12R0002_C-5M_Specs_Volume 2.pdf

RFP W912BU-12-R-0002

US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District

Design-Build C-5M Formal Training Unit Facility

Dover Air Force Base, Delaware

Volume 2 of 2

Design Criteria and Specifications

14 November 2011

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Request for Proposal

W912BU-12-R-0002

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 of 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

C-5M Formal Training Unit Facility Dover Air Force Base, Delaware

Volume 1 of 2:

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, CONTRACT FORMS, AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT

00010 SF 1442 and Bidding Schedule 00100 Instructions, Conditions, and Notice to Bidders 00120 Proposal Submission Requirements, Evaluation Criteria and Basis of Award, One Step-Lowest-Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) 00600 Representations and Certifications 00700 Contract Clauses 00800 Special Contract Requirements

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

The following specifications are for design requirements. They specify minimum requirements that shall be required in the final design and construction of this project. Final specifications shall be prepared incorporating these requirements as specified in Section: 01 33 16 Design After Award.

DIVISION 01 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 10 00 Statement of Work 01 11 00 Dover AFB General Requirements 01 32 01 Project Schedule 01 32 33 Construction Photography 01 33 00 Submittal Procedures 01 33 16 Design After Award 01 33 29 LEED™ Documentation 01 35 26 Government Safety Requirements 01 35 40 Dover AFB Hazardous Material Usage 01 45 01 Quality Control System (QCS) 01 45 04 Contractor Quality Control 01 50 02 Temporary Construction Facilities 01 50 10 Dover AFB Site Management 01 57 20 Environmental Protection 01 57 25 Dover AFB Additional Environmental Protection Requirements 01 62 00 Dover AFB Affirmative Procurement 01 62 35 Recycled or Recovered Materials 01 74 19 Dover AFB Construction and Demolition Waste Management 01 78 02 Closeout Submittals 01 80 00 Commissioning

DIVISION 31 – EARTHWORK

31 25 10 DOVER AFB Sediment and Erosion Control

(Continued on next page)

Request for Proposal

W912BU-12-R-0002

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 of 2

Volume 2 of 2: Appendices

Appendix A Geotechnical Report and Requirements Appendix B Geophysical Investigation Drawings and Report Appendix C LEED Project Checklist Appendix D Dover Air Force Base, Local MILCON and SRM Design Guide Appendix E Dover Air Force Base Architectural Compatibility Plan Appendix F Justification for Stormwater Management Waiver Appendix G Required Fire Flow Demand

APPENDIX A

Geotechnical Reports in the Site Vicinity e5endcdc Text Box

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

P.O. Box 537 � 22 East King Street � Malvern, PA � 19355 � 610.644.4600 � FAX 610.644.2466 www.huntengineering.com

October 12, 2009

Mr. Paul Kulwatno

AECOM

1155 21st Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report C-5 / C-17 Cargo Aircraft Maintenance Training Facility Project Number FJXT103003 Contract Number W912BU-09-D-0009, Task Order 002 Dover Air Force Base, Dover, DE

Dear Mr. Kulwatno:

Hunt Engineering is pleased to present this Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report for the proposed new C-5 / C-17 Cargo Aircraft Maintenance Training Facility to be located on the Dover Air Force base in the City of Dover, DE. This report was prepared in accordance with our proposal dated June 11, 2009 and summarizes the following information:

� results of the subsurface exploration, � results of laboratory analysis, and � recommendations for the design of the foundations.

The focus of the geotechnical site investigation was to obtain specific subsurface information to develop geotechnical engineering parameters for foundation design of the proposed structure. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are specific to the areas investigated and should not be applied to areas outside those discussed herein without first consulting Hunt Engineering Company.

The scope of this geotechnical investigation is limited to the geotechnical considerations for the proposed project and no attempt is made to address any environmental issues that may or may not be present at the site.

1.� Proposed Construction

The proposed project consists of constructing a new one-story building addition to building 206, with a footprint area of approximately 6,616 square-feet. Estimated building loads and finished floor elevations were not provided at the time of this report. It is anticipated that the finished floor elevations of the proposed building addition will match the existing building.

Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report C-5 / C-17 Cargo Aircraft Maintenance Training Facility October 12, 2009

2.� Site Description a.� Existing Conditions

The location of the project site is shown on Figure 1 – Site Location Plan. The western half of the project area consists of a paved driveway and the eastern portion of the project area consists of a grassy field. Several underground utilities are located with the building footprint area.

Based on a field survey performed by Hunt Engineering in October 2009, the ground surface within the proposed building addition footprint area is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 19 to 20-feet.

b.� Geological Setting

Based on geological mapping, the project site is underlain by the Scotts Corners Formation. This formation is described as a heterogeneous unit of light-gray, brown and light-yellowish-brown, coarse to fine sand, gravelly sand and pebble gravel, with rare discontinuous beds of clayey silt, organic-rich clayey silt, and pebble gravel. The overall thickness of the Scotts Corners Formation generally does not exceed 20 feet.

Within the vicinity of the project site, the Scotts Corners Formation is most likely underlain by the Lynch Heights Formation. This formation is described as a heterogeneous unit of light-gray, brown and light-yellowish brown, medium to fine sand with discontinuous beds of coarse sand, gravel, silt, fine to very fine sand, and organic-rich clayey silt to silty sand. The upper part of the unit commonly consists of fine, well-sorted sand. The overall thickness of the Lynch Heights Formation ranges up to 50 feet.

3.� Subsurface Investigation

Six test borings (B-1 through B-6) were completed at the site on October 1-2, 2009. The borings were performed using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer by Lippincott & Jacobs of Cinnaminson, NJ, under the supervision of Hunt Engineering Company personnel. The boring locations are shown on Figure 2 in Attachment A.

Two borings (B-1 and B-4) were performed in conjunction with an environmental sampling program, under the direction of Haley & Aldrich personal. Results of the environmental sampling will be presented in a separate report, prepared by Haley & Aldrich.

The borings were advanced through the soil using 4¼-inch hollow stem augers to depths of approximately 20.0 feet below the existing ground surface. Soil samples were generally taken continuously by driving a 2-inch outside diameter split-barrel sampler with an automatic hammer of equivalent force as a 140lb hammer free falling from a height of 30-inches, in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D1586. The number of hammer blows required to drive the split-barrel sampler 6in into the soil, the blow counts, were recorded for each sample interval.

