Attachment 12 Hill AFB West 388th 419th Apron Preliminary Geotechnical Information.pdf

COVER PAGE

Geotechnical Engineering Report

KRSM180008PB West 388th/419th Apron Clearfield, Utah

January 22, 2020 Terracon Project No. 61195114

Prepared for:

KZF Design Inc.

Cincinnati, Ohio

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Midvale, Utah

Note:

Project Number KRSM180008PB is now

KRSM100042PD.

Nick Wilkerson

KZF

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

REPORT TOPICS

REPORT TOPICS

REPORT SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... I

INTRODUCTION

SITE CONDITIONS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

EARTHWORK

ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND EXISTING PAVEMENT THICKNESSES

PAVEMENTS

FROST CONSIDERATIONS

CORROSIVITY

GENERAL COMMENTS

FIGURES

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. Orange Bold text in the report indicates a referenced section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on theGeoReport logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at client.terracon.com.

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. For more interactive features, please view your project online at client.terracon.com.

ATTACHMENTS

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

PHOTOGRAPHY LOG

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Note: Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.

KRSM180008PB West 388th/419th Apron ■ Clearfield, Utah January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

REPORT SUMMARY

Topic 1 Overview Statement 2

Project Description

The proposed work will include geotechnical investigations of the following area to support the development of the A-E recommended repairs and completion of the reports: KRSM180008PB, West Apron, Facility 5000 (approximately 690,000 square feet of concrete apron pavement).

Geotechnical Characterization

Concrete pavement ranging from 11 to 15¼ inches in depth overlying Existing fill (aggregate base) up to 3½ feet deep Silty Sand to about 11½ feet with varying amounts of gravel and small layer of silty clay around 6 feet in the soil profile.

Groundwater not encountered

Earthwork Remove existing fill where encountered.

Clays are sensitive to moisture variation.

Corrosion

■ pH: 7.80 to 7.98

■ Soluble Sulfate: 36 to 143 ppm (mg/kg-dry)

■ Soluble Chloride: 27 to 30 ppm (mg/kg-dry)

■ Redox Potential: 678 to 679 mV

■ Electrical Resistivity: 3,929 to 6,596 (Ω-m)

General Comments

This section contains important information about the limitations of this geotechnical engineering report.

1. If the reader is reviewing this report as a pdf, the topics above can be used to access the appropriate section of the report by simply clicking on the topic itself.

2. This summary is for convenience only. It should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

INTRODUC TION

Geotechnical Engineering Report KRSM180008PB West 388th/419th Apron

Hill Air Force Base Clearfield, Utah

Terracon Project No. 61195114 January 22, 2020

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed West Apron, Facility 5000, KRSM180009PB Apron Repair to be located at Hill Air Force Base in Clearfield, Utah. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

■ Subsurface soil conditions ■ Presence of VOCs, if detected by OVM

■ Groundwater conditions ■ Subgrade characteristics

The geotechnical engineering Scope of Services for this project included the advancement of 7 test borings to depths of approximately 11½ feet below existing site grades.

Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs and as separate graphs in the Exploration Results section.

SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps.

Item Description

Parcel Information

The project is located at West 388th/419th Apron at Hill AFB, Utah.

East 388th/419th Apron is approximately 690,000 square feet in plan area.

See Site Location

Existing Improvements

These areas are existing aircraft parking aprons currently covered with concrete pavement and steel structure sunshields.

Current Ground Cover Portland cement concrete pavement ranging from 11 to 15¼ inches in depth.

January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Item Description

Existing Topography Relatively flat site with minor local slopes for surface water drainage along the pavement surface.

Geology Lake Bonneville (Provo Formation and Younger) deposits (Shore Facies) consist of chiefly sand and gravel in beach deposits, bars, spits, and deltas.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Our initial understanding of the project was provided in our proposal and was discussed during project planning. A period of collaboration has transpired since the project was initiated, and our final understanding of the project conditions is as follows:

Item Description

Information Provided The RFP and SOW for the project was provided to Terracon by email on July 10, 2019.

