22-0049 Design Analysis.pdf

Design Narrative

TC601 Repair by Replacement Camp Geiger Chapel

Camp Geiger CAMP LEJEUNE, Jacksonville, NC

CONTRACT NO. N40085-22-D-0013

TASK ORDER NO. N40085-4961

for

PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION

MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP

CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

Final Submittal

06-08-2023

Prepared by:

151 Poole Road; Suite 100

Leland, NC 28451

(910) 383-1044

N.C. License #C-1621

Table of Contents

Introduction

Civil scope

Structural scope

Architectural scope

Plumbing scope

Mechanical scope

Electrical scope

Fire Protection

Classification of Occupancy

Construction Requirements

APPENDIX A (Geotechnical Report)

APPENDIX B (Prefinal Design Calculations (Structural))

APPENDIX C (Fire Design Analysis)

TC601 Camp Geiger Chapel – Camp Geiger

Introduction

The project location is an existing developed area of the Camp Geiger Base on Church Street between 6th and 7th Streets. The project consists of a 8,465 SF steel frame building with steel and wood framing, standing seam metal roof, cement board siding, monolithic concrete foundation/ floor slab, site work and utilities. This building was designed to closely resemble the original Chapel. Sitework will also resemble the original layout with the addition of concrete ramps and sidewalks to the public right-of-way. One of the existing large live oak trees will be removed to accommodate the larger Chapel structure.

Civil scope Design Criteria

The following criteria references shall be used in the design of this project where they apply to the required scope of work:

1. Project RFP

2. UFC 3-201-01 - Civil Engineering

3. AASHTO Assoc. of State Highway & Transportation Officials

4. NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation

5. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

6. NCDEQ Sediment and Erosion Control Handbook

Existing Site Conditions

The project site located off Church Street between 6th and 7th Streets. The surrounding area is within a large, grassed area and then a grid of roads, mostly impervious and consisting of asphalt and concrete pavements.

Proposed Site and Utility Features

All existing utilities are adjacent to the site where they had previously connected to the original chapel.

Stormwater and Erosion Control The existing drainage patterns on site will be maintained with the addition of piped roof drains to allow stormwater to continue to flow across the pavement area.

Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be utilized during construction to prevent sediment from leaving the site.

Disturbance on site is limited to less than the required threshold, therefore no environmental permits are expected to be required for this project.

Structural scope

Structural design includes design of new chapel framing to mimic the original chapel framing in appearance. Generally new framing will consist of 2x rafter framing spanning to AESS exposed steel trusses consisting of HSS members. The steel trusses will span to HSS columns. The framing above the fellowship hall and mechanical room will consist of prefabricated wood trusses spanning to load bearing walls.

Design Criteria:

A. Applicable Standards and Codes:

Government Standard Documents:

• UFC 3-301-01, Structural Engineering, Dated 01 October 2019.

Industry Standard Documents:

• IBC 2018, International Building Code

• ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

• ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete

• AISC, Manual of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress Design

B. Design Loadings to be used for design of this structure is as follows unless otherwise indicated:

Classification of Building for Importance Factor

Occupancy Category: III

Dead Loads

Building Materials: Actual Weight

Live Load: Slab: 100 PSF

Wind Load: Wind Velocity (Ultimate): 147 MPH

Wind Velocity (Nominal): 114 MPH

Exposure Category: C

Seismic Load: Ss: 11.5%g

S1: 5.5%g

Importance Factor, I: 1.25

Soil Site Class: D (Assumed)

Seismic Design Category: B

Snow Load: Ground Snow Load: 10 PSF

Architectural scope

The following criteria references shall be used in the design of this project where they apply to the required scope of work:

1. Project RFP

2. UFC 1-200-01 DoD Building Code, with Change 1

3. UFC 1-200-02 High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements, with

Change 2

4. FC 1-300-09N Navy and Marine Corps Design Procedures, with Change 6

5. UFC 3-101-01 Architecture, with Change 1

6. UFC 3-110-03 Roofing, with Change 5

7. UFC 3-120-01 Design: Sign Standards, with Change 3

8. UFC 3-120-10 Interior Design, with Change 2

9. Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standards (ABAAS)

10. 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design

11. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune Base Exterior Architectural Plan (BEAP)

Building TC601 will be a nondenominational chapel seating approximately 430 people.

The building will also include a fellowship room large enough for about 70 people sitting at tables, and an office and support spaces. The new building is a “repair by replacement” project and the interior and exterior appearance and detailing is similar to the original building that is being replaced, except the new building is larger and the construction systems and materials are typical for current new construction projects.

A. The building is 8,465 square feet, one-story.

B. The code category for occupancy is A-3, assembly.

C. The exterior of the building will be cementitious wood fiber siding boards (Hardie

Plank or equal) and will have a standing seam metal roof.

D. Wall insulation is 3” of rigid board, continuous, exceeding the required R-15 value

(approximately at R-18). The roof system has 5” of polyiso board insulation, exceeding the required R-25 value (approximately at R-29).

