Amendment_0002_Geotechnical_Evaluation.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

PERSHING BARRACKS – 5th FLOOR ADDITION

UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

WEST POINT, NEW YORK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION ITEM PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Surficial Materials

5.2 Fill

5.3 Native Soils

5.4 Bedrock

5.5 Groundwater

5.6 Existing Foundations

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

7.0 SEISMIC SITE COEFFICIENTS AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL

8.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Building Foundations

9.2 Below Grade Walls

10.0 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA

10.1 General Site Preparation

10.2 Subgrade Preparation

10.3 Construction Dewatering and Protection of Subgrades

10.4 Fill and Backfill Materials

10.5 General Excavation and Shoring

11.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

12.0 LIMITATIONS

FIGURE 1 BORING AND TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX I BORING AND TEST PIT LOGS

APPENDIX II LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Tectonic has completed a subsurface investigation and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed 5th floor addition to the North Wing of Pershing Barracks in West Point, New York. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the North Wing of Pershing Barracks and to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed 5th floor addition. This report presents detailed information about the investigations, our findings, and recommendations.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The geotechnical investigation was performed for Atkins North America, Inc. (herein referred to as the Client). The scope of the geotechnical investigation consisted of the following:

Drilling, sampling, and logging of three (3) test borings to depths ranging from 10 to 27 feet below existing grades.

Excavation of three (3) test pits to depths ranging from 7 to 8.5 feet below existing grade, to evaluate existing foundation conditions.

Field inspection and supervision by a geotechnical engineer to locate the borings and test pits, log the subsurface conditions, and modify the subsurface investigation program as conditions warranted.

Performance of laboratory testing of soil samples to confirm field classifications and evaluate the engineering characteristics of the soils.

Geotechnical engineering analyses of the subsurface conditions as they relate to the design and construction of the proposed addition.

Preparation of this report presenting the results of the subsurface investigation, engineering analyses, and our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed addition.

3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project site is located on the campus of the United States Military Academy at West

Point in Orange County, New York. Pershing Barracks is a masonry bearing wall building with a below grade basement reportedly constructed in 1895 and renovated in the 1950’s.

The grading around the building is relatively flat, with an elevation of between +155 and

+157 feet based on the NAVD 1988 datum. The planned addition to the 5th floor will be constructed within the existing footprint of the building.

4.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

The subsurface investigation consisted of the drilling, sampling, and logging of three (3) test borings (identified as B-1 through B-3) and the excavation, sampling and logging of three

(3) tests pits (identified as Test Pits TP-1 through TP-3) along existing foundation walls.

The boring and test pit locations were determined on-site by measuring from existing site features. The test locations are shown on the attached Boring and Test Pit Location Plan, Figure 1.

The subsurface investigation was performed on October 27, 2015. The borings were drilled by General Borings, Inc. using a Diedrich D50 drill rig and advanced using 31/4-inch inside diameter hollow-stem augers. Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) and split-spoon sampling was generally performed continuously to a depth of 12 feet and at maximum 5-foot intervals, thereafter, using an automatic hammer. SPT and split spoon sampling was performed in accordance with the requirements of ASTM Standard D1586 “Standard Test

Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils”. Field SPT N-values were recorded for each sample taken and samples of the soils obtained by the split-spoon sampler were collected and retained in glass jars. As noted above, boring depths ranged from 10 to 27 feet below the existing ground surface. Rock coring was performed in boring

B-2 between the depths of 25 and 27 feet. The rock coring was performed using a 2-inch inside diameter double-tube rock coring barrel, with a diamond impregnated bit.

In addition to the borings, three (3) test pits were excavated along existing foundation walls by Green Meadows Enterprises, Inc., using a John Deere 60G track excavator. All excavation was conducted under the direct supervision of a Tectonic engineer who performed measurements of the foundations and logged the encountered soils. The test pits were excavated to depths sufficient to expose the bottoms of the exposed footings or to bucket refusal, whichever came first. The depths ranged from approximately 7 to 8.5 feet below existing grade.

Details of the results of the subsurface investigation are provided in Section 5 of this report.

Logs of the borings and test pits are included in Appendix I.

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The results of the subsurface investigation indicate that the site is underlain, in turn, by relatively thin layers of surficial treatments, such as topsoil and asphalt pavement, fill, and native glacial soils. The following subsections provide general descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered. More detailed descriptions are provided on the boring and test pit logs, included in Appendix II.

5.1 Surficial Materials

Topsoil was encountered in all borings and test pits, except boring B-3, where 12 inches of asphalt and gravel subbase was encountered. The topsoil was found to extend to a depth of approximately 6 inches below the existing ground surface.

Topsoil is typically a dark-colored soil containing roots, fibrous matter, and/or other organic components. It is generally unsuitable for engineering purposes, but may be suitable for landscaping. However, it should be noted that Tectonic has not performed any laboratory testing to determine the organic content or other horticultural properties of the observed “Topsoil” materials. Therefore, the term

“Topsoil” used within this report should not be confused with any topsoil materials that may be specified for the project and if a contractor wishes to use this materials for the project, it shall be their responsibility to have the material tested to verify that it fits project specifications or needs augmentation to do so.