Project Description The work will include geotechnical investigation of the following area to support the development of the A-E recommended repairs and completion of the report: West Apron of 388th/419th, Facility 5000, KRSM180008PB (approximately 690,000 square feet of concrete apron pavement).

Proposed Structure The ultimate goal of preparing 3 to 4 Courses of Action (COAs) to be considered for repair of the pavement area including life cycle cost analysis, Pavement Condition Index Survey, Simplified Analysis of Alternatives, and development of DD Form 1391s.

Pavements Concrete apron pavements

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface conditions based upon our review of the subsurface exploration, laboratory data, geologic setting and our understanding of the project. This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation of site preparation. Conditions encountered at each exploration point are indicated on the individual logs. The individual logs can be found in the Exploration Results section and the GeoModel can be found in the Figures section of this report.

As part of our analyses, we identified the following model layers within the subsurface profile. For a more detailed view of the model layer depths at each boring location, refer to the GeoModel.

Model Layer Layer Name General Description 1 Concrete Apron pavement 2 Existing Fill Aggregate base course (typically silty gravel with sand)

January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

Model Layer Layer Name General Description 3 Sand Silty Sand with varying amounts of gravel 4 Fine Grained Silts and Clays

In boring W-02, an unknown utility was observed at 2½ feet below site grade (bsg) and stopped the progress of this boring. Sampling was done at 2½ feet bsg that slipped by the side of the unknown utility line. The observed unknown utility is approximately 3 to 4 inches diameter black metal pipe running North to South in this location.

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

The silty sand below the existing pavement and aggregate base course may become unstable with typical earthwork and construction traffic, especially after precipitation events. Therefore, effective drainage should be completed early in the construction sequence and maintained after construction to minimize flooding and saturation of the subgrade soils. If possible, the grading should be performed during the warmer and drier times of the year. If grading is performed during the winter months, an increased risk for possible undercutting and replacement of unstable subgrade will persist. Additional site preparation recommendations, including subgrade improvement and fill placement, are provided in the Earthwork section.

To perform moisture-density testing and California Bearing Ratio testing according to UFC 3-260- 02, bulk samples were combined to provide enough sample for testing needs. Bulk samples from W-1 and W-3 were combined into one sample W-1 at 3½ to 6 ft. A bulk sample of the aggregate base (fill) was taken from B-02 at 0.9 to 3ft. Bulk sample from W-4, W-5, W-6 and W-7 were combined into one sample W-6 @ 3½ to 5 ft.

Corrosion potential testing consisting of pH, soluble chlorides, soluble sulfates, redox potential and electrical resistivity were performed on a selected soil samples collected in the soil borings. Based on the test results, sulfate exposure to concrete appears to be minimal and electrical resistivity results suggest moderately corrosive to corrosive potential to metals in direct contact to the native soils.

According to UFC 3-260-02 – Frost Design Soil Classification, the onsite soils below the existing pavement and aggregate base course are considered part of F2 (Silty Sand), and F4 (Silty Clay) Frost Group and exhibit very varying potential from Very Low to Very High potential for frost susceptibility (Table 20-2). These soils may also be susceptible to a decrease in bearing capacity during periods of thaw according to UFC 3-260-02.

Support of pavements on or above existing fill materials is discussed in this report. However, even with the recommended construction procedures, there is inherent risk that compressible fill or unsuitable material, within or buried by the fill, will not be discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely removing the existing fill.

January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

Following the removal of unsuitable materials, the exposed subgrade below pavement sections, should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to the requirements of this report. Soft, pumping, or otherwise unsuitable conditions, identified during compaction, should be removed and replaced with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

EARTHWORK

Earthwork is anticipated to include removal of the existing concrete pavement, clearing all undocumented fill, placement of new structural fill and re-construction of the pavement. The following sections provide recommendations for use in the preparation of specifications for the work. Recommendations include critical quality criteria, as necessary, to render the site in the state considered in our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the pavements.

Site Preparation

Prior to placing fill, undocumented fill, frozen soils, and any deleterious materials (if observed) should be removed. Complete stripping of any topsoil should be performed in the proposed West Apron areas.

