GeoReport 250916E.pdf

PDF 3 MB Posted Apr 8, 2026

Attached to: Steel Structure Combo
Solicitation number: F3N0425339A001
Issued by: Department of the Air Force United States Air Forces in Europe - Air Forces Africa

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Apr 23, 2026

This is a Geotechnical Report for a construction project at Vogelweh Family Housing involving the addition/alteration of Building 1058 for a satellite fire station at USAFE 435 CTS in Ramstein-Miesenbach, Germany.

The investigation was conducted by ICP Ingenieure GmbH on July 24, 2025, including small boreholes (RB 2-6) and heavy dynamic probing tests (DPH 1-2) to depths of 1.20-3.10 meters below ground level. Soil composition consists of three stratigraphic units: fillings (soil groups [GU]/[SU]), weathered sands (soil group SU), and transition zone/solid rock (sandstone, rock classes 6-7). The report establishes homogeneous areas B1 (fillings, EBV classification BM-F0*) and B2 (weathered soils, EBV classification BM-0) with design base resistance values of 380 kN/m² for strip foundations at 0.5m width and 1.0m minimum embedment depth. No groundwater was detected during fieldwork, though seasonal fluctuations and temporary waterlogged horizons are possible. The report recommends conventional shallow foundation construction with a foundation cushion thickness of 0.30-0.40m using easily compactable coarse or mixed-grain materials (soil groups GW). Chemical analysis of excavated materials (two samples) classified as non-hazardous waste under EBV (MP_Fillings as BM-F0*, MP_Sands as BM-0), and asphalt testing (RB 6/SD) yielded PAH content of 1.4 mg/kg, classifying road rubble as non-hazardous waste suitable for recycling class A hot mix process.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
YANB21 1566 A1 Site Plan.pdf	PDF	Apr 8, 2026
Fire Strategy 250925 B4229.pdf	PDF	Apr 8, 2026
SOW Structure Slab 251203_Redacted.pdf	PDF	Apr 8, 2026
YANB21 1566 A2 Floor Plan.pdf	PDF	Apr 8, 2026
YANB21 1566 A3 Elevations.pdf	PDF	Apr 8, 2026
F3N0425339A001 Combo Steel Structure updated.pdf	PDF	Apr 8, 2026

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

ICP, Büro Eifel ICP, Zentrale ICP, Büro Südpfalz

Johannes-Kepler-Straße 7 Am Tränkwald 27 Lindelbrunnstraße 6 54634 Bitburg 67688 Rodenbach 76887 Bad Bergzabern

Telefon 06561-18824 Telefon 06374-80507-0 Telefon 06343-9539022 E-Mail bitburg@icp-geologen.de E-Mail info@icp-geologen.de E-Mail info@suew-geologen.de www.icp-geologen.de

ICP – Am Tränkwald 27 – 67688 Rodenbach

Geotechnical Report

Project-Nr.: B25101

Project: 435th CTS - Add/Alter building 1058 for satellite fire station, Vogelweh Family Housing

Subject: Site investigation with geotechnical report

Processor: Laura Krüger (M. Sc. Angew. Geowiss.) /ns

Date: 16.09.2025

Via mail to: slava.mirkova.bg@us.af.mil; thomas.lenhard.de@us.af.mil

Manager Frank Neumann Oliver Semmelsberger

Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern

HRB2687

USt-Id-Nr. DE 152749803 USt-Id-Nr. LU 18399128

USAFE 435 CTS / CELK

An der Schwarzbach 17

66877 Ramstein-Miesenbach mailto:slava.mirkova.bg@us.af.mil mailto:thomas.lenhard.de@us.af.mil

B25101 435th CTS - Add/Alter building 1058 for satellite fire station, Vogelweh Family Housing

54634 Bitburg 67688 Rodenbach 76887 Bad Bergzabern Telefon 06561-18824 Telefon 06374-80507-0 Telefon 06343-9539022 E-Mail bitburg@icp-geologen.de E-Mail info@icp-geologen.de E-Mail info@suew-geologen.de www.icp-geologen.de

Table of contents

1 Process and scope of services

2 Geological overview, outcrop results, and parameters

3 Geological engineering assessment of building ground

4 Building foundation

4.1 General information

4.2 Building foundation

4.3 Final remarks on the founding

5 Earthworks information

5.1 Excavation pits and trenches, water drainage

5.2 Reusability of excavated soil

6 Information on waterproofing buildings

7 Preliminary investigation under waste legislation

7.1 Excavated material

7.2 Road excavation/asphalt removal

8 Final remark

Apendix:

1. Site plan

2. Layer register in accordance of DIN 4022

3. Drill logs in accordance of DIN 4023 und

Ram diagrams accordance of DIN EN ISO 22476-2

4. Grain size distribution accordance of DIN EN ISO 17892-4

5. Drill log record

6. Laboratory report Nr. 3729488 from 12.08.2025, AGROLAB Labor GmbH, Bruckberg (EBV)

7. confirmation of freedom from munitions, KMRS Moser

8. Earth resistance measurement

1 Process and scope of services

ICP Ingenieure GmbH (ICP), Am Tränkwald 27, 67688 Rodenbach, was commissioned by USAFE

435 CTS / CELK, An der Schwarzbach 17, 66877 Ramstein-Miesenbach, to conduct a site investi-gation and prepare a geotechnical report with foundation proposals for the above construction pro-ject.