The topsoil depths provided in this report are based on field observations and should be considered approximate. We note that the transition from topsoil to underlying materials may be gradual, and therefore, the observation and measurement of topsoil depths is subjective. Actual topsoil depths should be expected to vary across the site.

5.2 Fill

Fill was encountered within all of the borings and test pits. Within the borings, the fill was encountered to depths ranging from 4 to 5 feet below existing grade, while in the test pits, the fill extended to the total depth of excavation. The fill typically consisted of either brown coarse to fine sand or grey silt with varying amounts of gravel, cobbles and boulders, as well as construction debris, such as concrete and brick. The fill was likely re-worked native soils used for grading and backfilling purposes during construction of the existing buildings and associated site features.

SPT N-values ranged from 5 to 43 blows per foot (bpf) indicating loose to very dense conditions; however, the fill was generally in a dense condition.

5.3 Native Soils

Native glacial soils were encountered immediately below the fill in all borings and consisted of tan silt and brown coarse to fine sand with varying amounts of gravel.

Based on laboratory testing, silt contents ranged from approximately 19 to 48 percent. The layers were generally intermixed and SPT N-values ranged from 24 to

89 bpf indicating generally medium dense to very dense conditions throughout.

There was one sample in boring B-3 from a depth of 5 to 7 feet with an SPT N-value of 6 bpf, indicating a loose condition. Numerous cobbles and boulders were encountered in both the borings and the test pits. In boring B-1, large boulders were encountered from a depth of 10 feet to the termination depth of 14.5 feet.

5.4 Bedrock

Auger refusal occurred in the borings at depths ranging from 13 to 27 feet. The auger refusal is likely on cobbles and boulders and not bedrock. Large cobbles and boulders were encountered at a depth beginning at 10 feet in boring B-1 and were observed to the termination depth at 14.5 feet. In boring B-2, a large boulder was cored between a depth of 25 and 27 feet, evidenced by the core barrel “punching” through the material at a depth of 27 feet. No coring was performed in boring B-3;

however, auger refusal was encountered on an apparent boulder at a depth of 13 feet. In test pit TP-2 and TP-3, bucket refusal was encountered at depths of between

8.33 and 8.5 feet on apparent boulders. Numerous large cobbles and boulders were encountered in all test pits. Based on additional historical information provided by the client, bedrock is highly variable in the area and found generally greater than 15 feet below grade, and as deep as 40 feet below grade, in the area of the North Wing of

Pershing Barracks.

5.5 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered within any boring or test pit. Furthermore, no seepage was observed during the excavation of the three test pits, indicating that groundwater exists at a depth greater than 8.5 feet at the test pit locations. It should be noted, however, that groundwater levels fluctuate with changing seasonal and weather conditions. In addition, zones of perched water may exist above the measured groundwater depth following periods of precipitation, particularly in fills, which can be more permeable than the undisturbed fine grained native material.

5.6 Existing Foundations

The test pits were excavated along the exterior walls of the existing building, at the locations shown on Figure 1. The test pits were excavated to depths of between 7 and 8.5 feet below existing grades to expose the building foundation within each test pit. Basic information about the foundations encountered is provided in the Table

5.6-1.

Table 5.6-1: Test Pit Summary

Test Pit Number

Depth to Top of Footing

(feet)

Width of Footing Projection

Beyond Wall (in)

TP-1 7 8

TP-2 >8.5 NA

TP-3 >8.33 NA

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing was conducted on select samples to help confirm field classifications and evaluate the engineering properties of the soils. The laboratory testing consisted of four (4) gradation analyses. The laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D422. The laboratory test results are included in Appendix II of this report.

7.0 SEISMIC SITE COEFFICIENTS AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL

The following seismic recommendations are based on ASCE 7-10. Our scope of services did not include a seismic conditions survey to determine site-specific shear wave velocity information.

Based on the boring data, our knowledge of the local soils, and in general accordance with

ASCE 7-10, a Site Classification of “C” should be used to develop the project’s Seismic

Design Category for further evaluations relative to Earthquake Load design. Based on a site class “C” soil profile, the maximum spectral response accelerations at short periods (SmS) is equal to 0.277g and at a 1-second period (Sm1) is equal to 0.117g. The design spectral response accelerations (SDS and SD1) should be calculated based on these maximum values and the procedures outlined ASCE 7-10.

Liquefaction of soils can be caused by a strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils saturated by a shallow groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs when an earthquake and associated ground shaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain-to-grain contact due to a rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid for short periods. Based on the results of the borings and SPT sampling, the soils at the site should be considered as having a very low potential for liquefaction due to the relatively deep groundwater table, high soil relative density, and soil gradation.

8.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the subsurface investigation, the existing shallow foundations appear to bear on dense to very dense native soil within the footprint of the North Wing. It was difficult to determine if the foundations were bearing on rock based on information obtained from the test pits; however, the borings indicated that bedrock generally is deeper than the reported bearing elevations of the foundations. The main geotechnical issue affecting the project is the effect of the additional proposed loading on the existing soil/foundation system.