Blow counts, sample depths, material descriptions, and other pertinent information was recorded on the engineer’s field logs throughout the subsurface investigation program. Completed logs

HUNT ENGINEERING COMPANY 2

October 12, 2009 documenting the observations of the subsurface conditions at each boring location are presented in Attachment B.

4.� Laboratory Testing

Selected soil samples recovered during the subsurface investigation were submitted to the laboratory of URS Corporation, located in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. The purpose of this testing was to confirm field classifications and to aid in the evaluation of design parameters. A summary of the laboratory testing is presented in the following table and detailed laboratory test reports are included in Attachment C.

Table 5.1 Summary Laboratory Testing

Atterberg Limits Grain Size Distribution Boring Number

Sample Number

USCS

Classification

Water Content

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Gravel

Sand

Fines

B-1 S-6 Lean Clay 27.5 36 16 0.0 8.9 91.1 B-2 S-2 Silty Sand 9.9 --- --- 0.0 59.6 40.3 B-3 S-7 Sandy Lean Clay 21.9 36 16 0.0 38.6 61.4 B-5 S-2 Sandy Lean Clay 19.3 27 18 0.0 37.4 62.6 B-6 S-8 Lean Clay 25.4 41 23 0.0 7.3 92.7

5.� Generalized Subsurface Profile a.� Ground Surface Cover

Asphalt pavement, approximately 3-inches thick, was encountered at the ground surface in borings B-1 and B-2. Topsoil was encountered at the ground surface in the remaining borings and was generally 4-inches thick.

b.� Alluvial Soil

Alluvial soils, primarily consisting of silty sand or poorly-graded sand with silt, were encountered immediately beneath the topsoil in each of the borings and extended to the limits of the borings.

The relative density of the sand generally ranged from very loose to medium dense.

Based on observations made during the subsurface investigation, near-surface soils in borings B-1 through B-5 were noted as potential fill material. These soils generally extended from immediately beneath the surface cover to a depths ranging from approximately 4 to 6-feet below the existing ground surface (corresponding to elevations ranging from approximately 13.6 to 15.7-feet).

Pockets of lean clay with various amounts of sand and clayey sand were encountered in borings B-1, B-2, B-3, B-5, and B-6 at depths ranging from approximately 10 to 16-feet below the

HUNT ENGINEERING COMPANY 3

October 12, 2009 existing ground surface (corresponding to elevations ranging from approximately 3.2 to 9.9-feet).

The thickness of these pockets ranged from approximately 2 to 6-feet.

c.� Groundwater

Groundwater was observed within the boreholes at depths ranging from approximately 8 to 9-feet below the existing ground surface, corresponding to elevations ranging from approximately 10 to 11.5-feet. It should be noted that groundwater elevations are known to fluctuate seasonally and in response to precipitation events and groundwater observations made during drilling should be considered rough estimates.

6.� Recommendations a.� Foundation Recommendations

Due the relatively low density of the subsurface soils and the potential presence of fill material, the existing site soils, in their current state, are generally not suitable for support of the proposed building addition. Hunt Engineering recommends supporting the proposed building addition on shallow footings bearing on improved ground.

The ground improvement shall consist of over-excavating the existing soil below the proposed footings and 2-feet outside the footing footprint to an elevation of 13.5-feet and then backfilling the resulting excavation with properly compacted soil meeting the criteria of load-bearing fill, as defined in Section 7a. As an alternative, modified stone with fines, such as PennDOT 2RC and AASHTO #57 stone may be used to backfill the over-excavation.

Provided the above ground improvement techniques are followed, the spread footings may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. A minimum footing width of 2-feet is recommended.

Footings subjected to frost should be situated at a minimum depth of 24-inches below the lowest adjacent exterior grade. Proposed new foundations located adjacent to existing foundations should be situated at or below the existing foundation subgrade elevation. If new construction adjacent to the existing building extends below the existing foundations, the existing foundations should be properly supported.

Based on the allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf and a maximum column load of 75 kips, it is anticipated that post-construction total and differential settlements will not exceed 1 inch and ½ inch, respectively.

An evaluation of all footing excavations should be made by a Geotechnical Engineer or technician to assure that the supporting capabilities of the bearing materials are compatible with the design criteria. In the event that the actual soils conditions at the foundation bearing depth differ from those anticipated by this report, Hunt Engineering Company should be contacted to evaluate the impact of those changes on the recommendations presented herein.

Construction activities should include efforts to minimize surface waters from entering open foundation excavations. Any water that may accumulate in the bottom of excavations should be removed immediately.

HUNT ENGINEERING COMPANY 4

October 12, 2009 b.� Seismic Classification (2006 International Building Code)

Based on conditions observed within the test borings, a site class of ‘D’ is considered appropriate, as determined in Sections 1613.5.2 and 1613.5.5.

c.� Ground-Floor Slab

The existing site soils are considered suitable for supporting the proposed ground-floor slab, provided the subgrade is verified as stable through proofrolling. Proof-rolling activities should be performed under the observation of a Geotechnical Engineer or technician to assure that uniform support is achieved. The proofrolling operation should be completed with a smooth single-drum roller with a minimum weight of 10-tons. A stable subgrade is defined as no movement (undulation or shear) beneath the weight of the roller. Areas determined to be unstable should be overexcavated, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer or technician, and backfilled with load-bearing fill.

Ground floor slab design should include at least 4-inches of a free-draining granular material (such as AASHTO #57 stone) below the slab. To maintain the drainage quality of the stone, it is recommended that a geotextile separator fabric be installed between the existing site soils and the free-draining granular material.

Concrete floor slabs are recommended to be simply supported at wall and column junctures to allow unrestricted rotation of the slab’s edges. Alternatively, the slabs should be free to undergo vertical deflection at the joints. Saw joints or construction joints should be used to control shrinkage cracks.

7.� Construction Considerations a.� Load-Bearing Fill

Materials used as load-bearing fill should be free of degradable trash/rubble, organic inclusions, frozen materials, excess moisture, particles larger than two inches, and any otherwise objectionable materials. The existing on-site soils are generally considered suitable for re-use as load-bearing fill, provided their moisture contents are within the acceptable ranges discussed below.

Load-bearing fill to support foundations, concrete slabs, and/or asphalt pavement areas requires a minimum compaction level equivalent to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density and a moisture content within 2 percent of the optimum moisture, as determined by the laboratory procedures set forth in ASTM D1557 (modified Proctor). All other load-bearing fill including fill placed adjacent to foundations and to meet the final grade elevations requires a minimum compaction level equivalent to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the laboratory procedures set forth in ASTM D1557 (modified Proctor).

