Amendment 04 - R-11 Refueler Parking - Final Geotechnical Report.pdf

435 Independence Avenue, Suite C, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 ▪ 717-458-0800 ▪ www.advantageengineers.com

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

AIR NATIONAL GUARD FUEL FACILITY

NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE

PREPARED FOR:

MR. L. RANDALL STAHMER, P.E.

HDR

8404 INDIAN HILLS DRIVE

OMAHA, NE 68114

PREPARED BY:

MICHAEL D. OWEN

GEOTECHNICAL SPECIALIST III

PREPARED BY:

Wayne R. Tucker, P.E.

Senior Project Manager

Delaware Reg. No. 14078

PROJECT NUMBER – 1400823010

FEBRUARY 22, 2017

2-22-2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 GEOLOGY

5.2 SOIL

5.3 BEDROCK

5.4 GROUNDWATER

6.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 SITE PREPARATION

6.2 PROOF-ROLLING

6.3 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS

6.4 UTILITY CONSIDERATIONS

7.0 STRUCTURAL FILL

7.1 IMPORTED FILL

7.2 REUSE OF ON-SITE SOILS

7.3 PLACEMENT & COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS

8.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

8.2 SETTLEMENT

8.3 SEISMIC SITE CLASS

9.0 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT

10.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS

10.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

10.2 RIGID PAVEMENT

10.3 GENERAL PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

11.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING

12.0 LIMITATIONS

Appendix

Figure 1 – Topographic Map

Figure 2 – Geologic Map

Figure 3 – Soil Map

Figure 4 – Exploration Plan

Figure 5 – Test Boring Profiles

Laboratory Test Results

Test Boring Logs (B-1 & B-2)

Geotechnical Engineering Report Air National Guard Fuel Facility Advantage Project Number: 1400823010

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report was prepared by Advantage Engineers, LLC (Advantage), on behalf of HDR and contains the results of a geotechnical engineering exploration conducted at the site of the proposed fuel canopy to be located on the grounds of the Delaware Air National Guard facility in New Castle County, Delaware. The purpose of this exploration has been to evaluate the suitability of the existing subsurface conditions to support the proposed improvements. Based on the results of our field exploration and laboratory analysis, site preparation and construction recommendations have been formulated.

The scope of work for this project included completion of a subsurface field exploration, a detailed laboratory testing program and geotechnical engineering analysis. This report summarizes the results of the work performed and provides geotechnical and general construction recommendations.

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project site currently consists of a grass covered parcel located on the grounds of the Delaware Air National Guard facility located at 151 North Dupont Highway #11 in New Castle County, Delaware. Existing topography across the property is flat. The site is bordered in all directions by asphalt covered parking areas and drive lanes associated with the facility. The approximate location of the site in relation to the surrounding area is depicted on the Topographic Map (Figure 1) presented within the Appendix.

Based on information provided by HDR, the project will consist of constructing a new canopy for R-11 fuel trucks with associated parking areas. At the time of this report, existing and proposed grades were unknown; however, it is anticipated that finished grades will be situated at or near existing site grades.

Column and wall loads were also unknown. For the purposes of this report, maximum column loads of approximately 100 kips are assumed.

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

To evaluate subsurface conditions across the project site, two (2) test borings were completed on November 23, 2016. Supervision and monitoring of the subsurface exploration were provided by a representative of Advantage, who field located the test locations based on stakes placed in the field by others. The approximate test locations are shown on the Exploration Plan (Figure 4) presented within the Appendix.

The test borings were advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers.

Split-spoon samples, conducted in accordance with ASTM D1586, were taken throughout the depth of the borings and the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values were recorded for each sample obtained. The SPT values, which are a measure of relative density or consistency, are the number of blows required to drive a 2-inch (outer-diameter) split-barrel sampler 2 feet using a 140-pound weight dropped 30 inches.

The number of blows required to advance the sampler over the 12-inch interval from 6 to 18 inches is considered the "N" value.

Data pertaining to the test borings was documented in the field and is presented in detail on the Test Boring Profiles and Test Boring Logs presented within the Appendix. The Test Boring Profiles (Figure 5) depict cross-sections of the subsurface conditions encountered within each test boring conducted, including: soil types, depths of individual strata, and recorded “N” values. The Test Boring Logs contain general information about the subsurface program and specific data regarding each test boring, including: sample depths, blow counts per 6 inches of penetration, and detailed characterizations of the subsurface materials encountered.