Although evidence of underground facilities such as old utilities, separator tanks and building components was not observed during the site reconnaissance, such features could be encountered during construction below existing pavements and existing fill. If unexpected underground facilities are encountered, such features should be removed, and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction.

Following the removal of unsuitable materials, the exposed subgrade below pavement sections, should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to the requirements of this report. Soft, pumping, or otherwise unsuitable conditions, identified during compaction, should be removed and replaced with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill.

Backfill of excavations should be completed using properly placed and compacted Structural Fill.

Existing Fill

As noted in Geotechnical Characterization, borings encountered existing fill (aggregate base) to depths ranging from about 3 to 3½ feet. Existing granular fill may be considered for reuse as engineered fill provided additional testing verifies its conformance to the requirements for fill outlined below.

January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

Fill Material Types

Acceptable engineered fill material designations for locations on the project are outlined in the following table taken from UFC 3-260-02: Aggregate Base Courses for Army and Air Force Rigid Pavement.

Fill Type 1 Application

Requirements

Well-graded, coarse to fine Gradation

PlasticitySize Percent finer by weight

Aggregate Base Course

Required for all fill under pavements

3 inch No. 10 Sieve

No. 200 Sieve

15 max Plasticity Index 8 max

1. All fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation.

In general, the unbound aggregate base material will be a well-graded, high stability material that has been approved for use at HAFB.

Fill Compaction Requirements

Structural and general fill should meet the following compaction requirements.

Item Structural Fill

Maximum Lift Thickness

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

Minimum Compaction Requirements 1

100% of maximum dry density for all structural fill according to UFC3-260-02.

100% of max. within top 6 inches of finished pavement subgrade2

95% of max. more than 6 inches below finished pavement subgrade2

Water Content

Range 1 Low plasticity cohesive (native): -2% to +3% of optimum Granular: -2% to +2% of optimum

1. Maximum density and optimum water content as determined by the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D 1557).

2. For native subgrades only.

Grading and Drainage

Any areas of standing surface water should be drained as far in advance of construction as possible.

Any saturated soils should be removed prior to placing fill or proceeding with construction.

January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

Surface water should not be allowed to pond on the site and soak into the soil during construction.

Construction staging should provide drainage of surface water and precipitation away from the pavement areas. Any water that collects over or adjacent to construction areas should be promptly removed, along with any softened or disturbed soils. Surface water control in the form of sloping surfaces, drainage ditches and trenches, and sump pits and pumps will be important to avoid ponding and associated delays due to precipitation and seepage.

Earthwork Construction Considerations

It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. Based on the native soils observed below existing pavements, shrinkage should be estimated to be minimal (preliminary estimation should use a high of 10%) due to the sand soils and lower fines contents below existing pavement sections and existing fill (aggregate base course).

Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade water content prior to construction of concrete pavements. Construction traffic over the completed subgrades should be avoided. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades. Water collecting over or adjacent to construction areas should be removed. If the subgrade freezes, desiccates, saturates, or is disturbed, the affected material should be removed, or the materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to concrete pavement construction.

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, and/or state regulations.

Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the information provided herein be interpreted to mean Terracon is assuming responsibility for construction site safety, or the contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied nor inferred.

Construction Observation and Testing

The earthwork efforts should be monitored under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer.

Monitoring should include documentation of adequate removal of vegetation and topsoil, proofrolling, and mitigation of areas delineated by the proofroll to require mitigation.

Each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked, as necessary, until approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts. Each lift of fill should be tested

January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7 for density and water content at a frequency of at least one test for every 5,000 square feet in pavement areas.

In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction, the continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the project provides the continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer’s evaluation of subsurface conditions, including assessing variations and associated design changes.

ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND EXISTING PAVEMENT

THICKNESSES

During the subsurface investigation, the soil samples were screened for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) using an Organic Vapor Meter (OVM). Results of the screening indicated moderate to minimal levels of VOCs at all locations tested and shown on the individual boring logs under the column VOC (ppm). The boring logs are included in Exploration Results.

Core samples taken were photographed and measured. A summary of measured data can be found after the photos in Exploration Results - Core Photolog and Measurements.

