Appendix_B_-_B2319_Geotechnical_Investigations.pdf

KC-46A Beddown, Building 2319 BOT/WST

Geotechnical Report

Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst Contract No: W912ER-14-D-003/TO W912DS18F0012

Document # 695847-GEO-001 Revision A Draft Submittal 27 June 2018

S U B S U R F A C E G E O T E C H N I C A L I N V E S T I G A T I O N R E P O R T

J O I N T B A S E M C G U I R E ‐ D IX ‐ L A K E H U R S T KC ‐ 4 6 A B E D D O W N

A L T E R A T I O N T O B U I L D I N G 2 3 1 9 F O R B O O M O P E R A T E D T R A I N E R

Prepared for

US Army Corps of Engineers

Contract Number: W912ER‐14‐D‐0003 Task Number: W912DS18F0012

Document Number: 695847‐GEO‐001

June 27th, 2018

22 Cortlandt St., New York, NY 10007 Tel + 1 212 608 3990 Fax + 1 212 566 5059

Contents Section Page

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... i

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1‐1

2. Site Description ............................................................................................................................. 2‐1

3. Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 3‐1

3.1 General .............................................................................................................................. 3‐1

3.2 Building 2319 ....................................................................................................................3‐1

4. Site Investigation ........................................................................................................................... 4‐1

4.1 General .............................................................................................................................. 4‐1

4.2 Geotechnical Test Borings ............................................................................................... 4‐1

5. Geology and Seismicity .................................................................................................................. 5‐1

5.1 Area Geology .....................................................................................................................5‐1

5.2 Seismic data ..................................................................................................................... 5‐1

6. Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................................... 6‐1

6.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 6‐1

6.2 Subsurface Profile ............................................................................................................ 6‐1

6.2.1 Stratum 1 – Upper Granular Soil Deposit ........................................................... 6‐1

6.2.2 Stratum 2 – Silty Sand/Sandy Silt ........................................................................ 6‐2

6.2.3 Stratum 3 –Lower Granular Deposit ................................................................... 6‐2

6.3 Historical Subsurface Investigation .................................................................................. 6‐2

6.4 Groundwater .................................................................................................................... 6‐3

7. Laboratory testing ......................................................................................................................... 7‐1

7.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 7‐1

7.2 Physical Properties ........................................................................................................... 7‐1

7.3 Chemical Properties ......................................................................................................... 7‐1

8. Geotechnical Design Parameters ................................................................................................... 8‐1

8.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 8‐1

8.2 Developed Soil Profile ...................................................................................................... 8‐1

9. Foundation Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 9‐1

9.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 9‐1

9.2 Shallow foundations ....................................................................................................... 9‐1

9.2.1 Shallow Spread Footings ..................................................................................... 9‐2

9.2.2 Floor Slab ............................................................................................................ 9‐5

9.3 Lateral Earth pressure ...................................................................................................... 9‐5

9.4 Site Development............................................................................................................. 9‐6

10. Construction Recommendations ................................................................................................. 10‐1

10.1 Excavation ....................................................................................................................... 10‐1

10.2 Fill, backfill, and compaction requirements .................................................................... 10‐1

10.2.1 Structural Fill (On‐Site Excavated Soils) ............................................................. 10‐1

10.2.2 Structural Fill (Imported Soils) ........................................................................... 10‐1

10.2.3 Compaction ........................................................................................................ 10‐1

10.2.4 Dewatering.......................................................................................................... 10‐2

10.2.5 Inspection ........................................................................................................... 10‐2

Appendix A‐ Boring Logs

Appendix B‐ Laboratory Test Results

Appendix C‐ Historical Boring Logs

Appendix D‐ Existing Building 2319 Structural Drawings i

Executive Summary CH2M, Inc. (CH2M) has been retained by US Army Corps of Engineers (Client) to provide design services to alter Building 2319 for Boom Operated Trainer, located at McGuire AFB in Burlington County, NJ. As part of the scope of work, this subsurface geotechnical investigation was conducted. Building 2319 is an existing flight simulator facility, however, the structure currently does not have available space for new training equipment unique to the KC‐46 aircraft. Renovation and addition to the existing structure is required to accommodate the new equipment.

McGuire AFB and the US Army Corps of Engineers are planning on altering Building 2319 and constructing an addition to house two Boom Operator Trainers (BOT) and two Weapon System Trainers (WST) in support of the KC‐46A beddown at Joint Base McGuire‐Dix‐Lakehurst (JBMDL).

As part of the Building 2319 alteration project, a subsurface geotechnical investigation was performed to determine the nature and competency of the subsurface materials. Evaluations were completed with respect to foundation support.

The general scope of work for the current project consists of the construction of new reinforced concrete foundations and floor slab, brick veneer and metal roof. This alteration will include housing of equipment and addition to the northern part of the building.

The geotechnical investigation consisted of two borings performed outside the existing building on the eastern and western ends. The investigation disclosed subsurface conditions consisting of loose to medium dense sand, underlain by very loose to loose silty sand/sandy silt, overlying medium dense sand.

The existing structural drawings of the building revealed the structure is supported on shallow foundations; details of the foundations are provided in Appendix D.

