14.1020_MIL-VA_BidSet_2015_0115 100 Design Submission Specs_Vol1.pdf

A/E Design Parking Structure Lot-4 Project # 695-324

For the

Department of Veterans Affairs Clement. J. Zablocki Veterans Medical Center

Milwaukee, WI. 53295

PROJECT MANUAL Vol. 1

DIVISIONS 00 – 14

BID SET

12/1/2014

GUIDON DESIGN INC.

APOGEE CONSULTING GROUP, P.C.

CARL WALKER, INC.

PROJECT CONTACTS:

OWNER: CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI VA MEDICAL CENTER

Attn: Jim Beier 5000 W. National Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53295 Phone: 414.384.2000 x47297 Email: James.Beier@va.gov

ARCHITECT, CIVIL &

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS: GUIDON DESIGN INC.

Attn: Scott Noyer 905 N. Capitol Ave.

Indianapolis, Indiana 46205 Phone: 317-800-6388 Email: SNoyer@guidondesign.com

M/E/P ENGINEER: APOGEE CONSULTING GROUP, P.A.

Attn: Rich Anderson 3084 Brickhouse Ct.

Virginia Beach, VA Phone: 919 – 838-7637 Email: randerson@acg-pa.com

FUNCTIONAL DESIGN: CARL WALKER, INC.

Attn: Torrey Thompson 1920 S Highland Ave. Suite 210 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: 630-307-3800 Email: tthompson@carlwalker.com

ISSUE DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2014

Milwaukee VAMC December 1, 2014 Parking Structure Lot 4 Bid Set Milwaukee, WI 53295 Project No. 695-324

TABLE OF CONTENTS

000110 - 1

SPECIFICATIONS

SECTION 00 01 10

VOLUME 1

DIVISION 00 – SPECIAL SECTIONS

00 10 00 Certification Page 00 01 15 List of Drawing Sheets 00 31 32 Geotechnical Report 00 43 23 Bid Items Form

DIVISION 01 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 00 00 General Requirements 01 00 00 General Requirements Appendices 01 01 10 FSS Fire Safety Section 01 01 10 1HR 1 Hour Construction Smoke Barrier 01 01 10 IC Infection Control 01 01 10 SN Special Notes 01 32 16.15 Project Schedules 01 33 23 Shop Drawings, Product Data, and Samples 01 35 26 Safety Requirements 01 42 19 Reference Standards 01 45 29 Testing Laboratory Services 01 57 19 Temporary Environmental Controls 01 74 19 Construction Waste Management 01 74 19 A Construction Waste Management Sample Plan 01 81 11 Sustainable Design Requirements

DIVISION 02 – EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 41 00 Demolition 02 82 11 Traditional Asbestos Abatement 02 83 33.13 Lead based Paint Removal and Disposal

DIVISION 03 – CONCRETE

03 30 00 Cast-in-Place Concrete 03 41 33 Precast Structural Pretensioned Concrete 03 45 00 Architectural Precast

DIVISION 04 – MASONRY

04 05 13 Masonry Mortaring 04 05 16 Masonry Grouting 04 20 00 Unit Masonry

DIVISION 05 – METALS

05 12 00 Structural Steel Framing 05 31 00 Steel Decking 05 50 00 Metal Fabrications 05 70 00 Wire Metal Mesh

000110 - 2

DIVISION 06 – WOOD,PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES

06 10 00 Rough Carpentry

DIVISION 07 – THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 13 52 Modified Bituminous Sheet Waterproofing 07 18 16 Deck Coating 07 19 16 Silane Water Repellents 07 22 00 Roof and Deck Insulation 07 54 23 TPO Roofing 07 60 00 Flashing and Sheet Metal 07 71 00 Roof Specialties 07 72 00 Roof Accessories 07 84 00 Fire Stopping 07 84 00.A Fire Stopping Selection Chart 07 92 00 Joint Sealants 07 95 13 Expansion Joint Cover Assemblies

DIVISION 08 – OPENINGS

08 11 13 Hollow Metal Doors and Frames 08 36 13 Sectional Doors 08 41 13 Aluminum Framed Entrances and Storefronts 08 71 00 Door Hardware 08 71 00 Milwaukee VA Hardware Guidebook 08 71 13 Automatic Door Operators 08 80 00 Glazing 08 90 00 Louvers and Vents

DIVISION 09 – FINISHES

09 06 00 Finish Schedule 09 22 16 Non-Structural Metal Framing 09 30 13 Ceramic/Porcelain Tiling 09 91 00 Painting

DIVISION 10 – SPECIALTIES

10 14 00 Signage 10 44 13 Fire Extinguisher Cabinets

DIVISION 11 – EQUIPMENT

11 05 12 General Motor Requirements For Equipment 11 12 00 Parking Control Equipment

DIVISION 12 – FURNISHINGS

DIVISION 13 – SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION

DIVISION 14 – Conveying Equipment 14 24 00 Hydraulic Elevator

000110 - 3

VOLUME 2

DIVISION 22 – PLUMBING

22 05 11 Common Work Results for Plumbing 22 05 12 General Motor Requirements for Plumbing Equipment 22 05 19 Meters and Gages for Plumbing Piping 22 05 23 General Duty Valves for Plumbing Pipe 22 05 33 Heat Tracing for Plumbing Pipe 22 07 11 Plumbing Insulation 22 11 00 Facility Water Distribution 22 13 00 Facility Sanitary and Vent Piping 22 13 23 Sanitary Waste Interceptors 22 14 00 Facility Storm Drainage 22 14 36 Packaged, Submersible, Drainage Pump Units 22 40 00 Plumbing Fixtures

