Attachment 8-Terracon Floor Crack Analysis_EV205068 Report 12.21.2020.pdf

REPORT C OVER PAGE

Floor Crack Analysis Report

Fort AP Hill USARC Training Center Building

Caroline County, Virginia

December 21, 2020

Terracon Project No. EV205068

Prepared for:

AMES1, LLC

Anchorage, Alaska

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Woodbridge, Virginia

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 4899 Prince Wil l iam Parkway Woodbridge, Virginia 22192

P (703) 730 4160 terracon.com

REPORT C OVER LETTER TO SIGN

AMES1, LLC

3045 Mountain View Drive

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Attn: Mr. John Mahler

E: jmahler@ames1.net

Re: Floor Crack Analysis Report

Fort AP Hill USARC Training Center Building

Custer Trail and Tidewater Trail

Caroline County, Virginia

Terracon Project No. EV205068

Dear Mr. Mahler:

We have completed the Floor Crack Analysis services for the above referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. PEV205068 dated September

17, 2020. This report presents the findings of the geophysical exploration; the results of concrete vapor emission testing; the results of four concrete slab cores with hand auger borings and Dynamic

Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing; the results of the floor survey; and evaluation and recommendations for the maintenance, repair and reconstruction of the floor slab.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Bill Westerman, PE Jolie Erickson, PE

Geotechnical Department Manager Staff engineer

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

REPORT TOPICS

INTRODUCTION

SITE CONDITIONS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

CONCRETE SLAB EXPLORATION RESULTS

EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL COMMENTS

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 the

GeoReport logo will bring you back to this page. 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

REPAIR DETAIL

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

http://client.terracon.com/

Fort AP Hill USARC Training Center Building ■ Caroline County, Virginia

December 21, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. EV205068

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

REPORT SUMMARY

Topic Overview Statement

Project Description

The building is located near the intersection of Custer Trail and Tidewater Trail in Caroline County, Virginia.

Latitude: 38.1515608º; Longitude: -77.1837932º

Slab Exploration

The slab exploration included the following:

■ Coring, hand augers, and evaluation of the granular base and soils below the floor slab were performed at 4 locations identified as C-1 through C- 4.

■ GPR scanning was performed of the floor slab in the areas along the construction joints and cracks near the steel stud bearing wall

■ Four (4) Moisture Vapor Emission Rate tests (ASTM F1869) were performed at random locations in the area near the bearing wall

■ A level and measuring tape were used to perform a floor levelness survey

Slab Exploration Results

The results of the slab exploration conclude the following:

■ The thickness of the floor slab and granular base are reasonably typical for lightly loaded floors that are utilized for office and assembly occupancies. In our opinion, the as-built concrete floor slabs and granular base meet the minimum structural standards for the floor loading that is required by the occupancy use of this building.

■ Soil identification and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer measurements made at the core hole locations indicate that the existing subgrade soils are not expansive, and are generally suitable for support of the concrete floor slab and the uniform live loading required by the Building Code for the occupancy use of this Building.

■ The GPR scans indicate that the underlying soils do not appear to have large areas of anomalous soft or wet soils or voids. Random areas of potential soft or wet soils or voids were encountered under the slab near where the top of slab meets the top of the existing strip footing. These anomalies in our opinion are minor and do not indicate areas of significant settlement of the floor slabs in the areas that were scanned.

■ Based on the low MVER values along with the presence of a vapor barrier on the underside of the concrete floor slab, we do not believe that there are significant vapor emission issues that would cause problems for the placement of a new VCT floor finish on the floor slabs inside this building.

■ Floor levelness survey determined that the floor slab in the vicinity of the bearing wall is generally level and does not indicate evidence of significant settlement of the floor slabs.

Opinions and Recommendations

Potential options for rehabilitation of the floor slab are provided in the Opinions and Recommendations section of this report.