PAVEMENTS

Design CBR

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results are presented below for two samples tested.

Bulk Sample CBR at 95%

Design

CBR

Value

Modulus of Subgrade Value (k)

(based on Figure 3-5, of

UFC 3-260-03)

Design Modulus of Subgrade (k)

W-01 & W-03 10.0 9.9

175W-04, W-05, W-06 &

W-07 9.9 175

Based on N-values from the SPT tests during the filed exploration and laboratory testing, a design CBR value of 10.0 percent is recommended for use for the East Apron area when the subgrade soils are scarified and recompacted to 95 percent of Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of a modified proctor. Although higher CBR results were calculated from the laboratory testing, a conservative value of 10.0 was selected near the lower part of the tested range per the procedures in UFC 3- 260-02 (Chapter 6, Section 3, Paragraph a).

Additionally, the modulus of subgrade reaction (k) was estimated based on the design CBR value (10.0) as described in UFC 3-260-03 (Chapter 3 – Data Collection, Section 4 – Data Collection

January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8 using Direct Sampling, Sub-Section c – In-Place Tests for Rigid Pavements, Item 2 – Modulus of Soil Reaction, Paragraph a – All Rigid Pavements). This section of UFC prescribes that when a plate-bearing tests are not conducted, an approximate k-value can be determined by using the CBR results (refer to Figure 3-5 of UFC 3-260-03). Due to the depth of the aggregate base, use of Figure 3-6 of UFC 3-260-03 maybe used to correlate an effective k at the top of the deep aggregate base. Based on the lowest k value (175pci), the effective modulus of subgrade (k) value at the top of the base is 300 pci.

Pavement Drainage

Pavements should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water. Water allowed to pond on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to premature pavement deterioration. In addition, the pavement subgrade should be graded to provide positive drainage within the granular base section. Appropriate sub-drainage or connection to a suitable daylight outlet should be provided to remove water from the granular subbase.

Due to frost-susceptible soils and the large area of concrete pavement, consideration should be given to installing a pavement subdrain system to control subgrade moisture, improve stability, and improve long-term pavement performance.

We recommend at least 6 inches of free-draining granular material be placed beneath the pavements. The use of a free draining granular base will also reduce the potential for frost action.

We recommend pavement subgrades be crowned to promote the flow of water towards the subdrains, and to reduce the potential for ponding of water on the subgrade. The design recommendations for the subdrains are provided in the following table:

Subdrain Design Recommendations Item Value

Free Draining Granular Base Thickness below Pavement

6 inches of material meeting No. 57 aggregate specifications

Minimum Drain Pipe Diameter 4 inches

Drain Trench Width 16 inches or greater to provide minimum 6-inch annulus of drainage aggregate around drain pipe.

Invert Depth below Subgrade Elevation 3½ feet Maximum Drain Pipe Spacing 50 feet Subdrain Trench Backfill Material No. 57 aggregate or ¾-inch aggregate

The subdrains should be hydraulically connected to the free-draining granular base layer.

Subdrains should be sloped to provide positive gravity drainage to reliable discharge points such as a storm water detention basin. Periodic maintenance of subdrains is required for long-term proper performance.

January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

FROST CONSIDERATIONS

The soils on this site are frost susceptible, and small amounts of water can affect the performance of the pavements. If frost action needs to be eliminated in critical areas, we recommend the use of non-frost susceptible (NFS) fill or structural slabs (for instance, structural stoops in front of building doors). Placement of NFS material in large areas may not be feasible; however, the following recommendations are provided to help reduce potential frost heave:

■ Place NFS fill as backfill beneath pavements critical to the project.

■ Place a 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V) transition zone between NFS fill and other soils.

The table below contains a summary of drainage and frost susceptibility characteristic of the native soil observed during the subsurface investigation:

Soil Type Drainage

Characteristics (Appendix A of AC

150/5320-6F)

Frost Susceptibility (Table 20-2 of UFC 3-

260-02)

Frost Group Code (Table 3-4 of UFC 3-

260-02)

Aggregate Base Course Excellent Very Low S1

Silty Sand (SM) Fair to Poor Medium F2

Sandy Silt (CL-ML) Poor to Practically Impervious Very High F4

Based on the depth of the Aggregate Base Course (fill), the gradation tested from Boring W-2, and the native soil observed below in all seven (7) borings, Terracon recommends a design Frost Group Code of S1 be used for the existing materials currently below the concrete apron pavement.