The existing building is supported on shallow foundations. Analyses results are presented showing the expected settlements for a variety of shallow foundation sizes with varying bearing pressures, ranging up to 3,000 psf. This information is to be used to assess the settlement magnitudes that have occurred for the current structure, and the additional settlements that can be expected as a result of the construction of the building addition. If expected total and differential settlements are less than one inch, and ½ inch, respectively, then no modification would be required to the foundations in order to accommodate the proposed structure. However, if it is determined that excessive settlement can be expected, then modification or enlargement of the existing building foundations will be required. Shallow foundation ii modification, if required, should be constructed at the same level as the existing building foundations.

The floor slab, or portions of the slab, will be required to be removed in order to access the building foundations. For the replacement foundation slab, a coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction of 100 kcf is recommended. The floor slab subgrade should include a 6‐inch (minimum) layer of crushed stone.

Excess excavated site soils are, in general, suitable for use as Structural Fill. Structural Fill may also consist of imported, well graded, granular soils. Compaction of the subgrades for foundations and the basement floor slab are required.

1‐1

1. Introduction CH2M, Inc. (CH2M) has been retained by US Army Corps of Engineers (Client) to provide design services for the alteration of Building 2319, located at Joint Base McGuire‐Dix‐Lakehurst (JB MDL), Burlington

County, NJ. As part of the scope of work, a subsurface geotechnical investigation was conducted.

McGuire AFB and the US Army Corps of Engineers are planning on altering Building 2319 and construct an addition to house two Boom Operator Trainers (BOT) and two Weapon System Trainers (WST) in support of the KC‐46A beddown at the JB MDL. Alteration work will include necessary reconfiguration of Building

2319 to enable installation of BOT and WST equipment. The project includes construction of an addition to the existing building, relocation of a parking lot and ancillary pavements, site improvements, and all other support work necessary to make a complete and useable facility.

CH2M performed a geotechnical investigation, with the assistance of Unitech Drilling (Unitech), to evaluate the subsurface conditions as they pertain to foundation support and installation. The investigation consisted of geotechnical soil test borings, and soil laboratory testing.

This report has been prepared to present the results of the subsurface geotechnical investigation performed at the site. The investigation established the engineering and construction characteristics of the subsurface materials encountered, and allowed for the determination of optimum foundation types.

The results obtained from the field investigation are addressed in the report.

The site and project descriptions are presented in Sections 2 and 3, respectively. A description of the site investigation is presented in Section 4. The geology and seismicity of the site area is provided in Section

5. Section 6 contains a description of the subsurface conditions at the site, while the laboratory testing conducted is discussed in Section 7. The geotechnical design parameters are presented in Section 8.

Foundation recommendations are provided in Section 9, and construction recommendations are presented in Section 10. The appendices to this Subsurface Geotechnical Investigation Report, consisting of the test boring logs, laboratory testing results, historical boring logs and existing building structural drawings are provided at the end of this report

2‐1

2. Site Description The project site, consisting of an existing flight simulator facility, is located in Central New Jersey, specifically within McGuire AFB, Burlington County, New Jersey. The JB MDL has more than 20 miles with more than 42,000 contiguous acres and is located 18 miles southeast of Trenton.

Figure 2‐1 provides a vicinity plan of the site area, while Figure 2‐2 provides an aerial view of the site.

Figure 2‐1: Vicinity Map

Site Location

2‐2

Figure 2‐2: Site Aerial View

Site Location

3‐1

3. Project Description

3.1 General

The project consists of altering Building 2319 and constructing an addition to house two Boom Operator

Trainers (BOT) and two Weapon System Trainers (WST) in support of the KC‐46A beddown at Joint Base

McGuire‐Dix‐Lakehurst (JB MDL). Alteration work will include necessary reconfiguration of Building 2319 to enable installation of BOT and WST equipment. The project includes relocation of a parking lot and ancillary pavements, site improvements, and all other support work necessary to make a complete and useable facility.

The general scope of work for the current project consists of the construction of reinforced concrete foundations and floor slabs, brick veneer and metal roof. This alteration will include housing of equipment and addition to the northern part of the building.

3.2 Building 2319

The project consists of alteration of Building 2319 to enable installation of BOT and WST equipment, and will also include an addition to existing structure. Figure 3‐1, 3‐2, and 3‐3 show the foundation plan of the existing building with the proposed alteration and addition.

3‐2

Figure 3‐1: Foundation Plan of Northern Portion of Existing Building 2319

Figure 3‐2: Foundation Plan of the Southern Portion of Building 2319

3‐3

Figure 3‐3: Alteration and Addition to Building 2319

4‐1

4. Site Investigation

4.1 General

A geotechnical field investigation was conducted at Building 2319 for Boom Operated Trainer by Unitech

Drilling, on May 15, 2018. CH2M provided oversight during the field geotechnical drilling activities. The associated soil testing was conducted from May 15, through May 30, 2018.

The field investigation included the advancement of two (2) test borings, for geotechnical purposes. The two borings were advanced outside the western and eastern ends of the existing structure, to depths of

42 feet below ground surface; the borings extended through the overburden soils and were terminated in the underlying sand deposit.