The first design concern is whether the soils can support the increased bearing pressure.

Assuming that the footings bear on the native dense glacial soils, the existing subgrade soil should be capable of an allowable bearing capacity of 8,875 pounds per square foot (psf).

The second design concern is the magnitude of settlement that will occur due to the increased loading. Based on the soil borings, Tectonic anticipates that most of the footings under the North Wing bear on dense native soil and therefore the anticipated total settlement from the additional loading is on the order of ¼ to ¾ inch. However, as the subsurface soils are very similar across the site, the amount of differential settlement is anticipated to be approximately one half of the total settlement.

Other general conclusions that can be drawn from the results of the investigation, laboratory testing and engineering analyses include the following:

It is assumed that no new foundation construction will be necessary; however, recommendations are provided below if any new construction is required.

Liquefaction of the site soils are not likely based on the soil density, fines content and the relatively deep groundwater table.

The soils found on site are generally not suitable for use as structural fill due to the high fines content (material passing the #200 sieve), but may be used for general fill outside the building area. These materials are moisture sensitive and should be at or near optimum moisture content when placed and compacted to achieve the specified degree of compaction and to provide a stable fill.

Construction delays should be anticipated if the on-site soils are proposed for use during wet weather.

Excavations should be feasible with conventional heavy-duty construction equipment; however, abundant cobbles and boulders should be expected.

Foundation subgrades should be protected from exposure to rain and seepage.

If footings are not cast on the same day as excavation occurs, then a working pad of crushed gravel should be placed beneath the foundations to allow for any required dewatering and to minimize potential disturbance of the subgrades. The working pad should be placed immediately after subgrade approval by the geotechnical engineer.

Based on the results of the subsurface investigation, groundwater will not likely impact foundation construction, if required.

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are based on the results of the subsurface investigation, geotechnical evaluations and Tectonic’s experience with similar sites in the immediate vicinity.

9.1 Building Foundations

If required, new foundation construction should be supported on continuous wall footings and/or isolated spread footings bearing directly on the undisturbed native soils, or on structural fill. Any new footings should be designed using a net allowable bearing pressure of 8,875 pounds per square foot (psf), when bearing directly upon undisturbed native glacial till or on a structural fill.

Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 3 feet and continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of 2 feet, when bearing on soil. Exterior footings should bear at least 3.5 feet below finished exterior grade for frost protection. Interior footings should bear at least 2 feet below the finished floor slab.

Subgrade preparation should be in accordance with Section 10.2 of this report.

Where boulders or bedrock are encountered at the planned foundation subgrade elevations, it is recommended that the rock be undercut by a minimum of at least one (1) foot. The undercut should subsequently be backfilled with compacted structural fill, as recommended in Section 10.4 of this report. If during excavation, a significant void (greater than 1 cubic yard in volume) is caused by the removal of a boulder, then the majority of the void may be backfilled with flowable fill, as specified for Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) in Section 204 of the NYSDOT

Standard Specifications, with the top foot backfilled with structural fill, as noted above.

Based on the observed conditions and the recommendations given above, we anticipate that total and differential settlements will be less than 1/2-inch and 1/4-inch, respectively. The differential settlement is estimated between isolated columns or over an approximate distance of 40 feet along continuous walls.

9.2 Below Grade Walls

Any new below grade walls should be designed in accordance with the following criteria:

Soil Parameter Structural Fill / Native Soils

Angle of internal friction (degrees)

At rest earth pressure Coefficient (Ko) (1,2) (restrained wall)

0.44

Passive earth pressure Coefficient (Kp) (3)

3.54

Coefficient of base friction (4)

Crushed Gravel subgrade Undisturbed native soil

0.45 0.30

Total unit weight of soil (pounds per cubic foot)

Notes:

1) Use for walls restrained against outward lateral movement including foundation walls.

2) An active earth pressure coefficient is not given because addition walls should not be allowed to rotate or translate.

3) Passive pressure should be neglected within the zone of frost penetration (3.5 feet).

4) Coefficient of base frictions applies to mass concrete placed directly against crushed stone or existing soils.

Additional loading due to temporary and permanent surcharges and slab dead and live loads should be added to the lateral load exerted onto walls by the backfill.

10.0 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA

The following sections present our recommendations regarding earthwork, excavations, and construction monitoring, if required.

10.1 General Site Preparation

Initially the site should be cleared of topsoil, surface obstructions, boulders, and vegetation. Any soft or unsuitable materials and subsurface obstructions should be removed from the zone of influence of the building foundations and disposed of at a legal disposal facility. Existing utilities within the project limits should be re-routed or protected from damage by construction equipment.

10.2 Subgrade Preparation

If loose soils are encountered at the proposed subgrade elevations or within the zone of influence of footing, they should be removed until a medium dense to dense soil subgrades are achieved. We recommend that all soil subgrades be proofrolled in the presence of a geotechnical engineer by making a minimum of 4 passes in 2 perpendicular directions with a vibratory smooth drum roller having a static weight of at least 10-tons. Proofrolling should not be performed in wet areas until they are dewatered and allowed to dry. Static (non-vibratory) compaction equipment should be used at any locations where the soil’s moisture content is above optimum.

