NSWC Bldg 87 Slab and Soils Report (Attachment 8).pdf

Slab and Soils Report

Building 87, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia Division

US ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT

JUNE2020

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

1 Contents

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations

2 Concrete Slab Investigation

2.1 Visual Inspection

2.1.1 Procedure

2.1.2 Findings

2.2 Ground Penetrating Radar

2.2.1 Procedure

2.2.2 Findings

2.3 Concrete Coring

2.3.1 Procedure

2.3.2 Findings

2.4 Schmidt Hammer Rebound Testing

2.4.1 Procedure

2.4.2 Findings

2.5 Environmental Sampling

2.5.1 Procedure

2.6 Interpretation of Findings

3 Sub Surface Investigation

3.1 Regional Geology

3.2 1918 Subsurface Data

3.3 2006 Subsurface Data

3.4 2020 Soil Sampling

3.4.1 Procedure

3.4.2 Environmental Sampling

3.4.3 Findings

3.5 Interpretation of Findings

4 Appendix A Site Drawings 5 Appendix B Geotechnical Soil Sample Results 6 Appendix C Concrete Core Photos

7 Appendix D Concrete Strength Testing Reports 8 Appendix E Ground Penetrating Radar Report 9 Appendix F Historic Soil Data

10 Appendix G Data Summary Tables – Environmental Testing 11 Appendix H Laboratory Reports – Environmental Sampling

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Purpose

The Naval Surface Warfare Center Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD), is planning to erect a vendor designed and supplied modular 2 story office structure inside an existing building. The building is identified as Building 87 and fronts Admiral Peary Way directly adjacent to the Delaware River.

NSWCPD requires a determination of the construction and condition of the existing concrete slab-on-grade as well as subsurface information to design the required foundations, and to more accurately price the requirements for the project completion. NSWCPD has retained the services of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District (USACE-NAP) and its vendors to complete this effort. The results of this examination are contained herein.

Figure 1 – Philadelphia Naval Yard, Home of NSWCPD and Building 87

1.2 Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the results of this study, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed improvements is feasible, given that the recommendations are followed, and that the standard level of care is maintained during construction. It should be noted that problems are likely to be encountered with below slab obstructions and high groundwater levels. A discussion of these issues, as well as general site development procedures, is included in sections 2.6 and 3.5 of this report.

2 Concrete Slab Investigation

2.1 Visual Inspection

2.1.1 Procedure

Prior to the site visit, the structural team discussed the initial observations and findings from the geotechnical portion of the investigation conducted the week before and reviewed the drawings provided by NSWCPD of the general area and proposed modular building layout.

On April 21, 2020, structural engineers Joseph Gonglik, P.E. and Yendeliz Martinez-Ruiz, P.E.

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District inspected the concrete slab-on-grade at Building 87. The inspection was coordinated with Christopher Lester from the Naval Surface Warfare Center – Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD). Visual and hands on inspection of the slab-on-grade was conducted. Existing features (to include cable trench, conduits, abandoned raised concrete pads and rails from previous equipment, etc.), and existing defects (to include cracks, delamination, spalls, etc.) were documented and mapped on the BLD 87 Existing Structural Layout drawing S-101 contained in Appendix A. Photographs were taken of all deficiencies and typical conditions. Photographs from the site visit are included in Section

2.1.2 below.

Following the site visit, the structural team received and reviewed the results of the Ground Penetrating Radar survey and concrete core compressive strength test reports.

2.1.2 Findings

The slab-on-grade was observed to be in overall satisfactory condition with minor to moderate normal wear and tear of the existing concrete slab-on-grade and several long cracks throughout. It is apparent by visual inspection that the existing concrete slab-on-grade is composed of different concrete layers and sections placed at different times throughout the life of the structure (Photographs 1 and 2). Some of the findings included abandoned raised concrete pads and embedded steel rails from previous equipment placement at various locations (Photographs 3, 4, and 5). Cracks, delamination, and spalls were also found in the concrete slab-on-grade at random locations (Photographs 6 and 7). There was a 21 ½” x 44” x ½” deep spall with adjacent delaminated area near one of the raised concrete pads (Photograph 8). There is an existing cable trench located within the concrete slab-on-grade (Photograph 9).

Please refer to Appendix A for the BLD 87 Existing Structural Layout drawing (S-101) to see all defects and features found during survey.

Photograph 1: General view of concrete slab.

Photograph 2: Minor to moderate wear and tear of slab.

Photograph 3: Abandoned raised concrete pads.

Photograph 4: Abandoned equipment rail in concrete slab (typical).

Photograph 5: Abandoned equipment rails in concrete slab (typical).

Photograph 6: Cracks at exterior column near existing overhead platform column.

Photograph 7: Cold joint between pours at existing over Photograph 7: Cold joint between pours at existing overhead platform location. .

Photograph 8: 21 ½” x 44” x ½” deep spall with Photograph 8: 21 ½” x 44” x ½” deep spall with adjacent delaminated area near raised concrete pad. area near raised concrete pad.

Photograph 9: Existing covered cable trench.

Photograph 9: Existing covered cable trench.

2.2 Ground Penetrating Radar

2.2.1 Procedure

A geophysical survey consisting of ground penetrating radar (GPR) was conducted over a 30 feet by 60 feet area between P107 and ADAPT.VE LAB. The survey was conducted by Quantum Geophysics on April 3, 2020 using two different antennae frequencies (1.5 GHz and

400 MHz) to enable the detection of concrete reinforcing steel and sub slab utilities/piping, respectively.

2.2.2 Findings

The results of the survey did not identify steel reinforcement in the slab on grade. However, welded wire fabric is present in portions of the slab surveyed as confirmed by the concrete coring. The lower frequency scan did identify two potential buried pipes. Please see the report for details of the survey and approximate locations of the buried piping. The geophysical report dated May 1, 2020 is in Appendix E, Geophysical Survey.

2.3 Concrete Coring

2.3.1 Procedure

A total of eight, four-inch diameter cores were taken within the proposed limits of the new structure. The approximate locations of the cores are shown in Appendix A on C-101.

2.3.2 Findings

The thickness of the cores ranged from approximately 3-1/2 to 18-1/2 inches thick depending on location. Cores C-4 and C-8 were approximately 18-1/4 and 10-1/2 inches, respectively. C-4 was advanced through the floor slab and encountered a buried foundation while C-8 was advanced atop one of the elevated concrete pads. In general, the floor slab thickness was found to have an average thickness of 6”, ranging from approximately 4 to 6 inches thick. The slab appears to be reinforced with welded wire fabric (WWF). C-4 was observed to have reinforcing steel, but was observed approximately 3 inches from the bottom of the overall core length thus within the foundation element. Two different concrete mix types were visually observed in the cores. A rounded aggregate, possibly historic, concrete mix and an angular, possibly modern, aggregate concrete mixture. Cores C-1, C-7 and C-8 appear to have a rounded coarse aggregate, while the remaining cores’ the coarse aggregate is angular. A tabular summary of the core thickness are shown below and photographs are provided in Appendix C.

