APPENDIX_D_Geotechnical_Report_(2).pdf

APPENDIX D

GETOTECHNICAL REPORT

Subsurface Information for the

KC-46A Fuselage Training (FUT) Facility Phase 2 Expansion

Altus Air Force Base Altus, Oklahoma

THERE IS NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED GUARANTEE AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE INFORMATION AND

DATA CONTAINED HEREIN, NOR OF THE INTERPRETATION THEREOF BY BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING

COMPANY OR ANY OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.

THE SUBSURFACE INFORMATION AND DATA CONTAINED HEREIN DO NOT FORM A PART OF ANY CONTRACT DOCUMENT ISSUED BY BURNS & McDONNELL.

IF THIS SUBSURFACE INFORMATION IS BEING ISSUED IN ELECTRONIC (PDF) FORMAT. NOTE THAT IT CONSISTS OF A 5‐PAGE FRONT‐END DOCUMENT WITH A 69‐PAGE APPENDIX (FLYSHEET, REPORT BY STANDARD TESTING & BACK COVER).

United States Army Corps of Engineers Altus Air Force Base

Altus, Oklahoma Project No. 93058

April 2017

COPYRIGHT © 2017 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.

Project No. 93058 Subsurface Information April 2017

United States Army Corps of Engineers i Burns & McDonnell

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1.0 GENERAL

2.0 DESIGN NOTES

3.0 WATER LEVEL INFORMATION

4.0 ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE INFORMATION

5.0 LIMITATIONS

5.1 Document Use

5.2 Variations

APPENDIX A - SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION (FINAL), ALTUS AIR FORCE

BASE KC-46A, FUT FACILITY PHASE 2 EXPANSION, ALTUS,

OKLAHOMA, PROJECT NO. 5316-4007;

PREPARED BY STANDARD TESTING AND ENGINEERING;

DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2017.

United States Army Corps of Engineers 1 Burns & McDonnell

1.0 GENERAL

This subsurface information document consists of the data and results from a subsurface investigation described in a report titled, “Subsurface Exploration (Final), Altus Air Force Base KC-46A, FUT Facility

Phase 2 Expansion, Altus, Oklahoma”, dated February 23, 2017. The investigation was performed by

Standard Testing and Engineering Company (Standard Testing) of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The report, as prepared by Standard Testing, is included in Appendix A of this document.

Drilling and laboratory testing for this investigation was performed by Standard Testing. The drilling phase was performed December 12 through December 13, 2016. It included the completion of four (4) borings drilled to depths ranging from 21.3 feet to 34 feet below grade. Pressuremeter testing was performed in one boring at the time of the subsurface investigation to characterize rock parameters.

Laboratory tests were conducted on select available samples following the completion of drilling operations. Boring logs and laboratory test results, as prepared by Standard Testing, are included in the report in Appendix A of this document.

Samples recovered during the subsurface investigation were transported to the laboratory by Standard

Testing. Standard Testing was not compensated to store the samples after testing and reporting beyond their customary retention period prior to disposal.

2.0 DESIGN NOTES

Geotechnical design notes as prepared by Burns & McDonnell pertinent to the current project are available for inspection at Burns & McDonnell’s Kansas City office upon prior written request.

3.0 WATER LEVEL INFORMATION

Water levels were observed by Standard Testing, refer to the applicable Appendix of this document. It should be noted by the reader that fluctuations in water levels may occur over more prolonged periods of readings and can be influenced by various outside factors. It may take groundwater several days, or longer, to reach its hydrostatic levels in holes in cohesive soils.

Seasonal variations in rainfall, changes to on-site conditions, and changes to off-site conditions can affect groundwater levels. Fluctuations in groundwater levels from those noted in logs should be anticipated during construction. Water levels observed and recorded by others reflect only those conditions that existed at the time of investigation and may vary from true phreatic groundwater levels.

United States Army Corps of Engineers 2 Burns & McDonnell

4.0 ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE INFORMATION

Burns & McDonnell has requested from additional subsurface information in the vicinity of the Site.

Burns & McDonnell was not provided with any additional information.

Burns & McDonnell has previously obtained subsurface information and prepared documents, as listed below, for other projects in the near vicinity of this project. This information is available for review at

Burns & McDonnell’s Kansas City office upon prior written request.

1. Subsurface Information for the KC-46A FTC Simulator Phase 2 Facility, Altus Air Force Base, Altus, Oklahoma; prepared by Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, dated May 2016.

2. Subsurface Information for the KC-46A Fuselage Training (FuT) and Flight Training Center

(FTC) Facilities, Altus Air Force Base, Altus, Oklahoma for the US Army Corps of Engineers;

prepared by Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, dated October 2013.

Burns & McDonnell is aware that a significant amount of construction activity has been undertaken in the near vicinity of the Site. Additional information in the form of geotechnical reports and/or construction records associated with construction activity in the vicinity of the Site may exist. Requests for such information should be directed to United States Army Corps of Engineers.

Other than that listed or described above, Burns & McDonnell is not aware of any additional subsurface information in the vicinity of the Site. Requests for additional subsurface information should be directed to United States Army Corps of Engineers.

5.0 LIMITATIONS

5.1 Document Use

The information presented in this document has been prepared for the use of Burns & McDonnell. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the information included in this document. In the event that conclusions and recommendations based on data contained in this document are made by others, such conclusions and recommendations are the responsibility of others.

The information gathered and presented in this document was not obtained for an environmental audit nor to evaluate the potential for hazardous materials at the Site. The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform geoenvironmental exploration differ substantially from those applied in soil and foundation engineering.

United States Army Corps of Engineers 3 Burns & McDonnell

The purpose of this document is not intended as preparation for a Geotechnical Baseline Report.