E. The structural system is slab on grade with steel columns and trusses, and in some locations structural steel cold-formed steel light gauge framing.

F. The columns, roof trusses and wood roof decking have been selected and designed to replicate the original building in general appearance. They are intended to create a similar occupant experience to the building that is being replaced.

G. The building will comply with ICC Accessibility Codes and ADA requirements.

H. Seating is not included in the building construction, but the building design and code evaluation is based on pew seating in the main sanctuary area.

I. The project scope of work does not include any acoustical panels or other sound control measures in the sanctuary. The owner has required that the floor finishes be hard surfaces, the walls are gypsum board, and the ceiling is an exposed wood decking system (the same as the original building being replaced). With these selections, the building will probably need some acoustical treatments added after the building is occupied.

Plumbing scope

General Plumbing Works Design Criteria DoD Building Code: UFC 1-200-01, 08 October 2019

Navy and Marine Corps Design Procedures: FC 1-300-09N, with Change 4, 14 June 2018

Mechanical Engineering: UFC 3-401-01, with Change 1, 01 October 2015

Plumbing Systems: UFC 3-420-01, with Change 11, 01 November 2019

High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements: UFC 1-200- 02, with Change 4, 01 October 2019

DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Building: UFC 4-010-01, 12 December 2018

Fire Protection Engineering for Facilities: UFC 3-600-01, with Change 4, 07 February 2020

IPC, International Plumbing Code, 2018

Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Standards, 2015

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers: ASHRAE 189.1, with Change 1, 01 October 2017

U.S. National CAD Standard for Architecture, Engineering, & Construction (A/E/C)

PLUMBING SYSTEM DESIGN APPROACH – BUILDING TC601

In general, the plumbing system scope of work for Building TC601 will include new domestic cold and hot water, sanitary waste, and vent piping, and new plumbing fixtures. All plumbing fixtures will be specified to meet the water efficiency requirements of UFC 1-200-02 and ASHRAE 189.1, section 6.3.2.

A natural gas fired water heater, expansion tank, and recirculation pump will be provided to serve the domestic hot water needs of the facility. A 2” water main has been determined to be adequately sized to serve the facility’s domestic water needs. The water main will enter the building on the north side of the building. Domestic water piping will be provided throughout the building to serve all fixtures. The domestic water piping will connect to the service riser in Mechanical Room 126. A 2” backflow preventer will also be provided.

This facility will include ADA compliant heads. The Men’s Head will include a single ADA compliant floor mounted dual function flush valve water closet sensor operated and hardwired with mechanical override, non-ADA floor mount dual function flush valve water closets sensor operated and hardwired with mechanical override, wall-mounted flush valve urinals sensor operated and hardwired with mechanical override and countertop hardwired sensor operated lavatories. The Women’s Head will include a single ADA compliant floor mounted dual function flush valve water closet sensor operated and hardwired with mechanical override, two non-ADA floor mount dual function flush valve water closets sensor operated and hardwired with mechanical override and countertop hardwired sensor operated lavatories. A unisex head will include a non-ADA floor mount dual function flush valve water closets sensor operated and hardwired with mechanical override and a wall hung hardwired sensor operated lavatory.

The facility will also include wall-hydrants, hose bibbs, water coolers, a service sink, an emergency shower/facewash, and two dual compartment stainless steel sink. See table below for fixture quantities.

Plumbing Fixtures Heads: Accessible fixtures will be provided in compliance with the UFAS. Fixtures include:

Undermount lavatories with sensor operated faucets and aerators – 0.5 gpm and thermostatic mixing valve to limit hot water temperature to maximum 110°F (ASSE 1070).

Floor mounted Flush Valve Water Closets – 1.28 gpf

Wall mounted Flush Valve Urinals – 0.125 gpf.

Water coolers – 8 gph

Fellowship Hall Sink - counter mounted, two compartment stainless steel sink with 4” wrist blade handle gooseneck faucet and aerators – 1.5 gpm

Water and sanitary waste piping will be provided to all fixtures. Copper water piping and Schedule 40 PVC sanitary waste piping will be specified.

Domestic Water Service

Table 1: Estimated number of Supply Fixture Units (SFU) for plumbing fixtures –

TC601

FIXTURE QUANTITY SFU TOTAL SFU

Water Closet 6 10 60

Lavatory 5 2 10

Urinal 1 5 5

Kitchen/Breakroom Sink 1 1.4 1.4

Drinking Fountain 1 0.25 0.25

Service Sink 2 3 6

Hose Bibbs 1 2 2

Total 84.65 SFU

Preliminary calculations for the total water supply result in 84.65 SFU’s and

64.3 GPM. Supply Fixture Units are derived from the International Plumbing Code. A new 2” domestic water service line is deemed to be adequate to serve the building’s water needs.