4.2 Geotechnical Test Borings

Two test borings were advanced outside the existing building on the western (M‐1) and eastern (M‐2) end of the site. Boring M‐1 was advanced on the landscape area to the west of the existing building, and

Boring M‐2 was advanced in the parking lot next to the existing structure on the eastern side. The two test borings were advanced to depth of 42 feet below ground surface. Test boring locations are shown on Figure 4‐1.

Figure 4‐1 Boring Location Plan

M‐ M‐

4‐3

All test borings were advanced using hollow stem auger techniques with a CME‐75 drill rig. Soil samples were obtained via a 24‐inch split‐spoon sampler (2‐in., O.D., 1‐3/8‐in. I.D.), driven by a 140‐lb. automatic hammer free falling 30 in. The number of blows was recorded per 6 inches for the two‐foot split‐spoon length. The number of blows required for penetration of the middle 12 inches of the sampler is the

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N‐value (blows per foot). The SPT’s were completed in accordance with

ASTM D1586. Standard Penetration Tests were performed continuously in the upper 12 ft. of each boring, and at 5 ft. intervals thereafter. SPT N‐values recorded on the boring logs are uncorrected for the overburden pressure. Split‐spoon samples were visually classified in the field by the CH2M Field Engineer, and verified by the soils laboratory testing.

The boreholes were grouted after completion of the drilling work, and the site conditions were restored to its original conditions. Geotechnical test boring logs are presented in Appendix A.

5‐1

5. Geology and Seismicity

5.1 Area Geology

The geology at JB MDL consists of interbedded sediments of sand, silt, and clay deposited in marine and coastal environments during the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods (1 million to 1.8 million years before present). Fluctuating sea levels during these periods alternately exposed and submerged coastal areas, causing broad distribution of finer materials along the continental shelf. The sediments are loosely consolidated and are not resistant to erosion, resulting in minor topographic relief across the Coastal Plain

(NJDEP 1999). The surface geology at JB MDL and the Project Area is dominated by the Cohansey and

Kirkwood formations. The Cohansey formation, which underlies most of the installation, is a white to yellow medium‐grained quartz sand with local gravel and clay deposits. The Kirkwood formation consists of clay and clay‐silt mudrock with massive sand and thin pebble lenses (Owens et al. 1998). Sands of the

Cohansey and Kirkwood formation are easily weathered.

5.2 Seismic data

The 2010 ASCE‐7 provides maximum considered earthquake spectral accelerations and criteria to determine the Site Class of the subsoil. Based on ASCE‐7, the following parameters are to be used for seismic design:

The short period (Ss) acceleration = 0.203g

The 1‐second period (S1) acceleration = 0.06g

Site Class: Class D, Stiff Soil

In addition, the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) at the site was evaluated based on USGS maps to be

0.117g.

For the alteration of Building 2319, seismic design should be based on response spectrum evaluated from the parameters provided above.

5‐2

Figure 5‐1: USGS Report for Seismic Design Parameters

6‐1

6. Subsurface Conditions

6.1 General

Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered are recorded on the individual test boring logs included in

Appendix A. The information presented includes sample position, blow counts per six inches, SPT N‐value, water level, and classification of individual samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification

System (USCS). Soil classification symbols in accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (USCS –

ASTM D2487), are also presented for each sample on the boring logs. A general description of the soil materials encountered at the site is provided hereinafter.

The existing Flight Simulator Facility will be altered, and additions will be undertaken to existing structure.

Two geotechnical borings were performed outside the existing building on the western and eastern end, in order to determine the subsurface soils conditions.

Boring M‐1 advanced on the western end of the site was performed on the landscape area, and Boring

M‐2 advanced on eastern end, was performed on the parking lot. Underlying the surficial materials, three distinct layers were encountered; these layers are described in the following section. For locations of the test borings, refer to Figure 4‐1 – Boring Location Plan.

6.2 Subsurface Profile

Three distinct layers were encountered and are described in order of increasing depth. Surficial material at Boring M‐1 consists of 3” topsoil, and at Boring M‐2, a 6” pavement was encountered.

6.2.1 Stratum 1 – Upper Granular Soil Deposit

This stratum was encountered in both Borings M‐1 and M‐2, immediately beneath the surficial material, and extended to depths ranging between 11 ft. to 15 ft. beneath the existing ground surface.

The material generally consisted of light brown to orange brown fine to medium sand, with varying amounts of silt and gravel. Based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), this material is classified as SP, SP‐SM, SW‐SM and SM. Based on SPT N‐values this material mostly has a loose to medium dense relative density. Moisture content testing conducted on representative samples of this material indicated values ranging from 10.5% to 21.6%. Gradation analyses indicated that the silt component in these materials is abundant, reaching approximately 50% in some of the samples. pH testing performed on this layer indicated a value ranging from 5.7 and 5.8. Laboratory resistivity testing showed a value ranging from 7,300 ohm‐cm to 410,000 ohm‐cm.