Load–bearing fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of not more than 8-inches in loose thickness when compacted with heavy compaction equipment and of not more that 6-inches in loose thickness when compacted with light compaction equipment (hand-operated equipment).

HUNT ENGINEERING COMPANY 5

October 12, 2009 b.� Groundwater Management

Based on conditions observed within the test borings, it is anticipated that a consistent groundwater table will not be encountered during foundation excavations. Construction activities should include efforts to minimize surface waters from entering open foundation excavations.

Any water that may accumulate in the bottom of excavations should be removed immediately.

Positive drainage of the site should be established and maintained throughout the construction process. Construction during wet weather may also create unnecessary delays and undercutting of sub-grades due to disturbance by construction traffic. The contractor should be advised of his responsibility to prevent disturbances to approved sub-grades or previously placed materials.

c.� Construction Monitoring

Variability in the soil layer types and properties between the borings and the foundation locations is anticipated. Consequently, it is recommended that the foundation construction be monitored by a Geotechnical Engineer or technician to determine that the conditions encountered during construction are suitable to support the intended loadings. Construction monitoring should be performed under the supervision of a Geotechnical Engineer who is familiar with the intent of the recommendations presented herein. This monitoring is recommended to evaluate whether the conditions anticipated in the design actually existing or whether the recommendations presented herein should be modified where necessary.

d.� Temporary Sheeting and Shoring

As the design is further developed, particular attention should be given to excavations that might undercut or otherwise potentially impair the support of adjacent foundations and utilities. As required, underpinning and temporary support should be designed and installed. Shoring should be designed by the contractor using the following parameters for the existing soils:

� An internal friction angle, �, of 30° � An active earth pressure coefficient, Ka, of 0.33 � A passive earth pressure coefficient, Kp, of 3.0.

8.� Report Limitations

The recommendations and conclusions presented in this report assume that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by the test borings. If during construction, subsurface conditions substantially deviate from those described in this report, Hunt Engineering Company should be contacted for consultation. It is recommended that the final foundation plans will be made available to Hunt Engineering Company for review. Any substantial change in the proposed plan should be brought to the attention of Hunt Engineering Company so that the impact of the change on the recommendations presented herein may be evaluated.

The procedures followed during the site exploration and geotechnical analysis have followed generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices and make no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the professional advice provided under the terms of our agreement and included in this report. The recommendations and conclusions presented in this report assume that recognized proper construction practices are followed throughout construction. To assure that proper techniques

HUNT ENGINEERING COMPANY 6

October 12, 2009

HUNT ENGINEERING COMPANY 7

are utilized during construction, it is recommended that this report be correlated with monitoring under the supervision of a qualified geotechnical engineer.

Hunt Engineering Company appreciates the opportunity to be of service to AECOM on this project. If additional information is required or there are questions regarding the contents regarding this report, please contact the undersigned at 610.644.4600.

Sincerely, HUNT ENGINEERING COMPANY

Amy P. Cummings, E.I.T.

Geotechnical Designer

Patrick M. McNamara, P.E.

Manager – Civil & Geotechnical Engineering

October 12, 2009

ATTACHMENT A – FIGURES

HUNT ENGINEERING COMPANY

October 12, 2009

ATTACHMENT B – BORING LOGS

3" Aspahlt; 5" Base Stone poorly-graded sand with silt (sp-sm), brown to orange-brown, moist, medium dense to loose [possible fill] clayey sand (sc), grayish-brown, moist, loose poorly-graded sand with silt (sp-sm), tan, wet, medium dense [alluvial] lean clay (cl), orange-brown, wet, medium stiff [alluvial] poorly-graded sand with silt and trace gravel (sp-sm), orange-brown, wet, very loose

End of Boring @ 20.0 feet sp-sm sp-sm sp-sm sp-sm sp-sm cl sp-sm m m m m-w w

27.5% w

0.67

6.00

7.00

11.50

14.50

20.00

1.5'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

1.5'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

0.50

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

13.00

15.00

18.00

20.00

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

19.23

13.90

12.90

8.40

5.40

-0.10

NOT ENCOUNTERED

EQUIPMENT USED �������

DESCRIPTION

DEPTH: ����� WATER:CASING: SIZE: ����

DATE: START �������

END ��������

U S

C S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(F T)

SHEET

O.G.

ELEV. �����

COUNTY (�)�

DEPTH: ��*�;

A A

S H

TO

DRILLING METHODS ��++��,"������

0�"1+ �,"1��)�"��1+ )

Borehole grouted upon completion and surface patched with concrete.

D E

P

TH

(F T)

REMARKS

TIME: �

TIME:

R E

C O

V E

R Y

B

LO

W S

/0 .5

F T.

O N

S A

M P

LE

R

P O

C K

E T

P E

N T/

TO

R

V A

N E

(T S

F)

OF� �

S A

M P

LE

N

O

TY

P

E /C

O R

E R

U N

H 2O

C O

N

TE

N T

NOTE:

R Q

D

PROJECT LOCATION %�5���� ��#�����&�-�6�%�5��6�%�

DATE: ���������

CHECKED BY: .��� ���7 DATE: ���8����� DEPTH: DATE:

BORING NO. &,�

INSPECTOR ���.��� )

STATION OFFSET FROM CENTERLINE

3" Asphalt; 3" Basestone silty sand with trace gravel (sm), brown, moist, medium dense [possible fill] silty sand (sm), grayish-brown, moist, loose poorly-graded sand with silt (sp-sm), light-gray/tan, moist to wet, loose sandy lean clay (cl), orange-brown, wet, medium stiff poorly-graded sand with silt (sp-sm), orange-brown, wet, loose to medium dense

End of Boring @ 20.0 feet sm sm sm sp-sm sp-sm sp-sm cl cl sp-sm sp-sm m

9.9% m m-w w w w w w w

0.50

4.00

7.00

13.00

16.00

20.00

1.5'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

1.5'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

0.50

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

S-10

19.20

15.70

12.70

6.70

3.70

-0.30

NOT ENCOUNTERED

EQUIPMENT USED �������

DESCRIPTION

DEPTH: ����� WATER:CASING: SIZE: ����

DATE: START �������

END ��������

U S

C S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(F T)

SHEET

O.G.