Sanitary Sewer System

Table 2: Estimated Number of Drainage Fixture Units (DFU) for Plumbing Fixtures – TC601

FIXTURE QUANTITY DFU TOTAL DFU

Water Closet 6 4 24

Lavatory 5 1 5

Urinal 1 2 2

Kitchen/ Breakroom Sink 1 2 2

Service sink 2 2 4 Drinking Fountain 1 0.5 0.5

Total 37.5 DFU’s

Preliminary calculations for total sanitary sewer discharge result in 175 DFU’s.

Drainage Fixture Units are derived from the International Plumbing Code.

Domestic Hot Water The design temperature of the domestic hot water system will be 140°F (60°C). A mixing valve will be provided to deliver 110°F hot water to each lavatory and kitchen sink.

Table 3: Hot Water Demand – TC601

FIXTURE QUANTITY GPH TOTAL GPH DEMAND

Lavatory 5 6 30

Kitchen/ Breakroom Sink 1 20 20

Mop Sink 2 20 40

Emergency Eye/Facewash

1 75 75

Total 165 GPH

The design is based on a 100 gal. storage tank natural gas fired condensing water heater to recover 230 GPH (minimum) at 100° rise. The water heater selection is based on PVI model series 20 L 100A-GCL.

Mechanical scope

General Mechanical Works Design Criteria General Building Requirements: UFC 1-200-01, 08 October 2019

Design Procedures: UFC 1-300-09N, with change 4, 04 June 2018

Energy Conservation: UFC 1-200-02, with change 4, 01 October 2019

Mechanical Engineering: UFC 3-401-01, with change 1, 01 October 2015

Design: Engineering Weather Data: UFC 3-400-02, 20 September 2018

Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Systems: UFC 3-410-01, with change 5, 01 November 2019

Direct Digital Controls for HVAC and other Building Control Systems: UFC 3-410-02, with change 1, 02 March 2020

Energy Standard for Buildings except for Low-Rise Residential Buildings:

ASHRAE 90.1-2013

Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality: ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2016

DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings, 12 December 2018

Camp Lejeune Mechanical Design Guidance, 01 July 2017

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS DESIGN ASSESSMENT

Building TC601 will be conditioned by multiple types of HVAC systems. The sanctuary will be conditioned by a single zone VAV air handling unit with chilled water cooling coil and hot water heating. The AHU will have reheat coils dehumidification control. The AHU will modulate the amount of outdoor air served to the building by utilizing a demand control ventilation scheme based on occupancy as measured by CO2 sensors located in the sanctuary.

The remaining areas of the chapel will be served by three blower coil 4-pipe air handling units. Ventilation air to these spaces will be provided from the sanctuary system.

Chilled water will be delivered to the air handling units by two constant speed primary pumps operating in a lead/standby configuration. Heating hot water will be generated by two natural gas condensing boilers. Heating hot water piping will be arranged in a primary/secondary loop configuration. Each boiler will have its own primary pump. The secondary loop will be served by two constant speed pumps operating in a lead/standby configuration.

All Communication rooms will be conditioned by dedicated wall mounted ductless split system heat pumps.

Mechanical rooms will be heated and ventilated only.

Ventilation Ventilation rates will be calculated in accordance with ASHRAE Standard 62.

Design Conditions

Outdoor Design Conditions

Dry bulb

Wet bulb

Summer – Dry Day

91°F 77°F

Summer – Humid Day

84°F 79°F

Winter 22°F --

Space Winter (degrees / %

RH)

Summer (degrees / %

RH)

Occupied Spaces

70°F / NA 73°F / 55%

HVAC Control System The new HVAC equipment controls will be integrated into the existing Camp Lejeune base-wide Johnson Controls Metasys® Energy Management Control System (EMCS). HVAC Equipment provided under this project will be equipped with BACnet MS/TP compatible controllers to support this integration.

Electrical scope

General Electrical Works Design Criteria

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.

ANSI C2, National Electrical Safety Code.

ANSI C37.47, Distribution Fuse Disconnecting switches, Fuse Supports and Current Limiting.

ANSI C84.1, Electric Power Systems and Equipment - Voltage Ratings.

NFPA 70, National Electrical Code (NEC).

Electrical Engineering, UFC 3-501-01, With Change 1, 01 November 2019

Interior Electrical Systems, UFC 3-520-01, With Change 2, 12 April 2021

Interior and Exterior Lighting Systems, UFC 3-530-01, 09 February

Telecommunications Interior Infrastructure Planning and Design, UFC 3-580- 01, With Change 1, 01 June 2016

Interior Distribution System

A new primary service will be provided to a new 112.5KVA, 12.47KV primary, 120/208V secondary, 3 φ, 4W pad mounted transformer. The primary service will include pole mounted fused cut outs to tap the existing 12.47KV overhead electrical distribution, a riser down the utility pole, and duct bank from the existing utility pole to the 112.5KVA pad mounted transformer. A secondary service will be provided from the 112.5KVA pad mounted transformer via underground duct bank to the “MDP“ panel mounted in the Riser Room. One distribution panelboard shall be located next to the “MDP” panel and additional panels will be located in the mechanical IT rooms.