5.2 Variations

The subsurface information submitted in this document is based upon data obtained from test borings completed at the approximate locations indicated in the applicable Appendix of this document. This document does not reflect variations which may occur between test borings. The nature and extent of variations between the test borings may not become evident until construction is performed. If during construction, soil, rock, and/or groundwater conditions appear to be different from those described herein, Burns & McDonnell should be advised so that recommendations made may be evaluated and modified, if necessary. Water levels, as described in this document, reflect only those conditions that existed at the time that this particular subsurface investigation was performed by Standard Testing. Fluctuations or changes in water levels and groundwater conditions can be influenced by sources outside the site investigated, by seasonal rainfall, and by changes in drainage conditions in and around the Site.

Fluctuations can occur and should be anticipated between the time of investigation and the time of construction.

APPENDIX A - SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION (FINAL), ALTUS AIR FORCE

BASE KC-46A, FUT FACILITY PHASE 2 EXPANSION, ALTUS,

OKLAHOMA, PROJECT NO. 5316-4007;

PREPARED BY STANDARD TESTING AND ENGINEERING;

DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2017.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION (Final)

Altus Air Force Base KC-46A FUT Facility Phase 2 Expansion

PROJECT NO. 5316-4007

February 23, 2017

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.

9400 Wand Parkway Kansas City, MO 64114-3319

Attn: Mr. Jason Walker, P.E.

Senior Engineer Geotechnical Department

Re: Subsurface Exploration (Final)

Altus Air Force Base KC-46A

Dear Mr. Walker:

Enclosed herewith are two (2) copies of our final report covering the subsurface exploration for the subject project.

This geotechnical study was authorized by Geotechnical Agreement (SP-2B GEOTECH) 160926, dated December 08, 2016.

Standard Testing and Engineering Company conducted a geotechnical investigation at the site of FUT Facility Phase 2 Expansion at Altus Air Force Base in Altus, Oklahoma. This report contains the detailed results of the geotechnical investigation, including foundation recommendations, pavement recommendations, and construction considerations.

The subsurface soils consist of approximately 21.3 to 34.0 feet of fills with asphalt pieces, sandy lean clay, sandy clay, clay, weather soil shale over shale rock, and exhibit fairly low to high plasticity characteristics. The estimated potential vertical rises of the soil is 1.04 inch.

Foundation recommendations include (1) Shallow Footings, or (2) Drilled Pier Foundation.

We trust that the results and recommendations contained herein will permit adequate economical design and construction of the proposed structure. Unless you specify otherwise, we will keep samples obtained from these borings in our Oklahoma City laboratory for the next thirty (30) days.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist on this project. Please call on us if we can be of further service.

Respectfully submitted, STANDARD TESTING AND ENGINEERING COMPANY

Dipendra Timalsina Sharma, E.I. Ming-Cheng Peter Shau, P.E., D.GE Staff Geotechnical Engineer Manager, Geotechnical Services

Project No. 5316-4007 Account No. 0230BUR20

CORPORATE OFFICE • OKLAHOMA CITY

3400 N Lincoln Blvd • Oklahoma City, OK 73105-5493

(405) 528-0541 • (800) 725-0541 • (405) 528-0559 FAX

902 Trails West Loop

Enid, OK 73703-6336

(580) 237-3130

(800) 725-3130

(580) 237-3211 FAX

202 SE "J" Ave Lawton, OK 73501-2481

(580) 353-0872

(800) 725-0872

(580) 353-1263 FAX

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION (Final)

Altus Air Force Base KC-46A

PROJECT NO. 5316-4007

PREPARED FOR

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.

9400 Ward Parkway

Kansas City, MO 64114-3319

PREPARED BY

STANDARD TESTING AND ENGINEERING COMPANY

3400 N. Lincoln Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Certificate of Authorization No. 77, Expiration 6/30/2017

(405) 528-0541

Prepared By:

Reviewed By:

Dipendra Timalsina Sharma, E.I.

Ming-Cheng Peter Shau, P.E., D.GE

Staff Geotechnical Engineer Manager, Geotechnical Services

I certify my e-signature for the study entitled “Subsurface Exploration (Final)”

February 23, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………

1.1 Authorization…………………………………………………………………………… 1

1.2 Purpose and Scope …………………………………………………………………… 1

1.3 Project Location and Description ……………………...…………………………

2. FIELD EXPLORATION ………………………………………………………………………..3

2.1 Drilling Information…………………………………………………………………….. 3

2.2 Equipment Used........…………………………………………………………………. 3

2.3 Tests Performed..……………………………………

2.4 Subsurface Conditions………………………………………………………………… 5

2.5 Groundwater……………………………………………………………………………. 5

3. LABORATORY TESTING…………………………………………………………………….. 7

3.1 Tests Performed……………………………………………………….…………...….. 7

3.2 Laboratory Summary………………………………………………………………….. 9

4. ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS…..………………………. 10

4.1 Geological Information……….……………………………………………………….10

4.2 Existing Site Condition………………………………………………………………..10

Previous Construction Activity……..….……………..………………………10 Dewatering………..………………….……………………………………….. 10 Liquefaction Potential.………………….……………………………………. 11 Expansive, Dispersive or Collapsing Conditions....………………………. 11 Evaluation of Karst Potential………………….…………………………….. 11 Corrosion Potential……………….…………….……………………………. 11

4.3 Soil Conditions……………….……………………………………………………….. 11

4.4 Seismic Site Class and Seismic Hazards………………………..………………... 12

4.5 Laboratory Testing Results…….………………………………..………………….. 12

pH and Resistivity Test Results.………………………..……..…………….12 Soluble Sulfate and Chloride Content Test Results…..……..……… Modified Proctor Test Results…....................................……..……… California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test Results…..…..........…..……… Unconfined Compressive Strength of Soil Test Results..…… Swell-Consolidation Test Results...……………...……..……………… Measurement of Oxidation-Reduction Potential of Soils.....…………