Three core samples were transported to Duffield Associates, Inc. in Wilmington, DE, a USACE certified materials testing laboratory, for concrete compressive strength testing. Core locations C-2, C-5, and C-6 were tested in accordance with ASTM C42/42M. The results of the testing indicated compressive strengths of 3,910 psi, 5,760 psi and 6,260 psi, respectively. Cores C-5 and C-6 are in an area that appears relatively undisturbed, whereas C-2 is within a patched area as the concrete core was obtained between two saw cut lines

2.4 Schmidt Hammer Rebound Testing

2.4.1 Procedure

The concrete compressive strength was also estimated in place by using a rebound hammer (Schmidt Hammer). The rebound hammer is a nondestructive testing apparatus, whereby the rebound of the spring driven mass is measured after its impact with concrete surface. The output of the rebound hammer is referred to as rebound number and are correlated with surface hardness of concrete.

2.4.2 Findings

A total of 24 rebound readings were recorded. The compressive strength based from the rebound hammer readings ranged from 4,250 to 9,800 psi with an average of approximately 7,200 psi. It should be noted that the rebound hammer values are correlated and do not necessarily accurately represent the actual concrete strength. Comparing the actual compressive strength results from the cores to nearby rebound hammer values, the rebound hammer may be over predicting the compressive strength by approximately 133 to 200%. The compressive strength test results and tabular summary of the rebound hammer readings are provided in Appendix A on C-102.

2.5 Environmental Sampling

2.5.1 Procedure

Upon completion of the concrete core testing by Duffield Associates, the extracted concrete cores were returned to the USACE Ft. Mifflin facility where the Geo-Environmental sampling team of Joseph Loeper and Skip Harris prepared the material for corrosivity, reactive cyanide and sulfide, and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) testing as well as asbestos content analysis. The cores were examined and selected for analysis. One core that contained

1 2 3 4 1 4 3.5 3.5 3.75 Not present 2 6 5 5.5 5.5 Not present 3 4.5 4.25 4.25 4.25 3

4(**) 18.5 18 18.25 18 5.5 5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.31 6 6.63 6.19 6.38 6.25 6 7 5.5 4.75 5 4.75 Not present

8(***) 10.5 10.13 10.13 10 Not present

**12 inch concrete footing at bottom of core *** Core taken atop concrete pad.

Concrete Core Attributes

Core No.

Core Thickness(*) (inches) Depth to Welded Wire

Fabric (inches)

*Four Measurements taken 90 degrees apart from each other more stone than other cores was excluded from the process as the natural stone would not be representative of the concrete material. Cores #5 and #6 were selected for analysis. This work occurred on 20 April 2020.

The cores were wrapped in heavy towel material and repeatedly struck with hammers to break the concrete into smaller sizes amenable to the analyses. Once sufficient volumes of crushed concrete were prepared, samples were placed into bottle ware. The samples for TCLP testing were picked up by laboratory courier and the asbestos samples were delivered to the laboratory by a member of the sampling team.

Results of the corrosivity, reactive cyanide and sulfide, and TCLP testing for the concrete samples are summarized in Table 1 which is included in Appendix G. Results for the asbestos content are presented in the following table as well as Table 3 in Appendix G. Complete laboratory data reports are included in Appendix H.

2.6 Interpretation of Findings

• Existing slab features (to include cable trench, conduits, abandoned raised concrete pads and rails from previous equipment, etc.), and existing defects (to include cracks, delamination, spalls, etc.) should be evaluated on a case by case basis where they may impact performance of the modular office and repaired or replaced as necessary.

• Care should be put into not disturbing existing cable trench, existing overhead platform structure, and conduits and pipes located below and penetrating through the slab-on-grade (Photographs 3 and 9).

• Foundations for the proposed building should be designed to avoid or not disturb any utilities or other services identified in this investigation or uncovered during construction activities.

• Overall condition of slab-on-grade is satisfactory. It is recommended that the final layout of the proposed building be checked against concrete defects identified in this report and

Client Sample ID: DNSY 87-1 DNSY 87-2 DNSY 87-3 Lab Sample ID: 042009626-0001 042009626-0002 042009626-0003 Date Sampled: 4/20/2020 4/20/2020 4/20/2020

Concrete Core Concrete Core Concrete Core Asbestos (% Type) None Detected None Detected None Detected

Non-Asbestos (%Fibrous) 2% Cellulose 2% Cellulose Non-Asbestos (%Non-

Fibrous) 98% Non-Fibrous

(Other) 98% Non-Fibrous

(Other) 100% Non-Fibrous

(Other)

Appearance Gray/Tan/Blue

Non-Fibrous Heterogeneous

Gray/Tan/Blue Non-Fibrous

Heterogeneous

Gray/Tan/Blue Non-Fibrous

Heterogeneous

Asbestos Sampling Results any additional repairs of the slab-on-grade necessary to support the loads associated with the proposed building be performed prior to construction.

• Structural analysis of the slab is required if foundations are to bear directly on the slab.

The structural analysis shall be performed by the designer of record.

• A low concentration of chromium was observed for the TCLP extract of concrete core 6.

This chromium result was below the TCLP Maximum Contaminant Concentration. All reported environmental sampling results for corrosivity, reactive cyanide and sulfide, TCLP testing and asbestos results should be compared with testing requirements provided by any facility identified for concrete handling to ensure that the material is handled appropriately.

3 Sub Surface Investigation

3.1 Regional Geology

The regional geology of the project area can be derived from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ PAGEODE resource which is a website that compiles the surficial and bedrock geology of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. General geology for the city of Philadelphia is Quarternary aged Trenton Gravel in the central, northeastern, southern, and southeastern areas of the city. The geology of the northern area of the city is generally composed of the Pennsauken formation, composed of gravelly sand, overlying the Bridgeton formation, composed of clayey sand with some gravel, of the Tertiary era. The geology of the western area of the city can generally be described as the Pennsauken formation overlying the Bridgeton formation, with interbedded areas of the Wissahickon formation schist from the lower Paleozoic era.

Review of the Philadelphia County Soil Survey maps the project area as Urban Land (Ur) which is comprised of artificially covered areas or Marsh (Mh) which consists of mucky peat, silt loam and silty clay loam. Underling these upper deposits, the local geology of the project site is best described as the Quarternary Trenton Gravel formation. This formation is composed of reddish-brown gravelly sand. There are interbedded clay-silt layers throughout the formation. The Trenton Gravel formation can generally be classified as between 55 and 75 feet thick in this region.

3.2 1918 Subsurface Data An archived foundation drawing for Building 87 (Aircraft Storage Building “D”) dated December 30, 1918 was provided. This drawing had 6 borings located to the north & east of Building 87.