All wiring will be run in conduit, minimum of 3/4” trade size. Conduit will be electrical metallic tubing, galvanized rigid steel conduit, or intermediate metal conduit. Electrical metallic tubing will be allowed in dry locations only. Electrical metallic tubing will not be permitted to be installed in concrete.

Conductors will be thermoplastic insulated with type THWN/THHW insulations. All conductors will be specified as copper. An insulated, green, grounding conductor will be provided in all circuit runs.

The pertinent standards of design used for this project will include compliance with the current edition of the National Electrical Code and requirements defined in the pertinent UFC documents. Specific pertinent design standards will be as follows:

Voltage drop will be kept to less than 2.0% between the panelboard and the last outlet on that circuit.

Lighting

Interior lighting systems will consist of energy efficient LED type fixtures.

Volumetric indirect type fixtures shall be used in office spaces, fellowship room and corridors where lay-in type ceilings occur.

Specialty pendant fixtures will be utilized in the Nave, Sanctuary and Transept areas.

The interior lighting systems shall be controlled by use of occupancy sensors and vacancy sensors to comply with current energy codes, and to maximize energy savings.

Office spaces and select rooms shall be provided with dimming lighting controls. Exit and EBU (emergency battery unit) lights shall be provided per code.

Lighting in mechanical and electrical rooms and utility spaces shall be industrial style LED lighting.

Building mounted exterior lighting shall be furnished for all egress points. Building mounted exterior lighting fixtures shall be LED type with integral emergency battery backup.

Exterior lighting shall be controlled by photocell and time clock for efficient operation and adjustability.

Lighting intensities will be as specified in the current edition of the Illuminating Engineers Society handbook and UFC 3-530-01.

The following lighting intensities will be provided:

Offices 30 FC (foot-candles) Average

Fellowship 50 FC Average

Storage 10 FC Average

Restrooms 15 FC Average

Corridors 5 FC Average

Electrical/Mechanical 20 FC Average

Telecommunication 50 FC Average

Sanctuary/Nave 70 FC Average

North & South Transept 70 FC Average

Lighting fixtures will be detailed individually. All fixture plates will be shown on the drawings.

Power

Receptacles will be 20A, 125V grounding type. Ground fault interrupter (GFI) type receptacles will be provided at all sink locations. Weatherproof GFI receptacles will be strategically located around the exterior of the building.

Connections shall be made to all mechanical equipment such as electric heaters, exhaust fans, and other air conditioning systems as described in the Mechanical portion of this narrative. Disconnects shall be provided for all mechanical units.

Telecommunications Systems

We will provide a complete building entrance facility, backbone distribution system, and horizontal distribution system including, but not necessarily limited to, all wiring, pathway systems, grounding, backboards, connector blocks, protectors for all copper service entrance pairs, patch panels, fiber optic distribution panels, terminators for all fiber optic cables, outlet boxes, telephone jacks, data jacks and cover plates.

We will provide floor boxes with capacity as required. Floor boxes shall be the recessed outlet type with hinged cover with sliding door(s) for cable egress.

We will Provide Category 6 Unshielded Twisted Pair (UTP) copper cable for horizontal voice and data cables.

Two 4” conduits with 3-3” fabric mesh innerduct will be provided from Manhole MH2B-1 to building TC601 (1 for copper/SMFO cabling and 1 spare) with handholes as required and concrete encased.

The telecommunications systems will be designed and provided in accordance with UFC 3-580-01 and MCBCL specifications 27 10 00 and 33 82 00. Design will be coordinated with Base Telephone, Mr.

Steve Daigle.

Public Address Systems

Not used.

Intercommunications Systems

Television Systems

Not used.

Security Systems

Fire Protection

An addressable fire alarm system will be provided in accordance with UFC 3-600-01 and NFPA 72. The system will also function as a mass notification system.

A wet-pipe sprinkler system designed in accordance with UFC 3-600-01 and NFPA 13 will be provided.

Refer to the “Fire Protection Design Analysis” required by UFC 3-600-01 for additional requirements.

Design Criteria

The following criteria references shall be used in the design of this project where they apply to the required scope of work:

1. Project RFP

2. UFC 1-200-01 DOD Building Code, with Change 1 (September 1, 2022)

3. UFC 3-600-01 Fire Protection Engineering for Facilities, with Change 6

(May 6, 2021)

4. UFC 4-010-01 DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings, with

Change 1 (August 19, 2020)

5. UFC 4-021-01 Design and O&M: Mass Notification Systems, with Change 1

(January 2010)

6. IBC International Building Code, 2021 Edition

7. NFPA 1 Fire Code, 2021 Edition

8. NFPA 10 Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2022 Edition

9. NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2022 Edition

10. NFPA 70 National Electrical Code, 2023 Edition

11. NFPA 72 Fire Alarm Code 2022, Edition

12. NFPA 90A Standard for Installation for Air-Conditioning and Ventilation Systems, 2021 Edition

13. NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (LSC), 2021 Edition

Classification of Occupancy

The building consists of Group A-3/Assembly Occupancy.