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.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

INTRODUCTION

Fort AP Hill USARC Training Center Building

Custer Trail and Tidewater Trail

Caroline County, Virginia Terracon Project No. EV205068

INTRODUCTION

An evaluation of a portion of the concrete floor slabs has been completed for the project building located near the intersection of Custer Trail and Tidewater Trail in Caroline County, Virginia. The purpose of these services was to evaluate a portion of the floor slab on grade inside this building where there are visible cracks and open construction joints along one of the interior steel stud bearing walls. The scope of work for this evaluation included obtaining physical measurements of the concrete floor slab thickness; coring of the floor slab and evaluation of the subgrade soil below the floor slab to determine the competency of the subgrade soils for the structural support of the concrete floor slab; a geophysical survey of selected areas of the floor slab using GPR scans to determine the presence of voids between the underside of the floor slab and the subgrade; observation and documentation of existing cracks and open construction joints in the floor slab; a survey to determine the general levelness profile of the top of the floor slab; testing to determine the rates of moisture vapor emission through the floor slab; an evaluation of the data and test results in order to provide opinions regarding the cracks and open construction joints and the structural adequacy of the floor slab; and if required, provide the Client with a general scope of work for any recommended repairs.

Maps showing the site, coring/boring locations, moisture vapor emission rate test locations, GPR scans, and floor survey are shown in the Site Location and Exploration Plans section.

Photographs were collected at the time of our exploration. Representative photos are provided in our Photography Log. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the hand auger boring logs and as separate graphs in the Exploration Results section.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

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 building is located near the intersection of Custer Trail and Tidewater Trail in Caroline County, Virginia.

Latitude: 38.1515608º; Longitude: -77.1837932º See Site Location

Existing Conditions

A one-story building with associated parking and drive lanes. The project location and area of study is along an interior steel stud bearing wall with a length of approximately 84 feet. The floor includes an unfinished concrete slab on grade that is partially covered with a mastic that was used to adhere an old and removed VCT finish to the floor slab. To the east of the bearing wall is a hallway with a width of approximately 7 feet, and to the west of the bearing wall is an open assembly room. There appear to be construction joints located on each side and parallel to the bearing wall. Based on this appearance, it is believed that the top surface of the concrete floor along the bearing wall is also the top surface of the continuous footing that supports the bearing wall.

Current Ground Cover

The interior floor of the building is a concrete slab-on-grade (non-basement).

Existing Topography The site is relatively level.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Item Description

Provided Information A drawing titled Evacuation Plan: Ft. AP Hill Reserve Center was provided for our use in identifying the project location

Project Description

We understand that AMES1, LLC is renovating the existing building that includes placement of a new finish on the floor slab. Prior to placement of the new floor finish, the floor slab is being evaluated to determine if the existing cracks and open construction joints are indicative of a structural problem with the building floor slab. There are parallel joints (cracks) in the floor slab on either side of an existing interior steel stud bearing wall. It is our understanding that the old and removed VCT finish on the floor slab surrounding the wall had experienced cracking and heaving.

CONCRETE SLAB EXPLORATION RESULTS

Coring and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Results

Four cores were obtained at locations shown on the Site Location and Exploration Plans.

Details of the field exploration are included in the Exploration and Testing Procedure. The thicknesses of the concrete slab cores and granular base are summarized in the following table.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

Core Location Concrete Approx. Thickness (in.)1 Granular Base Thickness (in.)

C-1 3.75 8

C-2 3.75 8

C-3 3.75 14

C-4 4.00 14

1. Vapor barrier was encountered beneath the concrete in all locations.

The above results indicate that the concrete slab is about 3.75 to 4.00 inches thick at the four coring locations. A granular base of between 8” and 14” in thickness was present below the floor slab. The thickness of the floor slab and granular base are reasonably typical for lightly loaded floors that are utilized for office and assembly occupancies. In our opinion, the as-built concrete floor slabs and granular base meet the minimum structural standards for the floor loading that is required by the occupancy use of this building.

Hand auger and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing was performed in the core holes.