ELEV. ���8�

COUNTY (�)�

DEPTH: ��*�;

A A

S H

TO

DRILLING METHODS ��++��,"������

0�"1+ �,"1��)�"��1+ )

Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion of drilling and surface patched with concrete.

E

P

TH

(F T)

REMARKS

TIME: �

TIME:

R E

C O

V E

R Y

B

LO

W S

/0 .5

F T.

O N

S A

M P

LE

R

P O

C K

E T

P E

N T/

TO

R

V A

N E

(T S

F)

OF� �

S A

M P

LE

N

O

TY

P

E /C

O R

E R

U N

H 2O

C O

N

TE

N T

NOTE:

R Q

D

PROJECT LOCATION %�5���� ��#�����&�-�6�%�5��6�%�

DATE: ���������

CHECKED BY: .��� ���7 DATE: ���8����� DEPTH: DATE:

BORING NO. &,�

INSPECTOR ���.��� )

0.33

2.00

4.00

6.00

10.00

12.00

16.00

20.00

4" Topsoil silty sand (sm), brown, moist, loose [possible fill] poorly-graded sand with silt (sp-sm), orange-brown, moist, loose [possible fill] silty sand (sm), brown, moist, very loose [possible fill] poorly-graded sand with silt (sm), brown, moist to wet, medium dense to loose lean clay with sand (cl), orange-brown, wet, soft sandy lean clay (cl) orange-brown, wet, soft to medium stiff poorly-graded sand with silt (sp-sm), tan, wet, very loose to loose

End of Boring @ 20.0 feet sm sp-sm sm sp-sm sp-sm cl cl cl sp-sm sp-sm m m m m w w

21.9% w w w

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

S-10

19.57

17.90

15.90

13.90

9.90

7.90

3.90

-0.10

NOT ENCOUNTERED

EQUIPMENT USED �������

DESCRIPTION

DEPTH: ����� WATER:CASING: SIZE: ����

DATE: START �������

END ��������

U S

C S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(F T)

SHEET

O.G.

ELEV. �����

COUNTY (�)�

DEPTH: ����;

A A

S H

TO

DRILLING METHODS ��++��,"������

0�"1+ �,"1��)�"��1+ )

Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings after 24hr groundwater reading.

E

P

TH

(F T)

REMARKS

TIME: �

TIME: ��

R E

C O

V E

R Y

B

LO

W S

/0 .5

F T.

O N

S A

M P

LE

R

P O

C K

E T

P E

N T/

TO

R

V A

N E

(T S

F)

OF� �

S A

M P

LE

N

O

TY

P

E /C

O R

E R

U N

H 2O

C O

N

TE

N T

NOTE:

R Q

D

PROJECT LOCATION %�5���� ��#�����&�-�6�%�5��6�%�

DATE: ���������

CHECKED BY: .��� ���7 DATE: ���8����� DEPTH: ��*� DATE: ���������

BORING NO. &,9

INSPECTOR ���.��� )

4" Topsoil sandy silt (ml), brown, moist, stiff [possible fill] silty sand (sm), brown, moist, loose to very loose [possible fill] silt with sand (ml), gray, moist, very soft [possible fill] poorly-graded sand with silt (sp-sm), orange-brown to tan, moist to wet, medium dense to loose

S-7: with Gravel

End of Boring @ 20 feet ml sm ml sp-sm sp-sm sp-sm sp-sm m m m m w w w

0.33

2.00

4.50

5.50

20.00

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

13.00

15.00

18.00

20.00

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

18.77

17.10

14.60

13.60

-0.90

NOT ENCOUNTERED

EQUIPMENT USED �������

DESCRIPTION

DEPTH: ����� WATER:CASING: SIZE: ����

DATE: START �������

END ��������

U S

C S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(F T)

SHEET

O.G.

ELEV. �����

COUNTY (�)�

DEPTH: ����;

A A

S H

TO

DRILLING METHODS ��++��,"������

0�"1+ �,"1��)�"��1+ )

Borehole grouted upon completion.

E

P

TH

(F T)

REMARKS

TIME: �

TIME:

R E

C O

V E

R Y

B

LO

W S

/0 .5

F T.

O N

S A

M P

LE

R

P O

C K

E T

P E

N T/

TO

R

V A

N E

(T S

F)

OF� �

S A

M P

LE

N

O

TY

P

E /C

O R

E R

U N

H 2O

C O

N

TE

N T

NOTE:

R Q

D

PROJECT LOCATION %�5���� ��#�����&�-�6�%�5��6�%�

DATE: ���������

CHECKED BY: .��� ���7 DATE: ���8����� DEPTH: DATE:

BORING NO. &,�

INSPECTOR ���.��� )

silty sand (sm), brown, moist, loose [possible fill] sandy lean clay (cl), brown, moist, medium stiff [possilbe fill] silty sand (sm), brown, moist, very loose [possible fill] silty sand (sm), orange-brown, moist to wet, medium dense poorly-graded sand with silt (sp-sm), orange-brown to tan, wet, very loose to loose lean clay with sand (cl), orange-brown, wet, medium stiff poorly-graded sand with silt (sp-sm), tan, wet, loose

End of Boring @ 20.0 feet sm cl sm sm sp-sm sp-sm sp-sm sp-sm cl sp-sm m

19.3% m m-w w w w w w w

0.33

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

S-10

18.87

17.20

15.20

13.20

11.20

3.20

1.20

-0.80

NOT ENCOUNTERED

EQUIPMENT USED �������

DESCRIPTION

DEPTH: ����� WATER:CASING: SIZE: ����

DATE: START �������

END ��������

U S

C S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(F T)

SHEET

O.G.

ELEV. �����

COUNTY (�)�

DEPTH: ��*�;

A A

S H

TO

DRILLING METHODS ��++��,"������

0�"1+ �,"1��)�"��1+ )

E

P

TH

(F T)

REMARKS

TIME: �

TIME: ��

R E

C O

V E

R Y

B

LO

W S

/0 .5

F T.