6‐2

6.2.2 Stratum 2 – Silty Sand/Sandy Silt

This stratum was encountered in both the borings, beneath the soils of Stratum 1, and extends to depths ranging from 35 ft. to 40 ft. below existing ground surface. This soil stratum consists of dark gray fine to medium silty sand or sandy silt, with varying amounts of fine gravel. Based on USCS, these soils are classified as SM or ML. Based on SPT N‐values these soils have a very loose to loose relative density.

Moisture content testing conducted on a representative sample from this layer indicated a value ranging from 15.8% to 37.1%. Atterberg limit testing performed on this layer showed Liquid Limit varying from

26% to 36%, and plasticity index to be ranging from 6% and 15%.

6.2.3 Stratum 3 –Lower Granular Deposit

Stratum 3 was encountered at depths ranging from 35 ft. to 40 ft. Both test borings were terminated within this stratum at 42 ft. below existing ground surface. The soil in this stratum predominantly consists of dark gray poorly graded fine to medium sand. Based on USCS, these soils are classified as SP or SM.

Based on SPT N‐values these soils have loose to medium dense relative density.

The detailed boring logs are included in Appendix A.

6.3 Historical Subsurface Investigation

A historical subsurface investigation performed on March 1990, by Whitman, Requardt and Associates for the Proposed Flight Simulator Addition (Building 2319) was reviewed to aid in the preparation of this report. Figure 6‐1 shows the Boring Location Plan for the subsurface investigation. Seven (7) deep borings and five (5) shallow borings were performed as part of this investigation. The deep borings were terminated at 20 feet below ground surface. The subsurface profile consists of medium dense sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel, underlain by loose sandy silt. The shallow borings were terminated at

6 feet below ground surface. The subsurface profile in these shallow borings consisted of loose to medium dense sand with varying amount of silt and gravel. The groundwater was only encountered in the deep borings and varied from 8 feet to 10 feet below ground surface. The detailed historical boring logs have been included in Appendix C.

6‐3

Figure 6‐1: Boring Location for Subsurface Investigation undertaken on March 1991

6.4 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 9 feet beneath ground surface at Boring M‐1 and at a depth of 18 feet BGS in Boring M‐2.

Actual groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate with the daily and seasonally climatic conditions.

Perched groundwater may be encountered in shallow excavations especially if construction commences after a rainy season and/or heavy rainfall. Perched groundwater, if encountered during construction, may be controlled using conventional sump pump techniques.

7‐1

7. Laboratory testing

7.1 General

Representative soil samples collected from the subsurface geotechnical investigation were subjected to the following testing:

Moisture Content (ASTM D2216)

Gradation Analyses (ASTM D422)

Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) pH (ASTM G51)

Resistivity (ASTM G57)

The tests were conducted in order to develop the soil characteristics; including the physical properties.

Geotechnical soil laboratory testing results are presented in Appendix B.

7.2 Physical Properties

Physical properties testing or classification testing was conducted on representative soil samples. This testing included moisture content, Atterberg limit testing and gradation analyses. These tests were conducted on the soils of all the strata that were encountered on‐site, and were performed to aid in the classification.

7.3 Chemical Properties

Chemical properties testing was performed on representative samples from Stratum 1. This testing included pH and Resistivity.

8‐1

8. Geotechnical Design Parameters

8.1 General

The subsurface geotechnical data collected from the existing Building 2319 Geotechnical Investigation was utilized to develop a typical subsurface profile for geotechnical design. A single profile was developed from the two borings.

8.2 Developed Soil Profile

Stratum 1 – Upper Sand Deposit (From ground surface to a depth of 15 feet BGS)

ϒ= 110 lb/ft3; ϒ’= 47.6 lb/ft3

= 32o

Stratum 2 – Silty Sand/Sandy Silt (From depth of 15 feet BGS to 35 feet BGS)

ϒ= 100 lb/ft3; ϒ’=37.6 lb/ft3

= 28o

Stratum 3 – Lower Sand Deposit (From depth of 35 feet to 42 feet BGS)

ϒ= 110 lb/ft3; ϒ’= 47.6 lb/ft3

= 32o

9‐1

9. Foundation Recommendations

9.1 General

For satisfactory performance, the foundation of any structure must satisfy two independent design criteria:

It must have an acceptable factor of safety against a bearing type failure under maximum design loads.

Settlement during the life of the structure must not be of a magnitude that will cause structural damage, or impair the operational efficiency of the facility.

Selection of a foundation type to satisfy these criteria depends on the nature and magnitude of the structural loads, and the settlement tolerances. Where more than one foundation type satisfies these criteria, then cost, scheduling and material availability will have an influence on, or determine, the final selection of the type of foundation.

The subsurface geotechnical investigation at the existing Building 2319 has indicated that the subsurface conditions beneath basement floor slab consist of loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand, underlain by very loose, fine to medium silty sand, caused by deposition in marine and coastal environments during the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods.