DIVISION 23 – HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR CONDITIONING

(HVAC)

23 05 11 Common Work Results for HVAC 23 05 41 Noise and Vibration Control for HVAC Piping and Equipment 23 05 93 Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing for HVAC 23 09 23 Direct-Digital Control System for HVAC 23 23 00 Refrigerant Piping 23 31 00 HVAC Ducts and Casings 23 34 00 HVAC Fans 23 81 00 Decentralized Unitary HVAC Equipment 23 82 00 Convection Heating and Cooling Units

DIVISION 25 – INTEGRATED AUTOMATION

25 10 10 Advanced Utility Metering System

DIVISION 26 – ELECTRICAL

26 05 11 Requirements for Electrical Installations 26 05 19 Low Voltage Electrical Power Conductors and Cables 26 05 26 Grounding and Bonding for Electrical Systems 26 05 33 Raceway and Boxes for Electrical Systems 26 05 41 Underground Electrical Construction 26 09 23 Lighting controls 26 22 00 Low Voltage Transformers 26 24 16 Panelboards 26 27 26 Wiring Devices 26 29 21 Enclosed Switches And Circuit Breakers 26 36 23 Automatic Transfer Switches 26 41 00 Facility Lightning Protection 26 43 13 Surge Protective Devices 26 51 00 Interior Lighting 26 56 00 Exterior Lighting

000110 - 4

DIVISION 27 – COMMUNICATIONS

27 05 11 Requirements for Communications Installations 27 05 26 Grounding and Bonding for Communications Systems 27 05 33 Raceways and Boxes for Communications Systems

27 10 00 Structured Cabling 27 11 00 Communications Equipment Room Fittings 27 15 00 Communications Horizontal Cabling 27 52 31 Security Emergency Call, Duress Alarm, and Telecommunications

DIVISION 28 – ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 05 00 Common Work Results for Electronic Safety and Security 28 05 13 Conductors And Cables For Electronic Safety And Security 28 05 26 Grounding And Bonding For Electronic Safety And Security 28 05 28.33 Conduits And Backboxes For Electronic Safety And Security

28 13 00 Physical Access Control Systems

28 23 00 Video Surveillance 28 26 00 Electronic Personal Protection System 28 31 00 Fire Detection And Alarm

DIVISION 31 – Earthwork 31 20 00 Earth Moving 31 23 19 DeWatering 31 63 16 Auger Cast Grout Piles

DIVISION 32 – Exterior Improvements 32 05 23 Cement and Concrete for Exterior Improvements 32 12 16 Asphalt Paving 32 17 23 Pavement Markings

32 90 00 Planting

DIVISION 33 – Utilities 33 10 00 Water Utilities 33 30 00 Sanitary Sewerage Utilities 33 40 00 Storm Drainage Utilities

LIST OF DRAWING SHEETS

00 01 15 - 1

SECTION 00 01 15

The drawings listed below accompanying this specification form a part of the contract.

