RFI 01_Geotechnical Report.pdf

Camp Perry Red Horse Logistics Complex

Geotechnical Report

May 26, 2020

July 13, Mott MacDonald 111 Wood Avenue South Iselin

NJ 08830-4112

United States of America

T +1 (800) 832 3272 mottmac.com

FSB Federal Design Group

JV

179AW Mansfield ANG 1947 Harrington Memorial Rd Mansfield, Ohio 44903

Camp Perry Red Horse Logistics Complex

Geotechnical Report

July 13, 2020

Mott MacDonald | Camp Perry Red Horse Complex Geotechnical Recomendations Report

July 13 2020

Issue and revision record

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A 7/13/2020 B. Kalpouzos T. Rajah V. Shah First Draft

Document reference: 507101745 | 1 | A

Information class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

This report has been pr epared sol ely for use by the party which commissi oned it (the ‘Client’) i n connecti on with the capti oned proj ect. It should not be used for any other purpose. N o person other than the Client or any party who has expressly agreed terms of r eliance with us (the ‘Reci pient(s)’) may rely on the content, i nformati on or any vi ews expressed i n the repor t. W e accept no duty of care, responsi bility or liability to any other r eci pient of thi s document. T his r eport is confi denti al and contains pr opri etary intell ectual property.

Contents

Executive summary 1

1 Introduction 2

2 Geologic Desktop Study 4

2.1 Surficial Geology 4

2.2 Bedrock Geology 4

3 Subsurface Investigation 5

3.1 Soil Boring Explorations 5

3.2 Generalized Subsurface Profile 5

3.3 Groundwater 6

3.4 Infiltration Testing 6

3.4.1 Methodology 6

3.4.2 Soil Descriptions 7

4 Laboratory Testing 9

4.1 California Bearing Ratio & Modified Proctor Testing 10

5 Geotechnical Recommendations 11

5.1 Project Description 11

5.2 Recommendations 11

5.3 Seismic Design 11

5.4 Pavement Consideration 12

5.5 Retaining Walls 12

6 Construction Considerations 13

6.1 Temporary Excavation Support 13

6.2 Construction Dewatering 13

6.3 Subgrade Preparation 13

6.4 Foundations and Backfill 13

6.5 Pile Installations 14

7 Limitations 15

Appendices 16

A. Boring Location Plan 17

B. Geological Background 18

C. Typed Boring Logs 19

D. Infiltration Test & Test Pit Logs 20

E. Laboratory Testing Results 21

F. Calculations 22

G. Seismic Site Classification 23

Tables

Table 1: NRCS Soil Properties 4

Table 2: Generalized Soil Profile 5

Table 3: Groundwater Readings 6

Table 4: Infiltration Test Results 8

Table 5: Soil Testing Results 9

Table 6: Fine-Grained Test Results 9

Table 7: Corrosivity Testing Results 9

Table 8: Retaining Wall Parameters 12

Table 9: Recommended Gradation for Structural Fill 13

May 26 2020

Executive summary

Mott MacDonald was retained by the FSB-Federal Design Group Joint Venture to conduct a geotechnical investigation program to support the construction of a logistics complex for the 200th

Red Horse Squadron at Camp Perry National Guard Station in Port Clinton, Ohio. Mott

MacDonald proposed and completed a subsurface geotechnical investigation program consisting of five geotechnical soil borings, one temporary well, and two test pits with on-site infiltration testing. Select representative soil samples were tested for material lab index properties including grain size analysis, Atterberg limits, and pH values.

Four soil borings (B-RH-1, B-RH-2, B-RH-3, and B-RH-5) were drilled to an approximate depth of

50 feet below ground surface (BGS), and one soil boring (B-RH-4) was drilled to an approximate depth of 54 feet BGS, and rock coring from 54 to 74 feet BGS. Subsurface conditions generally consisted of clays overlaying silts, with bedrock 54 feet BGS. The encountered conditions were generally consistent with publicly available data which maps the location’s surficial geology as silty clay till. Groundwater was encountered between 6.3 and 33 feet BGS immediately after sampling but rose to between 2.1 and 4.2 feet BGS 24 hours after completion.

Due the foundations issues being experienced by the current structures on site, it is Mott

MacDonald’s recommendation to support the proposed complex on a deep foundation system.