Borings 3, 5 and 6 are closest to the project location and indicate sandy fill materials extending to depths of approximately 8 feet. The fill is underlain by what is described as “sand & mud” to 50 to 77 feet below the ground surface.

3.3 2006 Subsurface Data A historic subsurface investigation was performed in 2006 by Carlin, Simpson, and Associates (Carlin, Simpson). This investigation was composed of two standard penetration test (SPT) borings to a depth of 42 and 72 feet. The Carlin, Simpson report also referenced nine SPT borings performed by Woodward-Clyde in 1996. Two of these borings, TB-6 and TB-7 are located near the current project’s proposed footprint. The subsurface conditions, as reported in the Carlin, Simpson report are described as a layer of concrete overlying a four inch layer of gravel. Beneath the surficial layer of gravel is a layer of fill consisting of loose to medium density fine to coarse sand with trace silt to a depth of approximately six feet. Underlying the fill layer is reported to be a natural loose to medium dense silty sand layer to a depth of 35 feet.

Beneath the natural sand layer is reported to be a natural soft to stiff consistency silt layer to the end of the performed borings. The groundwater level observed in this historical subsurface investigation were at depths 4.8 to 5 feet below the surface, corresponding the elevations 7.8 and 8.0 (project datum), respectively.

Another subsurface investigation was performed by the USACE in 2009 for a project involving construction on the seawall along the Delaware River. The closest explorations include SPT borings B-6, B-7 and B-8, and two test pits, TP-8 and TP-9, performed along the seawall in the vicinity of the south section of Building 87. The subsurface conditions in the area of the performed test boring and test pits can be described as fill ranging from between six to eight feet consisting of debris laden silty sand, silt, and gravel. Underlying the fill are natural interlayered soft to medium silt and medium dense silty sands to the maximum depths explored.

The historic data is presented in Appendix F, Historic Data.

3.4 2020 Soil Sampling

3.4.1 Procedure

Hand augers were advanced through five of the eight concrete core locations in accordance with ASTM D1452. The hand auger depths ranged from approximately 1 to 8 feet below the floor level. The encountered subsurface conditions were logged and sampled for select laboratory index testing. Descriptions of the encountered subsurface conditions are presented on the log Hand Augers, HA-1 through HA-5 as well as the results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B, Geotechnical Soil Sample Results.

After the hand augers were advanced 2 to 4 feet below the slab level, Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing was performed. The DCP is used to objectively evaluate the relative consistency, or denseness of the subsurface soils. DCP tests were performed at all hand auger locations, except HA-3 due to the obstruction. The DCP can be used to estimate the strength characteristics of soils by driving a conical tipped rod through the soil. The conical point is driven into the soil by dropping a single mass of 17.6 pounds from a height of 22.6 inches. The depth of the cone penetration is measured at selected penetration or hammer drop intervals. Hammer blows over a +/-2 inch interval are recorded and the soil shear strength is reported in terms of a DCP index. The average penetration depth resulting from one blow of the

17.6 pound hammer provides a DCP index which is used to calculate the California Bearing Ratio and subsequently estimate an ultimate bearing capacity. The allowable bearing capacity based on a factor of safety of 3 is presented graphically in Appendix B.

3.4.2 Environmental Sampling

Following the removal of each concrete core, the Geo-Environmental sampling team removed the underlying gravel to access the soil beneath the flooring. During this work, chemical odor was noted at locations #2 and #3. The odor was stronger at the #2 location.

Once the core holes were cleared of gravel and ready for sampling, the team decided to combine soils from locations #2 and #3 into a composite sample and also composited locations #1, #4, and #5 into a sample. These composite samples were placed into laboratory-supplied bottles, iced and prepared for pick up by the laboratory. Samples were collected on the same day as the coring work, 7 April 2020.

Results for the environmental sampling of the soil are summarized in the summary tables provided in Appendix G, with the corrosivity, reactive cyanide and sulfide, and TCLP test results presented in Table 1 and bulk soil results for Navy selected parameters presented in Table 2.

Complete laboratory reports for the soil samples are provided in Appendix H.

3.4.3 Findings

Below the concrete slab in HA-2, HA-3 and HA-5 a ¾” stone/aggregate layer varied in thickness from approximately 6 to 30 inches. Below the concrete slab and aggregate layer where encountered, fill material consisting of a loose to medium dense poorly-graded sand with silt or soft sandy silt soils extended to the maximum depth explored, 8 feet. Groundwater was observed at hand auger locations HA-1, HA-4, and HA-5. In the hand augers where groundwater was encountered, the depth to groundwater was measured to be between 5 and 6 feet below the surface of the floor. The observed subsurface soil conditions and groundwater depths encountered during this investigation generally correspond well to the conditions reported in the historical data.

3.5 Interpretation of Findings

• Assuming maximum wall loads of 400 plf and column loads of 8 kips, the proposed structure may be supported on shallow spread footings designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of up to 500 pounds per square foot (psf). However, foundation size should be limited to prevent deleterious influence on nearby structural elements and subsurface features and for ease of construction. Minimum widths for wall footings of 16 inches and column footings of 24 inches are recommended when design based on 500 psf results in a more narrow footing. Settlement on the order of 1 inch total and ½ inch differential can be anticipated, based on the assumed loads. Since the proposed structure will be situated within the interior of an existing building, footings can be founded at convenient depths below the existing floor slab as there is no need to provide protection from frost action.

• Relatively shallow groundwater conditions, 5 to 6 feet below the slab, were observed in the hand augers. As such, if the foundations are established at, or below these levels, problems include seepage of water into foundation excavations, softening of foundation soils, and loss of strength. If groundwater is encountered during foundation excavation, the use of dewatering devices such as sumps will likely be sufficient, but would likely have to be discharged outside the building. Further soil analysis for contamination may determine the need for pretreatment and disposal of the groundwater.

• If new foundation will be established below the floor slab, a detailed foundation evaluation should be performed in each footing excavation prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. These evaluations should be performed by a representative of the Geotechnical Engineer to confirm that the allowable soil bearing capacity is available. The foundation bearing surface evaluations should be performed using a combination of visual observation, comparison with the explorations, and hand-rod probing.

• In addition to the potential for shallow groundwater, there appears to be the potential to encounter a significant amount of sub slab obstructions consisting of abandoned foundations, below grade utilities, etc. Toward this end, it is recommended that if the foundations can be designed to bear directly upon the existing floor slab, this would eliminate the potential for difficulties during construction. It is our understanding that heavy equipment was founded on the raised concrete pads situated within the building footprint. These pads appear to simply rest atop the floor slab without any underlying foundation. This seems to be accurate based on the core thickness encountered at C-8.

Based on our visual observations, the pads and surrounding floor slab appears to be in good condition and was able to adequately handle the equipment loads without causing floor slab distress. We further recommend that the former equipment loads be determined to better understand what the past floor slab loading was over the pad area.