The thickness of the underlying granular base was found to be approximately 8 to 14 inches at the four core/boring locations. The subgrade generally consisted of silty SAND (SM), sandy lean

CLAY (CL), and clayey SAND (SC). In test location C-2, two conduit pipes and a patch of concrete were encountered at approximately 10.5 inches below the surface of the concrete floor. Based on the DCP results performed in the core holes, the underlying soils appeared firm and stable at the locations tested. Further details on the results of coring and DCP testing are provided in the

Hand Auger Logs included in the Exploration and Testing Procedure. Our opinions and recommendations on the results of the DCP testing are provided in the Opinions and

Recommendations section of this report.

Groundwater Conditions

The boreholes were observed while hand augering and after completion for the presence and level of groundwater. Groundwater was not observed in the hand auger borings up to a depth of 5.0 feet below the concrete slab surface. Our opinions and recommendations on groundwater are provided in the Opinions and Recommendations section of this report.

Observation of Existing Floor Cracks

Existing open cracks were observed along each side and parallel to the interior steel stud load bearing wall. It is believed that the cracking has occurred within construction joints located along the edges of the continuous strip footing that is supporting the steel stud load bearing wall. The top of the floor slab at the bearing wall is believed to be the top surface of the continuous strip

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 footing. There were also cracks in the floor slab that were perpendicular to the bearing wall. These cracks extend across the adjacent hallway and into the Assembly Room. The cracks were generally narrow, with widths between 1/8 and ¼-inch. These cracks appear to have occurred within contraction joints in the concrete slab-on-grade that were installed with concrete saws during placement and finishing of the floor slab. Pictures of the observed joints (cracks) are shown in the Photography Log.

Site observations indicate that there is little or no vertical separation of the floor slab on either side of the joints and cracks. Vertical separation of the floor slab at a crack could potentially indicate differential settlement of the floor slab near the crack due perhaps to the presence of a void below the slab or poor subgrade compaction.

In our opinion, we believe that the joints and cracks in the floor slab on grade in the vicinity of the bearing wall were part of the original construction of the building floor slab and the strip foundation for the bearing wall. The width of the separations that is visible along these joints and cracks has likely increased over time from the effects of long-term drying shrinkage of the concrete floor slabs. We believe that the increased widths of the joints and cracks are normal and do not indicate a structural issue with the floor slab and the continuous strip footing in the vicinity of the bearing wall.

GPR Scanning

A GPR system including 350 MHz HS and 2700 MHz antennas made by Geophysical Survey

Systems Inc. (GSSI) were used for this exploration. In general, GPR field data collection follows that referenced in ASTM D6432, and more information on both the general method and collection procedures can be found in the standard.

The locations surveyed, and results of the geophysical investigation, are shown on the attached

GPR Exhibits 1 to 5 in the Exploration Results. The 2700 MHz data provided information up to approximately 18 inches below the concrete surface and indicated a few anomalies consistent with isolated saturated soils or voids directly beneath the concrete slab at approximately 6 to 7 inches. The 350 MHz data provided information to approximately 5 feet below the concrete surface and indicated minor anomalous soil conditions consistent with isolated voids and/or saturated soils at approximately 1 to 2 feet depth within the areas surveyed beneath the concrete slab. Anomalies and their locations are indicated on the attached Exhibits in red. Significant settlement was not observed in the GPR data. Our opinions and recommendations on the results of the GPR Scanning are provided in the Opinions and Recommendations section of this report.

Floor Survey

An eight-foot box level and measuring tape was used to check the level and presence of any small isolated slab depressions. The level was used parallel and perpendicular to the wall face

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5 on either side of the wall. On the east side of the wall the parallel level runs spanned approximately 84 feet and were performed at approximately 2.5 feet, 5 feet, and 7 feet off the east face of the wall. On the west side of the wall the parallel level runs spanned approximately

84 feet and were performed at approximately 2.5 feet, 5 feet, 7.5 feet, 10 feet, 12.5 feet, and 15 feet. Perpendicular level runs on either side of the wall were spaced at approximately 5 foot intervals along the 84 foot length of wall. Floor levelness was measured with the box level along the runs, and any areas where isolated slab depressions were observed were measured with a measuring tape from the bottom of the level to the top of the floor slab. Isolated slab depressions were measured and reported to approximately 1/16 of an inch. The results of the floor levelness were plotted and documented. The approximate location and results of the floor levelness survey are provided in the Floor Level Plots included in the Exploration Results. Our opinions and recommendations on the results of the Floor Survey are provided in the Opinions and

Recommendations section of this report.