Proofrolling soils that are too wet to compact will create more unstable conditions.

Any soil deemed unsuitable by the geotechnical engineer, or areas found to be soft during proofrolling, should be removed within the zone of influence of the foundation and replaced with properly compacted structural fill. The zone of influence is defined as a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane sloping downward and outward from the bottom edge of the footing. Within areas of limited access, proofrolling should be performed with a double-drum vibratory trench roller with a minimum static weight of 1.5 tons.

10.3 Construction Dewatering and Protection of Subgrades

The silty soils at the site will become readily disturbed when exposed to moisture.

Subgrades should be protected from the effects of frost, construction traffic, groundwater, and surface water. The necessary protection should be provided immediately subsequent to excavation and be maintained until placing fill or concrete. Temporary surface drainage measures are recommended to divert runoff away from the proposed construction limits.

If maintaining subgrade stabilization during periods of wet weather is a concern, crushed stone may be placed on pavement subgrades after subgrade approval by the geotechnical engineer. The crushed stone should be clean 3/4-inch gravel and not exceed 6 inches in thickness. The crushed stone should be compacted after placement to create a level bearing surface and to “seal” the subgrade.

Any required dewatering should be performed in a manner that will prevent loosening or migration of the subgrade soils. Methods such as placing sumps outside the excavation may be practical. Sumps should not be installed directly within the excavation.

10.4 Fill and Backfill Materials

Imported structural fill and backfill should consist of sand, gravel, crushed stone, or a mixture of these, and should contain no organic matter. The fill materials should contain no particles exceeding 4 inches in largest dimension and conform to the following gradation:

Sieve Size Percent Finer by Weight

4 inch 100 1/4 inch 30-70 No. 40 5-40

No. 200 0-10

Based on the high fines content measured within the on-site soils, it is not expected that they will meet the above requirements for structural fill. However, the on-site soils having a suitable moisture content, no material over approximately 4 inches in diameter, and no more than a trace amount of organic material may be used as general fill, if approved by the supervising geotechnical engineer.

All general fill and structural fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, at near optimum moisture contents, as determined by the modified Proctor test (ASTM Standard D1557). The degree of compaction should be tested and documented by a geotechnical engineer for each lift of fill. The lift thickness for the structural fill soils will vary depending on the type of compaction equipment used. Structural fill should generally be placed in uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness when using a 10-ton roller. In confined areas, the loose lift thickness should be 4 inches or less and each lift should be compacted with sufficient passes of hand operated vibratory or impact compaction equipment. Backfill in landscape areas should be compacted to at least 85 percent of the maximum dry density, at near optimum moisture contents, as determined by the modified proctor test (ASTM Standard D1557). A geotechnical engineer with appropriate field and laboratory support should inspect all embankment subgrades, approve materials for use as fill, and test backfill materials for compliance with the recommended compaction.

Material used for foundation drains and beneath floor slabs should meet the specification for Underdrain Filter Type I materials, as specified in the New York

State Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (Item 605.0901) as follows:

Sieve Size Percent Finer by Weight

1 inch 100 ½ inch 30-100 ¼ inch 0 – 30 No. 10 0 – 10 No. 20 0 – 5

10.5 General Excavation and Shoring

All excavations should conform to the latest OSHA requirements regarding worker safety. We recommend that the existing fill and undisturbed native soil be assumed to have the OSHA designation of Class C soils. All vertical cuts in soil greater than 4 feet in height should be sloped back for safety unless sheeting or a bracing system is used. Design of all shoring and bracing should be performed by a licensed

Professional Engineer.

11.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

A geotechnical engineer familiar with the existing subsurface conditions and having the appropriate laboratory and field testing support should be engaged by the Owner to observe that all earthwork, if required, is performed in accordance with the specifications and the design criteria outlined in this report.

The following work, if required, should be performed under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer:

Dewatering

Subgrade preparation

Proofrolling

Fill placement and compaction

All materials proposed for use as soil fill should be tested and approved prior to delivery to the site. Additionally, all fill materials should be tested as they are being placed to verify that the required compaction is achieved. We further recommend that the project plans and specifications be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant prior to final completion of the bid documents. It should be noted that upon review of those documents, some recommendations presented herein may be revised or modified.

12.0 LIMITATIONS

This report only addresses the design and construction of the proposed vertical expansion to Pershing Barracks in West Point, New York. It does not address the geotechnical stability or construction recommendations of cut or fill slopes, or the geotechnical conditions at other improvements or site features. If such features are included into the design of the facility, it is strongly recommended that the Client and the Client’s Agent request that

Tectonic evaluate these features for stability, design and construction.

Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar situations. The interpretation of the field data is based on good judgment and experience. However, no matter how qualified the geotechnical engineer or detailed the investigation, subsurface conditions cannot always be predicted beyond the points of actual sampling and testing. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report.