• Mercury was detected in both of the composite soil samples and the polychlorinated biphenyl Aroclor 1254 was detected in the composite sample prepared for locations 2 and 3. These results for mercury and Aroclor 1254 were below the Pennsylvania Act 2 non-residential direct contact limits for soil from surface level to 2 feet. There were no contaminants identified by the TCLP testing. Supplemental testing may be required to ensure proper worker safety and soil handling if the final project design necessitates soil disturbance, handling, or removal and disposal.

4 Appendix A Site Drawings

STEEL RAMP

STEEL STAIRS

AND PLATFORM

STEEL STAIRS STEEL STAIRS

STEEL LADDER

EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING

EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING

EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING

EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING

EXISTING OVERHEAD

STEEL PLATFORM

C1

HA1

C7

CONCRETE

RAMP

RAISED EQUIPMENT PAD (TYP.)

C2

HA2

C8

C5

HA5

C3

HA3

C4

HA4 C6

EXTERIOR WALL

D

C

A

B

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

®US Army Corps of Engineers

DISTRICT

D

AT

E

SO

LI

C

IT

AT

IO

N N

U M

BE

R

FI

LE

N

AM

E:

M

AR

K

D W

G . S

IZ

E:

C O

N

TR

AC

T

N U

M

BE

R

SHEET NUMBER

BY

D

ES

C

R

IP

TI

O

N

AC

TI

ON

"x

" A

NS

I D

IS

SU

E/

SU

BM

IT

TA

L

D

AT

E:

U.

S.

A

RM

Y

CO

RP

S

OF

E

NG

IN

EE

RS

D

IS

TR

IC

T

D W

N B

Y:

R

EV

IE

W

ED

B

Y:

D

ES

B Y:

PL

O

T

SC

AL

E:

C

KD

B Y:

C-101

AD

MI

RA

L P

EA

RY

W

AY

PH

ILA

DE

LP

HI

A

PA

NA

VA

L S

UR

FA

CE

W

AR

FA

RE

C

EN

TE

R

BU

ILD

IN

G

S

LA

B

AN

D

SO

ILS

R

EP

OR

T

BL

D

C

ON

CR

ET

E

CO

RE

A

ND

S

OI

L S

AM

PL

E

LO

CA

TI

ON

S

BL

D

C

ON

CR

ET

E

CO

RE

A

ND

S

OI

L S

AM

PL

E

LO

CA

TI

ON

S.

dw g

NS

W

C

PD

R

EV

IE

W

MA

Y2

NORTH

PLAN

1 CONCRETE CORE PLAN

CONCRETE

CORE

SCHMIDT

HAMMER

LOCATION

CONCRETE

CORE AND

HAND AUGER

GEOTECHNICAL SYMBOLS

AutoCAD SHX Text 2'

AutoCAD SHX Text 0"

AutoCAD SHX Text 4'

AutoCAD SHX Text 4'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE: 1/4''=1'-0''

STEEL RAMP

STEEL STAIRS

AND PLATFORM

STEEL STAIRS STEEL STAIRS

STEEL LADDER

EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING

EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING

EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING

EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING

EXISTING OVERHEAD

STEEL PLATFORM

CONCRETE

RAMP

RAISED EQUIPMENT PAD (TYP.)

SCH2

SCH1

SCH3

SCH4

SCH5

SCH6

SCH7

SCH8

SCH9

SCH10

SCH11

SCH12

SCH13

SCH14

SCH15

SCH16

SCH17

SCH18

SCH19

SCH20

SCH21

EXTERIOR WALL

D

C

A

B

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

®US Army Corps of Engineers

DISTRICT

D

AT

E

SO

LI

C

IT

AT

IO

N N

U M

BE

R

FI

LE

N

AM

E:

M

AR

K

D W

G . S

IZ

E:

C O

N

TR

AC

T

N U

M

BE

R

SHEET NUMBER

BY

D

ES

C

R

IP

TI

O

N

AC

TI

ON

"x

" A

NS

I D

IS

SU

E/

SU

BM

IT

TA

L

D

AT

E:

U.

S.

A

RM

Y

CO

RP

S

OF

E

NG

IN

EE

RS

D

IS

TR

IC

T

D W

N B

Y:

R

EV

IE

W

ED

B

Y:

D

ES

B Y:

PL

O

T

SC

AL

E:

C

KD

B Y:

C-102

AD

MI

RA

L P

EA

RY

W

AY

PH

ILA

DE

LP

HI

A

PA

NA

VA

L S

UR

FA

CE

W

AR

FA

RE

C

EN

TE

R

BU

ILD

IN

G

S

LA

B

AN

D

SO

ILS

R

EP

OR

T

BL

D

S

CH

MI

DT

H

AM

ME

R

TE

ST

LO

CA

TI

ON

S

BL

D

S

CH

MI

DT

H

AM

ME

R

TE

ST

LO

CA

TI

ON

S.

dw g

NS

W

C

PD

R

EV

IE

W

MA

Y2

NORTH

PLAN

1 SCHMIDT HAMMER TEST LOCATIONS

CONCRETE

CORE

SCHMIDT

HAMMER

LOCATION

CONCRETE

CORE AND

HAND AUGER

GEOTECHNICAL SYMBOLS

AutoCAD SHX Text 2'

AutoCAD SHX Text 0"

AutoCAD SHX Text 4'

AutoCAD SHX Text 4'

7'- 5"

4'-103 4"

2'-1012"

10'-0"

'-0

8'-4"

3'- 6"

4'- 61 4"

7'-0"

'-81 4"

4'-0"

EXISTING TRENCH (TYP.)

COVER PLATE AT ELEV. 0.00 IN

SPALLED AREA

(0.5 IN DEEP)

4 IN DIAM. PIPE (RISES 7.25 IN

ABOVE TOP OF SLAB-ON-GRADE)

EXISTING EMBEDDED

STEEL RAIL (TYP.)

EXISTING PEDESTAL FROM REMOVED

COLUMN (TOP EVEN WITH SLAB SURFACE)

EXISTING OVERHEAD

STEEL PLATFORM

4 X 4 IN HSS COLUMN FOR

OVERHEAD PLATFORM (TYP.)

BUILDING 87

EXTERIOR WALL

CONCRETE CRACK (TYP.)

CONCRETE CORING

LOCATION (TYP.)

EXISTING PIPE

CLEANOUT (TYP.)

EXISTING EMBEDDED

STEEL HAND HOLE

EXISTING EMBEDDED STEEL

PLATE (16 IN X 5 IN)

CONCRETE DEFECT

(8 IN X 8 IN)CONCRETE DEFECT

(8 IN X 12 IN)

STEEL RAMP

CONCRETE

RAMP

TOC ELEV. 4.25 IN

TOC ELEV. 7.25 IN TOC ELEV. 4.25 IN

TOC ELEV. 4.25 IN

TOC ELEV. 4.25 IN

RAISED EQUIPMENT PAD (TYP.)

