material, degree of compaction, and uniformity of compaction. To minimize settlement, the guidelines stated above should be followed. The estimated settlement of controlled compacted fill as a function of compaction effort is provided below.

Compaction Effort

(% MDD)

Fill Settlement (% Fill Thickness)

Cohesive Soil Granular Soil

100 0.5 0.4

98 1.0 0.75

95 1.5 1.0

90 4.0 2.0

< 90 > 4.0 > 2.0

Note: MDD – Maximum Dry Density

7.3 Cut and Fill Slopes

Based on the existing surface topography where the expansion will be constructed, it appears that cuts and fills may be required. It is recommended that slopes be no steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V).

Shallower slopes (e.g., 4H:1V, 5H:1V) are recommended for areas that require maintenance (e.g., mowing). Exposed slopes should either be armored with medium rip-rap (3-inch to 6-inch rock) or covered with topsoil and seeded.

7.4 Temporary Excavations and Buried Structures

Temporary excavations must be conducted in accordance with the U.S. Department of Labor –

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standard 1926 Subpart P titled “Excavations”.

Within this subpart are appendices that pertain to safety aspects of excavations such as: soil classification, sloping and benching, shoring, and assistance with selecting the appropriate protective system. Prior to workers entering the excavation a Competent Person, as defined by OSHA, must inspect the excavation and deem it safe for entry.

The contractor shall also place excavated spoils no closer to the excavation than the minimum setback distance prescribed by OSHA so as to not compromise stability of the excavation. In addition, the contractor should also consider installing small berms/swales where necessary to control surface water runoff from entering excavations.

ATTACHMENT A

Figures

GENERAL NOTES:

1. 5.

2.

3. 6.

LEGEND:

4.

F

P ro je c t\

N .K

B

H A

N D

A R

I, C

O N

S U

L T

IN

G

E N

G

P .C

\5

A F

R L

N e w p o rt

R e s e a rc h A n te n n a M e a s u re

\D e s ig n \T e c h n ic a l\ G e o te c h n ic a l\ [S it e

B o ri n g L o c S k e tc h .x ls ]F ig u re

DRAWN BY: CTB

C&S Engineers, Inc.

499 Col. Eileen Collins Blvd.

Syracuse, New York, 13212 p: 315-455-2000 f: 315-455-9667

1005 W. Fayette St., Suite 4A

Syracuse, New York 13204 p: 315-428-1177

PROJECT NO:

BORINGS WERE CONDUCTED BY CME ASSOCIATES, INC.

ON DECEMBER 28 & 29, 2016 AT THE LOCATIONS LAID OUT

IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER.

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE -

ROME AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES IDENTIFIED

THAT ALL BORING LOCATIONS WERE CLEAR OF KNOWN

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.

BORING LOCATION (SEE FIGURE 3)

LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

Scale: 1" = ± 3,500'

THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY FOR FIGURES 1, 2 & 3 WERE

OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE EARTH AND ARE DEPICTED AT

AN APPROXIMATE STANDARD SCALE.

FIGURES 1, 2 & 3 ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR

CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.

GENERAL NOTES…