Field Moisture Vapor Emission Rate Testing

Four Moisture Vapor Emission Rate tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM F

1869. The tests were installed at the site on November 17, 2020 and were obtained from the site on November 20, 2020. The test results are shown in the table below. The locations of the tests are provided in the Site Location and Exploration Plans section.

Test Location Time (hours) Weight Gain (grams) MVER (lb/1000ft2/24h)

T-1 67.68 1.50 2.64

T-2 67.67 0.49 0.86

T-3 67.62 1.11 1.95

T-4 67.60 0.65 1.14

The moisture vapor emission tests were performed on random areas of the floor slab to determine if the floor slab was experiencing a high rate of vapor emission resulting from the presence of high levels of moisture in the subgrade, or groundwater that was near the bottom of the floor slab.

Moisture vapor emission rates (MVER) of 3 or less are considered acceptable for the placement of floor coverings such as VCT on concrete slabs. VCT finishes can act as a barrier to the transmission of moisture vapor through a floor slab, and high moisture vapor transmission rates can result in premature failure of VCT floor finish systems. Our opinions and recommendations on the results of the MVER testing are provided in the Opinions and Recommendations section of this report.

Laboratory Testing

Representative samples from the hand auger borings were placed in plastic bags and transported to our laboratory for further visual evaluation and selected laboratory testing. In the laboratory, the soil samples were evaluated by a member of our professional staff in accordance with the

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6 visual-manual identification procedure (ASTM D 2488) and the Unified Soil Classification System

(ASTM D 2487). The soil descriptions and classifications discussed in this report and shown on the attached hand auger logs are based on visual observation and should be considered approximate. Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples in accordance with applicable

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods. Further details on the laboratory testing performed is in the Exploration and Testing Procedures section. The results of the laboratory tests are in the Exploration Results section.

OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the data and information presented herein and the results of this evaluation, Terracon provides the following opinions:

Concrete Floor Slab Granular Base and Subgrade:

The concrete floor slab is approximately 3.75 to 4.00 inches thick at the four coring locations. A granular base of between 8” and 14” in thickness was present below the floor slab. The thickness of the floor slab and granular base are reasonably typical for lightly loaded floors that are utilized for office and assembly occupancies. In our opinion, the as-built concrete floor slabs and granular base meet the minimum structural standards for the floor loading that is required by the occupancy use of this building.

Soil identification and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer measurements made at the core hole locations in the floor slabs indicate in our opinion that the existing subgrade soils are not expansive, and are generally suitable for support of the concrete floor slabs and the uniform live loading required by the Building Code for the occupancy use of this Building.

Geophysical Survey using GPR Scans

The GPR data provided information up to approximately 60-inches below the concrete surface, and indicated a few minor anomalies that were consistent with isolated saturated soils or random voids in the soils beneath the concrete floor slab. Based on the results of the GPR scanning, the underlying soils do not appear to have large areas of anomalous soft or wet soils or voids. Isolated areas of potential soft or wet soils or voids were encountered under the slab near where the top of slab meets the top of the existing strip footing. These anomalies in our opinion are minor and do not indicate areas of significant settlement of the floor slabs in the areas that were scanned.