SLAB-ON-GRADE (TYP.)

TOC ELEV. 0.00 IN

PATCH, SLAB-ON-GRADE (TYP.)

TOC ELEV. 0.00 IN

PATCH, SLAB-ON-GRADE (TYP.)

TOC ELEV. 0.00 IN

SLAB-ON-GRADE (TYP.)

TOC ELEV. 0.00 IN

SLAB-ON-GRADE (TYP.)

TOC ELEV. 0.00 IN

SLAB-ON-GRADE (TYP.)

TOC ELEV. 0.00 IN

SAW CUT JOINT (TYP.)

SAW CUT JOINT (TYP.)

STEEL STAIRS

AND PLATFORM

STEEL STAIRS STEEL STAIRS

STEEL LADDER

STEEL LADDER

C1

C7

EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING

EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING

EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING

EXISTING MODULAR

BUILDING

8'- 4"

3'-614"

4'- 5"

16'-614" 8'- 41 4"

5'-0"

EXISTING EMBEDDED

STEEL RAIL (TYP.)

CONCRETE CRACK (TYP.)

D

C

A

B

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

®US Army Corps of Engineers

DISTRICT

D

AT

E

SO

LI

C

IT

AT

IO

N N

U M

BE

R

FI

LE

N

AM

E:

M

AR

K

D W

G . S

IZ

E:

C O

N

TR

AC

T

N U

M

BE

R

SHEET NUMBER

BY

D

ES

C

R

IP

TI

O

N

AC

TI

ON

"x

" A

NS

I D

IS

SU

E/

SU

BM

IT

TA

L

D

AT

E:

U.

S.

A

RM

Y

CO

RP

S

OF

E

NG

IN

EE

RS

D

IS

TR

IC

T

D W

N B

Y:

R

EV

IE

W

ED

B

Y:

D

ES

B Y:

PL

O

T

SC

AL

E:

C

KD

B Y:

S-101

AD

MI

RA

L P

EA

RY

W

AY

PH

ILA

DE

LP

HI

A

PA

NA

VA

L S

UR

FA

CE

W

AR

FA

RE

C

EN

TE

R

BU

ILD

IN

G

S

LA

B

AN

D

SO

ILS

R

EP

OR

T

BL

D

E

XI

ST

IN

G

ST

RU

CT

UR

AL

LA

YO

UT

S-

1 B

LD

E xis tin g S tru ctu ra l L ay ou t.d wg

NS

W

C

PD

R

EV

IE

W

MA

Y2

JM

G

JM

G

DA

N

NORTH

PLAN

1 BLD87 EXISTING STRUCTURAL LAYOUT

AutoCAD SHX Text 2'

AutoCAD SHX Text 0"

AutoCAD SHX Text 4'

AutoCAD SHX Text 4'

6 Appendix B Geotechnical Soil Sample Results

0.3

1.5

2.0

4.0

7.5

Concrete Slab (± 3.7 inches)

FILL- Brown Poorly-Graded SAND with silt (moist) (loose)

FILL- Dark brown sandy SILT (moist) (soft)

FILL- Brown Poorly-Graded SAND with silt (moist) (loose)

FILL- Brown silty SAND (moist) (loose)

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 7.5 ft Water Level Data Reading Depth Notes Completion 11:45:00 AM

Sample S-1 taken at 2.5 feet.

Sample S-2 taken at 5.5 feet.

N/A

14. DEPTH GROUND WATER

SHEET

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

INSTALLATION

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

BEARING

INCLINED

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

Building 87 Foundation Investigation

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

4/7/20

SHEETS

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

HA-1

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

See Remarks

7.5'

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

HAND AUGER

Exploration Designation HA-1

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

EN

D

DEPTH FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

Boring Designation HA-1 SHEET 1 of 1

Sa m p N o.

REMARKS

NAP FORM 1836-A

REC

0.5

3.0

Concrete Slab (± 5.5 inches)

FILL- Light brown-gray Well-Graded sandy GRAVEL, with silt (slightly moist) (medium dense)

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 ft Water Level Data Reading Depth Notes Completion Water level not encountered.

Sample S-1 taken at 1.5 feet.

Hand auger could not be advanced due to caving of the aggregate

N/A

14. DEPTH GROUND WATER

SHEET

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

INSTALLATION

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

BEARING

INCLINED

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

Building 87 Foundation Investigation

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

4/8/20

SHEETS

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

HA-2

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

See Remarks

3'

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

HAND AUGER

Exploration Designation HA-2

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

EN

D

DEPTH FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

Boring Designation HA-2 SHEET 1 of 1

Sa m p N o.

REMARKS

NAP FORM 1836-A

0.4

0.9

Concrete Slab (± 4.3 inches)

FILL- Light brown Well-Graded sandy GRAVEL, with silt (dry) (medium dense)

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 0.9 ft Water Level Data Reading Depth Notes Completion Water level not encountered.

Green spraypaint on gravel Could not advance hand auger due to obstruction

N/A

14. DEPTH GROUND WATER

SHEET

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

INSTALLATION

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

BEARING

INCLINED

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

Building 87 Foundation Investigation

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

4/8/20

SHEETS

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

HA-3

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

See Remarks

0.9'

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

HAND AUGER

Exploration Designation HA-3

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

EN

D

DEPTH FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

Boring Designation HA-3 SHEET 1 of 1

Sa m p N o.

REMARKS

NAP FORM 1836-A

1.5

5.0

7.0

Concrete Slab (± 6.0 inches)

Concrete Footing (± 12.0 inches)

FILL- Brown Poorly-Graded SAND, with silt (slightly moist) (loose to medium dense)

FILL- Gray silty SAND (wet) (loose)

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 7.0 ft Water Level Data Reading Depth Notes Completion 11:25:00 AM

Sample S-1 taken at 2.5 feet.

Sample S-2 taken at 5.5 feet.

N/A

14. DEPTH GROUND WATER

SHEET

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

INSTALLATION

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

BEARING

INCLINED

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

Building 87 Foundation Investigation

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

4/8/20

SHEETS

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

HA-4

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

See Remarks

7'

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

HAND AUGER

Exploration Designation HA-4

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

EN

D

DEPTH FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

Boring Designation HA-4 SHEET 1 of 1

Sa m p N o.

REMARKS

NAP FORM 1836-A

1.0

5.0

8.0

Concrete Slab (± 5.5 inches)

Slab Subbase (+/- 6" gravel)

FILL- Brown silty SAND (moist) (loose)

FILL- Brown sandy SILT (wet) (soft)

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 8.0 ft Water Level Data Reading Depth Notes Completion

Sample S-1 taken at 2.0 feet.

Sample S-2 taken at 4.5 feet.