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Soil samples retrieved from the site were visually reviewed and classified by Advantage personnel. A representative soil sample was subjected to laboratory analysis to verify visual classification and aid in establishing the engineering parameters for foundation design analysis. The tests performed included Natural Moisture Content (ASTM D2216), Sieve Analysis (ASTM D422), and Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318). The results of the testing conducted are presented in Table I.

TABLE I

LABORATORY RESULTS

Test Location B-1

Sample Depths (ft.) 2 - 6

Soil Type Stratum I

Particle Size Distribution (Percent)

Gravel 33.6

Sand 50.4

Silt/Clay 16.0

Atterberg Limits

Liquid Limit NP

Plastic Limit NP

Plasticity Index NP

Natural Moisture Content 5.6%

USCS Group Symbol SM

ASTM Group Name Silty SAND with Gravel

To provide a general evaluation of the corrosivity of near-surface soil samples on site, chemical testing was conducted according to the following schedule:

Minimum resistivity - AASHTO T288 pH - ASTM D4972 Sulfate Content - EPA 0300 Chloride Content - EPA 0300

Chemical testing results indicated a pH and resistivity of 7.4 and 8,045 ohm-cm, respectively. The chloride content was found to be “not detected” and the sulfate content was found to be 70 ppm. Chemical test results are presented within the Appendix of this report.

In addition, a representative bulk sample of on-site soil was retrieved from both test borings completed, subsequently combined and subjected to the following tests:

Standard Proctor Analysis - ASTM D698 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) - ASTM D1883

Graphical depictions of the moisture-density curve from the Standard Proctor test and the stress vs. strain curve from the CBR analyses are presented within the Appendix. The results of the CBR analysis are further discussed in Section 10.0 of the Report.

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 GEOLOGY

According to the Delaware Geological Survey, the project site is underlain by the Columbia Formation (geologic symbol Qcl). The project site within its geologic setting is presented on the Geologic Map (Figure 2) found within the Appendix.

The Geologic Map of New Castle County, Delaware describes the Columbia Formation as consisting of yellowish to reddish-brown, fine to coarse, feldspathic quartz sand with varying amounts of gravel. Scattered beds of tan to reddish-gray clayey silt is common. In places, the upper 5 to 25 feet a grayish to reddish-brown silt to very fine sand overlying medium to coarse sand. Near the base of the unit, clasts of cobble to small boulder size found in gravel bed ranging from a few inches to 3 feet thick.

5.2 SOIL

The surfaces of the test borings were covered by approximately 6 inches of topsoil and organic debris. Beneath the topsoil, subsurface conditions were generally uniform, consisting of a layer of existing Fill, followed by a single naturally-occurring soil stratum referenced herein as Stratum I. A general description of the soils encountered at the site is as follows:

Fill – Tan to brown SAND with varying amounts of silt and gravel

Existing Fill was encountered within both test borings completed and extended to depths of approximately 2 and 4 feet below existing site grades. The “N” values recorded within this soil, ranged from 9 to 34 blows per foot (bpf).

Upon review, the existing Fill was observed to be moderately well-graded and non-plastic, and comprised primarily of SAND with varying amounts of silt and gravel. The existing Fill was found to be free of deleterious material (i.e. ash, cinder, slag, topsoil and/or organic debris). However, these samples were taken from discrete locations and the possibility does exist for unsuitable materials to be present in unexplored portions of the site.

Stratum I – Tan to brown SAND with varying amounts of silt and gravel

Stratum I was encountered within both test borings completed, extending to their termination depths of approximately 20 feet below existing site grades. The “N” values recorded within this soil, ranged from 21 to 38 bpf, and show Stratum I to generally be medium dense to dense consistency.

Laboratory testing conducted on a representative sample of Stratum I, shows this soil to be moderately well-graded and non-plastic, with a natural moisture content of 5.6%.

Stratum I is described per the United State Classification System (USCS) as Silty SAND with Gravel (SM).

5.3 BEDROCK

The bedrock surface was not encountered during the subsurface exploration.

5.4 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered throughout the termination depths of the test borings completed.

This observation was made at the time of the field operations and groundwater table elevations will vary with daily, seasonal, climatological variations, and anthropogenic activities.

6.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 SITE PREPARATION

At the outset of the project, all topsoil should be stripped from all structural areas. Structural areas are defined as those areas to be covered by the proposed canopy, extending to a minimum of 5 feet beyond all foundation lines, and any portion of the site to be covered by asphalt or concrete pavements. Any unstable or deleterious materials encountered should also be removed in their entirety.

The topsoil will not be suitable for use as structural fill during construction. The topsoil may be stockpiled on site for future use in landscaped areas or as general fill material in non-structural portions of the site (i.e. landscaping berms, curbed islands, etc.).