O N

S A

M P

LE

R

P O

C K

E T

P E

N T/

TO

R

V A

N E

(T S

F)

OF� �

S A

M P

LE

N

O

TY

P

E /C

O R

E R

U N

H 2O

C O

N

TE

N T

NOTE:

R Q

D

PROJECT LOCATION %�5���� ��#�����&�-�6�%�5��6�%�

DATE: ���������

CHECKED BY: .��� ���7 DATE: ���8����� DEPTH: ���� DATE: ���������

BORING NO. &,*

INSPECTOR ���.��� )

silty sand (sm), brown, moist, very loose to loose silty sand (sm), grayish-brown, moist, medium dense poorly-graded sand with silt (sp-sm), orange-brown, moist to wet, very loose to loose clayey sand (sc), orange-brown, wet, medium dense lean clay (cl), orange-brown, wet, medium stiff to stiff poorly-graded sand with silt (sp-sm), tan, wet, medium dense

End of Boring @ 20.0 feet sm sm sm sm sp-sm sp-sm sc cl cl sp-sm m m m m m-w w w w w w

0.33

6.00

8.00

12.00

14.00

18.00

20.00

2.0'

2.0'

1.5'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

1.5'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

S-10

18.87

13.20

11.20

7.20

5.20

1.20

-0.80

NOT ENCOUNTERED

EQUIPMENT USED �������

DESCRIPTION

DEPTH: ����� WATER:CASING: SIZE: ����

DATE: START �������

END ��������

U S

C S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(F T)

SHEET

O.G.

ELEV. �����

COUNTY (�)�

DEPTH: ��*�;

A A

S H

TO

DRILLING METHODS ��++��,"������

0�"1+ �,"1��)�"��1+ )

E

P

TH

(F T)

REMARKS

TIME: �

TIME: ��

R E

C O

V E

R Y

B

LO

W S

/0 .5

F T.

O N

S A

M P

LE

R

P O

C K

E T

P E

N T/

TO

R

V A

N E

(T S

F)

OF� �

S A

M P

LE

N

O

TY

P

E /C

O R

E R

U N

H 2O

C O

N

TE

N T

NOTE:

R Q

D

PROJECT LOCATION %�5���� ��#�����&�-�6�%�5��6�%�

DATE: ���������

CHECKED BY: .��� ���7 DATE: ���8����� DEPTH: ���� DATE: ���������

BORING NO. &,:

INSPECTOR ���.��� )

October 12, 2009

ATTACHMENT C – LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

B-1 S-6

13.0-15.0 Light brown LEAN CLAY CL 27.5 36 16 91

B-2 S-2

2.0-4.0 Brown SILTY SAND SM 9.9 40

B-3 S-7

12.0-14.0 Brown SANDY LEAN CLAY CL 21.9 35 16 61

B-5 S-2

2.0-4.0 Light brown SANDY LEAN CLAY CL 19.3 27 18 63

B-6 S-8

14.0-16.0 Light brown LEAN CLAY CL 25.4 41 23 93

Stress (psi)

Depth (feet)

Project No.: 19996349

C om pa ct io n

Water Content

Liquid Limit

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Plastic Limit

<#200

<2μ

Sheet 1 of 1

Grain Size pH

Atterberg Limits

C B

R

Strain

Dry Unit Weight

(pcf)

Project: Hunt: C-5 Cargo Aircraft Maintenance Training Facility

UU R

es is tiv ity (O hm -c m

Specific Gravity

Refer to Laboratory Test Curves

CIU

Classification USCS

Symbol

Triaxial Compression

Unconfined CompressionBoring and Sample Number

Organic Content

C on so lid at io n

LAB_SUMMARY_BLUEBELL_PH_RES_CBR 19996349 HUNT C-5 CARGO AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE TRAINING FACILITY.GPJ URS_BLUE.GDT 10/12/09

0.0010.010.1110100

3/4

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Light brown LEAN CLAY (CL)

Brown SILTY SAND (SM)

Brown SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)

Sept. 2009 mediumcoarse fine

3 200

GRAVEL

coarse fine

SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

PERCENT

FINER (%)

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

COBBLES

SAND

1.5 40

U.S. STANDARD

3/82 10060

Hunt: C-5 Cargo Aircraft Maintenance Training Facility

SYMBOL

B-1 S-6

13.0-15.0 0.0 0.0 8.9

91.1

CL

27.5

B-2 S-2

2.0-4.0 0.0 0.2

59.6 40.3

SM

9.9

B-3 S-7

12.0-14.0 0.0 0.0

38.6 61.4

CL

21.9

Project Number 19996349

PARTICLE SIZE

(Sieve #) (mm)

SYMBOL

SYMBOL

SYMBOL

Boring

Boring

Boring

Sample

Sample

Sample

Spec

Spec

Spec

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

% +3"

% +3"

% +3"

% Gravel

% Gravel

% Gravel

% Sand

% Sand

% Sand

% Fines

% Fines

% Fines

% -2μ

% -2μ

% -2μ

Cc

Cc

Cc

Cu

Cu

Cu

LL

LL

LL

PL

PL

PL

PI

PI

PI

USCS

USCS

USCS

w (%) w (%) w (%) pH pH pH

Organic Content (%)

Organic Content (%)

Organic Content (%)

3" 2"

1 1/2" 1"

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

3" 2"

1 1/2" 1"

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

3" 2"

1 1/2" 1"

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

37.5

12.5 9.5 4.75

0.85

0.425 0.25 0.15

0.075

37.5

12.5 9.5 4.75

0.85

0.425 0.25 0.15

0.075

37.5

12.5 9.5 4.75

0.85

0.425 0.25 0.15

0.075

100.0 99.9 99.6 98.8 97.2 95.9 91.1

100.0 99.8 99.6 95.7 76.8 54.8 44.6 40.3

100.0 99.4 97.4 90.1 76.6 68.2 61.4

SILT OR CLAY

S

IE

V E

_C O

M P

LE

T

E _T

A B

LE

_N

O F

IG

H U

N T

C -5

C A

R G

O A

IR

C

R A

F T

M A

IN

T

E N

A N

C E

T R

A

IN

IN

G

F A

C

IL

IT

Y

.G P

J U

R S

_B

LU

E .G

D T

0/

/0

0.0010.010.1110100

3/4

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Light brown SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)

Light brown LEAN CLAY (CL) Sept. 2009 mediumcoarse fine

3 200

GRAVEL

coarse fine

SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

PERCENT

FINER (%)

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

COBBLES

SAND

1.5 40

U.S. STANDARD

3/82 10060

Hunt: C-5 Cargo Aircraft Maintenance Training Facility

SYMBOL

B-5 S-2

2.0-4.0 0.0 0.0

37.4 62.6

CL

19.3

B-6 S-8

14.0-16.0 0.0 0.0 7.3

92.7

CL

25.4

Project Number 19996349

PARTICLE SIZE

(Sieve #) (mm)