The recommendations contained in this report are intended for design purposes only.

Contractors and others involved in the construction of this project are advised to make an independent assessment of the soil, bedrock and groundwater conditions for the purpose of establishing quantities, schedules and construction techniques.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Atkins Northeast for the specific application to the proposed additions to the facilities at Pershing Barracks in West Point, New York. We recommend that prior to construction, Tectonic Engineering & Surveying

Consultants P.C. (Tectonic) review the project plans and specifications. It should be noted that upon review of those documents, some recommendations presented herein might be revised or modified. In the event that any changes in the design or location of the proposed structures are planned, Tectonic shall not consider the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report valid unless reviewed and verified in writing. It is further recommended that Tectonic be retained to provide construction monitoring and inspection services to ensure proper implementation of the recommendations contained herein, which would otherwise limit our professional liability.

MAS/MCC - G:\Newburgh\Geotechnical\7900\7980.01 Pershing Barracks Seismic\Report\7980.01 Pershing geoinv.doc

FIGURE I

X

BLDG

BLDG 745

B L D

G

FFE=158.3

F F

E

FFE=164.86

ABANDONED

WATER

MANHOLE

S

D x

S D x

S D x

S D x

EISENHOWER BARRACKS

156.3

149.3

150.40

158.77

149.48

JB 10883

SSMH 8677

I

N

A

C

T

I

V

E

S

T

O

R

M

S

Y

S

T

E

M

ASPHALT

PAVEMENT

GRANITE PAVER S/W

G R

A N

I T

E

P

A V

E R

S

W

W x

G x

E x

X

SD

x

SD

x

SD

x

SD

SD

x

SD

x

S D x

S D x

S D x

NOTES

LEGEND

APPENDIX I

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

ML

SM

SM

SM

M

M

M

M

M

50/3

6" Topsoil

Gy SILT, some f Sand (FILL)

Bwn c-f SAND, little Silt little c-f Gravel (construction debris) (FILL)

Tn c-f SAND, some c-f Gravel, little Silt

Cobble in tip of spoon

Tn c-f SAND, some c-f Gravel, little Silt

Drilled through boulders from 10' - 14.5'

Auger refusal @ 14.5'

End of Boring at 14.5'

0 See Remarks

INSPECTOR:

DRILLER:

DATUM:

DATE START:

DATE FINISH:

Scott Cohen

Tom McGovern

NOYES

10/27/15

10/27/15

POWER AUGER:

ROT. DRILL:

CASING:

DIAMOND CORE:

Truck Mounted Drill Rig with Automatic Hammer

3 1/4"

TEMP:

*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TO

TO

TO

TO

DATE TIME DEPTH

DEPTH

G R

O U

N D

W A

T E

R

X

DIA.

TO

Clear

MON. WELL

SCREEN DEPTH:

WEATHER:

DEPTH TO ROCK:

14.5'

METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING

155.5

49° F

General Borings, Inc.

UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH

D E

P T

H

F T

LE

N

G T

H (I

N

Atkins Group

Surface elevation based on survey provided by Client on 10/30/15

CONTRACTOR:

LI

T

H O

LO

G

Y

1 2 3 4 5

10 20 30 40 50

10 20 30 40 50

N O

R M

IN

./F

T

(TONS/FT)

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

STANDARD

PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)

Pershing BarracksPROJECT:

LOCATION:

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F T

West Point, NY

PROJECT No.

P E

N E

T R

A T

IO

N

R E

S

IS

T A

N C

E (B

L/

IN

S A

M P

LE

N

U M

B E

R

R Q

D

) U N

IF

IE

D

S O

IL

C

LA

S

S

DESCRIPTION

OF

MATERIAL

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

M O

IS

T

U R

E

SAMPLES

RECOV.

CLIENT:

SHEET No. 1 of 1

150.5

145.5

140.5

135.5

130.5

REMARKS:

7980.01 BORING No. B-1

TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING

CONSULTANTS P.C.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

0.

.G P

J T

E C

T O

N

IC

E N

G .G

D T

1/

6/

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

SP

SP

SP

ML

ML

SM

SM

ML

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

6" Topsoil Bwn c-f SAND, some Silt, little c-f Gravel (construction debris) (FILL)

Same (FILL)

Bwn m-f SAND, little c-f Gravel

Tn SILT, little m-f SAND

Tn SILT, little c-f Gravel

Bwn c-f SAND, some Silt, little c-f Gravel

Same

Tn SILT, trace f Gravel

See Remarks

INSPECTOR:

DRILLER:

DATUM:

DATE START:

DATE FINISH:

Scott Cohen

Tom McGovern

NOYES

10/27/15

10/27/15

POWER AUGER:

ROT. DRILL:

CASING:

DIAMOND CORE:

Truck Mounted Drill Rig with Automatic Hammer

3 1/4"

2'

TEMP:

*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TO

TO

TO

TO

DATE TIME DEPTH

DEPTH

G R

O U

N D

W A

T E

R

X

DIA.