6.2 PROOF-ROLLING

Following removal of the topsoil, required excavation to reach proposed subgrade elevations, and prior to the placement of structural fill or construction of foundation elements, all structural areas should be compacted using a steel-drum, vibratory roller, having a minimum static weight of 10 tons. A minimum of 5 overlapping passes of the roller should be completed across the entirety of the building pad and other structural areas. Following the compaction procedures, proof-rolling should be performed using a fully loaded, tandem-axle dump truck. Proof-rolling and compaction procedures are necessary to compact and verify the integrity of the upper zones of the soils and allow for a uniform distribution of loads. Any loose or unstable areas encountered during proof-rolling and compaction should be compacted in place or removed and replaced with structural fill placed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report.

In areas of the site where a cut or removal of soil is necessary to achieve the required soil subgrade elevation, proof-rolling and compaction of the surface may be waived until the proposed subgrade elevation is achieved.

The project site is underlain by a layer of existing Fill. Proof-rolling of the project site, and specifically the proposed structural areas, is considered to be an integral part of the foundation design criteria for the project. Proof-rolling should allow for a final evaluation of subgrade conditions for indications of loose/soft soil conditions prior to the placement of structural fill and/or construction of foundation elements, and should be carried out as specified above under direction of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record.

6.3 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the data obtained, excavation during construction of the proposed canopy and associated site features will take place within the existing Fill and naturally-occurring soils of Stratum I, which may be removed using conventional earth moving equipment and techniques. Bedrock excavation is not anticipated to be required during construction.

All excavations should be adequately sloped, benched, or supported to minimize collapse and protect personnel. All excavations should be completed in accordance with OSHA requirements.

6.4 UTILITY CONSIDERATIONS

The trenching required for the installation of subsurface utilities at the site will occur within the existing Fill and soils of Stratum I. These soils may be removed using conventional excavation equipment and techniques. If groundwater or “perched” water is encountered in the excavations, it should be removed prior to backfilling operations.

All excavations should be adequately sloped, benched, or supported to minimize collapse and protect personnel. All excavations should be completed in accordance with OSHA requirements.

Backfill & compaction procedures should be completed in accordance with Section 7.3 of this report.

7.0 STRUCTURAL FILL

7.1 IMPORTED FILL

Imported structural Fill should meet the following criteria:

free of organic matter, ash, cinders, trash, or other unsuitable materials particle size distribution that is well-graded plasticity index less than 10; liquid limit less than 30 less than 15 percent by weight rock fragments larger than 3" and with no particle size larger than 6”, less than 30 percent by weight larger than the 3/4" and less than 30 percent smaller than the no. 200 sieve

It should be noted the tolerances with respect to plasticity, gradation and fines content for imported structural fills are more stringent than the existing on-site soils being recommended for reuse. It is anticipated that importing of structural fill to the project site may be necessary during winter or spring months and should be expected to possess properties that are conducive to being workable and compactible during these time periods.

Alternate soils proposed for use which differ from those specified above should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record regarding their suitability prior to placement at the site.

7.2 REUSE OF ON-SITE SOILS

Comments regarding the suitability of on-site soils for reuse as structural fill are provided below.

FilI – This soil was observed to be moderately well-graded and non-plastic, and consist SAND with varying amounts of silt and gravel. Based on this information, this soil should be suitable for use as structural fill, provided any deleterious materials, if encountered, are discarded prior to placement.

Stratum I – This soil was observed to be moderately well-graded and non-plastic, consisting Silty SAND with Gravel (SM). Based on this information, this soil should be suitable for use as structural fill.

Our analysis of the suitability of the on-site soil for use as structural fill is based on data collected from the test borings completed at the site. Soil suitability should be confirmed in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record during construction.

7.3 PLACEMENT & COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS

Structural fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 10 inches in loose thickness where heavy compaction equipment can be utilized and 6 inches in loose thickness where hand-operated equipment is necessary. Only hand-operated tampers and rollers should be used immediately behind below-grade and retaining walls during backfilling unless permission is granted by the Structural Engineer to utilize heavy compaction equipment.

The optimum lift thickness and number of repetitive passes with compaction equipment necessary to achieve the required percentage compaction values should be determined in the field with test passes of the chosen compaction equipment. New structural fill should be placed at, or deviate nominally from (±2%) the optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with ASTM D698 or ASTM D1557 and compacted to the minimum percentages of the maximum dry densities as indicated below in Table II.