SYMBOL

SYMBOL

SYMBOL

Boring

Boring

Boring

Sample

Sample

Sample

Spec

Spec

Spec

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

% +3"

% +3"

% +3"

% Gravel

% Gravel

% Gravel

% Sand

% Sand

% Sand

% Fines

% Fines

% Fines

% -2μ

% -2μ

% -2μ

Cc

Cc

Cc

Cu

Cu

Cu

LL

LL

LL

PL

PL

PL

PI

PI

PI

USCS

USCS

USCS

w (%) w (%) w (%) pH pH pH

Organic Content (%)

Organic Content (%)

Organic Content (%)

3" 2"

1 1/2" 1"

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

3" 2"

1 1/2" 1"

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

37.5

12.5 9.5 4.75

0.85

0.425 0.25 0.15

0.075

37.5

12.5 9.5 4.75

0.85

0.425 0.25 0.15

0.075

100.0 99.3 90.3 76.1 68.1 62.6

100.0 99.9 99.4 99.0 98.3 92.7

SILT OR CLAY

S

IE

V E

_C O

M P

LE

T

E _T

A B

LE

_N

O F

IG

H U

N T

C -5

C A

R G

O A

IR

C

R A

F T

M A

IN

T

E N

A N

C E

T R

A

IN

IN

G

F A

C

IL

IT

Y

.G P

J U

R S

_B

LU

E .G

D T

0/

/0

P.O. Box 537 | 22 East King Street | Malvern | PA | 19355 | p: 610-644-4600 | f: 610-644-2466 | www.huntengineering.com

March 30, 2010

Mr. Paul Kulwatno

AECOM

1155 21st Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036

RE: Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report

C-17 Cargo Aircraft Maintenance Training Facility (Phase 2) - Dover Air Force Base Project Number FJXT103003

Dear Mr. Kulwatno:

Hunt Engineering is pleased to present this Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report for the proposed new C-17 Cargo Aircraft Maintenance Training Facility (Phase 2) to be located on the Dover Air Force base in the City of Dover, DE. This report was prepared in accordance with our proposal dated November 12, 2009 and summarizes the results of the subsurface exploration and our recommendations for pavement and foundation design.

The focus of the geotechnical site investigation was to obtain specific subsurface information to develop geotechnical engineering parameters for foundation design of the proposed structure. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are specific to the areas investigated and should not be applied to areas outside those discussed herein without first consulting Hunt Engineering Company.

The scope of this geotechnical investigation is limited to the geotechnical considerations for the proposed project and no attempt is made to address any environmental issues that may or may not be present at the site.

1. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

The proposed project consists of the demolition of Building 136 and the construction of a new one-story structure with a footprint area of approximately 7,868 square-feet. Anticipated building loads and finished floor elevations were not provided at the time of this report. Associated driveway and side walk areas are also proposed. It is anticipated that only minor cuts and fills will be required to achieve the final site grades.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

a. Existing Conditions

Appendix A Page 1

The project site is located within the Dover Air Force Base and is roughly bounded by 26th Street to the north and east, an access road to the south, and a parking lot to the west. The approximate location of the project site is shown on Figure 1 – Site Location Plan.

An existing building (Building 136) is located within a portion of the proposed building footprint area, as shown on Figure 2 in Attachment A. The remaining portion of the proposed footprint area consists of grassy fields and sidewalk areas. Based on a field survey performed by Hunt Engineering, ground surface elevations within the proposed building footprint area range from approximately 19 to 21-feet.

b. Geological Setting

Based on the Geologic Map of Kent County, Delaware (Geologic Map Series No. 14), prepared by the Delaware Geological Survey, dated July 23, 2007, the project site is underlain by the Scotts Corners Formation. This formation is described as a heterogeneous unit of light-gray to brown to light-yellowish-brown, coarse to fine sand, gravelly sand and pebble gravel, with rare discontinuous beds of clayey silt, organic-rich clayey silt, and pebble gravel. The overall thickness of the Scotts Corners Formation generally does not exceed 20 feet.

Within the vicinity of the project site, the Scotts Corners Formation is most likely underlain by the Lynch Heights Formation. This formation is described as a heterogeneous unit of light-gray to brown to light-yellowish brown, medium to fine sand with discontinuous beds of coarse sand, gravel, silt, fine to very fine sand, and organic-rich clayey silt to silty sand. The upper part of the unit commonly consists of fine, well-sorted sand. The overall thickness of the Lynch Heights Formation ranges up to 50 feet.

3. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

Five test borings (B-1 through B-5) were completed at the site on March 23-24, 2010. The borings were performed using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer by Lippincott & Jacobs of Cinnaminson, NJ, under the supervision of Hunt Engineering Company personnel. The boring locations are shown on Figure 2 in Attachment A.

The borings were advanced through the soil using 3¼-inch hollow stem augers to a maximum depth of approximately 20-30 feet below the existing ground surface. Soil samples were taken continuously for the first 10 feet and every five feet thereafter by driving a 2-inch outside diameter split-barrel sampler with an automatic hammer of equivalent force as a 140lb hammer free falling from a height of 30-inches, in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D1586. The number of hammer blows required to drive the split-barrel sampler 6in into the soil, the blow counts, were recorded for each sample interval.

Blow counts, sample depths, material descriptions, and other pertinent information were recorded on the engineer’s field logs throughout the subsurface investigation program. Completed logs documenting the observations of the subsurface conditions at each boring location are presented in Attachment B.

Appendix A Page 2

4. GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE

a. Surface Cover

Topsoil, approximately 3 to 12 inches thick, was encountered at the ground surface in all five borings.

b. Alluvial Soil

Alluvial soils, primarily consisting of silty sand or poorly-graded sand with silt, were encountered immediately beneath the surface cover in each of the borings and extended to the limits of the borings. The relative density of the sand generally ranged from loose to medium dense.