4.6 Earthwork Recommendations….……………………………………………..…….. 15

Building Pad Construction.………………………………………… Inert Fill Requirements.………………………………………… Satisfactory Materials.............................………………… Unsatisfactory Materials.........................………………… Subgrade Preparation........................................................................ …..17 Compaction Requirements………………………………..…………... …….17 Drainage…………….………………………………………... ……………….18

4.7 Foundation Recommendations……………….………………………………

Footing Foundation System................................................……………... 19 Pier Foundation System..…….....................................…………………... 19

4.8 Floor Slabs…......……….……………………………………………………

4.9 Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters.................................………………………... 22

4.10 Excavation Requirements (OSHA Requirements)………………………………... 25

4.11 Construction Procedures……………………………………………………………. 27

Rippability of Materials Encountered………………………………………. 27

4.12 Pavement Recommendations………………………………………………………. 27

Subgrade Preparation……………………………………………………….. 27 Pavement Sections………………………………………………………….. 28 Material and Construction…………………………………………………… 28

5. BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS……….…………………..………………

5.1 General Comments………………….……………………………………………….. 30

5.2 Limitations………………….…………………………………………………………. 30

APPENDIX

Appendix A - Vicinity Map Site and Boring Location Plan Appendix B - Boring Logs

Soil Profile Key to Symbols

Definition of Descriptive Terms Appendix C - AASHTO Soil Classification System

Unified Soil Classification System Appendix D - Summary of Test Results Unconfined Compression Proctor

CBR

Swell Consolidation Pressure-Meter Measurement of Oxidation-Reduction Potential of Soil

LIST OF TABLES

Page Relative Elevation of Rock Material…………………...…………………………………………….. 5 Depth and Relative Elevation of Groundwater Level...............................……………………….. 6 pH and Resistivity Test Results………..…………………………………………………………… 13 Soluble Sulfate and Chloride Content Test Results……………..…..…………………………… 13 Modified Proctor Test Results….................................…………..…..…………………………… 13 CBR Test Results…....................................................…………..…..…………………………… 14 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results (qu)…………………..................................… 14 Recommended Swell Consolidation Test Parameters.................………………………………. 15 Cut and Fill Building Pad Requirements………..…………………………………………………. 16 Over Ground Inert Fill Building Pad Requirements……..…..……………………………………. 16 Drilled Pier Capacities............………..…………………………………………………………….. 20

L-Pile Input Data...........………………………………………………………………..............…… 21 OSHA Soil Classification………..…………………………………………………………………… 26 Maximum Allowable Slopes………..…………………………………………………………… Pavement Sections………..………………………………………………………………………… 28 Recommended Transverse Joint Spacings………..……………………………………………… 29

Project No. 5316-4007 1 February 23, 2017

Section 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Authorization

This final report presents the results of a subsurface exploration performed by Standard Testing and Engineering Company (Standard Testing) in accordance with the proposal (P-10170F2) prepared for Ms. Stacy E. Wagner, P.E. LEED AP BD+C, ENV SP, of Burns & McDonnell

Engineering Company, Inc., dated December 08, 2016, and identified as Standard Testing project number 5316-4007. We received authorization for this study through a Geotechnical Agreement

(SP-2B GEOTECH) 160926 signed by Ms. Amy R. Clement, Associate Project Manager, of Burns

& McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc., dated December 08, 2016.

1.2 Purpose and Scope

A geotechnical investigation was performed for the purpose of (1) determining the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, (2) evaluating the bearing capacities and plasticity characteristics of the soils and rocks, and (3) making recommendations concerning the earthwork, types of foundation systems, and recommended pavement sections for both flexible and concrete pavements for the facility.

Four (4) exploratory borings (B-1 thru. B-4) including three (3) building borings and one (1) boring for smaller cargo support structure and pavement were drilled to depths ranging from 21.3 to 34.0 feet. The borings’ depths and types of testing were performed according to the scope of work proposed by Burns McDonnell and accepted by Ms. Stacy Wagner. Narrative descriptions of our findings and recommendations are contained in the body of this report. Vicinity Map, site and boring location plan with boring locations, the boring logs, soil profile, and summary of test results are included in the Appendices of this report.

1.3 Project Location and Description

It is understood that this project adds to and alters the existing Altus KC-46A FTU Fuselage Trainer

(FuT) facility Phase 1. It adds a high bay structure to house an additional fuselage trainer and additional associated supporting spaces. Work includes an additional smaller Cargo Support

Structure, parking and pavements. Work also includes all utilities, mechanical systems, and communications support and fire detection/ suppression systems to provide a complete and useable facility.

The project alters and adds to the KC-46A FTU Fuselage Trainer (FuT) facility currently under construction at the corner of Seventh and D Avenue, northwest and adjacent to the flightline apron

Project No. 5316-4007 2 February 23, 2017 on Altus AFB, Oklahoma.

If the project is not as described or has changed, Standard Testing must be notified in order to reevaluate the recommendations for the project.

Project No. 5316-4007 3 February 23, 2017

Section 2

FIELD EXPLORATION

2.1 Drilling Information

The field exploration work was performed and completed on 12th, and 13th December, 2016.

Conditions at the site were investigated with four (4) borings at the locations indicated on the site and boring location plan, included in Appendix "A." Boring surface elevations are reported on the individual boring logs, included in Appendix "B." Boring depths were ranging from 21.3 to 34.0 feet within the facility footprint. The boring surface elevations were measured with respect to Temporary

Bench Mark (TBM) established on the finished floor of existing FUT building presented on the Site and Plan of Borings. The benchmark has an elevation 100.00 feet. For accurate sampling, cuttings were observed continuously during drilling with specific samples being taken at distinct lithologic changes. The equipment used, field tests performed, and soil samples taken are discussed below.