Moisture Vapor Emission Rates

Based on the low MVER values along with the presence of a vapor barrier on the underside of the concrete floor slab, we do not believe that there are significant vapor emission issues that would cause problems for the placement of a new VCT floor finish on the floor slabs inside this building.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

Floor Survey

Floor levelness measurements indicate random variations in the top surface of the floor slab along each side of the bearing wall. These variations range from 1/16” minimum to 1/2" maximum. The location where 1/2” variations were encountered is shown on Figure 1, GPR Exploration Plan located in the Exploration Results section. In our opinion, the measurements do not indicate areas of the floor slab with consistent depressions and possible settlement. This opinion is also supported by the geophysical survey and readings of the GPR where areas of voids were not detected below the floor slab. It is believed that the variations in floor slab levelness are likely a result of the process that was used to screed and finish the surface of the floor slab during placement of the concrete in the floor slab.

Levelness variations in the surface of the floor slab may require further assessment prior to placement of the new floor finish to determine if the levelness and surface profile of the floor slab complies with the minimum installation tolerances that are required by the floor finish manufacturer. If the levelness profile of the floor slab does not meet the tolerances recommended by the floor finish manufacturer, some remediation may be needed prior to placement of the new floor finish. The remediation may include placement of a leveling compound on top of the floor slab or milling (grinding) areas of the surface of the floor slab to achieve the recommended profile.

Based on the results of this evaluation and the opinions presented above, Terracon provides the following recommendations:

■ Prior to installation of the new tile finish system, we recommend that the existing joints and cracks described herein be prepared and filled with a traffic-grade sealant in order to provide a generally smooth surface for the placement of the new floor tile. A detail is provided in the attachments that includes a recommended repair procedure for the preparation and placement of sealant in the joints and cracks.

■ Prior to placement of the new floor tile finish system, we recommend that the existing surface of the concrete floor slab be prepared by removing the old adhesive. The surface of the floor shall be prepared in a way to meet the minimum requirements of the tile manufacturer.

■ Once the old adhesive has been removed, additional repairs may be needed at joints and cracks that are not readily visible due to the current adhesive on the floor slab. These repairs shall be done in accordance with the recommended repair procedure provided in the attached detail.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the site 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. 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

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8 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 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 are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature or design 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.

Fort AP Hill – Floor Crack Analysis ■ Caroline County, Virginia December 4, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. EV205068

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 1 of 3

ATTACHMENTS

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 2 of 3

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

The field exploration consisted of performing four concrete cores and hand auger borings designated as C-1 through C-4. These hand auger borings and cores were performed at the approximate locations shown in the Site Location and Exploration Plans.

The existing concrete slab was cored at the identified locations to determine concrete thicknesses. The concrete core samples were obtained using a drill machine fitted with a nominal

6-inch diameter diamond tipped core bit. The core samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our laboratory for further observation and measurement.

Hand auger borings were performed at each core location. At regular intervals in the hand auger borings, an indication of soil conditions was obtained using a portable dynamic cone penetrometer

(DCP) in general accordance with ASTM Standard Technical Publication 399. The penetrometer was first seated on the order of 2 inches by driving its conical point into the test subgrade. After seating, the point was driven three additional 1.75-inch increments using a 15-pound hammer falling 20 inches. The number of blows required to penetrate the 1.75-inch increments was recorded and are provided on the hand auger borings in the Exploration Results.

The hand auger borings were advanced through the soil overburden to depths ranging from 0.9 to 5 feet. All hand auger borings were backfilled with auger cuttings and stone up to the bottom of the existing concrete and then patched with non-shrink grout prior to the crew leaving the site.

The crew returned to the site three days later to collect field tests and wash and clean the floor.

The soil samples obtained from the hand augers were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory for testing and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. Our exploration team prepared field hand auger boring logs as part of the augering operations. These hand auger boring logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final hand auger boring logs were prepared from the field logs. The final hand auger 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.

In addition to the coring and hand auger exploration, a GPR survey, Field Moisture Vapor

Emission Rate Testing, and Floor Survey were performed at the project site. Descriptions and results of these field explorations are provided in the report above.

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

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 3 of 3 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.

■ 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 D6913 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) od Soils

Using Sieve Analysis

■ ASTM D2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual

Procedures).