Drawing No. Title

GI001 TITLE PAGE

GI101 CODE ANALYSIS

GI102 LIFE SAFETY PLAN

GI103 BID DEDUCTS

VF101 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

CC101 GENERAL CIVIL NOTES

CC002 PHASING PLAN

CD101 DEMOLITION PLAN

CS101 SITE PLAN

CS102 SITE PLAN

CS501 SITE DETAILS

CG101 SITE GRADING PLAN

CG102 SITE GRADING PLAN

CU101 SITE UTILITY PLAN

CU201 NORTH STORM SEWER PROFILE

CU202 SOUTH STORM SEWER PROFILE

CU501 SITE UTILITY DETAILS

CJ101 EROSION CONTROL PLAN

CJ501 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS

CW101 SIGNAGE PLAN

LP101 LANDSCAPE PLAN

SI001 ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

SI002 LOAD MAPS

SI003 STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES

SB101 FOUNDATION PLAN

SB401 ENLARGED PARTIAL FOUNDATION PLANS

SB402 ELARGED SHEARWALL PILE CAP PLANS

SB501 TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAILS

SB511 FOUNDATION DETAILS

SB512 FOUNDATION DETAILS

00 01 15 - 2

SB601 PILE/PILE CAP SCHEDULE, SECTIONS AND DETAILS

SB611 GRADE BEAM, TRENCH FOOTING, CONCRETE WALL AND MASONRY

WALL SCHEDULES

SF111 LL - SLAB ON GRADE PLAN

SF121 LEVEL 1 - FRAMING PLAN

SF131 LEVEL 2 - FRAMING PLAN

SF141 LEVEL 3 - FRAMING PLAN

SF201 CAST IN PLACE WALL ELEVATIONS

SF202 SHEAR WALL ELEVATIONS AND SCHEDULES

SF301 BUILDING SECTIONS

SF401 STAIR #1 ENLARGED FRAMING AND ROOF PLANS

SF402 STAIR #2 ENLARGED FRAMING AND ROOF PLANS

SF411 PRECAST WALL ELEVATIONS

SF501 TYPICAL PRECAST SECTIONS AND DETAILS

SF502 FRAMING SECTIONS AND DETAILS

SF503 FRAMING SECTIONS AND DETAILS

SF901 ISOMETRICS

AS001 ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS - SIGNAGE

AS101 LL – FLOOR PLAN

AS102 LEVEL 1 – FLOOR PLAN

AS103 LEVEL 2 – FLOOR PLAN

AS104 LEVEL 3 – FLOOR PLAN

AS201 ROOF PLANS

AS301 BUILDING ELEVATIONS

AS302 BUILDING ELEVATIONS

AS311 ENLARGED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

AS312 ENLARGED STOREFRONT ELEVATIONS

AS411 WALL SECTIONS

AS421 STAIR SECTIONS

AS422 RAILING ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS

AS501 ENLARGED STAIR PLANS

AS601 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS

AS602 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS

00 01 15 - 3

AP101 LOWER LEVEL PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP102 LEVEL 1 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP103 LEVEL 2 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP104 LEVEL 3 PLAN – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AP501 STRIPPING & PARKING EQUIPMENT DETAILS – ARCHITECTURAL

PARKING

AP601 SIGNAGE DETAILS – ARCHITECTURAL PARKING

AW101 LOWER LEVEL PLAN - WATERPROOFING

AW102 LEVEL 1 PLAN - WATERPROOFING

AW103 LEVEL 2 PLAN - WATERPROOFING

AW104 LEVEL 3 PLAN - WATERPROOFING

AW501 DETAILS - WATERPROOFING

PI001 PLUMBING NOTES AND LEGENDS

PP201 LEVEL LL – PLUMBING PLAN

PP202 LEVEL 1 – PLUMBING PLAN

PP203 LEVEL 2 – PLUMBING PLAN

PP204 LEVEL 3 – PLUMBING PLAN

PP901 PLUMBING RISERS

MI001 MECHANICAL NOTES AND LEGEND

MH401 MECHANICAL PLANS

EE001 ELECTRICAL NOTES, LEGENDS AND LIGHT FIXTURE SCHEDULE

EE101 ELECTRICAL DEMOLITION SITE PLAN

EE102 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN

EE103 HOSPITAL POWER AND DATA PLAN

EE104 LEVEL LL ELECTRICAL PLAN

EE105 LEVEL 1 ELECTRICAL PLAN

EE106 LEVEL 2 ELECTRICAL PLAN

EE107 LEVEL 3 ELECTRICAL PLAN

EE401 ELECTRICAL ENLARGEMENTS

EE402 ELECTRICAL ENLARGEMENTS

EE403 ELECTRICAL ENLARGEMENTS

EE501 ELECTRICAL DETAILS

EE502 ELECTRICAL DETAILS

EE601 ELECTRICAL SINGLE LINE AND PANEL SCHEDULES

00 01 15 - 4

-- END --

Geotechnical Engineering Report Parking Garage at VA Hospital

Milwaukee, Wisconsin June 23, 2014

Terracon Project No. 11145049

Prepared for:

Guidon Design

Indianapolis, Indiana

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Naperville, Illinois afathi Stamp

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

2.2 Site Location and Description

3.1 Typical Profile

3.2 Water Level Observations

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 ACIP Pile Foundation Design Recommendations

4.1.2 ACIP Pile Foundation Construction Considerations

4.2 Below Grade Walls

4.2.1 Lateral Earth Pressures

4.2.2 Subsurface Drainage

4.3 Floor Slabs

4.3.1 Floor Slab Design Recommendations

4.3.2 Floor Slab Construction Considerations

4.4 Earthwork

4.4.1 Site Preparation

4.4.2 Engineered Fill Material Requirements

4.4.3 Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements

4.4.4 Earthwork Construction Considerations

4.4.5 Grading and Drainage

4.5 Seismic Site Class

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Field Exploration Description Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Plan Exhibits A-3 to A-10 Boring Logs Exhibits A-11 & A-12 ReMi Test Results

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Exhibit B-2 Sieve Analysis Result

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-1 General Notes Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification

Parking Garage at VA Hospital Milwaukee, Wisconsin June 23, 2014 Terracon Project No. 11145049

Responsive Resourceful Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed a subsurface exploration for the proposed parking garage planned at the VA Hospital in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Eight (8) borings were performed at the site to depths of about 75 feet below the existing ground surface. This summary should be reviewed in conjunction with the complete report.

Existing fill materials comprised primarily of lean clay were encountered to depths of about 5 to 33 feet below existing grades at the boring locations. The fill material was underlain by native clay and sand soils. Lower strength clays and loose sand soils were also encountered to the boring termination depth of about 75 feet in Boring 7 and between depths of about 50 to 70 feet below existing grades in Borings 1 and 3.

Based on the conditions encountered in the borings and the proposed structural loads, the proposed parking garage can be supported on a deep foundation system comprised of augered, cast-in-place (ACIP) piles.