Foundation design shall consider the recommendations presented below.

Shallow Foundation:

• 3-foot-wide (Min.) continuous footing: Allowable Bearing pressure: 1.0 ksf

Mott MacDonald recommends over excavating 18 inches below bearing surface and place compacted structural fill to achieve the above recommended values. It is Mott

MacDonald’s professional opinion that the above listed bearing capacity will experience a total settlement of less than one inch for the continuous footings. If the anticipated loads should change, Mott MacDonald should be consulted to evaluate any change in the above recommendations, if any

Deep Foundation:

• HP 12X74: 35 feet long piles

• Fy = 50 ksi steel

• Allowable Geotechnical Axial Capacity: 80 kips

Additionally, infiltration testing results, pavement design considerations, and retaining wall design parameters can be found in sections 3.4, 5.4, and 5.5 respectively in this report.

1 Introduction

Mott MacDonald was retained by the FSB-Federal Design Group Joint Venture to conduct a geotechnical investigation program to support the construction of a logistics complex for the 200th

Red Horse Squadron at Camp Perry National Guard Station in Port Clinton, Ohio. It is our understanding that existing buildings on the premises are experiencing foundation issues, such as cracking and floating foundations, and that our supporting geotechnical investigation should provide recommendations for the logistics complex foundation and other geotechnical recommendations related to the construction of the complex. Our geotechnical investigation program includes an initial desktop review of local geology, exploratory soil borings, geotechnical rock coring, a test pit log, infiltration testing, a temporary groundwater monitoring well installation, and laboratory material indexing.

This Geotechnical Report has been prepared to summarize the findings of our limited investigation program as well as provide foundation recommendations for the proposed logistics complex. Figures 1 and 2 depict the general site vicinity and an enhanced view of the site location, respectively. A Boring Location Plan is provided in Appendix A.

Figure 1 – Project Vicinity

N

Project Vicinity

Figure 2 – Project Location

N

Project Location

2 Geologic Desktop Study

Prior to site mobilization, Mott MacDonald conducted a desktop study of local geology within the project area using publicly-available references such as published maps and online geologic databases. Findings from our desktop study are summarized within this Section. Referenced geologic materials are provided in Appendix B.

2.1 Surficial Geology

Mott MacDonald reviewed the “Surficial Geology of the Toledo 30 X 60 Minute Quadrangle,” prepared by the Ohio Division of Geological Survey and observed that the project area is underlain by silty clay till with a high carbonate content. This unit is may also contain clay beds and includes sand partings and fine gravel.

Mott MacDonald also reviewed the mapping from the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s

(NRCS) Web Soil Survey application. NRCS was initially created for agricultural purposes, however it also provides preliminary information related to soil chemistry within five feet of grade.

NRCS identifies the project area and immediate surrounding areas to pose a low risk of corrosion to concrete and a high risk of corrosion to steel. However, the northern section of the site is mapped as urban land, or cut and fill material, and does not include a risk assessment for corrosion. These results prompted Mott MacDonald to request a five point corrosion analysis test suite of select samples, described in more detail in the Laboratory Testing section of this Report.

Table 1: NRCS Soil Properties

Soil Unit Drainage Class Available Water

Storage

Depth to Water Table

Toledo Silty Clay Very poorly drained Moderate (~ 7.0 inches) 0 to 12 inches

Udorthents N/A N/A More than 80 inches

2.2 Bedrock Geology

Review of the Ohio Division of Geological Survey’s “Bedrock Geologic Map of Ohio,” indicated that the project area lies within the Salina Group. This formation consists of gray and brown dolomite, anhydrite, gypsum, salt, and shale.

3 Subsurface Investigation

3.1 Soil Boring Explorations

Mott MacDonald retained HAD Drilling Contractors, Inc. of Rittman, Ohio to advance five geotechnical soil borings (B-RH-1 through B-RH-5) at select locations across the site, from June

1st to June 5th, 2020. One of the soil borings (B-RH-3A) had a temporary groundwater monitoring well installed to twenty feet BGS.