2.2 Equipment Used

Four (4) borings were drilled with a truck-mounted CME-55 rotary drilling unit equipped with 3.25-inch I.D. X 7.25-inch O.D. hollow stem augers (HAS), and 3-inch Solid Flight Auger (SFA). Standard penetration tests (SPT) used a 1.375-inch ID split spoon sampler driven by an automatic hammer utilizing a 140 lb. weight falling 30 inches.

2.3 Tests Performed

• Thirty-one (31) standard penetration tests were performed in order to estimate the shear strengths of the soils in their natural state. The test was conducted as specified by ASTM

D1586, "Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils." The in-situ bearing strength is related to the N-value from this test. "N" is the number of blows required to drive a split-spoon sampler twelve inches, after a 6 inch seating, into undisturbed soil. The soil samples recovered in the split-spoon barrel were removed from the sample tool in the field, visually classified, and labeled according to boring number and depth. Results of the standard penetration tests are denoted at their respective depths on the boring logs.

According to Skempton, A.W. (Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No.3, pp 425-447, 1986), and hammer efficiency as follows:

N60 = CbCr[Em/60]N

Where N60=Standard Penetration Test N Value Corrected for Field Testing Procedures

Cb=Borehole Diameter Correction (Cb=1.0 for Boreholes of 3.25” in Diameter)

Project No. 5316-4007 4 February 23, 2017

Cr=Rod Length Correction (Cr=0.75 for up to 13 feet of drilling rods, 0.85 for 13 to 20 feet of drilling rods, 0.95 for 20 to 33 of drilling rods, and 1.00 for drilling rods in excess of 33 feet)

N=Measured Standard Penetration Test N Value

Em=Hammer Efficiency in Percent (Em=88% for Standard Testing CME-55)

• Five (5) thin-walled tube samples at Boring B-1 were taken as specified by ASTM D1587, “Standard Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils for Geotechnical Purposes.”

• A Rock Test pre-bored pressure-meter (PMT) was used to determine in-situ strength of rock materials at one (1) boring (B-3) as specified by ASTM D4719. A total of two (2) tests were performed. This test consist of an expansion of a cylindrical cavity formed in the ground in order to measure the relationship between pressure and deformation of the rock. The test results are presented in Appendix “D.” Please note this PMT data was not used to establish the L-PLE parameters.

Depths of individual split spoon (standard penetration tests), thin-walled tube, and grab samples are indicated on the boring logs included in Appendix "B." Split spoon. Thin-walled tube/ grab (bag) samples were labeled and sealed in water tight, protective containers and returned to the laboratory for further evaluation and testing.

Project No. 5316-4007 5 February 23, 2017

2.4 Subsurface Conditions

The soils encountered consist of fills with asphalt pieces, sandy lean clay, sandy clay, clay, weather soil shale over shale rock.

These near surface soils exhibit fairly low to high plasticity characteristics. Rock materials (i.e., defined by standard penetration test refusal) were encountered in the indicated borings at the relative elevations shown in the following table:

Relative Elevation of Rock Material

Boring No.

Surface Elevation

(feet) Depth (feet)

Relative Elevation

(feet) Rock Material

B-1 99.60 21.00 78.60 Shale

B-2 99.50 21.00 78.50 Shale

B-3 99.22 20.00 79.22 Shale

B-4 98.43 12.00/ 21.00 86.43/ 77.43 Weathered Shale/

Shale

2.5 Groundwater

During drilling and at completion of drilling operations, groundwater was encountered in the indicated borings at the depths shown in the following Relative Elevation of Groundwater Table.

Presence of water should be anticipated in any excavation. Water travelling through soil (subsurface water) is often unpredictable and may be present at shallow depths. Due to the seasonal changes in groundwater and the unpredictable nature of groundwater paths, groundwater levels will fluctuate.

Therefore, it is necessary during construction to be observant for groundwater seepage in excavations in order to assess the situation and make necessary changes. We cannot assume responsibility for difficulties experienced during construction or for future operational problems due to elevation or volume of water encountered.

Project No. 5316-4007 6 February 23, 2017

Depth and Relative Elevation of Groundwater Level

Boring No.

Surface

Elevation (feet)

Depth/ Relative Elevation At Completion

(feet)

Depth/ Relative Elevation At 24 Hours

(feet)

B-1 99.60 7.50/ 92.10 6.50/ 93.10

B-2 99.50 9.00/ 90.50 7.00/ 92.50

B-3 99.22 8.00/ 91.22 7.00/ 92.22

B-4 98.43 Dry 5.00/ 93.43

Based on the above groundwater level table, recommended design groundwater depth for this project can be used 5 feet from the Boring No. B-4 (El.=93.43’) for the analysis.

Project No. 5316-4007 7 February 23, 2017

Section 3

LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing was performed in order to determine the strength and plasticity characteristics of the subsurface materials as well as confirm the soil classifications. General descriptions of the encountered soils together with visual and laboratory classifications and numerical values of the test results are on the boring logs included in Appendix “B.” A “Summary of Test Results” is included in Appendix “D.”

3.1 Tests Performed

• Moisture content tests were performed on thirteen (13) split spoon, thin-walled tube, and bag samples, in accordance with ASTM D2216, to determine the in-situ moisture conditions.

• Density tests were performed on eleven (11) intact split spoon, and thin-walled tube samples in accordance with AASHTO T233.

• Atterberg limits tests were performed on thirteen (13) soil samples to determine the plasticity characteristics and swell potential of the soil. The tests were performed in accordance with

ASTM D4318. Liquid Limits were determined using three-point method.