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.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 1 of 4

PHOTOGRAPHY LOG

Photo 1 – Cracking in the hallway parallel to the wall, moving from north to south

Photo 2 – Cracking in the hallway parallel to the wall, moving from north to south

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 2 of 4

Photo 3 – Cracking in the hallway parallel and perpendicular to the wall, moving from north to south

Photo 4 – Cracking on both sides parallel to the wall, moving from north to south

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 3 of 4

Photo 5 – Cracking in the hallway parallel and perpendicular to the wall, moving from north to south

Photo 6 – Cracking on both sides parallel to the wall, moving from north to south

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 4 of 4

Photo 7 – Cracking on both sides parallel to the wall, moving from north to south

Photo 8 – Conduit and concrete encountered at test location C-2

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

Contents:

Site Location Plan Coring and Hand Auger Location Plan Moisture Vapor Emission Rate Test Location Plan

SITE LOCATION PLAN

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.

SIT E LOCA TION

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY GOOGLE EARTH PRO

CORING AND HAND AUGER LOCATION PLAN

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY GOOGLE EARTH PRO

C-1

C-2

C-3

C-4

~84’

~10’

~7’

Core and Hand Auger Locations

MOISTURE VAPOR EMISSION RATE TEST LOCATION PLAN

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES PDF DRAWING PROVIDED BY CLIENT

EXPLORATION RESULTS

Hand Auger Logs (C-1 through C-4, 4 pages) GPR Exhibits (5 pages) Lab Summary Atterberg Limits Grain Size Distribution

Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.

11-13-21

6-7-8

7-7-8

CONCRETE THEN MOISTURE BARRIER

GRAVEL

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), with gravel, fine to medium grained, yellowish brown, moist, medium dense

LEAN CLAY (CL), yellowish brown, moist, medium stiff

CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine grained, strong brown, moist, loose

Boring Terminated at 5 Feet

0.3

1.0

2.2

4.0

5.0

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

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

G E

O S

M A

R T

L O

G -N

O W

E

LL

E V

F

O R

T A

P H

IL

L

F

L.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

1/

/2

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

STRENGTH TEST

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

T E

S T

T Y

P E

S T

R A

IN

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 38.1514° Longitude: 77.1839°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

Advancement Method:

Hand Auger

Abandonment Method:

Notes:

Project No.: EV205068

Drill Rig:

BORING LOG NO. C-1

AMES1, LLCCLIENT:

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Driller: Erickson

Boring Completed: 11-17-2020

PROJECT: Fort AP Hill - Floor Crack Analysis

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any).

Custer Trail at Tidewater Trail Caroline County, VA

SITE:

Boring Started: 11-17-2020

4899 Prince William Pkwy Woodbridge, VA

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

CORE

CONCRETE

Refusal at 0.875 Foot

0.3

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

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

G E

O S

M A

R T

L O

G -N

O W

E

LL

E V

F

O R

T A

P H

IL

L

F

L.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

1/

/2

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 38.1513° Longitude: 77.1839°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

Advancement Method:

Hand Auger

Abandonment Method:

Notes:

Project No.: EV205068

Drill Rig:

D E

P T

H

F t.)

STRENGTH TEST

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

T E

S T

T Y

P E

S T

R A

IN

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

BORING LOG NO. C-2

AMES1, LLCCLIENT:

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Driller: Erickson

Boring Completed: 11-17-2020

PROJECT: Fort AP Hill - Floor Crack Analysis

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any).