Two bulk samples of the differing native soil below the concrete pavement and aggregate base were tested according to ASTM D2434 – Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head). The results of this testing were then converted into feet per day for comparison to UFC documentation. The table below contains the testing results:

Sample Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/sec) Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/day)

W-01 at 3½ to 6 feet 0.0046 12.89 W-06 at 3½ to 5 feet 0.0036 10.09

The designer should consider these conditions and provide appropriate drainage and frost protection measured in the pavement sections.

January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10

CORROSIVITY

The table below lists the results of laboratory soluble sulfate, soluble chloride, redox potential, electrical resistivity, and pH testing. The values may be used to estimate potential corrosive characteristics of the on-site soils with respect to contact with the various underground materials which will be used for project construction.

Corrosivity Test Results Summary

Boring Sample Depth (feet)

Soil Description

Redox Potential

(mV)

Soluble Sulfate (ppm)

Soluble Chloride

(ppm)

Electrical Resistivity

(Ω-cm) pH

W-01 2¾-4¼ Silty Sand 679 143 27 6,596 7.98

W-07 5-6½ Silty Sand 678 36 30 3,929 7.80

Results of testing indicate that samples of the on-site soils have an exposure class of F3, S0, W2, C2 when classified in accordance with Table 19.3.1.1 of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Design Manual. Concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 19. Electrical resistivity results suggest moderately corrosive to corrosive potential to metals in direct contact to the native soils.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural variations will occur between exploration point locations 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.

Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.

Our Scope of Services 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.

Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third-party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is

January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11 solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client.

Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client, and is not intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.

Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

FIGURES

Contents:

GeoModel

ATTACHMENTS

January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 1 of 2

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) Planned Location

7 11½ or auger refusal pavement

Boring Layout and Elevations: Jacobs provided the boring layout along with GPS locations. If elevations and a more precise boring layout are desired, we recommend borings be surveyed following completion of fieldwork.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the borings with a truck-mounted rotary drill rig using continuous flight augers (solid stem and/or hollow stem, as necessary, depending on soil conditions). Four samples were obtained in the upper 10 feet of each boring. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch outer diameter split-barrel sampling spoon was driven into the ground by 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. The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths. We observed and recorded groundwater levels during drilling and sampling. For safety purposes, all borings were backfilled with auger cuttings, bentonite and grout after their completion. Pavements were patched with high-strength non-shrink concrete, as appropriate.

The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information was recorded on the field boring logs. The samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory for testing and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs were prepared from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the Geotechnical Engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on observations and tests of the samples in our laboratory.

Laboratory Testing

The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned laboratory tests to understand the engineering properties of the various soil strata, as necessary, for this project. Procedural standards noted below are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods were applied because of local practice or professional judgment. Standards noted below include reference to other, related standards. Such references are not necessarily applicable to describe the specific test performed.

January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 2 of 2

■ ASTM D2216 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass

■ ASTM D4318 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

■ ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils

■ ASTM D1557 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil

Using Modified Effort

■ ASTM D1883 Standard Test Method for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Laboratory-

Compacted Soils (3-point)

■ Analytical tests: pH, Soluble Sulfate, Redox Potential, Soluble Chloride and Miller Box

Multi-Point Resistivity

The laboratory testing program often included examination of soil samples by an engineer. Based on the material’s texture and plasticity, we described and classified the soil samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

Contents:

Site Location Plan Exploration Plan

Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.

SITE LOCATION

January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.

When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.

The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.

SITE LOCA TION POR TRAI T

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

EXPLORATION PLAN

January 22, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195114

Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.

When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.

The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.