Due to the depth of fill, it does not appear practical or economical to completely remove and replace the fill. Provided the owner is willing to accept the risk associated with supporting the first level parking slab over the existing fill materials in exchange for reduced construction costs, it is our opinion that stable portions of the existing fill could be left in place for support of the new parking slab. Since the site is currently used for automobile parking, and the final use of the grade-supported first floor slab will also be used for car parking, evaluation of the surface of the fill and shallow improvement (where necessary) appears to be the most practical method for providing floor slab subgrade support.

Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in achieving the design subgrade support. We therefore recommend that Terracon be retained to provide observation/testing during this portion of the work.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PARKING GARAGE AT VA HOSPITAL

MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN

Terracon Project No. 11145049

June 23, 2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed a subsurface exploration for the proposed parking garage planned at the VA Hospital in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Eight (8) borings were performed at the site to depths of about 75 feet below the existing ground surface. Boring logs and a Boring Location Diagram are included in Appendix A. This report describes the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations, presents the test data, and provides geotechnical engineering recommendations regarding the following items:

site preparation and earthwork design and construction of auger cast foundations floor slab subgrade preparation lateral earth pressure parameters for below grade walls seismic site class

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Site layout See Appendix A, Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Diagram

Structure

A new parking garage with plan dimensions of approximately 272 feet by 126 feet is planned. The parking garage will initially have four levels, but will be designed to accommodate a future expansion of two additional levels (i.e., a total of six levels after the final build-out).

The parking garage will be a pre-cast concrete structure.

Finished floor elevations The finished floor elevation of the first level varies between

643.0 to 647.67 feet.

Maximum loads

The following loads were provided for a 4-level garage:

Exterior Columns: 340 to 540 kips Interior Columns: 650 to 765 kips Walls: 35 kips per linear foot

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 2

Grading

Ground surface elevations vary from 640 to 656 feet across the site. Based on the proposed finished floor elevations of

643.0 to 647.67 feet, cuts up to 10 feet are expected to achieve the required subgrade elevations along the south end of the project. The northern portion of the parking structure will be located near existing site grade.

2.2 Site Location and Description

Location 5000 W. National Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Current site improvements The new parking garage will be constructed in an area east of the existing VA hospital that is currently an asphalt-paved parking lot.

Existing topography Based on the topographic site plan provided, elevations at the site range from approximately 640 feet in the northeast corner of the site to about 656 feet in the southwest corner.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Profile

Subsurface conditions at each boring location are described on the individual boring logs in Appendix A. The stratification boundaries shown on the boring logs represent the approximate depths where changes in material types occur. In-situ, transitions between material types can be more gradual. Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Description Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum Material Encountered Consistency/Density

Surface 12 to 18 inches 6 to 8½ inches of asphalt underlain by 6 to 12 inches of crushed stone aggregate

N/A

1 5 to 33 feet Fill: lean clay, silty clay, sandy clay and sandy silty clay

N-Values: 5 to 27 Moisture Content: 9 to

26%

Stratum continued to the boring termination depths of 75 feet

Native cohesive soils: lean clay, silty clay and sandy silty clay

Native granular soils: sand, silt and silty sand

Cohesive soils: medium stiff to hard

Granular soils: very loose to medium dense

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 3

3.2 Water Level Observations

The borings were observed during drilling for the presence and level of water. The subsurface water levels observed are indicated on the boring logs in Appendix A and are summarized in the following table.

Boring Number Water Depth Observed

While Drilling (feet) 1

1 34

2 46

3 43

4 36

5 32

6 28

7 33

8 37 1 Below existing grade

The absence of water at a boring location does not necessarily mean that the boring terminated above the groundwater table. Due to the low permeability of the clay soils encountered in the borings, a longer period of time may be required for groundwater to develop and stabilize in a borehole. Longer term observations in piezometers or observation wells sealed from the influence of surface water are often required to define groundwater levels in materials of this type.

Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. In addition, perched or trapped water can develop over low permeability soils or within existing fill materials. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be different than the conditions encountered at the time the borings were drilled. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Our recommendations for design and construction of augered cast-in-place (ACIP) piles, below grade walls, earthwork, and floor slab subgrade preparation for the new parking garage are presented in the following sections.

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 4

4.1 ACIP Pile Foundation Design Recommendations

Existing fill materials comprised primarily of lean clay were encountered to depths of about 5 to 33 feet below existing grades at the boring locations. The fill material was underlain by native clay and sand soils. Lower strength clays and loose sand soils were also encountered to the boring termination depth of about 75 feet in Boring 7 and to depths between 50 to 70 feet below existing grades in Borings 1 and 3.

We understand that supporting the parking garage on drilled pier foundations was considered as an option. However, due to variability of the soils encountered in the borings, the presence of granular deposits and lower strength soils to significant depths below the existing grades, we recommend supporting the parking garage on deep foundations consisting of augered cast-in-place piles. Driven pile foundations were also considered, however; we understand that the noise and vibration associated with installation of driven piles would be problematic to the existing hospital.

Design parameters for augered cast-in-place (ACIP) piles are provided in the following table.

The table represents an average condition across the site based on the eight borings.

Elevation (ft.)