Custer Trail at Tidewater Trail Caroline County, VA

SITE:

Boring Started: 11-17-2020

4899 Prince William Pkwy Woodbridge, VA

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

CORE

CONCRETE THEN MOISTURE BARRIER

GRAVEL

wlwesterman Stamp

15-25/1.50

6-8-7

9-16-13

CONCRETE THEN MOISTURE BARRIER

GRAVEL, medium dense

LEAN CLAY (CL), yellowish brown, moist, medium stiff

SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, strong brown, moist, loose

Boring Terminated at 5 Feet

0.3

1.5

4.0

5.0

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

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

G E

O S

M A

R T

L O

G -N

O W

E

LL

E V

F

O R

T A

P H

IL

L

F

L.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

1/

/2

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

STRENGTH TEST

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

T E

S T

T Y

P E

S T

R A

IN

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 38.1513° Longitude: 77.1839°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

Advancement Method:

Hand Auger

Abandonment Method:

Notes:

Project No.: EV205068

Drill Rig:

BORING LOG NO. C-3

AMES1, LLCCLIENT:

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Driller: Erickson

Boring Completed: 11-17-2020

PROJECT: Fort AP Hill - Floor Crack Analysis

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any).

Custer Trail at Tidewater Trail Caroline County, VA

SITE:

Boring Started: 11-17-2020

4899 Prince William Pkwy Woodbridge, VA

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

6-16-18

3-6-7

8-8-11

CONCRETE THEN MOISTURE BARRIER

GRAVEL, medium dense

LEAN CLAY (CL), yellowish brown, moist, medium stiff

SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, strong brown, moist, loose

Boring Terminated at 5 Feet

0.3

1.5

4.0

5.0

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

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

G E

O S

M A

R T

L O

G -N

O W

E

LL

E V

F

O R

T A

P H

IL

L

F

L.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

1/

/2

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

STRENGTH TEST

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

T E

S T

T Y

P E

S T

R A

IN

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 38.1513° Longitude: 77.1839°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

Advancement Method:

Hand Auger

Abandonment Method:

Notes:

Project No.: EV205068

Drill Rig:

BORING LOG NO. C-4

AMES1, LLCCLIENT:

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Driller: Erickson

Boring Completed: 11-17-2020

PROJECT: Fort AP Hill - Floor Crack Analysis

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any).

Custer Trail at Tidewater Trail Caroline County, VA

SITE:

Boring Started: 11-17-2020

4899 Prince William Pkwy Woodbridge, VA

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

GPR Exploration Plan

Fort AP Hill Crack Analysis Fort AP Hill, VA

4899 Prince William Parkway Woodbridge, VA 22192

PH. (703) 730-4160

EV205068

Dec - 2020

BLW

JAL

MEC

PEB

N.T.S.

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

FIGURE

--DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION

ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR

CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

Area 1

Area 2 wlwesterman Rectangle wlwesterman Callout 1/2" variations in top surface of floor slab observed

GPR Results – Area 1 2700 MHz

Fort AP Hill, VA

4899 Prince William Parkway Woodbridge, VA 22192

PH. (703) 730-4160

EV205068

Dec - 2020

BLW

JAL

MEC

PEB

As Shown.

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

FIGURE

--DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION

ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR

CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

GPR Results – Area 1 350 MHz

Fort AP Hill, VA

4899 Prince William Parkway Woodbridge, VA 22192

PH. (703) 730-4160

EV205068

Dec - 2020

BLW

JAL

MEC

PEB

As Shown

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

FIGURE

--DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION

ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR

CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Anomalous Soils

Consistent with

Saturated Soils or Voids

GPR Results – Area 2 2700 MHz

Fort AP Hill, VA

4899 Prince William Parkway Woodbridge, VA 22192

PH. (703) 730-4160

EV205068

Dec - 2020

BLW

JAL

MEC

PEB

As Shown.

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

FIGURE

--DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION

ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR

CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Anomalous Soils

GPR Results – Area 2 350 MHz

Fort AP Hill, VA

4899 Prince William Parkway Woodbridge, VA 22192

PH. (703) 730-4160

EV205068

Dec - 2020

BLW

JAL

MEC

PEB

As Shown

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

FIGURE

--DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION

ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR

CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Anomalous Soils

C-3 4.5625 - 5

SANDY SILTY CLAY(CL-ML) / A-4 (1)

15.4 25 20 5 0.2 35.4 64.4

C-4 3 - 3.4375 LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL) / A-6 (9)

17.6 32 20 12 0.1 19.3 80.6

PAGE 1 OF 1SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS

PROJECT: Fort AP Hill - Floor Crack Analysis PROJECT NUMBER: EV205068

CLIENT: AMES1, LLC

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

SITE: Custer Trail at Tidewater Trail Caroline County, VA

PH. 703-730-4160 FAX.