TABLE II

COMPACTION CRITERIA

Fill Area Percent of Maximum Dry

Density as per ASTM D698

Percent of Maximum Dry Density as per ASTM D1557

Foundation Support Fill 98% 95%

Foundation Backfill 98% 95%

Slab-On-Grade, Parking Areas 98% 95%

Non-Structural Areas, Green Areas 92% 90%

8.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Provided the site development considerations are followed, firm and stable naturally-occurring soils or suitable structural fill placed under engineering control may be utilized for the support of the proposed foundation elements using shallow foundation systems. The following paragraphs provide greater detail concerning our recommendations.

1. A foundation system consisting of strip and/or spread footings is recommended for support of the proposed canopy.

2. Firm and stable existing soils of Stratum I or properly placed structural fill may be utilized for support of the foundation elements. The foundations should not be situated on the existing Fill.

3. A maximum allowable net bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) should be considered in design of the foundations.

4. The bottoms of all exterior foundations and those in unheated areas should be at least 36 inches below the final exterior grades in order to minimize the potential for frost heave.

5. All foundation bottoms should be completely cleaned of loose material or debris immediately prior to the placement of concrete.

6. Concrete should be placed in excavated foundation areas as quickly as possible to minimize degradation to the foundation subgrade due to exposure.

7. The suitability of the materials encountered at the proposed foundation subgrade elevations should be confirmed in the field under the supervision of a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Delaware specializing in Geotechnical Engineering.

8. Column and wall foundations should be a minimum of 3.0 and 1.5 feet in width, respectively.

Prior to the placement of concrete, all foundation bottoms should be densified and compacted using a walk-behind vibratory roller, gas-powered automatic tamper, or similar equipment. Densification is required to provide uniform density of the foundation subgrade and allow for proper distribution of loads. Proper compaction and densification of the foundation soils should be verified by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to placement of concrete.

It is emphasized that caution should be exercised to not disturb foundation subgrade soils. Should the subgrade be disturbed, the soil should be compacted in place or removed until firm soil is encountered and the resulting excavation backfilled with concrete or controlled structural fill as described above. Every effort should be made to prevent water from entering open foundation excavations. Water that may accumulate in foundation excavations should be removed immediately. It is recommended that footing excavation and placement of concrete be performed on the same day whenever practical.

8.2 SETTLEMENT

At the time of this report, column loads were unknown. Therefore, for design purposes, it was estimated that interior column loads would not exceed 100 kips. Based on the assumed load, a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf, and our analysis of the conditions encountered, maximum post-construction settlement of the proposed building foundations is expected to be less than 1-inch and differential settlement between adjacent foundations will be 0.5-inches. Should the actual column loads exceed those presented above, please contact Advantage so that settlement estimates may be re-evaluated.

8.3 SEISMIC SITE CLASS

According to Table 1613.5.2 - Site Class Definitions of the 2009 International Building Code, the stratigraphic profile underlying the proposed construction area meets the characteristics of Site Class D, Stiff Soil Profile.

9.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

The following data is provided for the design of below grade walls which may be constructed at the site.

The data presented is based on the use of the existing soils placed under engineering control for backfill of these structures. Should alternate soil be used, alternate design criteria should be established. Table III, presented below, provides the Earth Pressure Design Data for the use of the above referenced soils.

TABLE III

EARTH PRESSURE DESIGN DATA

Parameter Fill Stratum I

Angle of Internal Friction 28º 30°

Unit Weight of Soil 110 pcf 115 pcf

Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure 0.36 0.33

Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure 2.77 3.00

Coefficient of At-Rest Earth Pressure 0.53 0.50

Cohesion 0 psf 0 psf

Adequate drainage must be maintained adjacent to all earth retaining walls in an effort to minimize the buildup of hydrostatic pressure on the structures. At a minimum, a drainage blanket consisting of clean, crushed aggregate should be placed behind the retaining wall. The drainage blanket should be connected to a drain at the base of the retaining wall with all water directed to dedicated stormwater channels.

Consideration may also be given to placing a non-woven geotextile filter fabric between the drainage blanket and on-site soil backfill to minimize potential clogging and sedimentation of the drainage blanket.

10.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS

Development of the site will include constructing new flexible and rigid pavement areas. Based on information provided by the Client, average daily traffic (ADT) will consist of five (5) heavy duty R-11 fuel trucks (twice a day). Estimated Load Equivalency Factors (LEF) were applied to the assumed average daily traffic (ADT) to resolve the traffic loading into 18-kip equivalent single axle loads (ESALs). Details regarding each of the pavement types (flexible & rigid) and their design analyses are presented below.