The following documents were made available by the client for the preparation of the report:

[1] File No: YANB 21-1566 – Site Plan-New Designs with Phases, Scale: 1:200; Date:

17.06.2025, prepared by 435 CTS, An der Schwarzbach, 66877 Ramstein, PDF-file

[2] File No: YANB 21-1566 –Top View, Existing Situation, Scale: 1:200; Date: 17.06.2025, pre-pared by 435 CTS, An der Schwarzbach, 66877 Ramstein, PDF-file

[3] File No: YANB 21-1566 –Project Area, Scale: 1:500; Date: 17.06.2025, prepared by 435

CTS, An der Schwarzbach, 66877 Ramstein, PDF-file

At the time of writing, no views or sections of the construction project were available. The exten-sion/new construction of the fire station will be located on the US property of Family Housing Vo-gelweh. According to [1], the floor area of the new extension is approximately 21.40 m x 15.71 m.

In addition, an extension with a floor area of approximately 6.67 m x 6.00 m is planned to the north.

Fieldwork

All access points were cleared in advance by a pyrotechnician. The clearance certificate is attached in Appendix 7. The planned RB 1 borehole could not be cleared due to the pipe situation on site.

To explore the subsoil, small boreholes RB 2 to RB 6 (DN 80/60) were sunk on July 24, 2025, in construction area -5- in accordance with DIN EN ISO 22475-1. The boreholes were terminated at depths between 1.20 m and 3.10 m below the starting point (uAP) as no further drilling progress could be achieved (drilling standstill).

In addition, a total of -2- heavy dynamic probing tests DPH 1 and DPH 2 in accordance with DIN

EN ISO 22476-2 were carried out to assess the density and consistency of the loose rock soils in the construction site area and to explore the transition zone to solid rock. The probings reached depths of 1.40 m uAP and 2.10 m uAP. The probings were rammed.

The existing surface pavement (area RB 6) was “broken up” using a core drilling machine (DN 150).

The documentation of the drill core is attached in Appendix 5.

The results of the investigation were presented in layer registers in accordance with DIN 4022

(Appendix 2) and drilling profiles in accordance with DIN 4023, as well as in blow count diagrams

(N-value diagrams) for dynamic probing in accordance with DIN EN ISO 22476-2 (Appendix 3).

In addition, the specific earth resistance ρs was determined in the planning area using the Wenner method. The measurements determined are listed in Appendix 8.

Soil mechanic

For soil classification in accordance with DIN 18196, the grain size distributions of two characteristic soil samples were determined in the soil mechanics laboratory using wet sieving in accordance with

DIN EN ISO 17892-4 (Appendix 4).

Analytics

For orientation purposes, a total of two mixed samples of the loosened loose rock were taken from the construction site and handed over to AGROLAB Labor GmbH, Bruckberg, for testing according to the parameters specified in Appendix 1, Table 3, BM/BG-0* of the “Ersatzbaustoffverordnung

(EBV)” (Substitute Building Materials Ordinance). Test report no. 3729488 dated August 12, 2025, is attached as Appendix 6.

In addition, -1- core sample was taken from the blacktop for laboratory chemical analysis of PAH parameters in accordance with EPA by AGROLAB Labor GmbH, 84079 Bruckberg.

Report

For the drilled soil layers, the characteristic soil parameters according to DIN 1055, the soil groups according to DIN 18196, the soil classes according to DIN 18300:2012-09, the frost sensitivity clas-ses according to ZTV E-StB 17, and the design values of the base resistance R,d according to DIN

1054:2010-12 were determined for the drilled soil layers. Furthermore, homogeneous areas were formed according to DIN 18300:2019-09.

The starting points of the small rammed boreholes and the heavy rammed probes were determined by means of GNSS surveying according to position (UTM coordinates) and height (m above sea level) and can be found in Table 1. The final depths of the boreholes (m below ground level and m above sea level) are also listed in Table 1.

The location of the exposure points and the manhole cover can be found in the attached site plan

(Appendix 1).

Table 1: Altitude and coordinate data

Altitude and coordinate data

Project:

435th CTS - Add/Alter building 1058 for satellite fire station, Vogelweh Family Housing

Date: 24.07.2025

Supervisor: Stanca/Milev

Coordninate system: UTM-Koordinatensystem

Heavy dynamic prob-ing (DPH) / Small dy-namic drilling (RB)

UTM-Coordinates Starting point

(AP)

Final depth

Easting [m]

Northing [m]

[m a sl] [m u AP] [m a NN]

RB 2 32U 407064 5476168 279,97 3,10 276,87

RB 3 32U 407062 5476190 279,27 1,80 277,47

RB 4 32U 407085 5476201 280,09 1,20 278,89

RB 5 32U 407062 5476212 279,12 2,80 276,32

RB 6 32U 407083 5476212 279,48 1,20 278,28

DPH 1 32U 407075 5476183 280,02 2,10 277,92

DPH 2 32U 407072 5476203 279,31 1,40 277,91

This geotechnical report summarizes the results of the aforementioned investigations and provides information and recommendations for the construction work.