EXPLORATION P LAN PORTRAI T

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

Boring Logs (W-01 through W-07) Laboratory Summary (2) Grain Size Distribution Moisture Density Relationship (3)

CBR (3)

Corrosivity Pavement Core Photo Log (6)

Project No. Sample No.:

Sample Location:

Material Source: Sample Description:

Intended Use:

Compaction Method:

Moisture

Bearing Ratio of Maximum Dry Unit Weight

Terracon Rep:

Reported To:

Contractor:

10.7 10 lbs

California Bearing Ratio

SP/AWat

Specimen Dry Density After Soak(pcf) Specimen Moisture Content After Soak (%)

15.5

20.4

Piston Penetration

Blows

0.0

124.6 9.7

10 lbs -0.3

120.3

Midvale, Utah 84047

(801) 545-8500

HAFB, Utah

120.0 8.5

99.5%

61195114

ASTM (USCS)

0.100 inch blows/layer 55 blows/layer

Tested By:

95% 10.0

120.6

12/14/19

Task:

01/20/20

Surcharge Weight (lbs) Swell (%)

Maximum Dry Density 9.2 %

0.200 inch pcf

10.4 10 lbs

122.7 9.1

101.8%

0.0

122.5

Report Number: 61195114.0000 Service Date: 6949 S High Tech Drive, Ste 100

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Report

Percent Compaction (%)

W- 01 & 03

Native Silty Sand with Gravel Subgrade SM

W-01 and W-03 from 3.5 to 6.0 feet

Report Date:

123.5 9.5

102.4%

Tested By:

Summary of Test Results

SP/AWASTM D1557

ASTM D1883

Client Project KZF Design KRSM180008PB Cincinatti, OH West 388th/419th Apron blows/layer12 26 Specimen Dry Density before Soak(pcf)

Specimen Moisture Content before Soak (%)

20.6

28.8

Bearing Ratio Blows

20.8

28.8

Bearing Ratio Blows5512

Report Distribution

10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0

Dr y

De ns ity (p cf

Corrected CBR Value

Dry Density Versus CBR

CT0002, 6-28-10, Rev.6 Page 1 of 1

Maximum Dry Density, lb/ft3: 133.2 Test Method: ASTM D1557 GRADATION RESULTS Optimum Moisture, %: 7.3 (ZERO AIR VOIDS FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF 2.65)

SIEVE PERCENT

SIZE PASSING

1-1/2" 100 1" 82

3/4" 64 3/8" 45

No. 4 37 No. 8 33

No. 10 32 No. 16 30 No. 20 28 No. 30 26 No. 40 24 No. 50 19 No. 80 13

No. 100 10 No. 200 6

Liquid Limit: NP Plasticity Index: NP

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO

Dry Density, Before Soaking, lb/ft3: 136.5 After Soaking, lb/ft3: 139.1

Relative Compaction, %: 102 Moisture Content, Before Compaction, %: 6.5 Top 1-inch After Soaking, %: 5.4 Average After Soaking, %: 6.1

Surcharge Weight, lb: 10 Soaking Period, hr: 96 Swell, %: -0.3 CBR Value, %: 68.7

SAMPLE - IDENTIFICATION CLASSIFICATION

W-02 at 1 to 3 (fill) Silty Sand with Gravel

GRADATION, MOISTURE-DENSITY AND

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST RESULTS

Project Name: KRSM180008PB Location: W-02 at 1 to 3 ft Project No.: 61195114 Date: 1/21/2020

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

ST

R

ES

S

O N

P

IS

TO

N

, l b/ in

PENETRATION, inches

4 6 8 10 12

D R

Y D

EN

SI

TY

, l b/ ft3

WATER CONTENT, %

Project No. Sample No.:

Sample Location:

Material Source: Sample Description:

Intended Use:

Compaction Method:

Moisture

Bearing Ratio of Maximum Dry Unit Weight

Terracon Rep:

Reported To:

Contractor:

14.6 10 lbs

California Bearing Ratio

SP/AWat

Specimen Dry Density After Soak(pcf) Specimen Moisture Content After Soak (%)

9.9

13.5

Piston Penetration

Blows

-0.1

110.4 14.7

10 lbs -0.8

104.1

Midvale, Utah 84047

(801) 545-8500

HAFB, Utah

105.1 13.1

95.0%

61195114

ASTM (USCS)