Sample S-3 taken at 7.5 feet.

N/A

14. DEPTH GROUND WATER

SHEET

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

INSTALLATION

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

BEARING

INCLINED

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

Building 87 Foundation Investigation

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

4/8/20

SHEETS

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

HA-5

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

See Remarks

8'

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

HAND AUGER

Exploration Designation HA-5

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

EN

D

DEPTH FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

Boring Designation HA-5 SHEET 1 of 1

Sa m p N o.

REMARKS

NAP FORM 1836-A

Brown fine SAND, trace silt, trace medium to coarse sand, trace gravel

Moisture Content as Received: 11.5% inches number size size

0.0 0.3 90.0 9.7 SP-SM

1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8"

100.0 100.0 100.0

#4 #10 #20 #30 #40 #50 #70

#100 #140 #170 #200

99.7 98.8 97.0 95.6 93.0 89.1 73.4 44.9 17.4 11.9

9.7

0.1770

0.1271

0.0778

1.17

2.27

Source of Sample: Building 87 Depth: 2.5'-3.0' Sample Number: HA-1, S-1

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

NSWC Building 87

11758.ZB

PL PI+3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY USCS LL

SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER Material Description

GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:

D60

D30

D10

COEFFICIENTS

Cc

Cu

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Date/Checked by: April 2020/ARS

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

Particle Size Distribution Report

Brown fine SAND, little silt, trace medium to coarse sand

Moisture Content as Received: 27.3% inches number size size

0.0 0.2 85.9 13.9 SM

1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8"

100.0 100.0 100.0

#4 #10 #20 #30 #40 #50 #70

#100 #140 #170 #200

99.8 99.7 99.1 98.4 96.7 93.2 67.4 51.3 23.1 17.0 13.9

0.1794

0.1167

Source of Sample: Building 87 Depth: 5.5'-6.0' Sample Number: HA-1, S-2

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

NSWC Building 87

11758.ZB

PL PI+3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY USCS LL

SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER Material Description

GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:

D60

D30

D10

COEFFICIENTS

Cc

Cu

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Date/Checked by: April 2020/ARS

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

Varicolored GRAVEL, little fine sand, trace medium to coarse sand, trace silt

Moisture Content as Received: 2.6% inches number size size

0.0 66.0 27.5 6.5 GW-GM

1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8"

100.0 87.1 45.4

#4 #10 #20 #30 #40 #50 #70

#100 #140 #170 #200

34.0 30.9 28.1 26.7 24.6 22.3 18.2 13.2

8.3 7.2 6.5

12.2867

1.5145

0.1218

1.53

100.85

Source of Sample: Building 87 Depth: 1.5'-2.0' Sample Number: HA-2, S-1

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

NSWC Building 87

11758.ZB

PL PI+3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY USCS LL

SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER Material Description

GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:

D60

D30

D10

COEFFICIENTS

Cc

Cu

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Date/Checked by: April 2020/ARS

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

Brown fine SAND, little silt, trace medium to coarse sand, trace gravel

Moisture Content as Received: 5.6% inches number size size

0.0 1.4 84.1 14.5 SM

1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8"

100.0 100.0

98.9

#4 #10 #20 #30 #40 #50 #70

#100 #140 #170 #200

98.6 97.9 96.7 95.7 93.7 90.4 80.0 55.7 24.2 17.4 14.5

0.1572

0.1148

Source of Sample: Building 87 Depth: 2.0'-2.5' Sample Number: HA-5, S-1

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

NSWC Building 87

11758.ZB

PL PI+3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY USCS LL

SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER Material Description

GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:

D60

D30

D10

COEFFICIENTS

Cc

Cu

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Date/Checked by: April 2020/ARS

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

Brown SILT and fine SAND, trace gravel, trace medium sand

Moisture Content as Received: 31.1% inches number size size

0.0 1.0 49.0 50.0 ML

1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8"

100.0 100.0

99.0

#4 #10 #20 #30 #40 #50 #70

#100 #140 #170 #200

99.0 99.0 98.8 98.5 98.1 97.2 94.9 88.5 65.5 55.9 50.0

0.0974

Source of Sample: Building 87 Depth: 7.5'-8.0' Sample Number: HA-5, S-3

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

NSWC Building 87

11758.ZB

PL PI+3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY USCS LL

SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER Material Description

GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:

D60

D30

D10

COEFFICIENTS

Cc

Cu

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Date/Checked by: April 2020/ARS

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500

De pt h (ft

Allowable Bearing Capacity (psf)

DCP‐ HA‐1

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500

De pt h (ft

DCP‐ HA‐2

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750

De pt h (ft

Alowable Bearing Capacity (psf)

DCP ‐ H‐4

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500

De pt h (fe et

DCP‐ H‐5

7 Appendix C Concrete Core Photos

Core 1

Core 2

Core 3

Core 4

Core 5

Core 6

Core 7

Core 8

8 Appendix D Concrete Strength Testing Reports

5400 Limestone Road

Wilmington, DE 19808 Phone: 302.239.6634

Fax: 302.239.8485 duffnet.com

CONCRETE CORE TEST REPORT

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Name USACE SIEVES Project No. 11758.ZB

Client USACE Contractor --

Location of Cores NSWC BUILDING 87

Specific Location SAMPLE C-2

FIELD DATA

Date Obtained 04/07/20 Mix Design Strength -- psi

Date Tested 04/17/20 Core Age at Testing --

Remarks --

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

Core No.(1,2)

Average Uncapped Core Length (inches)

Average Capped Core

Length (inches)

Breaking Load

(pounds)

Average Cross-

Sectional Area (in.2)

L/D Ratio

ASTM

Correction

Factor

Corrected Compressive

Strength (3) (psi)

Type of Fracture

C-02 4.765 5.061 45,450 11.05 1.27 0.95 3910 TYPE 3

NOTES: (1) CORES WERE TESTED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C 42/C 42M.

(2) CORES TESTED IN “AS-IS” CONDITION AS DEFINED BY ASTM C 42 SECTION 7.3.

(3) CORRECTED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH = CORRECTION FACTOR x BREAKING LOADAREA

DUFFIELD ASSOCIATES, INC.

Phone: 302.239.6634

Client USACE Contractor --

Specific Location SAMPLE C-5

No.(1,2)

Average Uncapped Core Length (inches)

Average Capped Core

Length (inches)

Breaking Load

(pounds)

Average Cross-

Sectional Area (in.2)

L/D Ratio

ASTM

Correction

Factor

Corrected Compressive

Strength (3) (psi)

Type of Fracture

C-05 5.069 5.305 66,610 10.99 1.42 0.95 5760 TYPE 3

NOTES: (1) CORES WERE TESTED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C 42/C 42M.