For the support of the alteration of Building 2319 to accommodate BOT and WST equipment, shallow foundations supported within Stratum 1 – Upper Sand Deposit may be utilized. The current structure is supported on shallow foundations placed within Stratum 1. The current shallow foundations may be found to be adequate for support of the renovated structure’s loads, or possibly, might have to be reconstructed and increased in size in order to accommodate the additional loads that will be applied to the foundation system.

Recommendations for shallow foundations are presented in the following sections.

9.2 Shallow foundations

The existing Building 2319 structure is supported on shallow foundations placed within Stratum 1 – Upper

Sand Deposit. The current shallow foundations may be found to be adequate for support of the renovated structure’s loads, or possibly, might have to be reconstructed and increased in size. Additional shallow

9‐2 footings may be constructed to accommodate the additional loads that will be applied to the foundation system, or for the new addition to the building.

9.2.1 Shallow Spread Footings

The site soils of Stratum 1 – Upper Sand Deposit can provide adequate support for conventional shallow footing type foundations. It is recommended that foundations be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The current structure’s foundations are below the floor slab, and the minimum 30 inches depth below final finished grade required for frost protection, is already met. The foundation for the addition should be constructed at the same level as the existing shallow foundations.

The current structure’s foundations may have to be increased to accommodate the additional loads that will be applied on the foundations. In general, wall foundations should have a width of not less than 1.5 ft., and column foundations should have a width of not less than 3 ft.; these minimum requirements are necessary as a safeguard against local shear failure of the foundations. Should the current foundations be increased in size, all foundation subgrades must be inspected by a Geotechnical Engineer prior to foundation construction, to confirm the design bearing pressure.

The estimated settlements for square footings 3 feet, 4 feet and 30 feet in width, with bearing pressure

3000 psf, 3000 psf, and 1000 psf, respectively, are shown in Figure 9‐1, 9‐2 and 9‐3.

Since the subsurface conditions consist mostly of granular soils, the estimated settlements provided in

Figures 9‐1, 9‐2, and 9‐3, are elastic in nature and expected to occur instantaneously as foundation load is applied. Figures 9‐1, 9‐2, and 9‐3 can be used to estimate the settlement that has occurred previously due to construction of the original structure, as a result of the currently applied foundation pressures, and also, to determine the magnitude of the additional settlements that can be expected as a result of the additional foundation pressure due to the proposed renovation. If this evaluation indicates that expected total and differential settlements are greater than 1 in. and ½ in., respectively, then consideration needs to be given to increasing the size of current foundations.

9‐3

Figure 9‐1: Estimated Square Footing (3 ft x 3 ft) Settlement

Figure 9‐2: Estimated Square Footing (4 ft x 4 ft) Settlement

9‐4

Figure 9‐3: Estimated Simulator Foundation Settlement

Should the existing foundations need to be increased in size, it is recommended that excavation to current foundation bottom be performed, without undermining the foundations. After compaction of the subgrade soils at existing foundation level, extension to the existing foundations may be constructed.

Reinforcement should be drilled and grouted into the existing foundations, tying the foundation additions to the existing foundations. Additionally, it is recommended that the shallow foundation should be constructed at minimum depth of 30” from the finished floor to avoid frost accumulation below the bottom of the footing.

9‐5

9.2.2 Floor Slab

Figure 9‐4: Frost Penetration (in inches) based upon State Avearge

If the existing structure’s foundations are altered to accommodate the additional loads applied by the renovated structure, the existing floor slab, or portion of the slab will need to be removed to allow for access to the existing foundations. The replacement floor slab, or the new addition floor slab, should be designed as a slab‐on‐grade. The slab on grade should be supported on a six‐inch (minimum) thick layer of crushed stone. If the entire slab is not removed, the replacement portion should be tied into the existing slab‐on‐grade. A vapor barrier should be placed between the slab and the crushed stone subbase.

If required for design of the slab, a coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction (Kv) equal to 100 kips per cubic foot can be assumed.

Sump pumps should be considered to assure that the groundwater table is maintained at all times beneath the floor slab.

9.3 Lateral Earth pressure

Retaining wall unrestrained against lateral movement should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures on the basis of active earth pressure coefficient, Ka. Retaining walls that are restrained against lateral movement should be designed on the basis of the “at‐rest” earth pressure coefficient, Ko.

9‐6

The following parameters are recommended for the design of retaining structures.

Stratum 1‐ Upper Sand Deposit / or Fill Material

Moist Unit Weight 115 lb/ft3

Saturated Unit Weight 120 lb/ft3

Earth Pressure Coefficients

Active (Ka) 0.30

At‐Rest (Ko) 0.47

Passive (Kp) 3.00

9.4 Site Development

Site development is expected to include minimal earthwork operations, wherever the current shallow foundation system is found to be adequate for the alteration of Building 2319. However, if the existing shallow foundations are required to be modified to accommodate the additional loads, removal of the basement floor slab or portions of the slab, excavation, enlargement of the existing footings, backfilling, and restoration of the basement floor slab will be required. For the addition, new foundations and floor slabs will be required. Fill used for backfilling around the modified footings may consist of excavated on‐ site soils, free of organic, deleterious, or unsuitable materials including excessive fines content, or may consist of imported, clean, granular soils. Fill should be placed in a controlled manner in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report.