0.100 inch blows/layer 55 blows/layer

Tested By:

95% 9.9

110.6

12/14/19

Task:

01/20/20

Surcharge Weight (lbs) Swell (%)

Maximum Dry Density 13.2 %

0.200 inch pcf

17.4 10 lbs

109.3 12.9

98.8%

0.0

108.8

Report Number: 61195114.0000 Service Date: 6949 S High Tech Drive, Ste 100

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Report

Percent Compaction (%)

W- 04,05,06

Native Silty Sand Subgrade SM

W-06, W-04, W-05 and W-07 from 3.5 to 6.0 feet

Report Date:

110.8 13.0

100.2%

Tested By:

Summary of Test Results

SP/AWASTM D1557

ASTM D1883

Client Project KZF Design KRSM180008PB Cincinatti, OH West 388th/419th Apron blows/layer12 26 Specimen Dry Density before Soak(pcf)

Specimen Moisture Content before Soak (%)

17.5

23.0

Bearing Ratio Blows

14.6

19.9

Bearing Ratio Blows5512

Report Distribution

3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0

Dr y

De ns ity (p cf

Corrected CBR Value

Dry Density Versus CBR

CT0002, 6-28-10, Rev.6 Page 1 of 1

Project Number:

Service Date:

Report Date:

Task:

Client

Date Received:

E-03 E-07 W-01 W-07

2.5-4.0 5.0-6.5 2.75-4.25 5.0-6.5

8.37 8.40 7.98 7.80

83 88 143 36

Nil Nil Nil Nil

30 25 27 30

+681 +682 +679 +678

610 622 371 433

4365 7081 6596 3929

Analyzed By:

The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials.

61195114

Terracon (61)Sample Submitted By: 12/31/2019

Results of Corrosion Analysis

Chemist

01/02/20

Cincinnati, OH

Lab No.: 20-0002

Sample Number

Sample Location

Sample Depth (ft.)

01/06/20 750 Pilot Road, Suite F Las Vegas, Nevada 89119

(702) 597-9393

Project

CHEMICAL LABORATORY TEST REPORT

Trisha Campo pH Analysis, AWWA 4500 H

Water Soluble Sulfate (SO4), ASTM C 1580 (mg/kg)

Sulfides, AWWA 4500-S D, (mg/kg)

Chlorides, ASTM D 512, (mg/kg)

Red-Ox, AWWA 2580, (mV)

Total Salts, AWWA 2540, (mg/kg)

Resistivity, ASTM G 57, (ohm-cm)

KZF Design Inc. HAFB 2019 Apron Repairs

Concrete Core Photolog and Measurements HAFB Aprons 2019 ■ Hill Air Force Base, Utah Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Concrete Core Photolog

Photo : W-1 Photo : W-1 (rotated 180˚)

Photo : W-2 Photo : W-2 (rotated 180˚)

Photo : W-3 Photo : W-3 (rotated 180˚)

Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Photo : W-4 Photo : W-4 (rotated 180˚)

Photo : W-5 Photo : W-5 (rotated 180˚)

Photo : W-6 Photo : W-6 (rotated 180˚)

Terracon Project No. 61195114

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Photo : W-7 Photo : W-7 (rotated 180˚)

Core Measurements and Weights

Sample Diameter (inches) 1 Height (inches) 1 Weight (pounds)

W-1 9.729 15.268 95.45

W-2 9.665 11.041 66.85

W-3 9.712 14.249 86.75

W-4 9.554 13.433 83.90

W-5 9.705 14.254 89.75

W-6 9.706 14.617 92.55

W-7 9.552 14.163 85.40

1. Average of four measurements.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

General Notes Unified Soil Classification System

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

UNIFIED SOIL C L ASSIFIC AT ION SYST EM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group Symbol Group Name B

Coarse-Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic:

PI 7 and plots on or above “A” li J

CL Lean clay K, L, M PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay K, L, M, N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic:

PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K, L, M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay K, L, M, P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve.

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay.

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add

“sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.