TO

Clear

MON. WELL

SCREEN DEPTH:

WEATHER:

DEPTH TO ROCK:

25'

27'

METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING

156.8

53° F

General Borings, Inc.

UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH

D E

P T

H

F T

LE

N

G T

H (I

N

Atkins Group

Surface elevation based on survey provided by Client on 10/30/15

CONTRACTOR:

LI

T

H O

LO

G

Y

1 2 3 4 5

10 20 30 40 50

10 20 30 40 50

N O

R M

IN

./F

T

(TONS/FT)

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

STANDARD

PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)

Pershing BarracksPROJECT:

LOCATION:

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F T

West Point, NY

PROJECT No.

P E

N E

T R

A T

IO

N

R E

S

IS

T A

N C

E (B

L/

IN

S A

M P

LE

N

U M

B E

R

R Q

D

) U N

IF

IE

D

S O

IL

C

LA

S

S

DESCRIPTION

OF

MATERIAL

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

M O

IS

T

U R

E

SAMPLES

RECOV.

CLIENT:

SHEET No. 1 of 2

151.8

146.8

141.8

136.8

131.8

REMARKS:

7980.01 BORING No. B-2

TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING

CONSULTANTS P.C.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

0.

.G P

J T

E C

T O

N

IC

E N

G .G

D T

1/

6/

S-9

C-1

0 0

50+ 50/2 No Recovery 25' - 27' cored through 2' boulder, highly weathered Core barrel pushed through at 27 feet. Broing drilling stopped due to time Auger refusal @ 27'

End of Boring at 27'

General Borings, Inc.

UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH

D E

P T

H

F T

LE

N

G T

H (I

N

Atkins Group

Surface elevation based on survey provided by Client on 10/30/15

CONTRACTOR:

LI

T

H O

LO

G

Y

1 2 3 4 5

10 20 30 40 50

10 20 30 40 50

N O

R M

IN

./F

T

(TONS/FT)

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

STANDARD

PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)

Pershing BarracksPROJECT:

LOCATION:

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F T

West Point, NY

PROJECT No.

P E

N E

T R

A T

IO

N

R E

S

IS

T A

N C

E (B

L/

IN

S A

M P

LE

N

U M

B E

R

R Q

D

) U N

IF

IE

D

S O

IL

C

LA

S

S

DESCRIPTION

OF

MATERIAL

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

M O

IS

T

U R

E

SAMPLES

RECOV.

CLIENT:

SHEET No. 2 of 2

126.8

121.8

116.8

111.8

106.8

101.8

REMARKS:

7980.01 BORING No. B-2

TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING

CONSULTANTS P.C.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

0.

.G P

J T

E C

T O

N

IC

E N

G .G

D T

1/

6/

S-3

S-4

S-5

ML

ML

SM

SM

SM

M

M

M

M

M

12" Asphalt & subbase

Gy SILT, some c-f Gravel (FILL)

Same

Bwn c-f SAND, and Silt, trace f Gravel

Same

Bwn m-f SAND, some c-f Gravel

Auger refusal @ 13'

End of Boring at 13'

0 See Remarks

INSPECTOR:

DRILLER:

DATUM:

DATE START:

DATE FINISH:

Scott Cohen

Tom McGovern

NOYES

10/27/15

10/27/15

POWER AUGER:

ROT. DRILL:

CASING:

DIAMOND CORE:

Truck Mounted Drill Rig with Automatic Hammer

3 1/4"

TEMP:

*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TO

TO

TO

TO

DATE TIME DEPTH

DEPTH

G R

O U

N D

W A

T E

R

X

DIA.

TO

Clear

MON. WELL

SCREEN DEPTH:

WEATHER:

DEPTH TO ROCK:

13'

METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING

155.8

46° F

General Borings, Inc.

UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH

D E

P T

H

F T

LE

N

G T

H (I

N

Atkins Group

Surface elevation based on survey provided by Client on 10/30/15

CONTRACTOR:

LI

T

H O

LO

G

Y

1 2 3 4 5

10 20 30 40 50

10 20 30 40 50

N O

R M

IN

./F

T

(TONS/FT)

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

STANDARD

PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)

Pershing BarracksPROJECT:

LOCATION:

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F T

West Point, NY

PROJECT No.

P E

N E

T R

A T

IO

N

R E

S

IS

T A

N C

E (B

L/

IN

S A

M P

LE

N

U M

B E

R

R Q

D

) U N

IF

IE

D

S O

IL

C

LA

S

S

DESCRIPTION

OF

MATERIAL

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

M O

IS

T

U R

E

SAMPLES

RECOV.

CLIENT:

SHEET No. 1 of 1

150.8

145.8

140.8

135.8

130.8

REMARKS:

7980.01 BORING No. B-3

TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING

CONSULTANTS P.C.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

0.