10‐1

10. Construction Recommendations

10.1 Excavation

For the alteration of building 2319, addition to the existing structure’s shallow foundations might be required. If foundation addition is required, the floor slab or portions of the slab will be required to be removed, and excavation to the bottom of the existing shallow foundations will be required. Also, new foundations will be required for the building addition. Any unsuitable or deleterious materials encountered during the excavation should be removed. A slope consisting of 1(v):1(h) may be utilized for the excavation of the portion above the groundwater table. Beneath the groundwater level, a slightly flatter slope will be required. Excavated soil found to be not containing deleterious materials may be stockpiled for reuse as Structural Fill.

10.2 Fill, backfill, and compaction requirements

10.2.1 Structural Fill (On‐Site Excavated Soils)

Structural Fill will be used for backfilling the excavations performed as part of the foundations renovations. It is required that Structural Fill contain no organic or deleterious materials. Structural Fill may consist of on‐site excavated Stratum 1 sand and gravel soil, classified as “SW”, “SP”, “SM”, or “GP”, in accordance with USCS (ASTM D2487). The maximum particle size should be three inches. Structural

Fill should not contain more than 15% fines (Material passing the No. 200 sieve). Fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches and compacted to 95% of the maximum modified dry density (ASTM D1557) of the soil.

10.2.2 Structural Fill (Imported Soils)

In lieu of using entirely the on‐site soils as Structural Fill for the project, imported granular soils may be used as Structural Fill. Imported granular Structural Fill is recommended to consist of clean, well‐graded soils with no more than 15% fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve). The maximum particle size should be three inches. Fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches and compacted to 95% of the maximum modified dry density (ASTM D1557) of the soil.

10.2.3 Compaction

The bottom of excavations, which should not extend beyond the bottom of the existing footings, should be compacted prior to enlarging any of the existing footings, or placing new footings. Soft or loose material detected during compaction should be compacted in place, or removed and replaced with

Structural Fill. Unsuitable materials should be excavated. Foundation subgrades should be proof tamped and compacted prior to foundation construction.

10‐2

Due to the limited space in the renovation and addition area, compaction equipment should consist of 2

Ton walk behind roller or plate tampers.

For the roadway area, the compacted subgrade can be assumed to have a CBR of 15.

10.2.4 Dewatering

Generally, it is not anticipated that major dewatering activities will be required. However, the potential exists for the formation of perched water zones at depths consistent with those required for the construction of the foundations. Perched groundwater, if encountered during construction, may be controlled using conventional sump pump techniques.

10.2.5 Inspection

As indicated earlier in this report all excavations, compaction, subgrade preparation and compaction, and shallow foundation modification should be inspected by a Geotechnical Engineer. Inspections should take place during foundation construction.

APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS

12.0

17.0

22.0

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.0 0.3

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

3-6-8-6 (14)

4-4-5-7 (9)

2-3-3-5 (6)

4-5-3-2 (8)

2-1-6-10 (7)

2-3-8-9 (11)

WOH-1-1-5

(2)

1-WOH-5-3

(5)

13.0

14.0

18.0

15.0

24.0

18.5

22.0

18.0

3" Topsoil Light Brown Silty f Sand; roots observed

Orange Brown Silty f Sand

Brown Silty fm Sand; loose, moist

Light Brown Silty fm Sand; loose, moist

Light Brown Silty f Sand; loose, moist

Light Brown Silty f Sand; loose, wet

Dark Gray Silty fm Sand

Dark Gray Silty fm Sand

SM

SM

SM

SM

SM

SM

SM

SM

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

M-1

LOGGER : A.Stapleton

SOIL / ROCK DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

Lo g

FIELD DESCRIPTION

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESULTS

BORING LOG

START : 5/15/2018 END : 5/15/2018

APPROX.

ELEVATION

(ft)

PROJECT : Building 2319 Boom Operator Trainer

DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT: Hollow Stem Auger; CME 75

695847

Sample Number

LOCATION : Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey

INTERVAL (ft)

6"-6"-6"-6" (N)

#TYPE

RECOVERY (IN)

WATER LEVELS : 9 ft BGS

HAMMER TYPE : Automatic

DEPTH (ft)

PROJECT : Building 2319 Boom Operator Trainer

BORING NUMBER:

SHEET 1 OF 2

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Unitech Drilling

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (APPROX):DATUM :

USCS Classification

27.0

32.0

37.0

42.0

SS

SS

SS

SS

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

42.0

1-1-2-3 (3)

2-3-5-8 (8)

WOH-WOH-

2-4 (2)

6-10-16-26 (26)

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

Dark Gray Silty fm Sand

Dark Gray Silt

Dark Gray poorly graded fm Sand, very loose

Dark Gray poorly graded fm Sand, medium dense

End of Boring at 42' Below Ground Surface

SM

ML

SP

SP

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

M-1

LOGGER : A.Stapleton

SOIL / ROCK DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

Lo g

FIELD DESCRIPTION

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESULTS

BORING LOG

START : 5/15/2018 END : 5/15/2018

APPROX.