• Sieve analysis tests were performed on three (3) soil samples, in accordance with ASTM

D2487, for aid in soil classification. These soils were classified according to the Unified Soil

Classification System (USCS) and the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) soil classification system.

• Laboratory pH and resistivity test were conducted on one (1) composite (B-1 thru. B-4 at top

5.0 feet) soil sample. ASTM D4972 was used to determine the pH of the soil, while ASTM

G57 (laboratory) method was employed to determine the electrical resistivity of the sampled soil. pH and resistivity tests determines the corrosion potential of the on-site soils regard to underground structures and pipelines. A result of a test is summarized under Laboratory

Testing Results in Section 4 of this report.

• Soluble sulfate content test was performed on one (1) composite (B-1 thru. B-4 at top 5.0 feet) soil sample in accordance with OHDL-49. A test result is summarized under Laboratory

Testing Results in Section 4 of this report.

Project No. 5316-4007 8 February 23, 2017

• Soluble chloride content test was performed on one (1) composite (B-1 thru. B-4 at top 5.0 feet) soil sample by colorimetric method using SMART2 Colorimeter. A test result is summarized under Laboratory Testing Results in section 4 of this report.

• Two (2) Modified Proctor test were conducted on two composite samples (B-1 & B-3 at top

5.0 feet, and B-2 & B-4 at top 5.0 feet), in accordance with ASTM D1557 testing procedures.

The Modified proctor test determines the relationship between moisture content and density at a specified compaction effort. A result of the modified proctor test is presented in Appendix

“D.”

• One (1) California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test was performed on composite sample (B-2 & B-

4 at top 5.0 feet) proposed parking/ drive areas to classify the suitability of the soils for use as a subgrade or base course material in pavement construction. The CBR test measures the relative strength of the soil under controlled moisture and density conditions. This test was performed in accordance with ASTM D1883. Results are presented as the test load corresponding to a given penetration (e.g., 2.5mm) driven by a standard load, expressed as percent, where the standard load is based on a standard sample of crushed stone. The results of a CBR test are presented in Appendix “D.”

• Four (4) unconfined compressive strength tests were conducted on thin-walled tube soil samples in accordance with ASTM D2166. The unconfined compressive strength as determined by this test, along with the results of the standard penetration test, is used to estimate the in-situ share strength of the various soils and rock encountered. The graph in

Appendix “D” depict the behavior of the tested soil under compression without confinement.

The unconfined compressive strengths of the soils and rock core samples were presented on the boring logs and in the “Summary of Laboratory Test Results” table in Appendix “D.”

• One (1) Oxidation-Reduction Potential of Soil test was conducted on composite sample (B-

1 thru. B-4 at top 5.0 feet) in accordance with ASTM G200-09. A test result is presented in

Appendix “D.”

• One (1) swell-consolidation test was performed on thin-walled tube sample at B-1 (4’-5’) in accordance with ASTM D4546 Method C testing procedure. A test result is summarized under Laboratory Testing Results in section 4 of this report.

Project No. 5316-4007 9 February 23, 2017

3.2 Laboratory Summary

General descriptions of the encountered soils together with visual and laboratory classifications and numerical values of the test results are on the boring logs and soil profile included in Appendix "B."

A "Summary of Test Results" is included in Appendix "D."

Project No. 5316-4007 10 February 23, 2017

Section 4

ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Geological Information

The “Engineering Classification of Geologic Materials, Division Five,” Research and Development

Division of Oklahoma Highway Department, 1969, indicates that the project site is located over the

Terrace Deposits (Qts). This geologic formation is described therein as follows:

Terrace Deposits (Qts): These materials consist of sand, silt, clay, gravel, and/ or mixtures of these. Terrace materials occur adjacent to or near streams at higher elevations than the floor plain (bottom land). Like alluvium, these deposits are not all shown on the geologic unit maps.

The engineering properties of the unconsolidated materials are normally the same as the “C” horizon of the overlying soil. Most Terrace deposits will have seepage where the underlying geologic material is less pervious.

According to the Geologic Map of the Hydrologic Atlas 6 of Oklahoma, “Reconnaissance of the

Water Resources of The Lawton Quadrangle, Southwestern Oklahoma,” by John S. Havens, U.S.

Geological Survey, Second Printing 1992, indicates that the project site is located over the

Hennessey Group (Phy). This geologic formation is described therein as follows:

Hennessey Group (Phy): Reddish-brown to gray shale with some tan sandstones, 130 to 200 feet thick (locally unconformable on Cambrian Igneous rocks).

4.2 Existing Site Conditions

Previous Construction Activity

No records indicate that there is any previous construction activity taken place within this area.

Dewatering

Based on the field exploration data, groundwater was encountered at four (4) borings’ locations at

24 hours after completion of drilling operation. Dewatering may be required for the excavation depth deeper than 5 feet below current grade. Sump pump(s) system may be needed during excavation stage.

Project No. 5316-4007 11 February 23, 2017

Liquefaction Potential

Based on the field exploration data indicating no liquefiable soils encountered, it is our opinion that the liquefaction potential is minimal.

Expansive, Dispersive or Collapsing Conditions

Based on the plasticity index and moisture content data. We estimate the potential vertical rise

(PVR) of the soils to be equal or less than1.04 inch. The characteristics of these soils are active for consideration of soil expansion for slab-on-grade. Dispersive and collapsing conditions were not found at the locations of the borings.

Evaluation of Karst Potential

Karst is generally a distinctive topography in which the landscape is largely shaped by the dissolving action of water on carbonate bedrock usually limestone, dolomite, or marble. This geological process, occurring over many thousands of years, results in unusual surface and subsurface features ranging from sinkholes, vertical shafts, disapprearing streams, and springs, to complex underground drainage systems and caves.