Construction Requirements

The building is a single story, approximately 8,465 ft2 Type IIB construction building.

See appendix for full Fire Protection Design Analysis.

APPENDIX A

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Geotechnical Engineering Report

TC601 Camp Geiger Chapel

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

Prepared for:

MCB Camp Lejeune Public Works Division

151 Poole Road, Suite 100

(910) 383-1044

NC License C-1621 Project No. G2022-300

May 1, 2023

1 5 1 P o o l e R o a d , S u i t e 1 0 0 • L e l a n d , N C 2 8 4 5 1 • T E L : ( 9 1 0 ) 3 8 3 - 1 0 4 4 • F A X ( 9 1 0 ) 3 8 3 - 1 0 4 5 w w w . c a p e f e a r e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

May 1, 2023

Commanding General Attn: Public Works Division Morgan Hunter, Project Manager MCB, PSC Box 20004 Camp Lejeune, NC 28542-0004

RE: Geotechnical Engineering Report TC601 Camp Geiger Chapel MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Project No: G2022-300

Dear Morgan:

Cape Fear Engineering, Inc. (CFE) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project. This report presents the results of the subsurface exploration and provides our geotechnical engineering recommendations.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us.

Respectfully Submitted, Cape Fear Engineering

Michael C. Raup, P.E.

Project Engineer NC Reg. # 045271

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Site Location and Description

1.2 Scope of Services

1.3 Project Authorization

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Field Exploration

2.2 Laboratory Testing

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

3.3 Groundwater

4.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Earthwork - Site Clearing and Grading

4.2 Earthwork – Subgrade Preparation and Evaluation

4.3 Earthwork – Suitable Structural Fill, Placement, and Compaction Requirements

4.4 Foundations

4.5 Building Floor Slabs

4.6 Seismic Evaluation

4.7 Construction Considerations

5.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I BORING LOCATION EXHIBIT

APPENDIX II CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

APPENDIX III BORING LOGS

APPENDIX IV SOIL PROFILE

APPEDNIX V TC601 CAMP GEIGER CHAPEL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT DATED 8-17-22

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 1 CFE Project No.: G2022-300

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Site Location and Description

Cape Fear Engineering has completed our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed TC601 Camp Geiger Chapel located in the Camp Geiger section of the MCB Camp Lejeune military installation in North Carolina. This development will include the construction of a new chapel to replace the previous chapel which has recently been removed from the site. A geotechnical report was previously completed by Cape Fear Engineering for the same project dated August 17, 2022.

The purpose of our geotechnical engineering evaluation was to verify the subsurface information for earthwork and foundation design considerations.

The development at this site will include a single-story building with standing seam metal roof, various exterior wall finishes and a concrete slab-on-grade. The maximum column and wall loads associated with the new building are anticipated to be on the order of 50 kips and 1 to 2 kips per linear foot, respectively. The new structure is planned to be supported on a shallow foundation system.

Based on the previously discussed project information, documents provided by the client, and observations during our site reconnaissance, site fill operations are anticipated to be less than 2-feet to establish finish floor and other project site facility elevations. This development will also include underground utilities and other infrastructure components.

The project site is a grassed covered vacant lot located within the block of Church, “A”, 6th, and 7th Streets on Camp Geiger. A drainage swale is located along the front of the site parallel to Church Street. The surrounding area includes existing military facilities and open and wooded vacant parcels of land. The new chapel will be located at or near the same location of the previous chapel building.

The existing chapel building was observed to be removed from the site at the time of our subsurface investigation.

A site vicinity map showing the project area is provided below.

Project Site General Vicinity

Ch ur ch S tr ee t

TC601 – Chapel Project Site

“A” Street

7th Street

6th Street

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 2

1.2 Scope of Services

The purpose of this investigation was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions within the project area. The subsurface conditions were evaluated to provide our engineering assessments. For this project, the following items were evaluated to provide geotechnical engineering information and recommendations:

General assessment of the soils revealed by the borings performed at the project site matching the borings conducted as part of the original geotechnical report, as well as provide the depth of groundwater at the boring locations at the time of drilling.

General location and description of any potentially deleterious materials encountered in the borings that may interfere with earthwork, construction, and the structural performance of the building. Potential deleterious materials include existing fills, expansive soils, substantial organics, or other unsuitable materials.

Interpretation of the soil test borings and existing geotechnical report to provide earthwork design and construction recommendations including stripping, grading, engineer requirements for structural fill, placement, and compaction.

Evaluation of the new and previous soil test borings conducted at the project site to provide recommendations for a shallow foundation system and other foundation construction recommendations for support of the proposed building. Design and construction requirements including allowable bearing pressures, foundation sizes, foundation embedment, expected total and differential settlements, foundation excavation preparation, and required foundation observation and testing.

Seismic site class determination in accordance with the International Building Code

(IBC).

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

1.3 Project Authorization

The Geotechnical Engineering Services were conducted in general accordance with the Cape Fear Engineering fee proposal provided in response to the Request for Proposal (RFP) for this project.