Phone: 302.239.6634

Client USACE Contractor --

Specific Location SAMPLE C-6

No.(1,2)

Average Uncapped Core Length (inches)

Average Capped Core

Length (inches)

Breaking Load

(pounds)

Average Cross-

Sectional Area (in.2)

L/D Ratio

ASTM

Correction

Factor

Corrected Compressive

Strength (3) (psi)

Type of Fracture

C-06 5.048 5.334 72,430 10.99 1.43 0.95 6260 TYPE 3

NOTES: (1) CORES WERE TESTED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C 42/C 42M.

NSWC BUILDING 87

Rebound (Schmidt) Hammer Readings

Location Rebound Hammer

Reading

Approximate

Compressive Strength

(psi)

1A 34 4250 1B 42 5900 2 50 7750 3 54 8500 4 48 7250 5 40 5500 6 42 5900 7 50 7750 8 42 5900 9 54 8500 10 42 5900 11A 46 6900 11B 54 8500 12 49 7500 13 54 8500 14 40 5500 15 52 8100 16 42 5900 17 56 8400 18 46 6750 19 42 5900 20A 58 9400 20B 60 9800 21 54 8500

Bldg 87 Slab Rebound Hammer Readings

9 Appendix E Ground Penetrating Radar Report

May 1, 2020

Earl Fisher U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Philadelphia District 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107

Re: Letter Report Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey Building 87 U.S. Navy Base Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Dear Mr. Fisher:

This letter report presents the findings of Quantum Geophysics’ ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey of an approximately 30 ft x 60 ft area inside Building 87 at the U.S. Navy Base in Philadelphia, PA. The purpose of the GPR survey was to: 1) determine the presence/absence of reinforcement steel (rebar) and it’s depth within the floor slab, and 2) identify potential buried pipes/utilities. The scope of work included running an orthogonal set of two lines with a 1.5 GHz antenna to look for rebar, and then an orthogonal set of lines spaced 10 ft apart with a 400 MHz antenna to check for buried piping. Line spacing and line location were adjusted once onsite because of the presence of raised concrete pads. GPR scans were also made at five planned coring locations to check for rebar. Raised concrete pads were scanned for thickness and the presence/absence of rebar.

The GPR survey was carried-out April 3, 2020 by Quantum geophysicists Matt Serzega and Steve Knight. The survey incorporated a Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. (GSSI) SIR3000 subsurface radar system. Data were acquired at 512 bits/scan and 32 scans per second. 1.5 GHz data were recorded with a window of 10 nanoseconds (nsec); 400 MHz data were recorded with a window of 60 nsec. For concrete, travel-times were converted to depth based on an average velocity of 12 inches/7 nsec. For soil, travel-times were converted to depth based on an average velocity of 1-foot/10 nsec.

The GPR was run along a total of 36 lines. Five of the 36 lines were 8-foot long lines centered at each planned core location. Figure 1 is a GPR line location plan.

29 Richard Lee, Lane, Phoenixville, PA 19460 610- 917-9100 (office)

Fisher, E.

U.S. Army COE Philadelphia District

Based on the GPR data:

! The concrete floor slab is approximately 6 +/- inches thick (Figure 2). It appears to be reinforced with welded wire (wire screen mesh), as indicated by small, evenly-spaced “blips. Rebar was detected at one of five proposed core locations (see Figures 1 and 5) and may only be present within the immediate area of this location.

! The raised concrete slabs also appear to be approximately 6 +/- inches thick and reinforced with wire screen mesh (Figure 3).

! There are two potential buried pipes which are designated potential pipe #1 and potential pipe #2 in Figure 1. They are defined by a trend of large parabolic-shaped anomalies (called-out in Figure 4 as “pipe-like target”). Both potential buried pipes are observed at an approximate depth of 3.5 +/- ft bgs.

Please let me know if there are any questions or if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, Quantum Geophysics

Richard Lee, P.G., R.GP.

President and Chief Geophysicist

RKL/jas

J:\REPORTS\US ARMY COE PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT 1c.wpd

7 8 9 10 12 14 20 21 22

16,26 23

5,25

13 15

Approx. Scale (ft)

10 20

LEGEND

GPR Line, File Number Positioned at Start of Line.

Location of Pipe-Like Response.

Potential Buried Pipe.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Potential Pipe #1

Potential Pipe #2

Basemap: Philly special sheet one_CAD13.dwg.

Proposed Core Sample Location.

Core Location Where Rebar Was Detected (see Figure 5)

QUANTUMGEOPHYSICS

Engineering, Groundwater, and Environmental Geophysics 29 Richard Lee Lane, Phoenixville, PA 19460

GPR Line Location Plan Building 87

U.S. Navy Base Philadelphia, Pensylvania

FigureU.S. Army COE, Philadelphia DistrictFor:

5-1-20 067170.001 RKL

Date: Job No.: By: 1

10 ftTop of Concrete Slab

Equally-spaced "blips" most likely caused by welded wire (wire screen mesh).

Tw o-

W ay

T ra ve l-T im e in N an os ec on ds (n se c)

D ep th in

In ch es (f or c on cr et e)

File 26

Concrete Slab

Out-going Pulse

QUANTUMGEOPHYSICS

Engineering, Groundwater, and Environmental Geophysics 29 Richard Lee Lane, Phoenixville, PA 19460

Representative GPR Profile - Concrete Floor Building 87

U.S. Navy Base Philadelphia, Pensylvania

FigureU.S. Army COE, Philadelphia DistrictFor:

Date: Job No.: By: 2

Equally-spaced "blips" most likely caused by welded wire (wire screen mesh).

Tw o-

W ay

T ra ve l-T im e in N an os ec on ds (n se c)

D ep th in

In ch es (f or c on cr et e)

9 ft

File 28

Top of Concrete Slab Out-going Pulse

Concrete Slab

QUANTUMGEOPHYSICS

Engineering, Groundwater, and Environmental Geophysics 29 Richard Lee Lane, Phoenixville, PA 19460

Representative GPR Profile - Raised Pad Building 87

U.S. Navy Base Philadelphia, Pensylvania

FigureU.S. Army COE, Philadelphia DistrictFor:

Date: Job No.: By: 3

10 ft Top of Concrete Slab

Out-going Pulse File 20

Pipe-Like Target

Tw o-

W ay

T ra ve l-T im e in N an os ec on ds (n se c)

D ep th in

F ee t ( fo r s oi l)

QUANTUMGEOPHYSICS

Engineering, Groundwater, and Environmental Geophysics 29 Richard Lee Lane, Phoenixville, PA 19460

Representative GPR Profile - Pipe-Like Target Building 87

U.S. Navy Base Philadelphia, Pensylvania

FigureU.S. Army COE, Philadelphia DistrictFor:

Date: Job No.: By: 4

Tw o-

W ay

T ra ve l-T im e in N an os ec on ds (n se c)

D ep th in

In ch es (f or c on cr et e)