Four soil borings (B-RH-1, B-RH-2, B-RH-3, B-RH-5) were sampled continuously to fifteen feet

BGS, and then sampled every five feet to a termination depth of 50 feet BGS or until auger refusal was encountered. Sand pockets with natural gas odors were encountered at 20 feet BGS and

19.3 feet BGS in borings B-RH-3 and B-RH-5 respectively. Therefore, these borings were offset and redrilled as B-RH-3A and B-RH-5A. Boring B-RH-4 was sampled continuously to fifteen feet

BGS, and then sampled every five feet to auger refusal at 54 feet BGS where 20 feet of rock coring was performed to a termination depth of 74 feet BGS. Borings were advanced using a

CME-55 track-mounted drill rig using hollow stem auger drilling techniques, and rock coring was advanced using wireline drilling techniques. Soil samples were collected using the Standard

Penetration Test (SPT) Method in accordance with ASTM Standard D1586.

A temporary groundwater monitoring well with ten feet of slotted PVC screen pipe was installed in boring B-RH-3A to 20 feet BGS.

3.2 Generalized Subsurface Profile

A general subsurface profile was observed throughout the borings. In general, the soil profile consisted of a clay layer overlaying a silt layer, with bedrock underlying the silt around 55 feet

BGS. Sand interbedded layers were present near 20 to 25 feet BGS, and may be acting as confined layers between the clay and the silt. A generalized subsurface profile of the site conditions has been provided as Table 2 and has been developed based on our field observations. Mott MacDonald notes that this profile is a simplified representation of the site’s geology, and that the typed boring logs, provided in Appendix C, should be consulted for more information.

Table 2: Generalized Soil Profile

Depth

(feet)

Material Average

Density/Consistency

Description

0 – 20 Clay

(CH/CL)

Medium Stiff to Very Stiff Brown to gray clay with varying amounts of coarse to fine gravel, medium to fine sand, and silt was observed from surface to approximately 20 feet

BGS

20 – 21 Sand

(SP)

Very Dense Dark gray medium to fine sand with varying amounts of silt was observed underlying the clay layer

21 – 54 Silt

(ML)

Medium Stiff to Hard Dark gray to light gray silt with varying amounts of coarse to fine gravel and clay was observed underlying the sand layer

36 - 53 Gravel Very Dense Light gray to brown coarse to fine gravel with varying amounts of sand and silt was observed underlying the silt or clay layer in borings B-RH-1, B-DH-3A, and B-RH-5A.

Depth

(feet)

Material Average

Density/Consistency

Description

54+ Bedrock

(SHALE/DOLOMITE)

- Shale and dolomite bedrock were observed in boring B-RH-4 underlying the silt layer. In general, this bedrock was described as dark gray to light brown, very fine grained, weak, moderately to slightly weathered bedrock

3.3 Groundwater

A temporary groundwater monitoring well was installed 20 feet BGS in boring B-RH-3A with 10 feet of screened PVC material from 20 to 10 feet BGS, and solid PVC material from 10 feet BGS to grade. After bailing the temporary well for an hour, a groundwater measurement was taken at

4 feet BGS. Over the course of the next 24 hours, the groundwater rose to a peak height of 2.1 feet BGS.

It should be noted that shallow groundwater readings were not uncommon on site, despite the lack of wet samples taken from SPT sampling. A confined layer at depths ranging from 19.3 to 29 feet BGS was encountered in all borings, which allowed groundwater to rise once sampled through SPT sampling activities. Table 3 provides the groundwater readings recorded on site at the time of our investigation. It should be noted that groundwater conditions are ephemeral and may fluctuate due to seasonal and climate conditions, as well as by the influence of Lake Eerie and nearby bays, lagoons, rivers, and streams.

Table 3: Groundwater Readings

Boring ID Date Time Bottom of

Casing (ft)

Bottom of

Hole (ft)

Depth of water (ft)

B-RH-1 6/1/20 4:00 PM 50 50 20.2

B-RH-1 6/2/20 11:00 AM 50 50 4.2

B-RH-2 6/3/20 1:00 PM 50 50 33.1

B-RH-3A 6/2/20 3:12 PM 50 50 27.5

B-RH-3A 6/3/20 8:40 AM 20 20 4

B-RH-3A 6/3/20 12:55 PM 20 20 2.1

B-RH-3A 6/3/20 3:00 PM 20 20 2.1

B-RH-4 6/4/20 3:17 PM 50 50 20.5

B-RH-5A 6/4/20 10:23 AM 50 50 6.3

3.4 Infiltration Testing

Two test pits, TP-1 and TP-2, were excavated by HAD Drilling Contractors, Inc. of Rittman, Ohio using a small rubber track excavator. During excavation activities, the excavator revealed concrete foundations within both test pit locations. The presence of a buried foundation may impede with the stormwater design and should be considered when the design is progressed.