Authorization to proceed with our services was received from Ms. Morgan Hunter of the MCB Camp Lejeune Public Works Division.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 3

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Field Exploration

The general subsurface soil types were explored by completing Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in the areas noted in Table I below. The information obtained from our field exploration program was used to assist in developing the design and construction recommendations.

Table I – Boring Schedule

Boring Number

Boring Depth (feet) Boring Location Description

B-1 25.0 Building area boring located near the northwestern portion of the proposed new building footprint.

B-2 25.0 Building area boring located near the northeastern portion of the proposed new building footprint.

Standard Penetration Tests were performed using mud rotary techniques with a drill rig in general accordance with ASTM D1586 and ASTM D5783. The tests were performed continuously from the existing ground surface to depths of 10 to 12 feet and at 5-foot intervals, thereafter, starting at a depth of 13 feet below existing grade. The soil samples were obtained with a standard split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each of four 6-inch increments of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value (uncorrected for automatic hammer). A representative portion of each disturbed split-spoon sample was collected with each SPT, placed in a glass jar, sealed, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for review.

The boring locations were established, and the locations were staked in the field by a representative of Cape Fear Engineering. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached “Boring Location Exhibit” (Appendix I), which was reproduced from a Google aerial photograph.

2.2 Laboratory Testing

Soil testing provided by Cape Fear Engineering was performed in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards.

Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling operations were labeled, sealed in a glass jar, and transferred to our laboratory in accordance with ASTM D4220 for classification and analysis. Soil descriptions on the boring logs are provided in general accordance with ASTM D2488 using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Soil samples that were selected for testing were classified in general accordance with ASTM D2487. Some variation can be expected between samples classified using the visual-manual procedure (ASTM D2488) and the USCS

(ASTM D2487).

No soil samples were subjected to laboratory testing as samples were only used to verify visual soil classification that was consistent with soils that were previously classified and subjected to laboratory testing. The original geotechnical report is included in Appendix V.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 4

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

The project site lies within a major physiographic province of North Carolina called the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Numerous transgressions and regressions of the Atlantic Ocean have deposited marine, lagoonal, and fluvial (stream lain) sediments. The regional geology is very complex, and generally consists of interbedded layers of varying mixtures of sands, silts, and clays. Based on our review of existing geologic and soil boring data, the geologic stratigraphy encountered in our subsurface exploration generally consisted of marine deposited sands.

3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

A summary of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the boring locations is presented in Table III.

Table III – Subsurface Soil Conditions

Average Depth (ft.) Stratum Description Range of

SPT (1) Values to

0.83 Surficial 10 inches of Topsoil -

0.83 to

25.0 I

Light yellowish brown, very dark grayish brown, dark grayish brown, dark gray, light gray, very dark brown, grayish brown, SAND (SP-SM, SM, SC) with varying amounts of Silt.

Granular

WOH – 16

Note(s):

(1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, N-Values in blows per foot (uncorrected)

(2) WHO = Weight of Hammer

The subsurface descriptions are of a generalized nature and were provided to highlight the major soil strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included in Appendix III (Boring Logs) and in Appendix IV (Soil Profile), which should be reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications shown on the records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the transition may be gradual.

3.3 Groundwater

The initial groundwater level was recorded at the boring locations and as observed through the wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations. The initial groundwater table was measured and occurred at depths of approximately 6.0 feet below the existing site grades at the boring locations to the depths explored. The variations in the groundwater readings are anticipated to be the result of grade differences between boring locations, the effects of recent rain events and associated man-made disturbances, and drainage features. The boreholes were backfilled with grout upon completion for safety considerations.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 5

4.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

Our design and construction recommendations are based on the previously conducted Cape Fear Engineering geotechnical report, discussed project information, interpretation of the soil test borings, review of the provided plans, and observations during our site reconnaissance. If the proposed construction should vary from what was described, we request the opportunity to review our recommendations and make any necessary changes.

4.1 Earthwork - Site Clearing and Grading

The proposed construction area for the new building will be built within the same footprint of the prior chapel building. As previously indicated, the old chapel structure has been removed from the site. The construction area associated with the new chapel building may be impacted by the prior development activities. These impacts may include placement of uncontrolled earthfill, construction debris, existing underground utility installations and/or other potential construction activities which may have disturbed the project study area and could affect the performance of the new structure.

Therefore, the construction area should be cleared by removing any topsoil or associated root mat, de-mucking the existing drainage swale and any other unsuitable material, if encountered.

Based on the SPT borings, 4 inches of topsoil was encountered at the time of drilling. These cuts may extend deeper in isolated areas to remove deeper deposits of organic soils, de-mucking the existing drainage swale, foundations, or other existing structures, debris, or other unsuitable materials from the prior development at the site, which may become evident during the clearing.

It is recommended that the clearing operations extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed construction areas.

Once the site clearing is completed, the exposed subgrade will generally be comprised of loose to medium dense SAND (SM). Due to the presence of loose SAND, excess surface moisture from precipitation ponding on the site, along with construction equipment traffic, may make this site susceptible to pumping and general deterioration of the bearing capabilities of the surface soils.