Unit Weight , (pcf) 4, 5

Friction Angle, (degrees)

Cohesion, C, (psf)

Net Allowable End Bearing

Pressure, Q (psf) 2,6

Allowable Compression & Uplift

Unit Side Friction 2, 3 (psf)

Clay Fill 644-630 1

120 -- 1,500 -- 400

Clay 630-620

130 -- 1,500 -- 400

Clay 620-610

70 -- 1,500 -- 400

Clay 610-585

70 -- 2,000 6,000 550

Sand 585-570

70 34 -- 7,500 700

1. Neglect soil resistance in upper 3½ feet due to frost action and other disturbance.

2. End bearing values includes a safety factor of 3; side friction values include a safety factor of 2.

3. Straight-sided auger cast piles in direct contact with adjacent soil (uncased).

4. Approximate moist unit weight of soil above groundwater level; approximate buoyant/effective unit weight of soil below groundwater level.

5. Parameters assume groundwater table is located at approximate elevation 620 feet.

6. The shaft must bear at least one (1) diameter or at least three (3) feet into the bearing stratum, whichever is greater, in order to use this end bearing pressure.

7. For piles in the vicinity of Boring 7, we recommend that the tip extend below elevation 580 to get below medium stiff clay bearing soils.

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 5

Maximum post-construction settlements of deep foundations designed and constructed as described in this report are estimated to be about 1 inch for the maximum column loads provided.

Frost action beneath pile caps and grade beams can cause uplift loads on the piles. To avoid uplift loads, the base of pile caps and/or grade beams should extend a minimum of 3.5 feet below the lowest adjacent grade. In designing to resist uplift loading, the allowable skin friction values provided in the above table could be used along with the effective weight of the foundation.

Lateral loads on the ACIP piles can be analyzed using computer modeling programs such as LPILE or COM624. These programs are based on the widely used p-y (load-deflection) curve method. Since the response of soils to lateral loading is nonlinear, these programs use iterative procedures to evaluate the interaction between the drilled shaft and surrounding soils and determine the anticipated lateral deflection, shear, rotation and bending moment. This results in a less conservative evaluation of the resistance of the shafts to lateral loading. The parameters provided in the following table are compatible with these programs.

Layer Description

LPILE

Material Type 1

Effective Unit

Weight, Pcf 3

Friction Angle, Degrees

Undrained Shear

Strength, psf

Static Soil Modulus

Parameter, k, pci

Strain Factor2, Clay Fill 644-630 2 3 120 - 1,500 500 0.007

Clay 630-620 3 130 - 1,500 500 0.007

Clay 620-610 3 70 - 1,500 500 0.007

Clay 610-585 3 70 - 2,000 500 0.005

Sand 585-570 4 70 34 - 60 -

1. LPILE Material Type: 3 = Stiff Clay without Free Water, 4 = Sand

2. Neglect soil resistance in upper 3½ feet to frost action and other disturbance.

3. The groundwater elevation has been estimated at elevation 620 feet.

Group action for lateral resistance of shafts should be taken into account when center to center spacing is less than 8 diameters. Design capacities in the direction of the load should be reduced in accordance with the following table.

Lateral Resistance Reduction Factors Shaft Spacing (Diameters) Reduction Factors

8D 1.0

6D 0.7

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 6

Lateral Resistance Reduction Factors Shaft Spacing (Diameters) Reduction Factors

4D 0.4

3D 0.25

Lateral loads perpendicular to a row of piles with center to center spacing of 3 diameters or less will cause the foundations to react essentially as a vertical wall. For this case, an allowable passive pressure equivalent to that exerted by fluids weighing 150 and 70 pcf above and below groundwater, respectively, should be used for the projected shaft diameters. With spacing of greater than 3 diameters, the soil modulus values provided in the previous table for individual shafts may be used.

Load bearing properties of at least one of the auger cast piles should be evaluated by performing a load test, in general accordance with the “Standard Method of Testing Piles under Axial Compressive Load,” (ASTM D1143) prior to constructing the remaining pile foundations.

Procedures required for constructing the test pile should be observed in order to establish desirable procedures for constructing the remaining piles. The test pile grout should be at least 7 days old at the start of the test and should be at least 85% of the design strength. Accurate records of the auger cast pile installations shall be obtained during construction.

4.1.2 ACIP Pile Foundation Construction Considerations

ACIP piles should generally be spaced at least 3 diameters (center-to-center), and adjacent piles should have a staggered construction schedule that allows the grout to complete its initial set before an adjacent pile is drilled.

ACIP piles should be adequately reinforced to accommodate uplift and lateral loading conditions.

It should be noted that the installation of a long reinforcing cage can be performed but may be problematic in ACIP piles. Tensile reinforcement may be provided by installing a single reinforcing bar in the center of the pile, possibly through the auger stem prior to grouting.

Reinforcement installed within ACIP piles should include centering devices to assure the steel has adequate concrete cover within the piles.

The successful completion of ACIP piles depends to a large extent on the equipment and installation procedures. ACIP piles (typically 14 to 18 inches in diameter) are constructed by extending continuous hollow-stemmed augers to a predetermined depth and then pumping a fluid cement grout under pressure through the center of the hollow shaft as the augers are withdrawn, leaving a continuous concrete pile. Care should be taken during the ACIP pile installation because of the potential for “necking” and “overdrilling” during the installation procedure.