2 Geological overview, outcrop results, and parameters

According to the Geological Map of Rhineland-Palatinate (1:300,000), the project area is located in the Lower Buntsandstein of the Palatinate (sT; Triassic, Buntsandstein; Trifels layers and sRS;

Triassic, Rehberg and Schlossberg layers). The rock suite consists of violet to light red fine to coarse sandstones, which are massive and siliceous.

Query of the soil map (BFD50-RLP)

Soils composed of solifluidal sediments— cambisol, podzolic, composed of debris-bearing sand

(main layer) over debris sand (base layer) over deep debris sand composed of sandstone (red sandstone)

Based on the regional geological situation and the results of the exploration, the following basic profile, divided into stratigraphic units (SG), can be derived below the partially reinforced super-structure or topsoil layer:

SG I: Fillings Gravel, slightly silty, slightly medium/coarse sandy Sand, ± gravelly, slightly silty Foreign matter: Natural stone gravel (HSM), broken brick, glass Color: Gray, gray-brown, (light) brown, red Bulk density: loose to very dense Soil groups: [GU], [SU] according to DIN 18196 SG II: Weathering sands (Medium/fine) sand, (fine) sand, slightly silty, ± (fine) gravelly, partly (fine/coarse) sandy Color: (light) brown, red, Bulk density: medium to dense Soil group: SU according to DIN 18196

SG III: Transition zone / Solid rock

Medium to coarse sandstone in the transition zone ±weathered

Rock class 6 or 7 according to DIN 18300:2012-09

The characteristic parameters of the upcoming layer elements are summarized in Table 2 below.

The hard rock was not directly broken up, as sinking into it is not possible due to the nature of the process. All dynamic probing was completed. The final depths and thus also the transition zone to the hard rock are shown graphically in Appendix 3. The boundaries are interpolated!

Table 2: Characteristic values and soil parameters

SG I

Fillings

SG II

Weathered

Sands

SG III

Transition zone / Solid rock

Soil group (DIN 18196) [GU], [SU] SU --

Soil-/Rockclass (DIN 18300:2012-09)

3 3 6, 7

Homogeeous area**) (DIN 18300:2019-09)

B1 B2 X1, X2

Bulk density loose to dense medium density to dense

Specific weight (DIN 1055) [kN/m3] cal cal '

18,0 – 22,0 10,0 – 14,0

20,0 – 22,0 12,0 – 14,0

22,0 – 24,0 12,0 – 14,0

Angle of friction cal ’ [Grad]

(DIN 1055)

30,0 - 35,0 32,5 – 35,0 27,5 – 35,0 sliding friction angle

Elastic modulus cal Es [MN/m²] 10 – 60 25 - 60 > 80

Susceptibility to frost action ac-cording toZTV E-StB 17

F2++) F2++) --

Rated value oft he base re-sistance R,d [kN/m²] nach DIN 1054:2010-12

3801) 3801) > 380

Permeability kf [m/s] according to literature

10-4 – 10-6 10-4 – 10-6 gap-dependent

Mass fraction (M.-%) Stones Blocks Large blocks

0 - 30

Assessment according to EBV (Chapter 7)

BM-F0* BM-0 --

**) The classification of soils into homogeneous areas was based not only on their condition prior to loosening, but also on the available analysis (Chapter 7). The properties and characteristic values to be specified for construction measures of geotechnical category GK 1 according to DIN 4020, as well as their range (insofar as it was possible to determine the range), are contained in the table above.

1) This value applies only to strip foundations with b or b' = 0.5 m and a minimum foundation embedment depth of

1.0 m, provided that all application requirements of DIN 1054:2010-12 are met, which must be checked before applying the table values. Particular attention is drawn to the requirement for sufficient ground strength. For other embedment depths, the values according to DIN 1054:2010-12, Table A 6.1 apply analogously. Under certain con-ditions, the table values must be reduced or can be increased (see specifications in DIN 1054:2010-12).

When applying the values according to Table A 6.1, settlements of approximately 2 cm are to be expected for foundation widths up to 1.5 m, and for wider foundations, settlements that are approximately proportional to the foundation width. If neighboring foundations are significantly affected, greater settlements may also occur.

++) Only if ≥ 5% by weight < 0.063 mm at U ≥ 15 or ≥ 15% by weight < 0.063 mm at U ≤ 6, otherwise belonging to F1.

*) Values assumed based on the regional geological situation

Table 3 shows the general characteristic values of the underlying homogeneous areas for position-ing measures in geotechnical category 1.

Table 3: General summary of the characteristic values of the underlying homogeneous areas

Homogene-ous area characteristic values EBV assignment class

O1 Topsoil without classification

Fillings Soils of soil groups [GU] and [SU], in loose to very dense deposits, stone content 0-30%, rating according to EBV, soil class 3

BM-F0*

Weathered soils Soils of soil group SU, in loose to very dense deposits, stone content 0-30%, rating according to EBV, soil class 3

BM-0

X1*

Transition zone to solid rock / solid rock Rock with very small to medium

(≙ cube < 46 cm or sphere < 60 cm) dimensions of rock bodies, completely to moderately weathered

Soil class 6 without analytics

X2*

Solid rock Rock with medium (≙ cube < 46 cm or sphere < 60 cm) to very large dimensions of the rock bodies, slightly weathered to fresh, soil class 7 without analytics

* not drilled

Water levels

No groundwater, stratum water, or stagnant water could be detected at any of the outcrops at the time of the field work (July 24, 2025).