Medium stiff lean clay was encountered in borings B-1 and B-2 at depths of 16.5 and 15 feet below the existing ground surface, respectively. In both borings, the lean clay extended to a depth of approximately 20 feet below the existing ground surface.

c. Groundwater

Groundwater was observed within the boreholes at depths ranging from approximately 4.5 to

6.7 feet below the existing ground surface. One boring, B-4, was left open overnight and a 24 hour groundwater depth of 4.7 feet was recorded. It should be noted that groundwater elevations are known to fluctuate seasonally and in response to precipitation events and groundwater observations made during drilling should be considered rough estimates.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

a. Foundation Recommendations

Based on conditions observed within the borings, the proposed structure may be supported on shallow spread footings bearing on the existing sandy soils. The spread footings may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf. It is anticipated that post-construction total and differential settlements will not exceed 1 inch and ½ inch, respectively.

Footings subjected to frost should be situated at a minimum depth of 24-inches below the lowest adjacent exterior grade. Due to the relatively shallow groundwater table, it is recommended to keep the bottom of footing elevations as shallow as possible.

Subsurface building elements associated with Building 136 should be removed if located within four feet (horizontally or vertically) of new foundations.

An evaluation of all footing excavations should be made by a Geotechnical Engineer or technician to assure that the supporting capabilities of the bearing materials are compatible with the design criteria.

In the event that the actual soils conditions at the foundation bearing depth differ from those anticipated by this report, Hunt Engineering Company should be contacted to evaluate the impact of those changes on the recommendations presented herein.

Appendix A Page 3

Construction activities should include efforts to minimize surface waters from entering open foundation excavations. Any water that may accumulate in the bottom of excavations should be removed immediately.

b. Seismic Classification (2006 International Building Code)

Based on conditions observed within the four test borings, a site class of ‘D’ is considered appropriate, as determined in Sections 1613.5.2 and 1613.5.5.

c. Ground-Floor Slab

Based on conditions observed within the test borings, the existing alluvial site soils are considered suitable for supporting the proposed ground-floor slab, provided the subgrade is verified as stable through proofrolling. Proof-rolling activities should be performed under the observation of a Geotechnical Engineer or technician to assure that uniform support is achieved. The proofrolling operation should be completed with a smooth single-drum roller with a minimum weight of 10-tons.

A stable subgrade is defined as no movement (undulation or shear) beneath the weight of the roller.

Areas determined to be unstable should be overexcavated, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer or technician, and backfilled with load-bearing fill.

Abandoned utility elements should be removed if located within two feet (vertically) of new slabs-on-grade.

Ground floor slab design should include at least 4-inches of a free-draining granular material (such as AASHTO #57 stone) below the slab. To maintain the drainage quality of the stone, a geotextile separator fabric should be placed down between the existing site soils and the free-draining granular material.

Concrete floor slabs are recommended to be simply supported at wall and column junctures to allow unrestricted rotation of the slab’s edges. Alternatively, the slabs should be free to undergo vertical deflection at the joints. Saw joints or construction joints should be used to control shrinkage cracks.

d. Pavement Areas

Based on conditions observed within the test borings, the existing site soils are suitable for supporting the proposed pavement areas, provided they are first proof-rolled and compacted. Proof-rolling activities should be performed under the observation of a Geotechnical Engineer or technician to assure that uniform support is achieved. The proofrolling operation should be completed with a smooth single-drum roller with a minimum weight of 10-tons. A stable subgrade is defined as no movement (undulation or shear) beneath the weight of the roller. Areas determined to be unstable should be overexcavated, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer or technician, and backfilled with load-bearing fill.

6. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

a. Load-Bearing Fill

Appendix A Page 4

Materials used as load-bearing fill should be free of degradable trash/rubble, organic inclusions, frozen materials, excess moisture, particles larger than two inches, and any otherwise objectionable materials. The existing on-site soils are generally considered suitable for re-use as load-bearing fill, provided their moisture contents are within the acceptable ranges discussed below.

Load-bearing fill to support foundations, concrete slabs, and/or asphalt pavement areas requires a minimum compaction level equivalent to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density and a moisture content within 2 percent of the optimum moisture, as determined by the laboratory procedures set forth in ASTM D1557 (modified Proctor). All other load-bearing fill including fill placed adjacent to foundations and to meet the final grade elevations requires a minimum compaction level equivalent to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the laboratory procedures set forth in ASTM D1557 (modified Proctor).

Load–bearing fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of not more than 8-inches in loose thickness when compacted with heavy compaction equipment and of not more that 6-inches in loose thickness when compacted with light compaction equipment (hand-operated equipment).

b. Demolition of Building 136

Subsurface building elements associated with Building 136 should be removed in their entirety from the proposed building footprint area. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with load-bearing fill, as specified in the previous section.

c. Groundwater Management

Based on conditions observed within the test borings, it is anticipated that a consistent groundwater table will not be encountered during foundation excavations. Construction activities should include efforts to minimize surface waters from entering open foundation excavations. Any water that may accumulate in the bottom of excavations should be removed immediately. Positive drainage of the site should be established and maintained throughout the construction process. Construction during wet weather may also create unnecessary delays and undercutting of sub-grades due to disturbance by construction traffic. The contractor should be advised of his responsibility to prevent disturbances to approved sub-grades or previously placed materials.

d. Construction Monitoring

Variability in the soil layer types and properties between the borings and the foundation locations is anticipated. Consequently, it is recommended that the foundation construction be monitored by a Geotechnical Engineer or technician to determine that the conditions encountered during construction are suitable to support the intended loadings. Construction monitoring should be performed under the supervision of a Geotechnical Engineer who is familiar with the intent of the recommendations presented herein. This monitoring is recommended to evaluate whether the conditions anticipated in the design actually existing or whether the recommendations presented herein should be modified where necessary.

e. Temporary Sheeting and Shoring

Appendix A Page 5

As required, underpinning and temporary support should be designed and installed. Shoring should be designed by the contractor using the following parameters for the existing soils:

� An internal friction angle, �, of 30° � An active earth pressure coefficient, Ka, of 0.33 � A passive earth pressure coefficient, Kp, of 3.0.

7. REPORT LIMITATIONS

The recommendations and conclusions presented in this report assume that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by the test borings. If during construction, subsurface conditions substantially deviate from those described in this report, Hunt Engineering Company should be contacted for consultation. It is recommended that the final foundation plans will be made available to Hunt Engineering Company for review. Any substantial change in the proposed plan should be brought to the attention of Hunt Engineering Company so that the impact of the change on the recommendations presented herein may be evaluated.