Based on the in-situ investigation and the research data of the geological information, karst features were not found. The level of the risk for development and/ or the presence of voids within the subsurface materials at this project site is very low.

Corrosion Potential

PH and resistivity test results indicate that the soils are slightly corrosive with regard to accelerated corrosion of metals. Details refer to the report section 4.5 – Laboratory Testing Results.

4.3 Soil Conditions

The soils encountered in this subsurface investigation consist of fills with asphalt pieces, sandy lean clay, sandy clay, clay, weather soil shale over shale rock.

The cohesive soils were found to be firm to hard in consistency. The underlying weathered rock exhibits SPT refusal (i.e., SPT "N" value of 50 blows per 6 inches or less penetration).

The plasticity index (PI) of a soil indicates a soil’s potential to shrink or swell with changes in its moisture content. The near-surface soils at this site generally display fairly low to high plasticity characteristics and were found in a moist to very moist conditions. Atterberg limits test results indicate that on-site plastic soils have PI’s up to 32. These soils should be considered active and should be expected to undergo significant volume change upon moisture variation.

Project No. 5316-4007 12 February 23, 2017

These soils are expected to undergo expansion upon moisture increase and, conversely, contraction upon moisture decrease. Oklahoma is well known for its heaving clays and the foundation problems associated with soil expansion and uplift pressures. These soil characteristics accompanied with the seasonal variability in soil moisture content caused by the regional climatic conditions often result in foundation and structural damage. Accordingly, the swelling characteristic of the soil is a primary concern and the Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) becomes an important factor in the foundation design of the proposed facility.

The maximum PVR value computed for this site is about 1.04 inch. The procedure used to predict the PVR was developed by Standard Testing based on AASHTO test method T258 and modified to incorporate our experience with actual Oklahoma soils. The displacement associated with the PVR is a relatively long term effect, associated with significant moisture changes in the soil, and applies to free surface conditions. A maximum PVR of 0.5 inch or less is generally considered tolerable for most structures.

Methods to reduce the actual swell include:

(1) removal of the expansive soil

(2) treatment of the soil to modify its plasticity

(3) application of pressure to resist the expansion (can be fill or structural loads)

(4) control of soil moisture during and after construction to minimize future moisture variations.

4.4 Seismic Site Class and Seismic Hazards

Based on the results of our investigation, this site is classified as Seismic Site Class C. This recommendation is based on the International Building Code (IBC) 2015, and criteria given in the

Table 20.3-1 of ASCE/SEI 7-10, entitled, “Site Classification.”

Following are the approximate mapped and design spectral acceleration parameters.

• The Approximate Mapped Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods, Sms=0.3;

• The Approximate Mapped Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period, Sm1=0.17

• The Approximate Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period, Sds=0.2

• The Approximate Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second, Period, Sd1=0.12

4.5 Laboratory Testing Results

pH and Resistivity Test Results

The pH and resistivity of the soil sample tested are summarized in the following table:

Project No. 5316-4007 13 February 23, 2017 pH and Resistivity Test Results

Boring No.

Sample

I.D.

Depth (feet) pH Resistivity (ohm-cm)

Corrosivity

B-1 thru. B-4 Composite 0.0-5.0 7.82 7,700 Slightly Corrosive

The pH and resistivity test results indicate that soils are slightly corrosive with regard to accelerated corrosion of metals.

Soluble Sulfate and Chloride Content Test Results

The soluble sulfate and chloride test results are included in the following table:

Soluble Sulfate and Chloride Content Test Results

Boring No. Sample I. D.

Depth (feet)

Sulfate Content (ppm)

Chloride Content (ppm)

B-1 thru. B-4 Composite 0.0-5.0 732.5 2.59

The results of the sulfate and chloride content tests indicate that Type I cement may be used for concrete and the sulfate levels are negligible in affecting lime stabilization of the soil. According to the National Lime Association’s publication entitled “Technical Memorandum: Guidelines for

Stabilization of Soils Containing Sulfates,” which can be found on their website at www.lime.org/ sulfate.pdf,” If the total level of soluble sulfates is below 0.3%, or 3,000 parts per million (ppm), by weight of soil, then lime stabilization should not be of significant concern.”

Modified Proctor Test Results

Modified proctor tests were conducted on two (2) composite soil samples in accordance with ASTM

D1557 testing method. The result is presented in the following table and are also presented in the

Appendix “D.”

Modified Proctor Test Results

Depth (feet)

USCS AASHTO

Maximum Dry Density

(pcf)

Optimum Moisture

B-1 & B-3 0.0-5.0 CL A-6(9) 124.8 9.6

B-2 & B-4 0.0-5.0 CL A-6(5) 126.7 9.5

Project No. 5316-4007 14 February 23, 2017

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test Results

California bearing ratio (CBR) of laboratory-compacted soil was conducted on a composite soil in accordance with ASTM D1883 testing method. The result is presented in the following table and is also presented in Appendix “D.”

CBR Test Results

Boring No. Sample I. D.

Depth

(feet) Soil Type CBR

Estimated ks

(pci)

B-2 & B-4 Composite 0.0-5.0 Sandy Lean Clay 7 167

Unconfined Compressive Strength of Soil Test Results

Unconfined compressive strength tests were conducted on thin-walled tube soil samples in accordance with ASTM D2166 testing method. The results are presented in the following table and are also presented in Appendix “D.”

Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results (qu)

Depth

(feet)

Moisture

Content

Dry Density

(pcf) qu

(tsf)

Strain

B-1 2.0-4.0 15.4 114 3.53 6.26

B-1 4.0-6.0 15.9 115 3.10 10.06

B-1 6.0-8.0 12.5 121 2.31 10.18

B-1 8.0-10.0 16.0 115 0.64 2.30

Swell-Consolidation Test Results

One (1) swell-consolidation test was performed with ASTM D4546 Method C. Based on the result of the test, the percent swell of the sample is negligible i.e. 0.06% (approximately) for B-1 (4.0-5.0 feet) at vertical overburden pressure. Moisture contents of the tested sample measured before the test was 18.0% and after test was 17.3%. The recompression index (Cr) and compression index

(Cc) obtained for the soils are listed in the following table. The recompression and compression indexes were determined using “Technical Engineering and Design Guides as Adapted from the US

Army Corps of Engineers, No. 9: Settlement Analysis” (ASCE, 1994).

Project No. 5316-4007 15 February 23, 2017

Recommended Swell Consolidation Test Parameters

Boring

I.D.

Overburden

Pressure

Po(tsf)

Pre-consolidation

Pressure

Pc(tsf)

Recompression

Index

Cr

Virgin Compression

Index

Cc

Swell

B-1 (4-5’) 0.27 2.1 0.0674 0.1846 0.06

We estimate that there is no swelling of the foundation soil. However at B-1 there are some expansive soils at upper 3 feet which results Potential Vertical Rise up to 1.04 inches. We recommend to follow “Building Pad Construction” section of this report for slab-on-grade construction.

Oxidation-Reduction potential of soil is in accordance with ASTM G200-09 testing procedures.

Results indicate that Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) attack is unlikely, and presented in the Appendix “D.”

4.6 Earthwork Recommendations

Building Pad Construction

A critical geotechnical consideration at this site is the swelling soils. If slab-on-grade construction is to be used for this site, either soil stabilization or construction of an inert fill building pad is advisable.

The amount of ground surface movement that can be tolerated by the structure should be evaluated by the designer (a value of 0.50 inch or less may be used for most structures) and the corresponding amount of removal and replacement or over ground fill should be performed as indicated in the following options:

Option 1: Cut and Fill

• Remove the required amount of existing soil (see following table) and replace that soil with inert fill, meeting all requirements given herein, or native soil stabilized with lime or fly ash to achieve a primary swell of no more than 1.0 percent when tested in accordance with ASTM

D4546 Method B with a vertical stress equal to the anticipated in-situ vertical stress.

Project No. 5316-4007 16 February 23, 2017

Cut and Fill Building Pad Requirements

Depth of Removal and Replacement Soil (feet)*

Estimated Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) (inches)

0.0 1.04

1.0 0.84

2.0 0.68

3.0 0.50

* - Below existing site grade or

Option 2: Fill Only

• Place the required amount or more of inert fill (see following table), meeting all requirements given herein, over the native soils.

Over Ground Inert Fill Building Pad Requirements

Depth of Over Ground Inert Fill Building Pad

(feet)**

Estimated Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) (inches)

0.0 1.04

1.0 0.80

2.0 0.61

3.0 0.49

** - Above existing site grade

Inert Fill Requirements

Only nonplastic to fairly low plasticity on-site soils or imported inert fill should be used for fill under structures. Fills should meet the following requirements:

Satisfactory Materials Satisfactory materials comprise any materials classified by ASTM D2487 as SC, SW-SC, SP-SC, CL, GC, GM-GC, and GP-GC with the requirements below:

Amount finer than 2 inch sieve Amount finer than No. 200 sieve Liquid Limit Plasticity Index (PI)

= 100% = 12% minimum and, if PI<7, 60% maximum = 40 maximum = 4 to 12 maximum

Unsatisfactory Materials Materials which do not comply with the requirements for satisfactory materials are unsatisfactory.

Project No. 5316-4007 17 February 23, 2017

Based on the field and laboratory testing data, the on-site fairly low plasticity to high plasticity soils does not meet satisfactory materials requirements as inert fill. However, these soils may be mixed with lime additive to reduce PIs to be greater than 4 and less than 12. Additional laboratory testing will be necessary to determine the percentage of additive required during construction stage.

Subgrade Preparation

The existing subgrade should be:

• Stripped of vegetation, topsoil, fills and any other deleterious materials,

• over-excavated to the required depth to reduce PVR to ½ inch referring the cut and fill building pad requirements and/ or overground inert fill building pad requirements tables, and extended to at least three (3) feet beyond building footprint,

• proofrolled, including removing and replacing any soft material which exhibits permanent subgrade deformation exceeding 0.5 inch when traversed by a loaded truck with a rear axle load of approximately 16,000 lbs./axle, and

• tested for moisture and density and, if deficient, scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to 95 percent or more of modified Proctor maximum dry density

(ASTM D1557).

Removal of soft subgrade should not exceed a 3 foot depth below final top of subgrade elevation, nor extend below the static groundwater elevation. If such a depth is reached without encountering stable subgrade conditions, 12 inches of ODOT Type A or Type B aggregate base should be placed in the bottom of the overexcavated area and suitable fill material placed and compacted to bring the subgrade to design elevation.

Compaction Requirements

All fill in the structural areas should be:

• compacted to at least 95 percent or more of Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM

D1557) at a moisture content within -2% to +2% of the optimum for inert fill satisfactory materials.

• compacted to at least 95 percent or more of modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM

D1557) at a moisture content near optimum for ODOT Type A or Type B aggregate base.

• placed in lifts not to exceed eight (8) inches in compacted thickness.

• tested for field density for each lift of fill at frequencies of every 5,000 sq. ft. in areas under structure and every 20,000 sq.ft in areas under pavement.

Moisture should be maintained up until the placement of concrete in structural areas to prevent shrinkage (and subsequent post-construction swell) of the soil.

Project No. 5316-4007 18 February 23, 2017

Drainage

The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 6 inches vertical fall in the first 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of each wall.