Controlled withdrawal of the auger will be necessary and a sufficient head of grout should be maintained in the auger system at all times to prevent necking down of the fluid mortar due to hydrostatic pressures. Cobbles and boulders are common in the glacial till soils encountered on this site, and this could create difficult drilling conditions. If auger refusal occurs prior to reaching

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 7 design depth, a replacement pile may need to be installed, as directed by the project structural engineer.

Installing adjacent ACIP piles with clear distance spacing of less than 10 to 15 feet should be delayed until grout in the initial pile has set. This is recommended to avoid possible grout intrusion between the piles which could jeopardize the integrity of both piles.

4.2 Below Grade Walls

4.2.1 Lateral Earth Pressures

Walls with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed for earth pressures at least equal to those indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will be influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Two wall restraint conditions are shown. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of free-standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes wall movement. The "at-rest" condition assumes no wall movement and is used for design of below grade walls that are fixed and cannot rotate, such as basement walls.

The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor of safety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls.

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 8

Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters

Pressure Conditions

Coefficient For Backfill Type

Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (pcf)

Surcharge Pressure, P1

(psf)

Earth Pressure, P2

(psf)

Active (Ka) Granular - 0.33 Cohesive - 0.42

(0.33)S (0.42)S

(40)H (50)H

At-Rest (Ko) Granular - 0.50 Cohesive - 0.58

(0.50)S (0.58)S

(60)H (70)H

Passive (Kp) Granular – 3.0 Cohesive – 2.4

Applicable conditions to the above include:

For passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance.

Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure In-situ soil backfill weight a maximum of 120 pcf Horizontal backfill, compacted between 95 and 100% of Standard Proctor maximum dry density Loading from heavy compaction equipment not included No dynamic loading No hydrostatic pressure on the walls Ignore passive pressure in frost zone

Backfill placed against structures should consist of granular soils or low plasticity cohesive soils.

For the granular values to be valid, the granular backfill must extend out and up from the base of the wall at an angle of at least 45 degrees for the active and at-rest cases and at least 60 degrees from vertical for passive case. To calculate the resistance to sliding, a value of 0.4 should be used as the ultimate coefficient of friction between the foundation and the underlying soil. An appropriate safety factor should be applied to the ultimate coefficient of friction value.

4.2.2 Subsurface Drainage

Below-grade building walls should be waterproofed, and water stops should be placed at construction joints. To reduce the potential for hydrostatic loading on the below-grade walls and reduce the potential for seepage into below grade areas, we recommend that exterior perimeter drains be installed around the base of the walls. Each drain line should be surrounded by free-draining granular material encapsulated with an approved geotextile filter fabric. For exterior locations, the granular material should extend from the drainage pipes to within 2 feet of final grade and be capped with a cohesive fill material placed and compacted as recommended in Section 4.2 of this report.

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 9

The drainage networks (pipes) for perimeter subdrains should be sloped to provide positive gravity drainage to sumps equipped for automated pumping, to a down gradient storm sewer, or to another suitable frost-free outlet that will allow gravity drainage. Redundant pumps with battery backup power could be considered to reduce the risk of hydrostatic pressure and seepage in the event of pump and/or power failure. Periodic maintenance of drainage systems is necessary so that they do not become plugged and inoperative.

A prefabricated drainage structure placed against below grade walls may also be used as an alternative to free-draining granular fill above the pipe. A prefabricated drainage structure consists of a plastic drainage core or mesh that is covered with filter fabric to prevent soil intrusion. The drainage structure is fastened to the wall after the wall has been waterproofed and prior to placing backfill.

4.3 Floor Slabs

Subgrades in the slab-on-grade areas of the parking garage will consist of existing fill materials comprised primarily of lean clay with variable amounts of sand, silt and gravel.

We understand that the site is currently used for automobile parking and that the asphalt pavements have performed in a satisfactory manner. Since the grade-supported first floor slabs for the parking garage are expected to have similar loads as the current site use for car parking, it is our opinion that evaluation of the surface of the fill and shallow improvement (where necessary) is the most practical method for providing floor slab subgrade support. It should be noted that existing fill may contain soft soils (such as those encountered in Boring 4) or other unsuitable materials (such as organics or debris); these conditions may not be disclosed by the widely spaced, small-diameter borings. If these conditions are present and are not discovered and corrected during construction, larger than normal settlement resulting in cracking or other damage could occur in slabs, utilities and other elements supported on or above the existing fill.

These risks can be reduced by thorough observation and testing during construction, but they cannot be eliminated without complete removal and replacement of the fill.

4.3.1 Floor Slab Design Recommendations

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Floor slab support Existing on-site fill materials or new engineered fill materials that have been evaluated and prepared as recommended in this report

Granular leveling course 2 4 inches of well-graded crushed stone

Modulus of subgrade reaction

100 pci for a soil subgrade prepared as recommended in this report Note: a value of 125 pci can be used at the top of the compacted granular leveling course

1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of building footings and walls supported on the

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 10 footings to reduce the potential for floor slab cracking caused by differential movements between the slab and foundation.

2. The floor slab should be placed on a leveling course comprised of well-graded crushed stone (e.g., WisDOT Section 305.2.2.1, 1¼ inch aggregate) compacted to at least 98% of the material’s standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698).

Joints should be constructed at regular intervals as recommended by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) to help control the location of cracking. It should be understood that differential settlement between the floor slabs and foundations could occur.