The procedures followed during the site exploration and geotechnical analysis have followed generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices and make no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the professional advice provided under the terms of our agreement and included in this report. The recommendations and conclusions presented in this report assume that recognized proper construction practices are followed throughout construction. To assure that proper techniques are utilized during construction, it is recommended that this report be correlated with monitoring under the supervision of a qualified geotechnical engineer.

Hunt Engineering Company appreciates the opportunity to be of service to AECOM on this project. If additional information is required or there are questions regarding the contents regarding this report, please contact the undersigned at 610.644.4600.

Sincerely, Amy P. Cummings Geotechnical Designer

Patrick M. McNamara, P.E.

Manager – Geotechnical Engineering

Appendix A Page 6

ATTACHMENT A – FIGURES

Appendix A Page 7

Appendix A Page 8

Appendix A Page 9

ATTACHMENT B – BORING LOGS

Appendix A Page 10

1.7'

1.8'

1.4'

1.5'

1.5'

1.8'

1.8'

1.7'

1.8'

1.4'

1.5'

1.5'

1.8'

1.8'

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

13.00

15.00

18.00

20.00

0.25

4.00

16.50

20.00

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

18.75

15.00

2.50

-1.00 sm sm sp-sm sp-sm sp-sm sp-sm cl m m m-w w w w w

Bentonite slurry added to augers after sample S-5, to prevent running sands.

3" Topsoil silty sand (sm), orange-brown, moist, loose poorly-graded sand with silt (sp-sm), grayish-tan to gray, moist to wet, loose to medium dense lean clay (cl), reddish-brown, moist, medium stiff poorly-graded sand with silt (sp-sm), tan, wet, loose

Boring elevations estimated from field survey, performed by Hunt Engineering.

D E

P

TH

(F T)

REMARKS

TIME: 0 hr

TIME:

R E

C O

V E

R Y

B

LO

W S

/0 .5

F T.

O N

S A

M P

LE

R

P O

C K

E T

P E

N T/

TO

R

V A

N E

(T S

F)

DRILLERS NAME/COMPANY E. Blemmings/Lippincott & Jacobs

WATER:CASING: SIZE: 3.25" ID

DATE: START 3/24/10

END 3/24/10

U S

C S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(F T)

A A

S H

TO

DRILLING METHODS Hollow-Stem Augers with Center Plug, Split-Spoon Sampling

OF1 2

S

A M

P

LE

N O

TY

P E

/C O

R E

R U

N

H 2O

C O

N

TE

N T

NOTE:

R Q

D

PROJECT LOCATION Dover Air Force Base

DATE: 3/24/10

CHECKED BY: P. McNamara DATE: 3/30/10 DEPTH: DATE:

BORING NO. B-1

INSPECTOR A. Cummings

PROJECT NAME C-17 (Phase 2)

STATION n/a OFFSET FROM CENTERLINE n/a

NOT ENCOUNTERED

SHEET

O.G.

ELEV. 19.00

ENGINEERS FIELD BORING LOG

COUNTY Kent County, Delaware

DEPTH: 4.5';

EQUIPMENT USED Truck Rig with Automatic Hammer

DESCRIPTION

DEPTH: 28.0'

Appendix A Page 11

1.4'

1.1'

1.4'

1.1'

23.00

25.00

28.00

30.00

5 30.00

S-8

S-9

-11.00 sp-sm sp-sm w w poorly-graded sand with silt (sp-sm), tan, wet, loose (continued)

End of Boring

Boring elevations estimated from field survey, performed by Hunt Engineering.

D E

P

TH

(F T)

REMARKS

TIME: 0 hr

TIME:

R E

C O

V E

R Y

B

LO

W S

/0 .5

F T.

O N

S A

M P

LE

R

P O

C K

E T

P E

N T/

TO

R

V A

N E

(T S

F)

DRILLERS NAME/COMPANY E. Blemmings/Lippincott & Jacobs

WATER:CASING: SIZE: 3.25" ID

DATE: START 3/24/10

END 3/24/10

U S

C S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(F T)

A A

S H

TO

DRILLING METHODS Hollow-Stem Augers with Center Plug, Split-Spoon Sampling

OF2 2

S

A M

P

LE

N O

TY

P E

/C O

R E

R U

N

H 2O

C O

N

TE

N T

NOTE:

R Q

D

PROJECT LOCATION Dover Air Force Base

DATE: 3/24/10

CHECKED BY: P. McNamara DATE: 3/30/10 DEPTH: DATE:

BORING NO. B-1

INSPECTOR A. Cummings

PROJECT NAME C-17 (Phase 2)

STATION n/a OFFSET FROM CENTERLINE n/a

NOT ENCOUNTERED

SHEET

O.G.

ELEV. 19.00

ENGINEERS FIELD BORING LOG

COUNTY Kent County, Delaware

DEPTH: 4.5';

EQUIPMENT USED Truck Rig with Automatic Hammer

DEPTH: 28.0'

Appendix A Page 12

1.4'

1.7'

1.7'

1.9'

2.0'

2.0'

1.0'

1.4'

1.7'

1.7'

1.9'

2.0'

2.0'

1.0'

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

13.00

15.00

18.00

20.00

0.50

7.00

11.50

15.00

20.00

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

20.00

13.50

9.00

5.50

0.50 sm sm sm sp-sm sp-sm cl sc m m m w w w w

Bentonite slurry added to augers after sample S-5, to prevent running sands.

6" Topsoil silty sand (sm), dark-brown to orange-brown, moist, loose to medium dense poorly-graded sand with silt and gravel (sp-sm), tan, wet, medium dense lean clay (cl), reddish-brown, wet, medium stiff clayey sand (sc), reddish-brown, wet, loose

End of Boring

Boring elevations estimated from field survey, performed by Hunt Engineering.

D E

P

TH

(F T)

REMARKS

TIME: 0 hr

TIME:

R E

C O

V E

R Y

B

LO

W S

/0 .5

F T.

O N

S A

M P

LE

R

P O

C K

E T

P E

N T/

TO

R

V A

N E

(T S

F)

DRILLERS NAME/COMPANY E. Blemmings/Lippincott & Jacobs

WATER:CASING: SIZE: 3.25" ID

DATE: START 3/24/10

END 3/24/10

U S

C S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(F T)

A A

S H

TO

DRILLING METHODS Hollow-Stem Augers with Center Plug, Split-Spoon Sampling

OF1 1

S

A M

P

LE

N O

TY

P E

/C O

R E

R U

N

H 2O

C O

N

TE

N T

NOTE:

R…