ELEVATION

(ft)

PROJECT : Building 2319 Boom Operator Trainer

DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT: Hollow Stem Auger; CME 75

695847

Sample Number

LOCATION : Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey

INTERVAL (ft)

6"-6"-6"-6" (N)

#TYPE

RECOVERY (IN)

WATER LEVELS : 9 ft BGS

HAMMER TYPE : Automatic

DEPTH (ft)

PROJECT : Building 2319 Boom Operator Trainer

BORING NUMBER:

SHEET 2 OF 2

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Unitech Drilling

12.0

17.0

22.0

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.0 0.5

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

11.0

15.0

20.0

4-4-8 (12)

8-12-10-10 (22)

5-10-9-9 (19)

3-4-6-6 (10)

1-2-5-2 (7)

1-2-2-6 (4)

WOH-2-1-3

(3)

1-2-2-5 (4)

14.0

17.0

18.0

12.5

17.0

23.0

24.0

18.0

Asphalt Pavement Orange Brown Silty fm Sand; medium dense

Orange Brown poorly graded f Sand, medium dense

Orange Brown poorly graded f Sand with silt; medium dense

Tan Silty f Sand; loose, moist

Orange Brown well graded f Sand with silt and gravel, loose

Tan Brown poorly graded f Sand, very loose

Dark Brown Silty f Sand, with trace organics

Dark Gray Sandy Silt

Dark Gray Silty fm Sand

SM

SP

SP-SM

SM

SW-SM

SP

SM

ML

SM

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

M-2

LOGGER : A.Stapleton

SOIL / ROCK DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

Lo g

FIELD DESCRIPTION

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESULTS

BORING LOG

START : 5/15/2018 END : 5/15/2018

APPROX.

ELEVATION

(ft)

PROJECT : Building 2319 Boom Operator Trainer

DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT: Hollow Stem Auger; CME 75

695847

Sample Number

LOCATION : Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey

INTERVAL (ft)

6"-6"-6"-6" (N)

#TYPE

RECOVERY (IN)

WATER LEVELS : 18 ft BGS

HAMMER TYPE : Automatic

DEPTH (ft)

PROJECT : Building 2319 Boom Operator Trainer

BORING NUMBER:

SHEET 1 OF 2

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Unitech Drilling

27.0

32.0

37.0

42.0

SS

SS

SS

SS

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

42.0

WOH-1-1-2

(2)

WOH-WOH-

WOH-WOH

WOH-WOH-

2-2 (2)

2-3-3-5 (6)

17.0

14.0

24.0

24.0

Dark Gray Silty fm Sand

Dark Gray Silty fm Sand

Dark Gray Silty fm Sand; loose, moist

Dark Gray Silty fm Sand; loose, wet

End of Boring at 42' Below Ground Surface

SM

SM

SM

SM

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

M-2

LOGGER : A.Stapleton

SOIL / ROCK DESCRIPTION

G ra ph ic

Lo g

FIELD DESCRIPTION

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESULTS

BORING LOG

START : 5/15/2018 END : 5/15/2018

APPROX.

ELEVATION

(ft)

PROJECT : Building 2319 Boom Operator Trainer

DRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT: Hollow Stem Auger; CME 75

695847

Sample Number

LOCATION : Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey

INTERVAL (ft)

6"-6"-6"-6" (N)

#TYPE

RECOVERY (IN)

WATER LEVELS : 18 ft BGS

HAMMER TYPE : Automatic

DEPTH (ft)

PROJECT : Building 2319 Boom Operator Trainer

BORING NUMBER:

SHEET 2 OF 2

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Unitech Drilling

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

CLIENT: PROJECT: CTL # DATE:

PAGE: of 1

CHECKED BY:

ATTN: TITLE:

SAMPLES RECEIVED: SAMPLES TESTED: LAB TECHNICIAN(S):

S-1,2,3 0-6 15.4 PSA-1 5.7 10.5 7,300 20.6 4,300

S-4 6-8 18.2 PSA-2

S-7 15-17 32.9 24 26 20 6

S-8 20-22 21.0 PSA-3

S-9 25-27 37.1 36 21 15

S-1,2,3 0-6 10.5 PSA-4 5.8 15.4 410,000 19.9 320,000

S-4 6-8 21.6 PSA-5

S-6 10-12 33.3 PSA-6

S-7 15-17 30.9 PSA-7

S-10 30-32 15.8 PSA-8

8 8 2

Comments/Remarks: *See attached Plates

M-1

M-2

O rg an ic

C on te nt

(A S

TM

D

S ul fa te

(p pm (m g/ kg

TM

D

6)

C hl or id e

(p pm

(m g/ kg

TM

D

2B

Ω-cm

U U

T ria xi al

TM

D

Water Content

Ω-cm

Water Content

Minimum Resistivity

(ASTM G57)

Billing Total:

Liquid Limit

(LL)

Te st

B or in g

N o.

S am pl e

N o.