Nevertheless, temporary stratum water flow subject to seasonal fluctuations or the formation of waterlogged horizons cannot be generally ruled out.

It should also be noted that the groundwater level is subject to fluctuations. Within a year, there is usually a seasonal change from high groundwater levels (maximum usually in spring) to low ground-water levels (minimum usually in autumn). This is due to groundwater recharge from precipitation in the winter months and the lack of or only slight groundwater recharge in the summer months.

Several consecutive dry years usually result in an overall downward trend in groundwater levels over several years, while several consecutive wet years result in an overall upward trend in ground-water levels over several years. This long-term trend is superimposed by seasonal changes in groundwater levels within a year.

In this context, we would also like to point out that the temporary formation of local waterlogged horizons on layers above the closed groundwater table, especially after prolonged periods of pre-cipitation, cannot be generally ruled out.

3 Geological engineering assessment of building ground

Earthquake zone

With regard to seismic activity, the study area does not belong to any earthquake zone according to DIN EN 1998-1/NA:2011-01, based on the coordinates of the town center.

Non-cohesive soils (here: [GU]/GU and [SU]/SU) represent a well-bearing foundation with generally low settlement under static loads, provided they are at least of medium density.

The hard rock horizon provides a very stable foundation with little tendency to settle. It is not possible to differentiate precisely between soil classes 6 and 7 on the basis of the investigation methods commissioned.

For typical foundation types, common soil types, and foundation dimensions—so-called standard cases—DIN 1054:2010 contains table values for design values of base resistance (Tables A 6.1–

A 6.8).

The values listed are based on ground failure and settlement calculations, so that for standard cases, verification of the limit states for ground failure (GEO-2), sliding (GEO-2), and serviceability

(SLS) is not required. Since the standard case method is a simplified verification, it must be carefully checked before each design whether the application limits specified in DIN 1054:2010 are complied with. If these requirements are not met, or if the design values for the base resistance are exceeded, all of the above verifications must be carried out.

An essential prerequisite for the application of the table values is sufficient strength of the subsoil at a depth below the foundation base corresponding to twice the foundation width, but at least 2.0

m. For non-cohesive soils, this is verified by the values specified in Table A 6.3 of DIN 1054:2010 for the storage density, the degree of compaction, and the peak resistance of the pressure probe.

For cohesive soils, a minimum stiff consistency must be present or a uniaxial compressive strength of at least 120 kN/m² must have been determined.

As an auxiliary criterion for assessing the consistent adequacy of the subsoil strength, the sounding resistance N10 (number of blows per 10 cm penetration depth) was determined using a heavy ram probe. Based on PLACZEK (1985), experience has shown that the following minimum requirements for the number of blows must be met for specific soils:

Heavy dynamic probe: Medium-density storage: Impact numbers N10 ≥ 4 ± 1

After evaluating the results of the heavy dynamic probing tests (DPH 1 and DPH 2), the facts pre-sented in Table 4 below regarding the depth of the building ground with consistently at least stiff consistency (up to the final depth of the probing test performed) are obtained.

Table 4: Depth of the building site with consistently medium-density storage

Heavy dynamic probing

(DPH)

Building site with consist-ently medium-density soil ca.

[m under starting point]

Building site with consist-ently medium-density soil approx. [m above sea level]

DPH 1 0,90 Ca. 279,12

DPH 2 0,30 Ca. 279,01

Based on the results of the investigation, the new building can be constructed using a conventional shallow foundation.

4 Building foundation

4.1 General information

The information in this report, the foundation proposals listed below, and the earthwork specifica-tions (slope angle, etc.) refer only to the immediate construction site.

When laying the foundations, care must be taken to ensure a uniform (if necessary, homogenized) foundation substrate.

According to [1], the floor area of the new extension is approximately 21.40 m x 15.71 m. In addition, an extension with a floor area of approximately 6.67 m x 6.00 m is planned to the north.

We recommend separating the extensions from the existing building with an expansion joint, as the load on the building ground caused by the extension can lead to mutual influences and the individ-ual parts of the building may settle differently.

Load

Information on the load on the foundations or floor slab was not available at the time of reporting. If the actual wall and column loads are available, additional ground failure and settlement calculations may be necessary.

Building foundation

Based on the penetration resistance measured by the heavy dynamic probing tests DPH 1 and

DPH 2 in correlation with the small dynamic probing tests in the area of the new building, the exist-ing soils already have sufficient bearing capacity below the surface pavement/topsoil.

4.2 Building foundation

Single/strip foundations

If, when constructing foundations using strip footings, the soil at the level of the footing bases does not have sufficient bearing capacity (loose soil with low density), the founda-tions must be extended down to a soil with at least sufficient bearing capacity (medium density) or to solid rock, or a granular foundation mattress (foundation cushion) must be installed below the foundations.

The foundation bearing surfaces must be thoroughly compacted before pouring the foundation concrete.

To prevent weather conditions from deteriorating the mechanical properties of the subsoil, we recommend installing a lean concrete sub-base layer (approx. 5–10 cm thick) immediately after excavation and acceptance of the foundation trenches when using strip foundations.