If moisture vapor transmission through the concrete slab is a concern, a vapor barrier should be used. The need for, and placement of, the vapor barrier should be determined by the architect or slab designer based on the proposed floor covering treatment, building function, concrete properties, placement techniques, and construction schedule. For further guidance concerning the use of a vapor barrier system, refer to Sections 302 and 360 of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual of Concrete Practice.

4.3.2 Floor Slab Construction Considerations

On most project sites, the site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase.

However, as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed by utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, rainfall, etc. As a result, corrective action may be required prior to placement of the granular leveling course and concrete.

Terracon should review the condition of the floor slab subgrades immediately prior to placement of the granular leveling course and construction of the slabs. Particular attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by scarification/compaction or by removing the affected material and replacing it with engineered fill.

4.4 Earthwork

Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. Recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fill for the project are provided below.

4.4.1 Site Preparation

Existing pavements and any loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable materials should be removed from proposed construction areas.

Following removal of surface materials and prior to placing new engineered fill and/or the granular leveling course for new floor slabs, the exposed soils should be observed and tested

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 11 by Terracon. A Terracon representative should observe proofrolling of the exposed soils.

Proofrolling can be accomplished using a loaded tandem-axle dump truck with a gross weight of at least 25 tons, or similarly loaded equipment. Areas that display excessive deflection (pumping) or rutting during proofroll operations should be improved by scarification and compaction or by removal and replacement with an approved gradation of crushed stone aggregate. Additional test pits of the fill are recommend in order to better evaluate its composition and consistency.

4.4.2 Engineered Fill Material Requirements

Engineered fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

Cohesive 2 CL, CL-ML Below slabs, in general fill/backfill areas

Granular

GW, GP, GM, GC, SW,

SP, SM, SC

Below slabs, in general fill/backfill areas

Unsuitable CH, MH, OL, OH, PT Non-structural locations

1. Engineered fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris.

Cohesive fill materials should have a liquid limit less than 45 and a plasticity index less than 20;

cohesive soils that do not meet these criteria should be considered “unsuitable.” Frozen material should not be used, and fill should be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type should be submitted to Terracon for evaluation prior to use on this site.

2. Based on visual and tactile examination of recovered soil samples and the results of the laboratory tests, most of the on-site clay soils would likely meet the criteria for engineered fill. However, any soils with an organic content greater than 5 percent, rock fragments larger than 3 inches, and other unsuitable materials should be removed prior to use of the existing fill materials in new fill sections.

4.4.3 Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements

Item Description

Fill Lift Thickness

9 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelled compaction equipment is used. 4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e., a jumping jack or plate compactor) is used.

Minimum Compaction Requirement 1, 2 Below Foundations and Slabs-on-grade

98% of the material’s standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). This level of compaction should extend beyond the edges of footings at least 8 inches for every foot of fill placed below the foundation base elevation.

Moisture Content of Cohesive Soil -2% to +3% of standard Proctor optimum (ASTM D 698)

Moisture Content of Granular Material 3 Workable moisture levels

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 12

Item Description

1. We recommend that each lift of fill be tested by a qualified geotechnical consultant for moisture content and compaction prior to the placement of additional fill or concrete. If the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

2. If granular material is a coarse sand or gravel, is of a uniform size, or has a low fines content, compaction comparison to relative density (ASTM D 4253/4254) may be more appropriate. In this case, granular materials should be compacted to at least 60% relative density.

3. The gradation of a granular material affects its stability and the moisture content required for proper compaction. Moisture levels should be maintained to achieve compaction without bulking during placement or pumping when proofrolled.

4.4.4 Earthwork Construction Considerations

Terracon should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation, proofrolling, placement and compaction of compacted engineered fills, backfilling of excavations, and just prior to construction of building floor slabs and pavements.

Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations, seepage is not expected in excavations. However, if seepage is encountered, the contractor is responsible for employing appropriate dewatering methods to control seepage and facilitate construction. In our experience, dewatering of excavations in clays can sometimes be accomplished with sump pits and pumps. Dewatering of excavations extending into sand soils below the water table could require multiple sump pits/pumps, well points, or other measures. Groundwater levels should be maintained at least 2 feet below the deepest excavation level to help improve stability in the base of the excavations.

Care should be taken to avoid disturbance of prepared subgrades. Unstable subgrade conditions could develop during general construction operations, particularly if the soils are wetted and/or subjected to repetitive construction traffic. New fill compacted above optimum moisture content or that accumulates water during construction can also become disturbed under construction equipment. Construction traffic over the completed subgrade should be avoided to the extent practical. If the subgrade becomes saturated, desiccated, or disturbed, the affected materials should either be scarified and compacted or be removed and replaced.

Subgrades should be observed and tested by Terracon prior to construction of slabs and pavements.

As a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” and its appendices, and in accordance with any applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations. The contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depth should in no instance exceed those specified by these safety

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 13 regulations. Flatter slopes than those dictated by these regulations may be required depending upon the soil conditions encountered and other external factors. These regulations are strictly enforced and if they are not followed, the owner, contractor, and/or earthwork and utility subcontractor could be liable and subject to substantial penalties. Under no circumstances should the information provided in this report be interpreted to mean that Terracon is responsible for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of the construction operations.