A single representative bulk sample was collected from the project site and subjected to laboratory analyses in order to determine the moisture-density relationship of these materials and to provide the criteria required for design of the pavement sections. The results of the analyses are presented below in Table IV.

TABLE IV

STANDARD PROCTOR & CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) ANALYSIS RESULTS

SAMPLE

LOCATION

SOIL DESCRIPTION

MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND

OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT

CBR RESULTS

(ASTM D1883)

B-1/B-2 Silty SAND with Gravel -

SM

129.4 pcf at 9.4% 3.7

10.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

The flexible pavement section provided herein was designed in accordance with AASHTO Design Guide and are based on a laboratory-determined California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 3.7 for the subgrade soils. A design CBR value of 2.5 was utilized, representing the laboratory value of

3.7 reduced by two-thirds. The design sections have been determined for a design life of 20 years, a reliability level of 85 percent, with a Terminal Service Index of 2.0.

When the ADT is resolved into 18 kip Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs), the design loading for the proposed pavement section was found to be 146,000 ESALs for 20 years. Incorporating the design life ESALs into the AASHTO flexible pavement design methodology yields a structural number (SN) of 3.5 for the proposed pavement section.

The thickness of the pavement section was determined using the following structural formula:

SN = a1D1 + a2D2 + a3D3 where:

a1, a2, a3 = Structural coefficients for base course, wearing course, and sub-base materials, respectively

D1, D2, D3 = Thickness of base course, wearing course, and sub-base layers, respectively

The layer coefficients (a1, a2, & a3) used for the pavement design equation represent the ability of each material in the pavement section to support the design traffic load. The resilient modulus for each material in the pavement section (i.e. base coarse, wearing coarse, and subbase) is often used to establish the layer coefficient for these materials. Absent resilient modulus testing for each of the pavement components, the following values were assumed for this analysis.

a1 = 0.40 a2 = 0.44 a3 = 0.11

Based on the structural number referenced above, the following pavement section is recommended for use at the project site:

Recommended Flexible Pavement Section

SUPERPAVE Asphalt Mixture, HMA Wearing Course, PG 64-22, 9.5-mm

1.5 inches

SUPERPAVE Asphalt Mixture, HMA Base Course, PG 64-22, 25-mm

5.0 inches

2A Subbase / CR-6 8.0 inches

10.2 RIGID PAVEMENT

The rigid pavement section provided herein was also designed in accordance with AASHTO Design Guide, based on the subgrade and traffic loading parameters discussed above. The rigid pavement section shall consist of a minimum of 4,500 psi, 7% air-entrained concrete, having a minimum thickness of 7 inches. The concrete should be placed on a minimum of 6 inches of stone subbase.

Joints should be placed to produce panels that are as square as possible and never exceed a length to width ratio of 1.5 to 1. Joints should be spaced at distances equal to 24 to 30 times the slab thickness. Load transfer devices (dowels or diamond plates) should be installed at all joints.

Saw-cut contraction/control joints should be established at a minimum depth equivalent to 1/4 of the slab thickness.

10.3 GENERAL PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

All areas to be paved should be thoroughly proof-rolled and compacted to a minimum of 98% of maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698 or 95% of maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557, prior to the placement of subbase materials. The extent and magnitude of undercutting, if required, should be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer during proof-rolling of the site.

Proper drainage will be an important consideration for the overall performance of the pavement.

We have assumed that proper grading to provide suitable runoff from the pavement surface and beyond the limits of the paved areas will be provided.

As minor cracking in the pavement section occurs with age, and if water is allowed to pond on the surface, seepage into the subbase material may weaken the subgrade, which can enhance degradation of the pavement section. Maintenance of this pavement will be critical to limiting its strength loss over the life of the pavement.

We recommend that the subbase be placed as soon as possible after the subgrade has been approved. The pavement system should also be placed as soon as possible after the subbase has been tested and approved. These recommendations are provided in an effort to help prevent the subgrade and the subbase from being disturbed by weather and construction traffic. It will also help reduce the potential for the subbase from becoming contaminated with soil.

11.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING

Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical engineering exploration, there is always a possibility that conditions between the test locations and below the depths explored may be different from those encountered, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the subsurface conditions. Therefore, geotechnical engineering construction observation should be performed under the supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer who is familiar with the intent of the recommendations presented herein. Construction observation is recommended to evaluate whether the conditions anticipated in the design actually exist or whether the recommendations presented herein should be modified where necessary.