Trees and large bushes for landscaping should not be permitted within this 10-foot zone adjacent to the building. General site slopes, drainage swales, or storm drains shall be constructed to provide

1.0 percent slope, or more, along drainage paths which serve to discharge storm water from the site. If surface soil should be left exposed (e.g., flower beds) near the structure foundation, then it is suggested that efforts be taken to maintain such areas at a constant moisture in order to avoid swell/shrinkage of the soil that will affect the foundation system.

If a non-expansive (Inert fill) building pad is constructed such that it extends below the adjacent higher plasticity soils, the bottom of such excavation shall be cut at a slope of not less than 1.0 percent to provide a subsurface sump. Drainage shall be provided from this sump in the base of the non-expansive building pad by an underdrain with a slope of at least 1.0 percent discharging either to daylight or to a permanent, automated sump pump system. The underdrain at the sump shall extend below the excavation and shall consist of a perforated nonmetallic underdrain conduit

(ODOT 726.02(b)6), 4.0 inches diameter or larger, wrapped in drainage geotextile (ODOT 712.03) and surrounded by at least 6 inches of coarse cover aggregate (ODOT 703.04) on all sides.

Underdrain system mention in the above paragraph can be waived if clay cap is placed surrounding the building footprint.

Clay cap should:

• be over-excavated at least one foot deep below final grade and be extended horizontally to at least 5 feet beyond edge of the exterior wall;

• be placed with geofabric over the excavated subgrade soils;

• be backfilled with compacted CLAYS of PIs greater than 25; and

• be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 6 inches vertical fall in first 10 feet.

4.7 Foundation Recommendations

Considering the soils encountered and based on the test results of this exploration, the following foundation design parameters are recommended for the indicated foundation systems:

Project No. 5316-4007 19 February 23, 2017

• Footing Foundation System

Shallow foundations (e.g. spot or strip footings) may be used for support the structure.

Footings must be placed a minimum of 2.0 feet below finished grade to provide adequate protection from frost action. Footings may be used with an allowable net bearing capacity of

2,500 psf bearing on compacted inert fill/ or stabilized subgrade as specified in the Earthwork

Recommendations section of this report. The allowable net bearing capacity includes a factor of safety of 3.0. Footings should have a width of at least 16 inches.

Ultimate resistance to lateral sliding at the bottoms of footing may be calculated based on the coefficient of friction of 0.35 for both inert fills and native clayey soils. Sliding resistance may also include the ultimate passive resistance which can be calculated using an equivalent fluid weight of 200 pcf for a rectangular distribution. A factor of safety of at least 1.5 should be used with stability calculations involving lateral earth pressures.

Continuous footings and/ or spot footings are expected to undergo no more than 1.0 inch settlement when designed for the recommended bearing pressure. Differential settlement would be less than ¾ inch across the site.

• Pier Foundation System

Structures may be designed for the supported by drilled cast-in-place concrete piers founded

2.0 feet or more below the depths indicated in the "Elevation of Rock Material" table provided in Section 2.4 of this report. Using this type of foundation, each column is supported on a single drilled pier and the building walls are placed on grade beams supported by a series of piers. Loads applied to the piers are transmitted to the rock partially through skin friction along the sides of the pier and partially through end bearing pressure.

All drilled piers should:

• extend at least 2.0 feet or at least one (1) pier diameter, whichever is deeper, below the depths indicated in the "Elevation of Rock Material" table provided in section 2.4 of the report,

• have an aspect ratio (length/ diameter) of four (4) or more,

• have a spacing between individual piers of three diameters or more (Clear Spacing),

• be adequately reinforced with the reinforcement extending into the grade beams and/ or pier caps, and

• have a minimum diameter of 18 inches.

Piers may be designed using the following allowable and net bearing capacities and skin

Project No. 5316-4007 20 February 23, 2017 friction at various depths range for that portion of the pier in direct contact with the weathered shale rock formation:

Pier Design Profile

Drilled Pier Capacities

Depths Range

(feet)

Allowable Net Bearing

Capacity

(psf)

Allowable Skin Friction

Capacity

(psf)

Factor of Safety

20.00-25.00 25,000 1100 3.0

25.00-30.00 33,000 1425 3.0

30 or deeper 50,000 1550 3.0

Uplift of the piers can be resisted by using the same skin friction values plus an allowable for the pier weight i.e. (150 pcf x Pier Area x length of Pier). Maximum vertical displacement of piers designed in this manner is expected to be on the order of 0.8% of the pier base diameter.

Drilled shafts may require casing or slurry-drilling methods. Concrete should be placed in pier holes as soon as practicable after completion of drilling to prevent weathering of the bearing stratum and relaxation of horizontal ground stresses.

If groundwater encountered during pier excavation and cannot be dewatered concrete may be placed by tremie method so as to assure no contamination of the fresh concrete by groundwater or drilling fluids. A sufficient head of plastic concrete should be maintained within the casing at all times during its extraction in order to overcome the hydrostatic groundwater pressure outside the casing.

Project No. 5316-4007 21 February 23, 2017

L-Pile Input Data for Soils & Rock

L-Pile Input Data

Soil/ Rock Type Unit Weight

(pcf)(1)

Estimated Cohesion

(psf)

Estimated Modulus of Rock Mass

(psf)

Estimated Strain @ 50% Maximum

Stress

Estimated Unconfined

Compression Strength

(psi)

Estimated K_rm

Estimated

RQD

Inert Fill 124 500 - 0.005 - - -

Sandy Clay 122 730 - 0.014 - - -

Clay 124 870 - 0.013 - - -

Weathered Shale/ Soil Shale(2) 132 3600 - 0.004 - - -

Weak shale Rock 134 7100 2,160,000 - 400 0.0005 30

Note- Top 2…