.G P

J T

E C

T O

N

IC

E N

G .G

D T

1/

6/

COARSE GRAINED SOIL: (Coarser than No. 200 sieve)

DESCRIPTIVE TERM & GRAIN SIZE

TERM SAND GRAVEL

coarse - c No. 4 Sieve to No. 10 Sieve 3" to 3/4" medium - m No. 10 Sieve to No. 40 Sieve fine - f No. 40 Sieve to No. 200 Sieve 3/4" to 3/16"

COBBLES 3" to 10" BOULDERS 10" + none slight low medium high very high

DESCRIPTIVE TERM

trace little some and

COLOR:

U - Undisturbed Tube Sample

New York City Building Code soil classifications are given in parentheses at the end of each description of material, if applicable. See Sections 1804.2 of the 2008 Building Code for further details.

ADDITIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS:

GRADATION DESIGNATIONS PROPORTIONS OF COMPONENT

coarse to medium, c-m less than 10% fine coarse, c Less than 10% medium and fine fine, f Less than 10% coarse to medium medium to fine, m-f Less than 10% coarse medium, m Less than 10% coarse and fine coarse to fine, c-f All greater than 10%

FINE GRAINED SOIL: (Finer than No. 200 Sieve)

DESCRIPTION PLASTICITY INDEX PLASTICITY

Silt 0 - 1 Clayey Silt 2 - 5 Silt & Clay 6 - 10 Clay & Silt 11 - 20 Silty Clay 21 - 40 Clay greater than 40

PROPORTION:

PERCENT OF SAMPLE WEIGHT

1 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 35 35 - 50

Dk - dark

SAMPLE NOTATION:

The primary component is fully capitalized

Blue - blue Gy - gray Wh - white Blk - black Or - orange Yl - yellow

Bwn - brown Rd - red Lgt - light

WOH - Weight of Hammer B - Bulk Soil Sample PPR - Compressive Strength based on

Gn - green Tn - tan

WOR - Weight of Rods C - Core Sample

S - Split Spoon Soil Sample WOC - Weight of Casing

LEGEND FOR SOIL DESCRIPTION

NR - No Recovery of Sample Pocket Pentrometer TV - Shear Strength (tsf) based on Torvane

TECTONIC

W.O. No. Date: 10/27/2015

Project:

Location:

Client: Depth to Seepage: NE Inspector:

Contractor: Depth to Groundwater:NE Surface Elevation:

Equipment: Depth to Bedrock: NE Datum:

6"

M SP

2'

M SP

8" 7' sparse:

few:

many:

(FILL)

Bwn m-f SAND, little c-f Gravel, trace Silt, large boulders (FILL)

Spread footing

Topsoil, Grass

Atkins Group

10/30/15.

Top of footing assumed bearing

Surface elevation based on survey provided by the Client on some: 20-35% and: 35-50%

Boulder: 10"(+)

Cobble: 3-10"

Gravel: 3/16"-3"

Sand: No.200 Sieve-3/16"

Silt/Clay: No.200 Sieve (-)

Green Meadows Enterprises Inc.

Pershing Barracks

West Point, NY trace: 0-10% little: 10-20%

Pershing Barracks

PARTICLE PROPORTION

(800) 829-6531

7980.01

REMARKS

U n if ie d S o il

C la s s if ic a ti o nSAMPLES

Eastern Face

(boulders & cobbles)

0-10%

10-35%

TEST PIT

See Remarks

Scott Cohen

TP-1

35-65%

SIZE (exclusive of boulders & cobbles)

S a m p le

N

M o is tu re

MOISTURE

D: dry

M: moist

W: wet

PROPORTION

John Deere 60G Track Excavator

S tr a ta

C h a n g e

(f t.

)DESCRIPTION

OF

MATERIAL

Bwn c-f SAND, trace Silt bricks, boulders/cobbles

Bottom of Test Pit @ 7' on soil

Size of Test Pit

2' W x 4' L x 7' D

CON118-7/01

Location:

Client: Depth to Seepage: NE Inspector:

Contractor: Depth to Groundwater:NE Surface Elevation:

Equipment: Depth to Bedrock: NE Datum:

Topsoil, grass

0.5'

M SM

6'

M SP

8' 6" sparse:

few:

many:

Pershing Barracks

Northern face, northwest corner of building

7980.01 TEST PIT

Pershing Barracks

TP-2

West Point, NY

(800) 829-6531

Atkins Group Scott Cohen

Green Meadows Enterprises Inc. 156.75 John Deere 60G Track Excavator See Remarks

SAMPLES

U n if ie d S s s if ic a ti o n

S tr a ta

C h a n

S a m

M o is tu re

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

OF

MATERIAL

Size of Test Pit

Bwn m-f SAND, some Silt, little c-f Gravel, bricks, 6' W x 3' L x 8' 6" D cobbles

Bwn m-f SAND, trace Silt boulders

Surface elevation based on survey provided by the Client on

Bucket refusal on apparent boulder at 8' 6". 10/30/15.