File 33

Top of Concrete Slab

Base of Concrete Slab

Rebar

QUANTUMGEOPHYSICS

Engineering, Groundwater, and Environmental Geophysics 29 Richard Lee Lane, Phoenixville, PA 19460

Representative GPR Profile - Concrete Floor Building 87

U.S. Navy Base Philadelphia, Pensylvania

FigureU.S. Army COE, Philadelphia DistrictFor:

4-13-20 067170.001 RKL

Date: Job No.: By: 5

10 Appendix F Historic Soil Data christopher.lester1 Rectangle

E5ECEEMF

E5ECEEMF

Rectangle

E5ECEEMF

Oval

E5ECEEMF

Oval

E5ECEEMF

Oval

E5ECEEMF

Text Box

TP-8

E5ECEEMF

Text Box B-8

E5ECEEMF

Text Box B-7

E5ECEEMF

Text Box B-6

E5ECEEMF

Text Box

TP-9

Polygon

25-50/5" (50/5)

2-3-8-8 (11)

-0.9

7-2-2-1 (4)

20-40-49-32 (89)

1-2-9-27 (11)

5-4-2-2 (6)

4-2-2-2 (4)

2-2-3-3 (5) w=40%

LL=41%

PI=5%

P200=72% Su=411 psf Silt=57% Clay=15%

Wood debris at 11.5 ft bgs;

operator reports slow drilling w=55%

No PID readings above baseline

-6.0 g

6-5-5-6 (10)

LEGEND

USACE Navy Yard Seawall, Philadelphia, PA d

4.0 ec fa

DEPTHELEVATION

% CORE

RECOV-

ERY

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

+2.5

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

7-SS

14.0 16.0

-4.0

8-SS

16.0 18.0

12.0 14.0

6-SS

10.0 12.0

5-SS

8.0 10.0

4-SS

6.0 8.0

3-SS

4.0 6.0

2-SS

2.0 4.0

1-SS

0.0 2.0

16.0

14.0

10.9

7.5

9-SS

18.0 20.0 no recovery, cuttings indicate silt with sand

+6.0

Sandy SILT (ML), gray, wet, firm, sand is fine grained

Wood debris, Fill, large root, lumber as above with some cobbles and boulders of schist

Weathered SCHIST Fill, light gray, friable, with traces of silt

Elastic SILT (MH), gray, moist, stiff, some fine sand

ML as above with some brick pieces

SILT (ML) Fill, brown, moist, firm

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

SHEETS

15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE

+10.0 ft

12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

STARTED

N 212,332.5 E 2,692,472.5 (15+96)

19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR

b

B6

6"-6"-6"-6" (N)

2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)

ENG FORM

MAR 71

1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.

B6

HOLE NO.

-1.6 ft (dependent on tide)

DRILLING LOG

N/A ft

0.0 ft

76.0 ft

OF

PROJECT

VERTICAL ---

34 3

3/14/2009

11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBM or MSL)

INCLINED

Mobile B-57

0.0+10.0

18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN

SAMPLES TAKEN

UNDISTURBEDTRC

TBM

1. PROJECT

DISTURBED

USACE Navy Yard Seawall, Philadelphia, PA

SHEET

3/13/2009

DIVISION

16. DATE HOLE

14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

Franco Bravo

Hole No. B6

INSTALLATION

HSA, 3.25" ID

4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and file number)

DEG. FROM VERT.

6. DIRECTION OF HOLE

5. NAME OF DRILLER

h

3. DRILLING AGENCY

COMPLETED

-32.0

-28.0

-22.0

-18.0

Silty SAND (SM), gray, wet, loose, sand is fine grained w=36%

Elastic SILT to lean clay with sand, gray, wet, soft

3-4-5-4 (9)

USACE Navy Yard Seawall, Philadelphia, PA

28.0

3-2-1-2 (3)

2-3-3-3 (6)

4-3-3-5 (6)

-34.0

5-3-3-7 (6)

PP=1.0 tsf at 22 ft

3-3-3-4 (6)

8-4-7-5 (11)

5-3-5-7 (8)

5-3-4-5 (7)

P=200% Silt=49% Clay=26%

PP=1.25 tsfSandy SILT (ML), gray, wet, firm, sand is fine grained

3-2-3-4 (5)

13-SS

26.0 28.0

21-SS

42.0 44.0

20-SS

40.0 42.0

19-SS

38.0 40.0

18-SS

36.0 38.0

17-ST

34.0 36.0

16-SS

32.0 34.0

SM as above with lenses of organic material

14-SS

28.0 30.0

12-SS

24.0 26.0

11-SS

22.0 24.0

10-ST

20.0 22.0

44.0

42.0

38.0

32.0

15-SS

30.0 32.0

Silty SAND (SM), gray, wet, loose, sand is fine grained

Sandy SILT (ML), gray, wet, firm, sand is fine grained (continued)

SHEETS

10.0

ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

INSTALLATION

Hole No. B6

PROJECT

USACE Navy Yard Seawall, Philadelphia, PA 4

HOLE NO.ENG FORM

JUN 67 B6

PROJECT

DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet)

OF

SHEET

1836-A

LEGEND

% CORE

RECOV-

ERY

c d gb

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

6"-6"-6"-6" (N)

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant) e fa

DEPTHELEVATION

h

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

3-5-6-6 (11)

-38.0

Silty SAND (SM), gray-violet, wet, loose to medium dense, sand is fine grained

Lean CLAY with fine sand (CL), gray, wet, stiff

SILT to lean CLAY with fine sand (ML/CL), gray, wet, firm

Lean CLAY (CL) with lenses of coarse sand, gray, soft

Poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), brown, wet, medium dense

SP-SM as above with lenses of silt

Poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), gray-brown, loose, sand is coarse grained w=61%

LL=59%

PI=26%

2-3-3-4 (6)

7-8-12-10 (20)

5-5-5-8 (10)

2-3-3-2 (6)

4-2-2-2 (4)

3-4-1-2 (5)

P200=15% w=55%

LL=45%

PI=21%

P200=90% Silt=65% Clay=25%

-56.0

-54.0

-52.0

-50.0

-44.0

3-4-4-5 (8)

23-SS

46.0 48.0

Sandy SILT (ML), gray, wet, soft, sand is fine grained

31-SS

62.0 64.0

30-SS

60.0 62.0

29-SS

58.0 60.0

28-SS

56.0 58.0

27-SS

54.0 56.0

26-SS

52.0 54.0

33-SS

66.0 68.0

24-SS

48.0 50.0

22-SS

44.0 46.0

66.0

64.0

62.0

60.0

54.0

48.0

USACE Navy Yard Seawall, Philadelphia, PA

25-ST

50.0 52.0

1-2-1-5 (3)

32-SS

64.0 66.0

Silty SAND (SM), gray, wet, loose, some lenses of organics, sand is fine grained

SHEETS4

JUN 67

1836-A

INSTALLATION

EN…