3.4.1 Methodology

Given the presence of suitable soils absent of competent bedrock within testing zones, all infiltration tests were performed using a double ring infiltrometer. The double-ring infiltrometer was placed on level ground within the excavated test pits and driven a minimum of 2 inches below existing ground surface. Two 30-minute presoaks were conducted prior to start of infiltration testing. Both the outer and inner ring were filled with 4 inches of water, starting with the outer ring, and then the inner ring. The drop in the water level during the last 30 minutes of the presoaking period was used to determine the timed intervals to be used during testing. The timed interval between readings was determined based on the following criteria:

• If water level drop is 2 inches or more, 10-minute intervals were used for recording measurements.

• If water level drop is less than 2 inches, 30-minute intervals were used for recording measurements.

After each reading, both rings were refilled with 4 inches of water in an iterative manner. Water level depths at the determined timed interval were recorded until a minimum of 8 readings were completed or until a stabilized rate of drop was obtained, whichever occurred first. A stabilized rate of drop is defined as the difference of a 0.25-inch or less drop between the highest and lowest reading of four consecutive readings. The drop that occurs in the center ring during the final period or the average stabilized rate is expressed as inches per hour and represents the infiltration rate for that test location. At the completion of the infiltration test, each test pit was excavated an additional 2 feet to observe the subsurface conditions below the test depth.

3.4.2 Soil Descriptions

TP-1

Test pit, TP-1, was excavated to 6.5 feet BGS on June 5, 2020. Groundwater was not encountered. No mottling in soils was observed.

The general description of the soil profile observed at TP-1 is as follows:

• 0 to 7 inches: Gray to brown Topsoil, little roots, dry.

• 7 to 17 inches: Brown Clay, trace silt, little roots, moist.

• 17 to 51 inches: Gray Clay, little roots, moist.

• 51 to 55 inches: Gray to brown Clay, trace silt, moist.

• 55 to 79 inches: Brown Clay, moist.

TP-2

Test pit, TP-2, was excavated to 7.5 feet BGS on June 5, 2020. Groundwater was not encountered. No mottling in soils was observed.

The general description of the soil profile observed at TP-2 is as follows:

• 0 to 12 inches: Brown Topsoil, little roots, dry.

• 13 to 28 inches: Brown to gray Clay, trace silt, little roots, moist.

• 28 to 48 inches: Dark gray Clay, trace silt. Moist.

• 48 to 66 inches: Brown to gray Clay, trace silt, moist.

• 66 to 90 inches: Brown Clay, trace fine sand, moist.

Test pit logs and field infiltration test logs are provided in Appendix D. The following table summarizes the infiltration testing results at each test pit.

Table 4: Infiltration Test Results

Test Pit ID

Existing Grade

Elevation (feet)

Depth to Groundwater

(feet)

Infiltration Test

Depth

(feet)

Infiltration Test

Results (in/hr)

TP-1 576.0 N/A 571.5 0.30

TP-2 576.0 N/A 570.5 0.37

4 Laboratory Testing

Representative soil samples collected within our investigation program were submitted to Atlantic

Testing Laboratories (ATL) of Rochester, New York for testing of material index properties in accordance with their applicable ASTM standards. As-received test results reported by ATL and presented below have been provided in Appendix E.

Table 5: Soil Testing Results

Boring No.

Sampl e

Dept h (ft)

Gravel

Sand

Silt

Clay

Moisture Content

B-RH-1 S-2 2-4 0 6 27 67 23.7

B-RH-1 S-6 10-12 0 5 23 72 24.0

B-RH-2 S-3 4-6 0 1 23 76 29.5

B-RH-2 S-7 13-15 2 34 29 35 17.7

B-RH-3A S-2 8-10 0 6 23 71 30.4

B-RH-3A S-6 28-30 5 27 38 30 20.5

B-RH-4 S-3 4-6 -- -- -- -- 27.5

B-RH-4 S-8 18-20 2 21 28 49 13.1

B-RH-4 S-10 28-30 0 32 37 31 10.8

B-RH-5 S-1 0-2 1 6 27 66 21.4

B-RH-5 S-4 6-8 0 3 29 68 27.5

Table 6: Fine-Grained Test Results

Boring No.