12.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical design practices for specific application to this project. This report has been based on assumed conditions and characteristics of the proposed development where specific information was not available.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the subsurface data obtained during the explorations and on details stated in this report. The validity of the projections, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report is necessarily limited by the scope of field exploration and by the number of test locations that were performed. It is understood that the number of test locations performed is consistent with good engineering practice but, given the nature of subsurface conditions, there is a possibility that actual conditions encountered may differ significantly from those projected in this report. Should conditions arise which differ from those described in this report, Advantage should be notified immediately and provided with all available information regarding subsurface conditions.

Further, Advantage assumes no liability for interpolation of data between the specific testing locations discussed herein. For bidding purposes, the contractors should be responsible for making their own interpretation of the data found within this report.

Our recommendations are based upon the assumption that the services of a qualified Geotechnical Engineer will be retained for the observation of the proof-rolling procedures, structural fill placement, foundation subgrade review and all critical earthwork operations. Advantage has extensive experience in the provision of these construction-phase services and would be pleased to present a proposal to perform the on-site quality control observation on the Owner’s behalf.

The scope of this exploration was limited to the evaluation of the load-carrying capabilities and load stability of the subsoils. Oil, hazardous waste, radioactivity, irritants, pollutants, radon or other dangerous substances and conditions were not the subject of this study. Their presence and/or absence are not implied, inferred or suggested by this report or results of this study.

APPENDIX

FIGURE 1 – TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

FIGURE 2 – GEOLOGIC MAP

FIGURE 3 – SOIL MAP

FIGURE 4 – EXPLORATION PLAN

FIGURE 5 – TEST BORING PROFILES

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

TEST BORING LOGS

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

AIR NATIONAL GUARD FUEL FACILITY

PREPARED FOR

NEW CASTLE COUNTY DELAWARE

SCALE: DRAWING NUMBER:

DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

APPROVED BY: DATE:

AS SHOWN FIGURE 1

M. OWEN D. BUCKWALTER

W. TUCKER 11-23-2016

2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet

*Source - USGS 15 - Minute Topogrphic Quadrangle, Provided by ESRI

Legend Project Site

N

435 INDEPENDENCE AVE., SUITE C

MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055

PH (717) 458-0800

FAX (717)458-0801

Qcl

Qdb f

Qlh f

Qm

Qm

Qsc

Qm

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

GEOLOGIC MAP

AIR NATIONAL GUARD FUEL FACILITY

PREPARED FOR

NEW CASTLE COUNTY DELAWARE

SCALE: DRAWING NUMBER:

DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

APPROVED BY: DATE:

AS SHOWN FIGURE 2

M. OWEN D. BUCKWALTER

W. TUCKER 11-23-2016

N

435 INDEPENDENCE AVE., SUITE C

MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055

PH (717) 458-0800

FAX (717)458-0801

*Source - United State Geological Survey

1,500 0 1,500750 Feet

Legend Project Site

Columbia Formation

Delware Bay Group

Lynch Heights Formation

Marsh Deposits

Scotts Corners Formation

Fill

Qcl

Qdb

Qlh

Qm

Qsc f

Up

MuB

MuB

SOIL MAP

AIR NATIONAL GUARD FUEL FACILITY

PREPARED FOR

NEW CASTLE COUNTY DELAWARE

SCALE: DRAWING NUMBER:

DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

APPROVED BY: DATE:

AS SHOWN FIGURE 3

M. OWEN D. BUCKWALTER

W. TUCKER 12-9-2016

N

435 INDEPENDENCE AVE., SUITE C

MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055

PH (717) 458-0800

FAX (717)458-0801

*Source - Web Soil Survey

200 0 200100 Feet

Legend Project Site

Mattapex-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Urban landUp

MuB

A

A

B-2

B-1

EXPLORATION PLAN

AIR NATIONAL GUARD FUEL FACILITY

PREPARED FOR

NEW CASTLE COUNTY DELAWARE

SCALE: DRAWING NUMBER:

DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

APPROVED BY: DATE:

AS SHOWN FIGURE 4

M. OWEN D. BUCKWALTER

W. TUCKER 12-9-2016

100 0 10050 Feet

*Source - bingmaps.com

Legend

N

435 INDEPENDENCE AVE., SUITE C

MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055

PH (717) 458-0800

FAX (717)458-0801

A Approximate Test Boring Location

As-Received Moisture:5.6%

Gravel: Coarse: 0.0% Fine: 33.6%

Sand: Coarse: 9.9% Medium: 19.6% Fine: 20.9%

Fines Silt: Fine

Sand Description:

Consistency: Dry Strength:

Dilatancy: Toughness:

Structure: Cementation:

D60: D30: D10: Cu: Cc:

Boring: LL: NP PL: NP PI: NP

Sample: Depth:

Project:

Client:

S2/S3 2' - 6'

Particle Size Distribution

16.0% Clay:

33.6%

USCS Classification:

50.3%

Gravel Description:

Advantage Project Number:

N/A

Tan to brown angular to subangular

Homogeneous

Coarse

GRAVEL

Coarse

N/A

N/A

US Standard Sieve Size Opening (mm) %Finer

Medium

Silt Size

2.00No. 10

Hydrometer

Analysis

SAND

Fine

1-1/2"

3/4"

3/8"

No. 4 66.4%

0.005

38.0

19.0

56.5%

9.50 82.6%

Brown

No. 40 0.425

0.150

0.075No. 200

No. 100

Atterberg Limits

Tan to brown angular to subangular

4.75

100.0%

100.0%

B-1

N/A

N/A Clay Size

Air National Guard Fuel Facility

Soil Classification Report Per ASTM Designations D 2487 - 00 and D 2488 - 00

0.001

36.9%

20.1%

16.0%

Silty SAND with Gravel - SM

Description:

Remarks:

Report Date: December 7, 2016

HDR

Stratum I

1400823010

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

P e rc e n t

F in e r

Sieve Opening, mm

Particle Size Analysis of Soils

1-1/2" 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.10 No.40 No.100 No.200 Silt Clay

435 Independence Avenue, Suite C, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 ▪ 717-458-0800 ▪ www.advantageengineers.com

7.0%

Point #1 Point #2 Point #3 Point #4

133.0 139.0 142.1 139.4

5.9 8.0 10.1 11.9

125.6 128.7 129.1 124.6

Maximum Dry Unit Weight: 129.4 lbs./ft.³ Optimum Moisture Content: 9.4 %

Reviewed by:

Test Data

Sample Description:

Rammer Used: Preparation Method:Manual As Received Moisture:Moist

Silty SAND with Gravel - SM

Advantage Project

Number:

1400823010HDR

The results stated on this report relate only to the material specifically identified.

This test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval from

Advantage Engineers.

Wet Density (lbs./ft.³):

Moisture Content (%):

Dry Density (lbs./ft.³):

Construction Materials Laboratory Test Report

Laboratory Compaction Characteristics Using Standard Effort

Sample ID: 1400823010-S1

Air National Guard Fuel Facility

Per ASTM Designation D 698 - 07, Method C ~ AASHTO Designation T 99 - 01, Method D

Client:

Date: December 8, 2016 Project :

121.0

122.0

123.0

124.0

125.0

126.0

127.0

128.0

129.0

130.0

131.0

4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0

D ry

U n it W e ig h t

(l b s ft ³)

Standard Compaction Curve

Moisture Content (%)

129.4 lbs/ft³

9.4 %

95.0 %

127.0 lbs/ft³

10.5 %

98.1%

127.3 lbs/ft³

9.8 %

98.4%

Swell of Sample (% of Initial Sample Height): 0.10%

96.0 Hrs

10.0 lbs.

3.67

3.78

3.86

3.77

4.10

3.78

Reviewed by:

Project Number:

Dry Density of Sample After Soaking:

Sample Maximum Dry Density:

Specified Percentage of Compaction:

Report Date:

Client:

December 8, 2016

Moisture Content of Sample Before Soaking:

Compaction of Test Sample After Soaking:

Compaction of Test Sample Before Soaking:

Length of Time Sample was Soaked:

Moisture Content of Sample After Soaking:

Surcharge Amount:

Special Sample Preparation and/or Testing Procedures Used:

Construction Materials Laboratory Test Report CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory-Compacted Soils

Sample Optimum Moisture Content:

Dry Density of Sample Before Soaking:

Date Tested:

StandardCompaction Method:

December 5, 2016

Sample Description: Tan to Brown Silty SAND with Gravel - SM

Sample ID: 1400823010-S1

Materials Tested in Accordance with ASTM Designation D 1883 - 99

Air National Guard Fuel Facility

1400823010HDR

Project:

Bearing Ratio of Sample @ 0.100" of Penetration:

The results stated on this report relate only to the material specifically identified.

This test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval from Advantage Engineers.

Bearing Ratio of Sample @ 0.200" of Penetration:

Bearing Ratio of Sample @ 0.300" of Penetration:

California Bearing Ratio of Sample:

Bearing Ratio of Sample @ 0.500" of Penetration:

Bearing Ratio of Sample @ 0.400" of Penetration: 0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500

S tr e s s o n P is to n i n l b s in

²

Penetration in Inches

Load-Penetration Curve

S-1 7.4 6.7 Not

Detected 70 8,045 N/A

* Uppercase denotes laboratory classification.

Project: Air National Guard Fuel Facility

Project No.: 16001-72

Test Date:

Tested By: KJE

Checked By: SA

AMRL and USACE certified laboratory

12/13/16

* Soil

Classification

Sulfate

Content

(ppm)

Minimum

Resistivity

(ohms x cm)

Chloride

Content

(ppm) pH in water

Boring

No.

Sample

No.

pH - ASTM D4972, Method A

CHEMICAL TESTING SUMMARY

Chloride & Sulfate Content - EPA 300

Minimum Resistivity - AASHTO T288

Sample

Depth

(feet) in CaCl2 solution

441 Friendship Road . Harrisburg, PA 17111 . Ph: 717/236-3006 . Fax: 717/233-0994 . www.aegroup-llc.com

TEST BORING LOG SHEET 1 OF 1

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NUMBER:

FIELD SURVEYED X TOPO ESTIMATE

LOCATION: See Exploration Plan (Figure 4) GROUNDWATER DATA: Dry

DEPTH: Not Encountered Time: Completion

Air National Guard Fuel Facility BORING NO.: B-1

1400823010 CLIENT: HDR TOP OF GROUND: Not Available

Topsoil

S1 0' - 2' 2-2-7-8 0.5' - 2.0' Medium dense tan to brown silty SAND with gravel Fill

SOIL DESCRIPTION

0.0' - 0.5' Dark brown silty SAND with organic debris

S2 2' - 4' 9-13-25-17 Very dense tan to brown silty SAND with gravel

2.0' - 20.0'

S3 4' - 6' 10-14-14-11 Very dense tan to brown silty SAND with gravel

S4 6' - 8' 11-13-13-10 Very dense tan to brown silty SAND with gravel

10 S5 8' - 10' 18-15-13-10 Very dense tan to brown silty SAND with gravel

15 S6 13' - 15' 7-10-11-10 Dense tan to brown silty SAND with gravel

20 S7 18' - 20' 14-15-18-12 Dense tan to brown silty SAND with gravel Stratum I

-End of Boring at 20 Feet-

435 Independence Avenue, Suite C, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055

Office: (717) 458-0800 Fax: (717) 458-0801 www.advantageengineers.com

DATE DRILLED: November 23, 2016

DRAWN/COMPILED BY: M. Owen

RIG TYPE: Geo-Probe

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

ADVANTAGE REPRESENTATIVE: M. Owen

DEPTH

(feet)

S A

M P

L E

N U

M B

E R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

)SAMPLE

DEPTH

(feet)

BLOWS

PER 6"

TEST BORING LOG SHEET 1 OF 1

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NUMBER:

FIELD SURVEYED X TOPO ESTIMATE

LOCATION: See Exploration Plan (Figure 4) GROUNDWATER DATA: Dry

DEPTH: Not Encountered Time: Completion

Air National Guard Fuel Facility BORING NO.: B-2

1400823010 CLIENT: HDR TOP OF GROUND: Not Available

Topsoil

S1 0' - 2' 3-5-4-5 0.5' - 4.0' Medium dense tan to brown silty SAND with gravel

SOIL DESCRIPTION

0.0' - 0.5' Dark brown silty SAND with organic debris

S2 2' - 4' 10-15-19-22 Very dense tan to brown silty SAND with gravel Fill

S3 4' - 6' 8-15-14-14 Very dense tan to brown silty SAND with gravel

S4 6' - 8' 12-12-10-12 Very dense tan to brown silty SAND with gravel

10 S5 8' - 10' 17-18-16-19 Very dense tan to brown silty SAND with gravel

15 S6 13' - 15' 9-12-12-12 Dense tan to brown silty SAND with gravel

20 S7 18' - 20' 13-14-20-19 Very dense tan to brown silty SAND with gravel Stratum I

-End of Boring at 20 Feet-

4.0' - 20.0'

435 Independence Avenue, Suite C, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055

Office: (717) 458-0800 Fax: (717) 458-0801 www.advantageengineers.com

DATE DRILLED: November 23, 2016

DRAWN/COMPILED BY: M. Owen

RIG TYPE: Geo-Probe

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

ADVANTAGE REPRESENTATIVE: M. Owen

DEPTH

(feet)

S A

M P

L E

N U

M B

E R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

)SAMPLE

DEPTH

(feet)

BLOWS

PER 6"