4.4.5 Grading and Drainage

During construction, grades should be developed to direct surface water flow away from or around the site. Exposed subgrades should be sloped to provide positive drainage so that saturation of subgrades is avoided. Surface water should not be permitted to accumulate on the site.

Final grades should slope away from the building to promote rapid surface drainage.

Accumulation of water adjacent to the building could contribute to significant moisture increases in the subgrade soils and subsequent softening/settlement. Roof drains should discharge into a storm sewer or several feet away from building.

4.5 Seismic Site Class

The International Building Code (IBC) requires structural design to be in accordance with the appropriate site class definition for soil profile type. Based upon the Site Class Definitions in IBC 2012, Section 1613.3.2, which refers to ASCE 7, Chapter 20, Table 9.4.1.2, and the average shear wave velocity of 1,162 ft./s derived from our seismic survey data, Terracon recommends a Site Class D seismic site classification for design.

The average shear-wave velocity analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the seismic refraction survey performed at the indicated location and on the indicated date. This analysis does not reflect variations that may occur across the site, or variations that may occur throughout the year, such as groundwater fluctuations. The refraction microtremor method is an approximate method, and one of many methods that can be used to determine shear-wave velocities. There are other more expensive methods that can be used to further increase the accuracy of the seismic site classification and shear-wave profile.

Based on our experience in the geological and seismic conditions within northern Illinois and the soil conditions encountered in the borings, we do not anticipate that liquefaction will be a concern at the project site.

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 14

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project.

Support of the floor slab on/above existing fill is discussed in this report. Even with the construction observation/testing recommended in this report, a risk remains for the owner that unsuitable materials within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This may result in larger than normal settlement and damage to the slab, requiring additional maintenance. This risk cannot be eliminated without removing the existing fill from below the building floor slab or the use of a structural slab, but can be reduced by thorough observation and testing as discussed herein.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided.

The scope of geotechnical services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

Responsive Resourceful Reliable Exhibit A-1

Field Exploration Description

The borings were drilled at the approximate locations indicated on the attached Boring Location Plan (Exhibit A-2). Terracon representatives laid out the borings in the field by estimating distances and right angles from available reference features. The boring locations were surveyed by The Sigma Group, and the surface elevations provided are shown on the attached boring logs.

The borings were drilled with a truck-mounted, rotary drill rig using continuous flight augers and mud rotary (wash boring) procedure to advance the boreholes. Soil samples were obtained using split-barrel sampling procedures, in which a standard 2-inch (outside diameter) split-barrel sampling spoon is driven into the ground with a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value. These values, also referred to as SPT N-values, are an indication of soil strength/density and are provided on the boring logs at the depths of occurrence. The samples were sealed and transported to the laboratory for testing and classification. Upon completion of drilling, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings.

The drill crew prepared a field log of each boring. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and the driller’s interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. The boring logs included with this report represent the engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observation and tests of the samples.

Geophysical (ReMi) Testing Description Terracon used a seismic refraction system consisting of a seismograph and using a linear array of 24 geophones to perform a site-specific seismic class survey. Two tests were performed in mutually perpendicular directions (approximately north-south and east-west lines) within the site. Refraction microtremors (ReMi) produced by ambient seismic noise were recorded. These data were processed to derive a shear wave profile and an average shear-wave velocity along the array for a corresponding depth of about 100 feet. The test results are presented in this appendix as Exhibits A-11 and A-12.

BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM

A-2 135 Ambassador Drive Naperville, Illinois 60540

P [630] 717 4263 F [630] 357 9489

11145049

June 2014

AF

AF

KCB

KCB

N.T.S.

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

EXHIBIT

11145049_BLDDIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION

ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR

CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

PARKING GARAGE AT VA HOSPITAL

5000 WEST NATIONAL AVENUE

MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

0.7 1.1

5.0

28.0

ASPHALT, approximately 8" CRUSHED STONE AGGREGATE, approximately 6" FILL - SANDY SILTY CLAY , trace gravel, brown and dark brown

LL-PL-PI: 28-18-10

LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand and gravel, brown, medium stiff to very stiff turning gray

SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), gray, medium stiff to very stiff

15-10-7 N=17

6-7-9 N=16

5-7-7 N=14

4-4-5 N=9

3-3-3 N=6

3-5-8 N=13

3-5-5 N=10

2-3-3 N=6

6-8-4 N=12

4-12-13 N=25

640.5

636.5

613.5

Hammer Type: Automatic SPT HammerStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G See Exhibit A-2

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

G E

O S

M A

R T

L O

G -N

O W

E

LL

-V

A H

O S

P

IT

A L.

G P

J T

E M

P

LA

T E

U P

D A

T E

-3

1-

.G P

J

/2 3/

5000 W. National Avenue Milwaukee, WI

SITE:

PROJECT: Parking Garage at VA Hospital

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger and Mud Rotary

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with bentonite chips.

135 Ambassador Drive Naperville, Illinois

Notes:

Project No.: 11145049

Drill Rig: GC

Boring Started: 6/2/2014

BORING LOG NO. 1

Guidon DesignCLIENT:

Indianapolis, IN

Driller: NJ

Boring Completed: 6/2/2014

Exhibit: A-3

See…