Therefore, undercutting to remove wet soils may be required. The extent of the undercut will be determined in the field during construction, based on the outcome of the field-testing procedures (subgrade proofroll and test pits). The project’s budget should include an allowance for subgrade improvements (building area - undercut and backfill with structural fill).

Uncontrolled Fill materials were not encountered at all boring locations. However, previous development at this site included a prior building, and possibly existing underground utilities.

Uncontrolled earth fill may have been placed as part of the original development within the project study area. If encountered, it is possible these materials can be left in place beneath building provided that substantial amounts of organics or other unsuitable materials are not present. This should be verified in the field during the subgrade evaluation performed as described in section

4.2 of this report. However, all foundation bearing surfaces must penetrate any Uncontrolled Earthfill materials, if encountered.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 6

To reduce the potential for subgrade improvements, it is recommended that the grading operations be performed during the drier months of the year (generally April through November).

This should help minimize these potential problems. If grading is attempted during the winter months, the site should be graded to enhance surface water runoff. However, stabilization of wet soils should be anticipated. Methods to address wet soils may include undercutting and backfilling with structural fill. However, during the drier months of the year, wet soils could be dried by disking or implementing other drying procedures, such as stockpiling or spreading the soils in thin lifts, to achieve moisture contents necessary to reach adequate degrees of compaction. As previously stated, the project’s budget should include an allowance for subgrade improvements as described above.

Any undercut and backfill should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative, who will evaluate the composition of the recovered soils.

Recommendations concerning the subgrade improvements (as necessary) will be provided in the field following the testing procedures.

4.2 Earthwork – Subgrade Preparation and Evaluation

Following the clearing operation, the exposed subgrade soils should be densified with a large static drum roller, as needed. After the subgrade soils have been densified, they should be evaluated by a qualified representative of Cape Fear Engineering for stability. The subgrade soils should be proofrolled to check for pockets of soft material hidden beneath a crust of better soil.

Several passes should be made by a large smooth drum roller with two rubber tires or loaded dump truck over the construction areas, with the successive passes aligned perpendicularly. The number of passes will be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer or their qualified representative. Any pumping and unstable areas observed during proofrolling (beyond the initial clearing cut) should be undercut and/or stabilized at the direction of the geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative.

A drainage swale parallels Church Street along the front of the project site and may be within the construction area. The subgrade soils within this swale should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer or their qualified representative prior to any structural fill placement, if required. Based on our experience with drainage features, a cut of 12 to 24 inches will likely be required to “de-muck” and/or remove very soft to soft saturated soils before backfilling any portion of the swale.

In addition to the proofroll, a series of test pit excavations should be performed to determine the extent of any potential deeper organics or possible uncontrolled earthfill or other unsuitable materials are present within the proposed building pad and pavement areas. The test pit excavations should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative to determine the thickness and composition of any deeper organic materials or other unsuitable materials and the suitability of the materials to remain in place or the necessity for these materials to be removed from the building and pavement areas.

The prepared subgrade should be sloped to prevent the accumulation and/or ponding of surface water. If the exposed subgrade becomes wet or frozen, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 7

4.3 Earthwork – Suitable Structural Fill, Placement, and Compaction Requirements Following the approval of the natural subgrade soils by a geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative, the placement of the fill required to establish the design grades may begin. Any material to be used for structural fill should be evaluated and tested by a qualified inspector and laboratory prior to placement to determine if they are suitable for the intended use. Suitable structural fill material should consist of sand or gravel containing less than 25% by weight of fines (SP, SP-SM, SM, SW, SW-SM, GP, GP-GM, GW, GW-GM), have a liquid limit less than 20 and plastic limit less than 6, and should be free of rubble, organics, clay, debris, and other unsuitable material.

All structural fills should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). In general, the compaction should be accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 10-inch loose lifts and mechanically compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. A qualified inspector should perform field density tests on each lift as necessary to assure that adequate compaction is achieved.

Backfill material in utility trenches within the construction areas should consist of structural fill and be compacted to at least 95% of ASTM D1557. This fill should be placed in 4 to 6-inch loose lifts when hand compaction equipment is used.

Care should be used when operating the compactors near existing structures to avoid transmission of the vibrations that could cause settlement damage or disturb occupants. In this regard, it is recommended that large vibratory rollers remain at least 25 feet away from existing structures. Areas within 25 feet of existing structures should be compacted with small, hand-operated compaction equipment.

Based on the completed laboratory testing, the shallow subsurface SANDS (SP-SM, SM) will likely meet the criteria recommended in this report for reuse as structural fill.

At a minimum, further classification testing including natural moisture content, No. 200 sieve wash analysis, and Proctor testing should be performed at the time of construction to evaluate the suitability of the excavated soils for reuse as structural fill.

4.4 Foundations

Based on the laboratory classification results, the shallow subsurface soils encountered at the boring locations are not considered to be expansive in accordance with 1803.5.3 of the 2018 IBC.