Sample Depth

(ft) Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

B-RH-1 S-2 2-4 54 22 32

B-RH-1 S-6 10-12 43 21 22

B-RH-2 S-3 4-6 71 25 46

B-RH-2 S-7 13-15 32 18 14

B-RH-3A S-2 8-10 45 21 24

B-RH-3A S-6 28-30 24 13 11

B-RH-4 S-3 4-6 54 26 28

B-RH-4 S-8 18-20 33 15 18

B-RH-5 S-1 0-2 71 24 47

B-RH-5 S-4 6-8 49 22 27

Table 7: Corrosivity Testing Results

Boring No.

Depth (ft) pH

(average)

Sulfate

(mg/kg)

Chloride

(mg/kg)

Redox Potential

B-RH-

1,3,5A

8-10 8.09 1160 40 -48

4.1 California Bearing Ratio & Modified Proctor Testing

Supplemental bulk samples were obtained from CBR-1 and CBR-2 at depths of 1 to 3 feet. The samples were submitted for geotechnical testing to determine California Bearing Ratio (CBR) in accordance with ASTM D1883 as well as Modified Proctor Moisture-Density Relationship in accordance with ASTM-D1557. The collected samples were submitted to ATL for testing. The tests results reported by ATL are provided in Appendix E.

5 Geotechnical Recommendations

5.1 Project Description

Mott MacDonald understands the intended use our geotechnical recommendations is to provide support for single story building structure comprised of three buildings of different construction types. Two of the structures will be of a prefabricated metal frame building and the third will be of a typical concrete block exterior wall construction.

5.2 Recommendations

Given the soils encountered at the site and the on-going foundation issues with existing buildings, a combination of a shallow and deep foundation system is recommended for the proposed building structures. Exterior concrete block wall foundation shall be constructed on a shallow foundation system while the column loads of the prefabricated metal frame building shall be supported on a deep foundation system. The expected design loads for the new buildings were provided by the structural team to be up to 80 kips for the metal building column loads and 3 kips per linear foot for the exterior concrete block wall construction. Foundation design shall consider the recommendations presented below.

Shallow Foundation (for strip footings):

• 3-foot-wide (Min.) continuous footing: Allowable Bearing pressure: 1.0 ksf

Mott MacDonald recommends over excavating 18 inches below bearing surface and place compacted structural fill to achieve the above recommended values. It is Mott MacDonald’s professional opinion that the above listed bearing capacity will experience a total settlement of less than one inch for the continuous footings. If the anticipated loads should change, Mott

MacDonald should be consulted to evaluate any change in the above recommendations, if any

Deep Foundation (for column foundation):

• HP 12X74: 35 feet long piles

• Fy = 50 ksi steel

• Allowable Geotechnical Axial Capacity: 80 kips

5.3 Seismic Design

Mott MacDonald utilized data obtained from the soil boring explorations to determine the Seismic

Site Class for the site. In accordance with the SPT average N-value method as prescribed in

Chapter 20 of the ASCE Standard 7-10 design manual, Site Class D for “stiff soil” should be utilized across the project site.

The following Site Class D seismic ground motion values were obtained from the USGS Seismic

Hazard Maps, referenced in ASCE 7-10 Standard, for this site:

● 0.2 second spectral response acceleration, SS= 0.121 g

● 1 second spectral response acceleration, S1= 0.054 g

● Maximum spectral acceleration for short periods, SMS= 0.194 g

● Maximum spectral acceleration for a 1-second period, SM1= 0.129 g

● 5% damped design spectral acceleration at short periods, SDS= 0.129 g

● 5% damped design spectral acceleration at 1-second period, SD1= 0.086 g

5.4 Pavement Consideration

Subgrade design parameters requires an evaluation of either the existing soils or the fill materials that the proposed pavement section will be placed on.

During the subsurface investigation, soil samples were collected and submitted for CBR and proctor testing as described in section 4.1. The CBR value for the western site area measured between 2.5 to 2.7. The measured CBR value for the south eastern site area was between 2.8 to

3.0.

After rough grading is performed, we recommend that the exposed subgrade is proof-rolled using a fully loaded 15 yard dump truck with 100 percent wheel coverage in perpendicular directions.

Proof-rolling should be observed by the project geotechnical engineer. Soft or loose zones should be removed, moisture-conditioned and recompacted or removed and replaced with compacted structural fill.

5.5 Retaining Walls

Retaining wall structures will be required for the western portion of the proposed building structure. Retaining wall designs should ensure engineered drainage measures are included and collected water is discharged away from the structure by gravity. Designs should provide cleanouts and free draining granular material. Recommended engineering parameters for retaining wall design are provided in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Retaining Wall Parameters

Soil Type Unit Weight

(pcf)

Angle of Internal

Friction (deg)

Angle of External Friction

(deg)

Ka K0 Kp

GP-GW 110-120 30-32 19-21 0.33 0.5 3.0

CL 115-125 0 0 1.0 1.0 1.0

6 Construction Considerations

6.1 Temporary Excavation Support

Excavation openings, if needed, shall follow local building code requirements, or OSHA Standard

1926.651 and all applicable regulations. The contractor should be prepared to provide adequate drainage at the base of any excavation and during subbase preparation to maintain the in-place density of subgrade soils to provide a safe, stable working base. All storm water runoff should be directed away from any excavation and/or trenches to avoid ponding of water.

6.2 Construction Dewatering

All foundation work should be conducted “in the dry”. The contractor should be prepared to dewater any open excavation and/or trench using local sumps and pumps, or other approved methods.

6.3 Subgrade Preparation

Mott MacDonald recommends over excavate a minimum of 18 inches below the bottom of the proposed foundation elements and backfill and compact with controlled structural fill. Structural fill material should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding eight inches in height and be compacted to at least 95 percent of its Modified Proctor Density in accordance with ASTM D1557. Upon excavation to the proposed subgrade stratum, the subgrade material should be proof rolled using a 5-ton vibratory roller with a minimum of four passes and inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to the installation of the controlled structural backfill.

The exposed subgrade surface should be level and free of debris and/or other unsatisfactory material. Foundation concrete should be placed as soon as possible on the prepared subgrade to prevent disturbance. The approved subgrade surface should be protected from precipitation, freezing weather, and construction traffic until concrete is placed. The contractor shall not place any concrete for foundations or place roadway pavement course materials on frozen ground, or where snow or standing water are present.

6.4 Foundations and Backfill

The shallow foundation system for the proposed structures shall extend a minimum of 52 inches below the existing grade for frost protection. Structural backfill should be placed and compacted as described above and beneath the proposed foundation. The compacted backfill should be well-graded granular material. Table 8 below is provided for the recommended gradation of structural fill.

Table 9: Recommended Gradation for Structural Fill

Sieve Size Percent Passing

1 ½ inch 60 – 100

No. 4 30 – 60

No. 200 0 – 10

Any soil containing organic and deleterious material shall be removed under any foundation structure. Where fill is required, compacted structural fill shall be used under foundations where necessary to meet the final subgrade elevations. Any placed structural fill shall be built up to the proposed elevation in 8-inch loose lifts and compacted to 95% of its maximum dry density, as determined by the Modified Proctor Test in accordance with ASTM D1557. Any material used as structural fill shall be free draining, structurally sound, and free from deleterious material.

Compaction of all fill should be verified by the on-site geotechnical engineer using visual classification and the performance of in-place nuclear density tests.

No backfill should be placed on areas where free water is standing or on frozen subsoil areas. If the subgrade does freeze, the frozen backfill should be removed, and the surface scarified before planning any new backfill.

6.5 Pile Installations

Steel H-Piles should be driven to meet capacity recommended in section 5.2 and confirmed with dynamic load testing. The contractor should provide a Wave Equation Analysis to Mott

MacDonald incorporating the proposed pile, hammer types, and rated hammer energy to determine driveability and acceptance criteria required to achieve the desired capacity. It is recommended that a Mott MacDonald geotechnical representative be on-site during pile installations to confirm adequate capacities and provide recommendations for any unforeseen conditions such as shallow bedrock or subgrade obstructions. Upon confirmation of desired pile capacities and/or depths, the pile tops may then be cut to the proposed finished elevation as determined by the structural engineer.

7 Limitations

Mott MacDonald notes that the findings and recommendations presented in this Recommendation

Report are based on a limited subsurface investigation program performed in June of 2020 and our engineering judgement. Should further investigations, testing, revised concept plans, or design loads reveal new information, Mott MacDonald should be given the opportunity to revise our Report as necessary.

Appendices

A. Boring Location Plan

!A

!A

!A !U

!A !A

#0

#0

!A

B-RH-1

B-RH-5A

TP-2

TP-1

CBR-2

CBR-1

B-RH-5B-RH-4

B-RH-3A

B-RH-3

B-RH-2

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

C:

\U se rs\

W

IL8

\D es kto p\G eo tec h P roj ec ts

- W ork ing fro m Ho me Lo ca tio ns \C am p P err y R ed H ors e\M

XD

\C am p P err y R ed H ors e -

In ve sti ga tio n L oc ati on P lan .m xd

IMAGE SOURCE: OGRIP

TitleMott MacDonald 111 Wood Avenue South Iselin, NJ 08830-4112 United States of America T +1 973 379 3400 F +1 973 912 2400 mottmac.com

Certificate No. 24GA28016600

Client

Rev Date Drawn App'dCh'k'dDescription

0 50 100 150 200 Feet

507101745 Project Number Total

B/O

Reference Scale:

1:1,200

Absolute Scale:

1 inch = 100 feet

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

© Mott MacDonald

Designed

Dwg Check

Drawn

AMJ

AGW

TR

Eng check

Coordination Approved

Rev SecurityStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at 11" x 17"

AS SHOWN

ILP-1

INVESTIGATION LOCATION PLAN

FEDERAL DESIGN GROUP JV

CAMP PERRY RED HORSE

LOGISTICS COMPLEX

PORT CLINTON, OHIO0 6/11/2020

Drawn

Subsurface Investigation !A Boring Locations !U Temporary Well Location !. California Bearing Ratio Test Locations #0 Test Pit Locations

VAS

N C am p Perry Eastern R d.

N ia gr a

B. Geological Background

Geologic Mapping

Camp Perry Red Horse Complex

Bedrock Geology:

Source:

Slucher, E. R., and others, 2006 Bedrock Geologic Map of Ohio, Ohio Division of Geological Survey

Approximate

Location of Project

Area

Geologic Mapping

Camp Perry Red Horse Complex

Surficial Geology:

Source:

Larsen, G.E., and others, 2005 Surficial Geology of the Toledo 30 X 60 Minute Quadrangle, Ohio Division of Geological Survey

Approximate

Location of Project

Area

United States Department of Agriculture

A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants

Custom Soil Resource Report for

Ottawa County, Ohio

Natural Resources Conservation Service

May 26, 2020

Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?

cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/ http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/ https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?cid=nrcs142p2_053951 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?cid=nrcs142p2_053951 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Contents Preface How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil Map

Soil Map Legend Map Unit Legend Map Unit Descriptions

Ottawa County, Ohio To—Toledo silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes Ud—Udorthents, gently sloping

Soil Information for All Uses Suitabilities and Limitations for Use

Building Site Development Corrosion of Concrete Corrosion of Steel

References

How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and

Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

Soil Map

331570 331600 331630 331660 331690 331720 331750

331570 331600 331630 331660 331690 331720 331750

41° 32' 6'' N

' 8 '' W

41° 32' 6'' N

' 0 '' W

41° 31' 58'' N

' 8 '' W

41° 31' 58'' N

' 0 '' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300

Feet 0 15 30 60 90

Meters Map Scale: 1:1,280 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Points

Special Point Features Blowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line Features

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Ottawa County, Ohio Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 16, 2019

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 31, 2009—Mar 4, 2017

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

To Toledo silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes

3.3 49.8%

Ud Udorthents, gently sloping 3.3 50.2%

Totals for Area of Interest 6.6 100.0%

Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Ottawa County, Ohio

To—Toledo silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2v14z Elevation: 560 to 990 feet Mean annual precipitation: 28 to 38 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 210 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained

Map Unit Composition Toledo and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Toledo

Setting Landform: Lakebeds (relict) Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear,…