End of Test Pit @ 8' 6"

Adjacent boring shows rock between

10' and 25'

No visible projection observed

PARTICLE PROPORTION PROPORTION

MOISTURE

SIZE (exclusive of boulders & cobbles)

W: wet

(boulders & cobbles)

Boulder: 10"(+) Sand: No.200 Sieve-3/16" trace: 0-10% 0-10% D: dry and: 35-50%

Cobble: 3-10" Silt/Clay: No.200 Sieve (-) little: 10-20% 10-35% M: moist

Gravel: 3/16"-3" some: 20-35% 35-65%

Location:

Client: Depth to Seepage: NE Inspector:

Contractor: Depth to Groundwater:NE Surface Elevation:

Equipment: Depth to Bedrock: NE Datum:

0.6"

M SM

6'

M SP

8' 4" sparse:

few:

many:

Pershing Barracks

Northern face, northwest corner

7980.01 TEST PIT

Pershing Barracks

TP-3

West Point, NY

(800) 829-6531

Atkins Group Scott Cohen

Green Meadows Enterprises Inc. 156.75 John Deere 60G Track Excavator See Remarks

SAMPLES

U n if ie d S s s if ic a ti o n

S tr a ta

C h a n

S a m

M o is tu re

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

OF

MATERIAL

Topsoil, grass

Size of Test Pit

Bwn c-f SAND, some Silt little c-f Gravel, bricks, cobbles (FILL)

6' W x 2' L x 8' 4" D

Bwn m-f SAND, trace Silt boulders (FILL)

Surface elevation based on survey provided by the Client on

End of Test Pit @ 8' 4" 10/30/15.

Bucket refusal @ 8' 4" on apparent boulders

Adjacent boring shows rock deeper than 25'

No visible projection observed

PARTICLE PROPORTION PROPORTION

MOISTURE

SIZE (exclusive of boulders & cobbles) (boulders & cobbles)

Boulder: 10"(+) Sand: No.200 Sieve-3/16" trace: 0-10% 0-10% D: dry

Cobble: 3-10" Silt/Clay: No.200 Sieve (-) little: 10-20% 10-35% M: moist

Gravel: 3/16"-3" some: 20-35% 35-65% W: wet and: 35-50%

APPENDIX II

0.0010.010.1110100

Tn c-f SAND, some c-f Gravel, little Silt

Bwn c-f SAND, some Silt, little c-f Gravel

Bwn c-f SAND, some Silt, little c-f Gravel

Bwn c-f SAND, and Silt, trace f Gravel

10 14

8.0

2.0

10.0

5.0

Boring

Boring

Boring

Boring

HYDROMETER

40 200

8.0

2.0

10.0

5.0

Classification

S-5

S-2

S-6

S-3

S-5

S-2

S-6

S-3

B-1

B-2

B-2

B-3

37.5

37.5

37.5

18.8

23.7

20.8

47.8 coarse

2.678

0.631

1.365

0.125

0.304

0.107

0.162 coarse

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

B-1

B-2

B-2

B-3

3 81.5

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

3/4

SILT OR CLAY

4 60

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

33/8 5030

GRAVEL

SAND

COBBLES

medium

6 2 fine

1/2 20 fine

53.7

61.8

59.8

48.3

27.5

14.5

19.4

3.9

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

LL PL PI Cc CuSample Identification WC%

Source of MaterialSample Identification %ClayD100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay%Clay

4.2

9.9

4.1

18.7

Project No: 7980.01 Date: 11/3/15

Project: Pershing Barracks

Location: West Point, NY

280 Little Britain Rd Newburgh, NY 12550 Telephone: (845) 563-9081 Fax: (845) 563-9085

TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING

CONSULTANTS P.C.

G R

A

IN

S

IZ

E D

IS

T

R

IB

U T

IO

N

0.

.G P

J T

E C

T O

N

IC

E N

G .G

D T

1/

3/

B-1 8.0 S-5 Tn c-f SAND, some c-f Gravel, little Silt

27.5 53.7 18.8

B-2 2.0 S-2 Bwn c-f SAND, some Silt, little c-f Gravel

14.5 61.8 23.7

B-2 10.0 S-6 Bwn c-f SAND, some Silt, little c-f Gravel

19.4 59.8 20.8

B-3 5.0 S-3 Bwn c-f SAND, and Silt, trace f Gravel

3.9 48.3 47.8

Summary of Laboratory Results

Boring

Depth (Ft.)

% Fines

Sample

% Gravel % Sand

Water Content

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

Penetro -meter (tsf)

Torvane (tsf)

Dry Density

(pcf)

Organic Content pHUSCS

Specimen Description

Project No: 7980.01 Date: 11/3/15

Project: Pershing Barracks

Location: West Point, NY

280 Little Britain Rd Newburgh, NY 12550 Telephone: (845) 563-9081 Fax: (845) 563-9085

TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING

CONSULTANTS P.C.

S U

M M

A R

Y O

F L

A B

B O

R

IN

G S

.0

1.

G

P J

T E

C T

O N

IC

E

N G

.G D

T

1/ 3/

Practical Solutions, Exceptional Service

CORPORATE OFFICE: New York

(800) 829-6531 www.tectonicengineering.com

Regional Offices Albany, NY Hartford, CT Richmond, VA

BRANCH OFFICES: Located in principal cities throughout the United States