4899 Prince William Pkwy Woodbridge, VA

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

S M

A R

T L

A B

S U

M M

A R

Y -L

A N

D S

C A

P E

_A E

V

F O

R T

A P

H

IL

L

F L.

G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

2/ 7/

BORING

ID

Soil Classification

USCS &

AASHTO

Depth (Ft.) Liquid Limit % Gravel % Sand % FinesWater

Content (%) Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

0 20 40 60 80 100

CH

o r

OH

CL

o r

OL

ML or OL

MH or OH

"U " L ine

"A " L ine

ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS

ASTM D4318

P L A S T I C I T Y

I N D E X

LIQUID LIMIT

PROJECT NUMBER: EV205068

SITE: Custer Trail at Tidewater Trail Caroline County, VA

PROJECT: Fort AP Hill - Floor Crack Analysis

CLIENT: AMES1, LLC

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

4899 Prince William Pkwy Woodbridge, VA

LA

B

O R

A T

O R

Y T

E S

T S

A R

E N

O T

V A

LI

D

IF

S

E P

A R

A T

E D

F R

O M

O R

IG

IN

A L

R E

P O

R T

A

T E

R B

E R

G L

IM

IT

S E

V

F O

R T

A P

H

IL

L

F L.

G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

2/ 7/

PIPLLLBoring ID Depth

C-3

C-4

64.4

80.6

Fines

4.6 - 5

3 - 3.4

CL-ML

CL

SANDY SILTY CLAY

LEAN CLAY with SAND

DescriptionUSCS

CL-ML

0.0010.010.1110100

3/4 1/23/8 30 403 60

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

16 20

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

44 10063 2 10 14 506 2001.5 81 140

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

P E

R C

E N

T C

O A

R S

E R

B Y

W E

IG

H

T

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136

PROJECT NUMBER: EV205068

SITE: Custer Trail at Tidewater Trail Caroline County, VA

PROJECT: Fort AP Hill - Floor Crack Analysis

CLIENT: AMES1, LLC

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

4899 Prince William Pkwy Woodbridge, VA

LA

B

O R

A T

O R

Y T

E S

T S

A R

E N

O T

V A

LI

D

IF

S

E P

A R

A T

E D

F R

O M

O R

IG

IN

A L

R E

P O

R

G R

A

IN

S

IZ

E : U

S C

S

E V

F

O R

T A

P H

IL

L

F

L.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

7/

C-3

C-4 fine coarse finemedium

COBBLES

GRAVEL SAND

SILT OR CLAY

D30

D60

BORING ID

3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

100.0 99.8 99.78 99.68 99.32 92.01 71.87 64.37

3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

100.0 99.94 99.24 97.36 93.91 87.61 81.5 80.61

CC

CU

coarse

D10

SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)

LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL)

0.2

0.1

35.4

19.3

64.4

80.6

0.0

0.0

4.6 - 5

3 - 3.4

CL-ML

CL

Sieve

REMARKS

SOIL DESCRIPTION

% Finer% Finer SieveSieve% Finer

USCS% CLAY% FINES% SILT% SAND% GRAVEL% COBBLESDEPTH

COEFFICIENTS

GRAIN SIZE

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Unified Soil Classification System

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

UNIFIED SOIL C LASSIFICA TION 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” line 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.

REPAIR DETAIL

B

DETAIL N.T.S.

17089-RPD1TYP. @ CONSTRUCTION JOINTS

A

DETAIL N.T.S.

17089-RPD1TYP. @ CONTRACTION JOINTS

CRACK / JOINT REPAIR