New construction/extension area:

Based on the results of the analysis, there is a homogeneous layer structure in the area of the assumed foundation base. It is assumed that the building will rest on loose rock. Therefore, the values for soil group SU can be used in the simplified procedure.

The design value R,d of the base resistance of 380 kN/m² only applies to strip foundations with b or b' = 0.5 m and a minimum foundation embedment depth of 1.0 m, in compliance with all application requirements of DIN 1054:2010-12, which must be checked before applying the table values. In particular, reference is made to the required sufficient strength of the building ground.

For other embedment depths, the values according to DIN 1054:2010-12, Table A 6.1 apply analogously. Under certain conditions, the table values must be reduced or can be increased (see specifications in DIN 1054:2010-12).

When applying the values according to Table A 6.1, settlements of approximately 2 cm can be expected for foundation widths up to 1.5 m, and for wider foundations, settlements that are approximately proportional to the foundation width. If neighboring foundations are significantly affected, larger settlements may also occur.

Load-bearing, elastically supported reinforced concrete floor slab

When constructing foundations using load-bearing, elastically bedded reinforced concrete floor slabs, a granular foundation mattress must be installed in areas where the load-bearing capacity is insufficient. When installing a granular foundation mattress, cohesive soils with a soft or soft-stiff consistency, which are not very load-bearing due to their susceptibility to settlement, are replaced in whole or in part by foreign material. This leads to a reduction in the absolute amounts of settle-ment and to a more even distribution of differential settlement. It also homogenizes the building ground.

In view of the expected building loads and comparison with similar construction projects and similar ground stratification, a foundation cushion thickness of approx. 0.30 m – 0.40 m should be assumed in order to avoid stress peaks and settlement differences.

The required hardcore filling heights and the thickness of the foundation pads must be adjusted according to the foundation level. Since only selective subsoil investigations were carried out, the required thicknesses of the foundation pads may vary.

The final replacement thicknesses and hardcore filling heights must be rechecked by the expert during the excavation work with regard to their soil mechanical suitability using suitable methods.

The foundation bases must always be intensively compacted if they are not located in solid rock.

If a foundation consisting of a load-bearing, elastically bedded reinforced concrete floor slab and the above-mentioned foundation pads is chosen, the static preliminary design can be based on empirical values from comparable construction projects with similar ground stratification under the slab, assuming bedding moduli of approximately 15–25 MN/m³ and in the edge areas of approxi-mately 30–40 MN/m³ can be estimated for the static preliminary design based on empirical values from comparable construction projects with similar ground stratification under the slab. However, these values depend on the loads on the slabs and the expected settlements.

When calculated precisely, the applicable bedding modules are derived from the calculated base stress distribution according to the relationship ks = /s. However, depending on the size of the loads occurring and the permissible absolute and differential settlements, the precise dimensioning of a foundation cushion can only be determined on the basis of settlement calculations.

Note

The tabulated values for the bearing capacity factor given in the literature (e.g., Schneider, Construction

Tables for Engineers, 20th edition) are based on a determination of the bearing capacity factor in traffic route construction using a plate load test (762 mm plate diameter) and are generally not applicable for the design of foundation slabs. The bearing capacity values must be determined by calculating settlement using real geometry and loads. In any case, bearing capacity values for foundation design may only be determined on the basis of the results of plate load tests if the part of the subsoil subjected to stress by the structure consists of a homogeneous layer.

When choosing this foundation method, we recommend commissioning additional settlement calculations once the planning is sufficiently mature and the actual wall and column loads (simplified load plan) have been submitted. An optimized foundation proposal can be developed based on these calculations.

The responsible planning office should clarify which expected absolute settlements and set-tlement differences are compatible with the structure.

Foundation cushion

We recommend using easily compactable coarse or mixed-grain, well-graded earth materials from soil groups GW (hard rock material with a delivery grain size of 0/45, 0/56) as foreign material.

The foundation cushion must be produced and compacted in layers (maximum fill thickness 30 cm).

A degree of compaction of at least DPr ≥ 98% must be ensured. The degree of compaction must be checked and verified (e.g., by means of a plate load test in accordance with DIN 18134).

When using the above-mentioned material and compacting in layers, a stiffness modulus in the range of ES = 30 - 35 MN/m² can be assumed for the cushion body based on empirical values.

If the foundation cushion is staggered in height, it must be installed in steps. The foundation cushion must be constructed beyond the edge of the foundation/slab at a load distribution angle of 45°.

The existing subgrade must always be recompacted before installing the geotextile, unless it is located in solid rock.

If the actual foundation level is higher or lower than assumed above, the thickness of the foundation cushion must be adjusted accordingly.

Since only selective subsoil investigations were carried out, the required thicknesses of a founda-tion cushion to be installed may vary. The final replacement thicknesses must be rechecked by the expert during the excavation work with regard to their soil mechanical suitability, using suitable methods.

The foundation soles or replacement soles must be approved by the expert.

4.3 Final remarks on the founding

For all types of foundations, the foundation bearing surfaces must be recompacted before the ca-pillary-breaking layer or foundation concrete is poured. Softened or saturated areas with a mushy consistency in the area of the foundation bases must be replaced with well-compactable gravel sand or comparable material (lean concrete, crushed stone).

To prevent deterioration of the mechanical properties of the subsoil due to weathering, we recom-mend placing a clean layer of loose material (e.g., grain size 0/32) or, better still, lean concrete

(approx. 5 cm thick) under the floor slab.

Drainage of the excavation pit base must be ensured at all times!

5 Earthworks information

5.1 Excavation pits and trenches, water drainage

As a general rule, DIN 4124 must be observed during excavation work. This standard specifies the rules for measuring and executing construction pits and trenches.

Unsupported vertical excavation walls

These may be constructed in soils above the groundwater level at a depth of up to 1.25 m, provided that the standard distances for traffic loads in accordance with DIN 4124 are observed and the adjacent ground surface complies with the following maximum values for slope:

• Non-cohesive and soft cohesive soils Maximum

1:10

• At least stiff cohesive soils maximum 1:2

In soils that are at least stiff and cohesive above the groundwater table, as well as in rock, the excavation depth may be up to 1.75 m if the area of the wall above 1.25 m above the base is sloped at a maximum angle of 45° (1:1) and the adjacent terrain slope is no more than 1:10.

Excavation pits with a depth > 1.25 m or > 1.75 m

These must be constructed or installed with sloped walls. The slope angle is determined independently of the soil's looseness, based on its mechanical properties, taking into account the time during which the excavation pit must remain open and the external influences acting on the excavation pit slope.

In normal cases, short-term embankments of excavation pits up to a maximum embankment height of 5 m above the groundwater level may be constructed without mathematical proof of stability, provided that the standard distances for traffic loads in accordance with DIN 4124 are observed and the following maximum embankment angles are maintained:

Non-cohesive soils: 45°

Cohesive soils: 45° with a soft consistency

60° with at least a firm consistency bedrock: 80° (taking into account the separation surface structure)

If soils of different soil groups or stiff and soft sections are cut into during excavation, the permissible angle of inclination of the most unfavorable layer package must be maintained over the entire height of the slope (i.e., 45°).

The specified permissible slope angles only apply to standard cases. Smaller slope inclinations must be provided and verified by calculation in accordance with DIN 4084 if special influences jeopardize stability. This applies, for example, in the case of

• layered water influences, incision of waterlogged horizons,

• Embankments higher than 5 m,

• Construction machinery or equipment with a total weight of up to and including 12 tons that does not maintain a distance of at least 1 m between the outer edge of the contact surface and the edge of the trench or embankment.

• Construction machinery or equipment with a total weight of more than 12 t to 40 t that does not maintain a distance of at least 2 m between the outer edge of the contact surface and the edge of the trench or embankment.

• Slope of the terrain adjacent to the edge of the embankment greater than 1:10.

In the event of additional loads on unlined pit walls caused by excavators, hoists, walkways, stored materials, or similar, stability must be verified in accordance with DIN 4084.

If excavation pits remain open for long periods, the slopes must be carefully covered with plastic sheeting to protect them from erosion caused by weather conditions. Any stratum water that may accumulate in the excavation pit must be properly collected together with inflowing precipitation water by means of open water retention (pump sumps) and permanently drained.

Shoring

If there is insufficient space to excavate a sloped excavation pit in accordance with the above spec-ifications, or if the excavation pit is located within the sphere of influence of existing buildings, the excavation pit must be secured by means of a reinforced, structurally adequate shoring system.

The stability of the shoring must be ensured at every stage of construction until the final excavation base is reached and the trench or working area is completely backfilled.

The shoring must be designed for the highest expected loads in the most unfavorable position. In particular, additional loads from excavators, hoists, stored materials, etc. must be taken into ac-count.

All parts of the shoring must be checked regularly during construction, repaired if necessary, and reinforced. This applies in particular after prolonged interruptions in work, after heavy rainfall, when thawing sets in, and in the event of significant changes in load.

In the event of seasonal shifts or groundwater inflow, the excavation pit shoring must be selected in such a way as to ensure that no soil is washed out with the inflowing water.

Note

The graphics used in section 5.1 “Excavation pits and trenches, water drainage” were taken from the BG Bau

2012 info CD-ROM published by the German Social Accident Insurance Institution for the construction indus-try.

5.2 Reusability of excavated soil

Loose rock

The loose rock soils of soil groups [GU]/GU and [SU]/SU produced during excavation are classified as easily compactable and, with a suitable water content (soil moisture condition), are generally suitable for layer-by-layer compacted backfilling of work areas and pipe trenches as well as for terrain filling. The fill heights should not exceed 0.3 m. In confined working areas, lower fill heights may be necessary, as experience has shown that only light compaction equipment can be used here.

Bedrock

If rock is loosened during the necessary earthworks, it can generally be reused for larger fillings in earthworks and road construction, provided that the solid rock is sufficiently crushed during the compaction work. Larger stones/boulders/blocks can only be reused after appropriate processing in a crusher or crushing with heavy equipment (excavator, caterpillar).

Once crushed, the broken material can in principle be reused for layer-by-layer compaction of work areas or for filling channel and pipe trenches in accordance with the compaction requirements of

ZTVE-StB 17, provided that it has a suitable water content. If necessary, the crushed solid rock must be moistened to a compactable water content (earth-moist condition) before being reinstalled.

General information

Similarly, if the soil is too dry, it must be moistened to a compactable water content (soil moisture condition).

The replacement base and working level must be compacted using static compaction equipment.

The principles and specifications of DIN 4150 “Vibrations in building construction” must be observed.

Excavated soil with a compactable water content that is to be used for backfilling must be protected from moisture penetration or drying out by suitable measures (e.g., covering with tarpaulins or plastic sheeting, temporary storage on rolled-off stockpiles).

If additional foreign material has to be incorporated, we recommend the use of easily compactable, coarse-grained or mixed-grained, well-graded earth materials of soil groups SU, GU, SW, GW (e.g., sandstone quarry, gravel-sand, sand, hard rock material, or quality-controlled recycled material with a delivery grain size of 0/45, 0/56, or comparable).

Note:

The information refers exclusively to the soil mechanical properties of the excavated soil. Any restrictions on the recycling options for the excavated material were determined by means of a declaration analysis (chemical pollutant analysis in accordance with EBV (see Chapter 7).

6 Information on waterproofing buildings

With regard to the required building waterproofing, the information and instructions in the new wa-terproofing standard for components in contact with the ground, DIN 18533-1 (as of July 2017), must be observed. The new standard provides assistance with the planning and execution of build-ing waterproofing. Notes and detailed explanations on water exposure, crack and usage classes, the classification of different types of waterproofing, and processing are included in the new series of standards.

According to literature references, the soils encountered in the project area have permea-bility coefficients of < 10-4 m/s (range between 10-5 and 10-6 m/s). Based on these coeffi-cients and the determined water table levels, the waterproofing must be selected by the specialist planner in accordance with DIN 18533-1.

When selecting the type of waterproofing, the planner must also be aware of the planned crack expansion of existing cracks or the expected formation of new cracks. For this purpose, four crack classes (R1-E to R4-E) have been defined in DIN 18533, to which crack bridging classes (RÜ1-E to RÜ4-E) of the waterproofing materials are assigned. Another relevant factor for selecting the type of waterproofing is the intended use of the component to be waterproofed. This is reflected in the three room usage classes (RN1-E to RN3-E), which differ, for example, in terms of different requirements for the dryness of the room air.

To drain capillary rising water, a capillary-breaking layer must be provided under the floor slab (e.g., 15 cm gravel/crushed stone 8/16 DIN 4226, Part 1).

A geotextile of robustness class GRK 4 must be installed between the existing subsoil and the capillary layer if filter stability is not guaranteed. (e.g., areas where clay and silt are present below)

In all other respects, the information and instructions in DIN 18533-1 to -3 (as of July 2017) apply.

7 Preliminary investigation under waste legislation

Since August 1, 2023, the regulation introducing a substitute building materials regulation (EBV) has been in force, according to which excavated material from construction projects must be assessed nationwide in terms of recycling for external disposal in accordance with the criteria of the regulation on requirements for the installation of mineral substitute building materials in technical structures (Substitute Building Materials Regulation – EBV). This ordinance defines categories (BM/BG-0 to BM/BG-F3) that impose different technical requirements for recycling. The recycling of soil and construction waste/recycled material is regulated differently in some cases.

Soil mixtures with more than 10% by volume of foreign matter must be assessed in accordance with EBV classes BM/BG-F0* to BM/BG-F3.

In principle, mineral substitute building materials or mixtures may only be used in technical structures “if there is no reason to fear adverse changes in groundwater quality and harmful soil changes [...]” (§19 EBV).

For installation, the installation tables listed in Appendix 2 of the EBV must be observed, which regulate the “possible uses of mineral substitute building materials in technical structures” depending on the analyzed pollutant class. In addition, Appendix 2 takes into account the specifications regarding water protection areas, groundwater cover layers, and the required safety distance to the highest measured groundwater level.

The installation methods are differentiated between outside and inside the water protection area.

Inside the water protection areas, installation is limited to favorable properties of the groundwater cover layers (sand or loam/silt/clay, groundwater-free seepage distance > 1 m, plus a safety distance of 0.5 m). Outside water protection areas, a distinction is made between “unfavorable,”

“favorable – sand,” and “favorable – loam/silt/clay.”

The groundwater-free seepage distance is defined here as the distance between the lower edge of the installation height of the mineral substitute building material and the highest expected groundwater level or the groundwater level derived from the measurement data. An assessment of the groundwater cover layers is carried out by an expert on the basis of soil science analyses of soil samples or building site investigations in accordance with soil mechanics or soil science standards.

In water protection and medicinal spring protection areas in Zone I, the use of mineral substitute building materials in technical structures is not permitted. In water protection and medicinal spring protection areas in Zone II, only soil material and mixtures of class 0 – BM-0 may be used in technical structures (see § 19 (6) EBV).

Installation methods that are not listed in Annex 2 EBV may be approved in individual cases upon application to the competent authority, provided that they do not cause any adverse changes to the groundwater quality or harmful soil changes. Such a decision on a case-by-case basis may also be made for the use of materials in technical structures that are not regulated by the EBV (cf. § 21

EBV).

The EBV neither regulates the classification of waste into a waste code according to the Waste

Catalogue Ordinance (AVV) nor does it regulate the hazardousness of mineral substitute building materials. Instead, the regulations of the AVV and the relevant regulations in the federal states apply [LAGA, FAQ on the EBV, as of February 7, 2023].

7.1 Excavated material

For the purpose of orienting the waste classification of the excavated soil, two mixed samples were taken from the boreholes and sent to AGROLAB Labor GmbH, Bruckberg, for laboratory chemical analysis in accordance with the Substitute Building Materials Ordinance BM-0* (solids and eluate).

Test report no. 3708888 dated June 18, 2025, is attached as Appendix 6.

In accordance with the applicable regulations, the test items are classified as follows, regardless of the selected disposal method:

Table 5: Investigation results and preliminary classification Soil

Description MP_Fillings MP_Sands sample type Soil and rocks

Withdrawal by GS/KM date of withdrawal 24.07.2025 point of withdrawal

RB2:P2-P4

RB3: P2

RB4:P2+P3

RB5: P2+P3

RB2: P5+P6

RB3: P3-P5

RB4: P4

RB5: P4-P6

RB6: P2-P4

assessment findings

Solid matter:

TOC: 1,09 Ma.-%

Eluate:

Solid matter:

Eluate:

EBV BM-F0* BM-0

AVV

17 05 04

(Soil and rocks)

7.2 Road excavation/asphalt removal

The Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act requires the highest possible quality, environmentally compatible recycling of asphalt and road construction waste. The recycling options for tar-containing road rubble are described in the “Guidelines for the environmentally friendly recy-cling of construction materials containing tar/pitch-typical components and for the recycling of as-phalt from road construction” - RuVA-StB 01 (2001 edition, 2005 version).

At the state level, these regulations are supplemented by the “Guidelines for the Treatment of As-phalt and Road Debris with Tar/Pitch-Typical Components” for Rhineland-Palatinate (2nd edition

09/2006, updated August 2008). According to this, the relevant limit value for distinguishing be-tween non-hazardous and hazardous waste is 30 mg/kg PAH according to the EPA.

RuVA-StB 01 distinguishes between two recycling classes, in which 25 mg/kg PAH according to

EPA has been set as the limit value between asphalt and construction materials with tar/pitch-typical components for classification into recycling classes A and B:

• < 25 mg/kg TS recycling class A (reuse in hot mix process)

• ≥ 25 mg/kg TS recycling class B (reuse in cold mixing process with hydraulic binder)

To examine the possibilities for recycling the road rubble generated during the expansion, waste management investigations were carried out in accordance with the following regulations/guide-lines:

[3] LUWG RLP: Manual on waste disposal planning for municipal civil engineering and road construction.

[4] Rhineland-Palatinate State Agency for Roads and Transport: Guidelines for the treatment of asphalt and road rubble containing tar/pitch-type components

[5] Guidelines for the environmentally sound recycling of construction materials containing tar/pitch-type components and for the recycling of asphalt in road construction - RuVA-StB

[6] Federal Working Group on Waste: Communication M32, Guidelines for physical, chemical, and biological testing in connection with waste recovery/disposal

[7] Federal Working Group on Waste: Notice M20, Requirements for the material recycling of mineral residues/waste – Technical Rules

The following test items are classified as follows in accordance with the applicable regulations, regardless of the selected disposal method:

Table 6: Test results and waste classification for blacktop p o in t o f w it h d ra w a l

Sample no.

W it h d ra w a l d e p th

[m u

F o k

] PAH

accordin g to EPA

[mg/kg]

B e n z o

(a )p y re n e

[m g

/k g

] AVV-Key

RB 6 RB 6/ SD 0,0 – 0,90 1,4 0,27 17 03 02

Rating:

Based on the analysis results and current knowledge in Rhineland-Palatinate, the asphalt sample examined from sampling point RB 6 is classified as not containing tar (limit value = 30 mg/kg).

The road rubble characterized by the samples RB 6 / SD examined can be disposed of as non-hazardous waste under waste code number 17 03 02 (bituminous mixtures) or recycled using the hot mix process (recycling class A).

PAH is the abbreviation for “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.” Several hundred individual com-pounds have been identified to date. Since the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has defined 16 individual components with different chemical structures as representative standards, only these are being investigated.

The main component of PAHs is benzo(a)pyrene, which is classified as a category 1B carcinogen due to its hazard potential. Materials or products with a benzo(a)pyrene content of > 50 mg/kg are classified as carcinogenic in accordance with current hazardous substances legislation.

In general:

We would like to point out that the road surface may change even in small areas due to repairs and work on utility lines, so it cannot be ruled out that tar-based binders may also be present in the asphalt pavement in some areas. If, in the course of the work, any abnormalities are found with regard to tar-based components in the road surfaces, the expert must be consulted immediately.

8 Final remark

In accordance with the diverse interrelationships between the building site and the structure, this geotechnical report is only binding in its entirety.

Changes to the working documents and construction work that deviates from the report must there-fore always be reviewed and approved by the expert. Excerpts from this report may only be repro-duced with the consent of the undersigned.

Even when the grid spacing specified in the applicable regulations is observed, building site inves-tigations are inevitably based on point-like investigations, so that deviations in terms of layer thick-ness, formation, and density or consistency of the investigated soil layers between the investigation points cannot generally be ruled out. In particular, seasonal fluctuations in groundwater and stratum water inflows cannot be ruled out.

ICP Ingenieure GmbH therefore reserves the right to review the foundation situation in the course of a formal acceptance of the excavation and foundation bases (as required by DIN 4020) and, if necessary, to issue supplementary execution instructions.

If, in the course of the…

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Apr 23, 2026.