Shallow Foundations

Provided that the construction procedures are properly performed, the proposed structure can be supported by isolated or continuous spread footings or a monolithic slab with turn down edges bearing upon firm natural soil or well-compacted structural fill material. These footings can be designed using a net allowable soil pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). In using net pressures, the weight of the footings and backfill over the footings, need not be considered.

Hence, only loads applied at or above the foundation need to be used for dimensioning the footings.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 8

To develop the recommended bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf), the base of the footings should have a minimum embedment of 18 inches beneath finished grades and should have a minimum width of 18 inches. In addition, isolated square column footings (if deemed necessary) are recommended to be a minimum of 3 feet by 3 feet in area for bearing capacity consideration. The recommended 18-inch footing embedment is also considered sufficient to provide adequate cover against frost penetration to the bearing soils.

The recommended allowable bearing pressures for the shallow foundation system proposed for the new structure may potentially impact any existing underground utilities located below the building footprint. The additional loads produced by the new structure may detrimentally affect any potential underground utility facilities. Therefore, we recommend that a thorough utility locate be conducted specifically within the building footprint to determine if any underground utilities exist in this area. The building load impacts to the underground utilities, if encountered, should also be evaluated by the structural and/or civil engineer for the project to determine if the existing utility facilities can remain in place or need to be removed and relocated.

Settlements

It is estimated that, with proper site preparation, the maximum resulting post-construction total settlement of the proposed foundations should be up to 1 inch. The maximum differential settlement magnitude is expected to be less than ½ inch between adjacent footings (wall footings and column footings of varying loading conditions). The settlements were estimated based on the results of the field penetration tests. Careful field control will contribute substantially towards minimizing the settlements.

Foundation Excavations

In preparation for shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend into firm natural soil or well-compacted structural fill. All foundation bearing surfaces must penetrate any existing Uncontrolled Earthfill materials, if encountered. The foundation bearing capacities should be verified in the field during construction by performing a foundation inspection for the structure.

At that time, the geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative should also explore the extent of any excessively loose or otherwise unsuitable material within the exposed excavations. Also, at the time of footing observations, the geotechnical engineer or qualified representative should advance hand auger borings and use a hand penetration device in the base of the foundation excavations to verify that the recovered soils are consistent with those documented in this report.

The necessary depth of penetration will be established during the footing subgrade observations.

If pockets of unsuitable soils requiring undercut are encountered in the footing excavations, the proposed footing elevation should be re-established by means of backfilling with No. 57 Stone, “flowable fill”, or lean concrete prior to concrete placement. This construction procedure will provide for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf.

Immediately prior to reinforcing steel placement, it is suggested that the bearing surfaces of all footing and floor slab areas be compacted using hand operated mechanical tampers, to a dry density of at least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557), as tested to a depth of 12 inches, for bearing capacity considerations. In this manner, any localized areas which have been loosened by excavation operations should be adequately re-compacted. The compaction testing in the base of the footings may be waived by the geotechnical engineer, where firm bearing soils are observed during the footing inspections.

MCB Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina 9

Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory foundation excavations should be protected against any detrimental change in condition such as from physical disturbance, rain, or frost. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be allowed to pond. If possible, all footing concrete should be placed the same day the excavation is made. If this is not possible, the footing excavations should be adequately protected.

4.5 Building Floor Slabs

The building floor slabs may be constructed as slab-on-grade members provided the previously recommended earthwork activities and evaluations are carried out properly. It is recommended that the ground floor slab be directly supported by at least a 4-inch layer of relatively clean, compacted, poorly graded sand (SP) or gravel (GP) with less than 5% passing the No. 200 Sieve (0.074 mm). The purpose of the 4-inch layer is to act as a capillary barrier and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab. The slabs can be designed with the use of a subgrade modulus on the order of about 125 psi/in bearing on the existing natural subgrade soils or bearing on structural fill compacted to 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557).

It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing soils be covered by a vapor barrier or retarder to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect the performance of glued tile and carpet. Generally, use of a vapor retarder provides for minimal vapor resistance protection below the slab on grade. When floor finishes, site conditions, or other considerations require greater vapor resistance protection, consideration should be given to using a vapor barrier. Selection of a vapor retarder or barrier should be made by the architect based on project requirements.

4.6 Seismic Evaluation

Based on the data obtained from the 25-foot deep SPT borings and our experience with 100-foot-deep CPT soundings and SPT borings performed within the vicinity of the project site, this site should be classified as a Site Class ‘D’ in accordance with the IBC.

4.7 Construction Considerations

Based on the results of this exploration, varying soil conditions and compositions are expected to be encountered throughout the project limits. Open-cut excavations will likely extend through natural soils that are relatively “clean” (i.e., soil that is relatively free of deleterious debris that may hinder excavation or installation). Debris typically considered unsuitable consist of wood, glass, organics, plastics, coal, brick, or any other material larger than 2 inches in diameter.