W at er C on te nt

TM

D

D ep th (f

t) P.O. Box 407

C on so lid at io n*

TM

D pH o f S oi l

TM

G

) As Received

Resistivity

(ASTM G57)

Atterberg Limits

(ASTM D4318)

Oven Dried

LL

Plastic Limit

(PL)

Plasticity Index

(PI)

Building 2319 Boom Operator Training Joint Base Mcguire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ

May 31, 2018

GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS

P ar tic le

S iz e A na ly si s

(S ie ve O nl y)

TM

D

2)

P as si ng

S ie ve

TM

D

M. Fazzino, J. Landy & J. Veach

819520

May 18, 2018

Eduardo M. Freire, P.E.

Geotechnical Laboratory Manager

5/18/18 - 5/30/18

Frankinville, NJ 08322

Ms. Marlene Mueller

Uni-Tech Drilling Company, Inc.

5/30/18

PSA-1

(no specification provided)

LL= PL= PI=

D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS=

Tan sandy SILT\CLAY 1.5 .75 .375 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50 #100 #200

100.0 97.2 97.2 96.8 96.3 94.4 90.1 85.1 72.3 50.6

0.2968 0.0993

CL:H\ML:H

Water Content (WC): 15.4%

Uni-Tech Drilling Company

Building 2319 Boom Operator Training Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ

819520

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: M-1 Depth: 0'-6' Sample Number: S-1,2,3 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Plate

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 2.8 0.4 0.7 8.0 37.5 50.6 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

Particle Size Distribution Report

PSA-2

(no specification provided)

LL= PL= PI=

D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS=

Tan silty\clayey SAND and trace organics .75 .375 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50 #100 #200

100.0 100.0

99.9 97.8 87.4 69.1 55.7 35.8 15.8

1.0726 0.3716 0.2399 0.1237

SM\SC

WC: 18.2%

Uni-Tech Drilling Company

Building 2319 Boom Operator Training Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ

819520

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: M-1 Depth: 6'-8' Sample Number: S-4 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Plate

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.1 3.5 34.0 46.6 15.8 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

PSA-3

(no specification provided)

LL= PL= PI=

D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS=

Dark gray silty\clayey SAND .75 .375 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50 #100 #200

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

87.4 71.0 66.0 62.8 38.3

1.0771 0.1329 0.0990

SM\SC

WC: 21.0%

Uni-Tech Drilling Company

Building 2319 Boom Operator Training Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ

819520

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: M-1 Depth: 20'-22' Sample Number: S-8 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Plate

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 29.9 30.0 38.3 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

PSA-4

(no specification provided)

LL= PL= PI=

D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS=

Brown dark gray silty\clayey SAND .75 .375 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50 #100 #200

100.0 99.6 98.2 95.5 89.1 79.5 70.1 53.7 30.8

0.8798 0.1879 0.1326

SM\SC

WC: 10.5%

Uni-Tech Drilling Company

Building 2319 Boom Operator Training Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ

819520

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: M-2 Depth: 0'-6' Sample Number: S-1,2,3 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Plate

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 1.8 3.8 19.3 44.3 30.8 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

PSA-5

(no specification provided)

LL= PL= PI=

D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS=

Light gray tan silty\clayey SAND #4 #8

#16 #30 #50 #100 #200

100.0 99.9 98.9 97.3 95.1 71.7

20.2 0.1994 0.1248 0.1087

0.0845

SM\SC

WC: 21.6%

Uni-Tech Drilling Company

Building 2319 Boom Operator Training Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ

819520

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: M-2 Depth: 6'-8' Sample Number: S-4 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Plate

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.5 76.1 20.2 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

PSA-6

(no specification provided)

LL= PL= PI=

D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS=

Dark gray tan silty\clayey SAND with trace organcis .375 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50 #100 #200

100.0 99.5 98.2 97.4 96.6 95.0 88.5 30.8

0.1398 0.1007 0.0907

SM\SC

WC: 33.3%

Uni-Tech Drilling Company

Building 2319 Boom Operator Training Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ

819520

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: M-2 Depth: 10'-12' Sample Number: S-6 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Plate

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.5 1.6 2.0 65.1 30.8 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

PSA-7

(no specification provided)

LL= PL= PI=

D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS=

Dark gray tan sandy SILT\CLAY .375 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50 #100 #200

100.0 99.3 98.8 97.4 95.3 92.1 85.7 58.0

0.1456 0.0782

CL:H\ML:H

WC: 30.9%

Uni-Tech Drilling Company

Building 2319 Boom Operator Training Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ

819520

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: M-2 Depth: 15'-17' Sample Number: S-7 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Plate

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 4.9 35.6 58.0 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

PSA-8

(no specification provided)

LL= PL= PI=

D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS=

Dark gray tan silty\clayey SAND .375 #4 #8

#16 #30 #50 #100 #200

100.0 97.8 95.9 86.4 75.4 68.3 60.5 38.3

1.0888 0.1468 0.1036

SM\SC

WC: 15.8%

Uni-Tech Drilling Company

Building 2319 Boom Operator Training Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ

819520

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: M-2 Depth: 30'-32' Sample Number: S-10 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Plate

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 2.2 3.5 23.0 33.0 38.3 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

APPENDIX C

HISTORICAL BORINGS

APPENDIX D

EXISTING BUILDING 2319 STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS