Appendix_A_-_KC46_B2324_MTF_-_Geotechnical_Report.pdf

Geotechnical Engineering Report Regional Maintenance Training Facility

Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst New Hanover Township, New Jersey

May 18, 2018 Project Number: PTFL 163005

Terracon Project No. J6175124

Prepared for:

POND – FSB A Joint Venture

Norcross, Georgia

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

South Plainfield, New Jersey

Terracon Consul tants, Inc. 4081 Hadley Road Unit B South Pla inf ie ld, NJ P (908) 546-6161 terracon.com

May 18, 2018

POND – FSB A Joint Venture 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Norcross, Georgia 30092

Attn: Mr. George Fragulis, PE, PMP, CEM, BEMP, LEED AP P: (678) 336-7740 E: fragulisg@pondco.com

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Regional Maintenance Training Facility Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst New Hanover Township, New Jersey Project Number: PTFL 163005 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Dear Mr. Fragulis:

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) is submitting, herewith, the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the above-referenced project. The purpose of this evaluation was to obtain information on subsurface conditions at the project site and, based on this information, to provide recommendations regarding the design and construction of foundations, slabs, and pavements for the proposed development.

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

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Alex C. Kavaleuski Erich Christiansen, P.E.

Project Manager Senior Associate Geotechnical Service Line Geotechnical Department Manager

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

2.2 Site Location and Description

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Profile

3.2 Groundwater

3.3 Environmental Analysis

3.4 Corrosion Testing

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

4.2 Foundations

4.2.1 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations

4.2.2 Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations

4.3 Slab-on-Grade

4.3.1 Slab-on-Grade Design Recommendations

4.3.2 Slab-on-Grade Construction Considerations

4.4 Earthwork

4.4.1 Site Preparation

4.4.2 Building Pad Preparation

4.4.3 Excavations

4.4.4 Reuse of Materials

4.4.5 Imported Fill

4.4.6 Fill Placement

4.5 Seismic Considerations

4.6 Pavement Recommendations

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Site Location Map Exhibit A-2 Exploration Location Diagram Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description Exhibits A-4 to A-8 Boring Logs

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Exhibits B-2 and B-3 Gradation Curves Exhibit B-4 Corrosion Testing Summary

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-1 General Notes Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System

APPENDIX D – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS

Regional Maintenance Training Facility New Hanover Township, New Jersey May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A geotechnical engineering report has been completed for the proposed Regional Maintenance Training Facility project that will be constructed within the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (Joint Base) in New Hanover Township, New Jersey. Five borings were advanced to a depth of approximately 25 below existing grade, to provide geotechnical and environmental information for the project. Site subsurface conditions generally consist of fill and natural loose to medium dense sand, grading to silt below a depth of approximately 18 feet in borings B-4 and B-5.

The following geotechnical considerations for project design and construction were identified and are discussed in the report:

The building addition may be supported on conventional spread footings supported on the natural soils or on structural fill placed directly above these materials.

The uncontrolled fill materials are not suitable in their current condition for direct support of new foundations and floor slabs. Where present, these materials should be excavated in their entirety from below the proposed addition footprint and extending at least 5 feet out.

A geotechnical engineer from Terracon should observe the removal and replacement of the fill materials, as well as foundation and floor slab subgrade preparation to confirm that the subgrades are suitable for support of the proposed building loads.

The materials generated during the site preparation, building pad and foundation construction are expected to consist of silty sand, which can be reused as structural fill provided deleterious materials and particles greater that 3 inches in size are segregated prior to reuse.

Based on our review of the available subsurface data, we recommend that Site Class “D” be adopted for seismic design purposes.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. Details are not included or fully developed in this summary; the report must be read in its entirety of a comprehensive understanding of the information contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

REGIONAL MAINTENANCE TRAINING FACILITY

JOINT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX-LAKEHURST

NEW HANOVER TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY

Project Number: PTFL 163005 Terracon Project No. J6175124

May 18, 2018

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Regional Maintenance Training Facility project that will be constructed within the Joint Base in New Hanover Township, New Jersey (see Exhibit A-1, Site Location Map), has been completed. Five soil borings (B-1 through B-5) were drilled within the proposed addition area to a depth of approximately 25 feet below the existing ground surface. Individual test boring logs and an Exploration Location Diagram (Exhibit A-2) are included in Appendix A. This report describes the subsurface conditions encountered in the explorations and provides a discussion of geotechnical considerations and recommendations for the construction of the proposed development.

The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

subsurface soil conditions seismic considerations groundwater conditions earthwork foundation design and construction slab design and construction pavement design and construction

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

The following paragraphs present the project information that was available at the time this report was prepared. Should this information be incorrect, or changed, please contact this office so that we could reevaluate our analysis and recommendations.

2.1 Project Description

Item Description Site layout Appendix A, Exhibit A-2, Exploration Location Diagram

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Item Description

Building

The existing Building 2324 currently serves as the training location for the Regional Maintenance Training Facility for the existing mission aircraft. The scope of this project will include alteration and an addition to accommodate the new KC-46A mission. The proposed addition has a plan area of 20,799 square feet and will be approximately 54 feet high.

Building construction Steel-framed, supported on shallow foundation system and concrete slab-on-grade floor.

Finished floor elevation Finish floor elevation for the building addition will be similar to Building 2324.

Estimated maximum loads

Column: 75 kips (assumed) Wall: 3 kips per linear foot (assumed) Slab: 250 pounds per square foot (psf) or HL93 Vehicle Wheel Loads (not concurrent)

Grading Cuts and fills on the order of 2 feet are anticipated.

2.2 Site Location and Description

Item Description

Location

The proposed addition is planned east of the existing Building 2324 located within the northwest quadrant of the intersection of West Arnold Avenue and Vandenberg Avenue within the Joint Base in New Hanover Township, New Jersey.

Approximate coordinates for the addition are Latitude 40.0303°, Longitude -74.5919°

Site history

Based on Google Earth TM historical aerial images, the existing site had been occupied by a building since at least 1995 to at least December 2002. Images dated August 2006 and to present indicate that the proposed addition area is a vacant land bordered by a newly constructed buildings to the west and north.

Google EarthTM image dated December 2002.

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

Item Description Existing improvements

The proposed addition area is a vacant site located east of the existing building 2324.

Several underground utility lines traverse the proposed addition footprint.

Current ground cover Grass, trees.

Existing topography

Ground surface within the site generally slopes from approximate Elevation +114 feet within the north portion of the addition to approximate Elevation +112 feet within the south portion.

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Profile

The following table provides a summary of the generalized soil conditions at the site.

Stratum Typical Stratum Base Depth (feet) 1 Material Description Density

Surface 0.2 Topsoil N/A

1 4 Possible Fill - Poorly Graded Sand (SP), and Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM)

Loose to Medium Dense

22 18 to 25 Silty Sand (SM) Loose3 to Medium

Dense

34 Not encountered (>25)

Silt (ML) Medium Dense

1. Below the existing ground surface elevation.

2. Borings B-1 through B-3 terminated within Stratum 2 at a depth of 25 feet.

3. Please note that a drop in N-values just below groundwater table is likely due to disturbance from the release of the confining pressure during sampling (running sands) and is not a true representation of the structural consistency.

4. Borings B-4 and B-5 terminated in this Stratum.

Based on the historic aerial photographs, the previous structures within the proposed addition’s footprint were demolished; therefore, it is likely that the area is blanketed by a surficial layer of fill consisting of possible demolition debris and locally excavated soils. Further, it is possible that foundation remnants and debris from the former structures are still present; however, obstructions, debris or other inclusions were not encountered during our study, which would confirm the presence of fill. It should be noted that due to the small sample size, collected by split spoons, it is not always possible to determine the presence of fill, especially if the fill material consists of the locally excavated soils and free from manmade inclusions within the sample; therefore, fill

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 material is often mistaken for native soil. Consequently, for the purpose of this report fill material is assumed to be present at the site since the consistency of the upper four feet of soil is loose to medium dense, the area was formally occupied by a building and currently utility lines traverse the proposed addition footprint. Subsequent sections and recommendations in this report take this into consideration.

Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs in Appendix A of this report. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil/rock types; in situ, the transition between materials may be gradual.

Further details of the borings can be found on the boring logs.

3.2 Groundwater

Specific observations of groundwater level as recorded for each boring are noted on the boring logs in Appendix A, and are summarized below.

Boring Number Depth to Groundwater While Drilling, feet. 1

Depth to Groundwater After Drilling, feet. 1

B-1 7 N/A

B-2 7 N/A

B-3 7 N/A

B-4 7 N/A

B-5 8 7 (after 5 hours)

1. Below the existing ground surface elevation.

Fluctuations in groundwater level may occur because of seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors that may differ from those present at the time the explorations were performed. Therefore, the groundwater levels that may prevail during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. Additionally, grade adjustments on and around the site, as well as surrounding drainage improvements, may affect the water table. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

3.3 Environmental Analysis

Terracon also obtained representative soil samples in each of the five borings performed for this study, in accordance with the Environmental Sampling Protocol as specified in Attachment L of the SOW for this project, the results of which are presented in Appendix D.

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

3.4 Corrosion Testing

Laboratory soil pH, redox potential, sulfide content, and resistivity tests were conducted at an analytical lab on one soil sample collected from the upper 6 feet from each soil boring performed at the site to assess the corrosivity risk of the on-site soils within proposed addition area. The results of the laboratory tests are provided in Appendix B of this report. If any buried metal or concrete will be used on this project, the following corrosivity information should be considered.

Data suggests the soil pH should not be the dominant soil variable affecting soil corrosion if the soil has a pH in the 5 to 8 range. Based on our laboratory pH tests, the soil tested had a pH between 7.5 and 8.3. The pH of the samples falls on the upper end of the recommended range and indicates that the soil pH may contribute to corrosion.

The resistivity measured on saturated soil samples tested in the laboratory was 5,100 to 15,500 ohm-centimeter. Those resistivity results indicate the soil profile has a mild corrosive potential to buried ferrous metal pipes. Evaluation of the resistivity test results follows the guidelines of J.F.

Palmer, “Soil Resistivity Measurements and Analysis”, Materials Performance, Volume 13, January 1974. The table below outlines the guidelines for soil resistivity versus corrosion potential.

Corrosion Potential of Soil on Steel SOIL RESISTIVITY (ohm-cm) CORROSION POTENTIAL

0 to 1,000 Very High 1,000 to 2,000 High 2,000 to 5,000 Moderate

> 5,000 Mild

Corrosion protection for pipes can vary from encasing or wrapping the pipe in a protective cover to providing cathodic protection. Pipe coatings are sometimes comprised of cement-mortar, bituminous, or other protective material. Furthermore, pipes can also be wrapped with a protective material to aid in resisting corrosion such as a polyethylene wrap. We recommend a corrosion consultant be retained to provide specific corrosion recommendations for the project.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

In general, the native subgrade soils present below the possible fill at the site are suitable for support of conventional shallow foundations. Based on the historical information and the variable consistency in the upper four feet, the presence of uncontrolled fill is highly likely within the former

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6 building foundations and within the current utility line trenches. Consequently, the upper four feet of material that blankets the area cannot be relied upon to support the foundation and slab without improvement. Further, the utility trenches may extend well below the bottom of the proposed footings; therefore, it is critical for the performance of the proposed addition that following removal of the existing utilities the utility trenches be backfilled in a controlled fashion with structural fill.

Due to unknown nature of fill materials, these materials are not suitable for direct support of new foundations and slabs in its current state due to their inherently variable nature and density, potentially resulting in unacceptable settlements. They should be removed in their entirety and replaced with controlled compacted structural fill in accordance with our recommendations below.

Provided that the site and building pad preparation recommendations are performed as discussed in Section 4.4 the proposed building addition can be established on conventional shallow foundations as discussed in Section 4.2, and floor slabs may then be supported on-grade by the natural soils or compacted structural fill. Design recommendations for slab-on-grade presented in Section 4.3.

The materials generated during overexcavation expected to consist of silty sand, which can be reused as structural fill provided it is free from deleterious materials and particles greater that 3 inches in size.

We recommend that a geotechnical engineer from Terracon observe the excavation of the uncontrolled fill to verify that unsuitable materials have been removed, to observe subgrade preparation and backfilling/filling activities, and to evaluate final foundation subgrades to confirm that they are suitable for support of the proposed building loads.

4.2 Foundations

Following the site and building pad preparations, the proposed addition may be supported on shallow spread foundations bearing directly on the natural silty sand soils or compacted structural fill placed over the natural soils. Design recommendations for shallow foundations are presented in the following table and paragraphs.

4.2.1 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations

Description Value Net allowable bearing pressure 1 3,000 psf Minimum strip footing width 18 inches Minimum isolated spread footing width 24 inches Minimum embedment below finished grade for frost protection 36 inches

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

Description Value Approximate total settlement 2 1 inch

1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation.

2. Foundation settlement will depend upon the variations within the subsurface soil profile, the structural loading conditions, the embedment depth of the footing, the thickness of compacted fill, and the quality of the earthwork operations.

Exterior foundations should be established a minimum of 36 inches below the proposed adjacent exterior grades, or deeper if required by the local building official, to provide protection from frost penetration. Interior foundations located in permanently heated portions of the structure may be established at convenient depths below the ground floor slab, provided they bear on appropriate materials as described above.

New foundations within five feet of existing foundations should be established at the same elevation as the existing foundations to the extent practical. If there are locations where this is not possible, the structure with the lower foundations will need to be evaluated by a structural engineer to confirm that it is capable of handling the increased loads from the higher foundation and underpinning may be required. In addition, a construction/expansion joint should be installed between the new and existing structures to allow for differential settlement between new and existing structures.

4.2.2 Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations

The geotechnical engineer should be retained to observe the subgrade preparation activities, to provide guidance regarding any remedial earthwork required, and to evaluate the suitability of the subgrades to support the design foundation loads. If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered in footing excavations, the following measures can be implemented:

■ Excavation could be extended deeper to suitable native soils so that the footing will bear directly on these soils at the lower level.

■ Excavation could be extended deeper to suitable native soils and then backfilled with lean concrete to the design footing level (left figure).

■ Excavation could be extended deeper and wider to suitable native soils and then backfilled with properly compacted engineered/structural fill to the design footing level (right figure).

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

The following precautions are essential to the satisfactory performance of shallow foundations:

■ Provide positive drainage away from the foundations, both during and after construction.

■ Avoid excavations during inclement weather and place concrete within the excavations within 24 hours after completion of the excavations.

■ Verify that the excavations are completely within the required bearing stratum or engineered fill and remove and replace any unacceptable soils as discussed herein.

■ Maintain adequate moisture levels in exposed excavation and slab subgrades, but do not allow the areas to become saturated.

■ Use a layer of ¾ inch clean crushed stone on the order of 6 inches in thickness may be placed (but not required) in order to help protect the subgrade from disturbance.

Alternately, a “mudmat” of lean concrete to seal the bearing stratum may also be used in the event wet conditions are experienced or expected.

■ Minimize traffic in excavations to only that necessary to place the steel and concrete for the footings.

■ Should the soils at the bearing level become wet, disturbed, or frozen, the materials should be removed prior to placing concrete.

■ Remove free water in the excavations prior to placing concrete.

4.3 Slab-on-Grade

4.3.1 Slab-on-Grade Design Recommendations

Description Value Floor slab support 1 12-inch thick layer of compacted Structural Fill Modulus of subgrade reaction 2 150 pounds per square inch per inch (pci)

1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of building footings or walls to reduce the possibility of floor slab cracking caused by differential movements between the slab and foundations.

2. Value is for point load condition.

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

Where appropriate, control joints should be saw-cut in the slab to help control the location and extent of cracking. For additional recommendations, the slab designer should refer to the ACI Design Manual.

The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath a concrete slab-on-grade that will be covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder. We also recommend the installation of a six inch layer of clean crushed stone to act as a capillary break between the bottom of the floor slab and the underlying subgrade soils.

4.3.2 Slab-on-Grade Construction Considerations

On most project sites, the site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase, and this report assumes that the general slab area will be prepared in accordance with our recommendations below in Section 4.4.2. However as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed because of utility excavations, construction traffic, precipitation, etc. As a result, the floor slab subgrade may not be suitable for placement of granular base and concrete, and corrective action will be required.

Therefore, immediately prior to placement of the granular base and concrete, we recommend the area underlying the floor slab be proofrolled again with at least six passes of a minimum 4-ton (static weight) vibratory roller compactor. In areas with limited access, a double-drum walk-behind compactor may be used. Particular attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches are located, and manual probes should be performed by Terracon to confirm the stability of these areas. Areas with unsuitable conditions should be repaired by removing and replacing the affected material with properly compacted fill.

We estimate that floor slabs supported by the subgrade soils and/or controlled compacted fill prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report will experience post construction settlement on the order of 1/2-inch or less. The majority of this movement will occur during initial load application.

4.4 Earthwork

4.4.1 Site Preparation

The site should be cleared and grubbed to remove stumps, roots, grass, topsoil, organic laden soil, organic matter, and any rubble or debris encountered. In addition, utility lines or other below ground features, such as remnants of the former building, should be removed from the proposed building area. When trees are removed, the entire root ball should be excavated such that the

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10 remaining roots measure 1 inch in diameter or less. The excavation created for the tree removal should be sloped to allow compaction equipment to achieve uniform backfill compaction.

Topsoil measurements were made at the boring locations; however, stripping depths at or between our boring locations and across the site could vary. The depth of stripping should be on the order 4 inches; however, we recommend that actual stripping depths be evaluated by a representative of Terracon during construction to aid in preventing removal of excess material.

4.4.2 Building Pad Preparation

As previously discussed, fill material is expected within the utility trenches and within the upper four feet from surface grades. These materials are not suitable for direct support of new foundations and slabs and should be removed in their entirety from within and a least five feet beyond the building limits.

Following fill removal, the exposed subgrades should be proofrolled to a dense and stable consistency with at least 10 passes of a self-propelled, vibratory compactor with a static drum weight of at least 12,000 pounds. Any areas that show signs of instability under the proofrolling equipment should be selectively overexcavated to a suitable bearing layer, as determined by our engineer. To the extent practical, the proofrolling should be performed after a suitable period of dry weather to reduce the amount of undercutting/remedial work that may be required. Structural fill could then be placed on successfully proofrolled areas to design subgrade elevation in accordance with Section 4.4.6 below.

Completed subgrades will still be susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic and inclement weather and should be protected by the Contractor prior to the placement of any structural fill. Construction traffic over completed subgrades should be avoided to the extent practical. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If any subgrades should become frozen, wet, or disturbed, the affected materials should be removed to the surface of stable soils and replaced with controlled compacted fill, or if conditions permit may be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and recompacted in place under the observation of a Terracon representative.

4.4.3 Excavations

As a minimum, temporary excavations should be sloped or braced, as required by Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations, to provide stability and safe working conditions. The contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope or bench the sides of the excavations, as required, to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should comply with applicable local, State and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards.

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

Any excavations required immediately adjacent to the existing structures should be evaluated by a registered professional engineer retained by the contractor to determine whether excavation support systems or underpinning are required, and to prepare the designs for those systems.

4.4.4 Reuse of Materials

Materials generated during the fill removal and subgrade preparation activities are expected to consist of silty sand. These soils are suitable for reuse as structural fill provided that they are maintained at a moisture content suitable for compaction and deleterious materials and particles greater than 3 inches in size are segregated prior to reuse.

4.4.5 Imported Fill

In the event that imported fill is needed to complete the site grading, we recommend that the material consist of inorganic, readily compactable, well-graded granular soils with no more than 15% fines (no more than 15% passing the No. 200 sieve). Additionally, we recommend excluding gradations greater than 6 inches. The moisture content of the fill material should be controlled to within 3% of the optimum moisture content by wetting, aeration, or blending, as necessary to achieve the required compaction.

4.4.6 Fill Placement

Structural fill should be installed in controlled layers uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent of the fill material’s maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557 Test Procedures. The layer thickness should be adjusted as needed depending on the type of compaction equipment used and the condition of the fill materials at the time of construction, but should be no greater than 12 inches in loose thickness. It should be expected that thinner lifts will be required to achieve the required compaction in confined areas where portable compaction equipment is used.

4.5 Seismic Considerations

The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure.

The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7-10.

Description Value 2015 International Building Code Site Classification New Jersey Edition (IBC) 1 D 2

Site Latitude 40.0303°

Site Longitude -74.5919°

SDS Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 3 0.216g

SD1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 3 0.097g

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12

Description Value

1. Seismic site classification in general accordance with the 2015 International Building Code New Jersey

Edition, which refers to ASCE 7-10.

2. The 2015 International Building Code (IBC) uses a site profile extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. Borings at this site were extended to a maximum depth of 25 feet. The site properties below the boring depth to 100 feet were estimated based on our experience and knowledge of geologic conditions of the general area. Additional deeper borings or geophysical testing may be performed to confirm the conditions below the current boring depth.

3. These values were obtained using online seismic design maps and tools provided by the USGS (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/).

4.6 Pavement Recommendations

(add pavement section here)

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications, so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction, and other earth-related construction phases of the project.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the explorations performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between explorations, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided.

The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination of pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13

Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

Terracon Consul tants, Inc. 2822 O’Neal Lane Build ing B Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816 P [225] 344 6052 F [225] 344 6346 terracon.com

Memorandum No. 1

To: Mr. George Fragulis, PE, PMP, CEM, BEMP, LEED AP With: POND – FSB A Joint Venture Date: August 1, 2018 Re: Flexible Pavement Recommendations

Regional Maintenance Training Facility Terracon No. J6175124

From: Alex Kavaleuski Review by: Erich Christiansen, P.E.

This memorandum provides recommendations for flexible pavement design and construction for the proposed Regional Maintenance Training Facility project that will be constructed within the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (Joint Base) in New Hanover Township, New Jersey. This memorandum is considered an Addendum to our Geotechnical Report J6175124, dated May 18, 2018, and is subject to the limitations and considerations outlined therein.

Pavement Recommendations

Subgrade Preparation Based on our understanding of the planned site grading and the results of our investigation, a majority of the pavement subgrade will consist of natural silty sand soils or structural fill consisting of similar material.Pavement subgrades should be carefully evaluated for disturbance from construction activities or weather as the time for pavement construction approaches. The subgrades should be proofrolled to a dense and stable consistency with at least 10 passes of a self-propelled, vibratory compactor with a static drum weight of at least 12,000 pounds. Any areas that show signs of instability under the proofrolling equipment should be selectively overexcavated to a suitable bearing layer, as determined by our engineer. To the extent practical, the proofrolling should be performed after a suitable period of dry weather to reduce the amount of undercutting/remedial work that may be required. Structural fill could then be placed to design pavement subgrade elevations, if needed.

Pavement Design Parameters Provided that the pavement subgrade is prepared in accordance with the recommendations specified above, a CBR value of 20 is appropriate for the design of a pavement section proposed in the vicinity of Regional Maintenance Training Facility. The pavement section was analyzed using PCASE Version 2.09.03 program software, results of which are attached to this memorandum.

Regional Maintenance Training Facility New Hanover Township, New Jersey

Regional Maintenance Training Facility ■ New Hanover Township, NJ August 1, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Please note, however, that CBR values are highly dependent on the final subgrade material and condition of the subgrade at the time of construction. A Terracon geotechnical engineer should evaluate the subgrade and, if necessary, perform CBR testing on the final subgrade materials at the time of construction to confirm these preliminary design recommendations.

Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings especially by presence of water.

Pavements should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water. Water allowed to pond on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to premature pavement deterioration. The civil engineer should consider the following drainage recommendations in the design and layout of pavements:

n Final grade adjacent to paved areas should slope down from the edges at a minimum 2%;

n The subgrade and pavement surface should have a minimum 2% slope to promote proper surface drainage;

n Install below pavement drainage systems surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting;

n Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately;

n Seal all landscaped areas in or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture migration to subgrade soils;

Estimates of Minimum Asphalt Concrete (AC) Pavement Thickness

Minimum ACC Pavement Section (inches) 1

Traffic Area Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Base2

Road 5 6

1. Standard design and construction details for flexible pavements are contained in Pavement Design for Roads and Parking Areas UFC 3-250-01. It is recommended that the design engineer refer to this document for more detailed information.

2. Aggregate base course should consist of graded crushed aggregate (design CBR =100), which also will serve as a drainage layer; therefore, should meet the Subsurface Drainage requires specified in section 20-3.6 of UFC 3-250-01. The aggregate base should be compacted to 100% of its max dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557, Modified Proctor Test with stability present. Table 20-5 of UFC 3-250-01 provides material gradation for drainage layers.

Pavement Maintenance Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided through an on-going pavement management program in order to enhance future pavement performance, slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and preserve the pavement investment. Preventative maintenance, which consists of both localized maintenance, e.g., crack and joint sealing and patching, and global maintenance, e.g., surface sealing, is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program, and provides the highest return on investment for pavements.

Prior to implementing such a program, additional engineering observation is recommended to assess the type and extent of preventative maintenance.

Pavement Design Report U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

PCASE Version 2.09.03 Date : 8/2/2018Design Name : RMTF

Design Type : Roads Pavement Type : Flexible

Road Type : Road Terrain Type : Flat

Analysis Type : CBR Depth of Frost (in) : 16 Wander Width (in) : 33.35

Layer Information

Layer Type Material Type Frost Code Analysis

Non frost Design

Thickness (in)

Reduced Subgrade Strength

(in)

Limited Subgrade Penetratio n (in)

CBR

Strength

Asphalt Asphalt NFS Manual 5 5 5 0

Base Unbound Crushed Stone NFS Compute 4 5.5 7.32 100

Natural Subgrade Cohesionless Fill F3/F4 Manual 0 0 0 20

Traffic Information Pattern Name : RMTF J6175124

Vehicles Weight (lb) Passes per Life Span

Equivalen t Passes

AASHTO H20-44 40000 300 300

AASHTO HS20-44 72000 50 87

TRUCK, LARGE PICKUP OR

SUV 7500 18250 1

AASHTO H20-44 40000 388

PCASE Equivalent Single Axle Loads 68416

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

SITE LOCATION MAP

163005 Regional Maintenance Training

Facility Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst

New Hanover Twp, New Jersey

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: NEW EGYPT, NJ (1/1/1977).

4081 Hadley Rd Ste B South Plainfield, NJ 07080-1114

J6175124 Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

KTP

ACK

ELC

1”=2,000’

J6175124

02/20/2018

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

A-1

ExhibitACK

SITE

EXPLORATION LOCATION DIAGRAM

163005 Regional Maintenance Training

Facility Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst

New Hanover Twp, New Jersey

4081 Hadley Rd Ste B South Plainfield, NJ 07080-1114

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS

NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

J6175124

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED

BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

KTP

ACK

ELC

AS SHOWN

J6175124

02/20/2018

Scale:

A-2

ExhibitProject Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

Project No.

File Name:

Date:

ACK

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-3

Field Exploration Description

The approximate test boring locations, which are shown on Exhibit A-2, were measured by taping from existing features in the field and by estimating right angles. Ground elevations at the explorations were determined from Google EarthTM based on the boring locations. The locations of the explorations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used to define them.

Terracon coordinated the advancement of five borings (B-1 through B-5) on January 9 and 10, 2018.

The borings were advanced using a truck-mounted B-57 hollow stem auger rig, owned and operated by Soil Borings, Inc. of Haddon, New Jersey. The borings were advanced using 3 inch I.D.

continuous flight hollow-stem augers (HSA). The borings terminated at a planned depth of 25 feet.

In the split-barrel sampling procedure, the number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler typically the middle 12 inches of the total 24-inch penetration by means of a 140-pound safety autohammer with a free fall of 30 inches is the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value “N”. This “N” value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and consistency of cohesive soils.

The soil samples were placed in labeled glass jars and transported to our laboratory for further review and classification by a Terracon geotechnical engineer. Information provided on the boring logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, relative density and/or consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site.

Field logs of the explorations were prepared during drilling operations. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final exploration logs included with this report represent further interpretation by the geotechnical engineer of the field logs and incorporate, where appropriate, modifications based on laboratory classification of the samples.

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit B-1

LABORATORY TESTING SUMMARY

Descriptive classifications of the soils indicated on the exploration logs are in accordance with the enclosed General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). USCS symbols are also shown. A brief description of the USCS is attached to this report. Classification was generally by visual/manual procedures, along with grain size analyzes and moisture content determination. Corrosion suite of tests were also performed and are included herein.

Environmental Analysis results are included in Appendix D.

Exhibit B-4

APPENDIX C

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-2

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group Symbol Group Name B

Coarse Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic:

PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line J CL Lean clay K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL

Organic clay K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic:

PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH

Organic clay K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

APPENDIX D

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS

01/25/18

Technical Report for

Sampling Date: 01/10/18

Report to:

Terracon Consulting Inc.

4081 Hadley Road, Unit B South Plainfield, NJ 07080 Alex.Kavaleuski@terracon.com

ATTN: Alex Kavaleuski

Total number of pages in report:

Certifications: NJ(12129), NY(10983), CA, CT, FL, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MN, NC, OH VAP (CL0056), AK (UST-103), AZ (AZ0786), PA, RI, SC, TX, UT, VA, WV, DoD ELAP (L-A-B L2248)

This report shall not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written approval of SGS.

Test results relate only to samples analyzed.

SGS North America Inc. • 2235 Route 130 • Dayton, NJ 08810 • tel: 732-329-0200 • fax: 732-329-3499

Test results contained within this data package meet the requirements of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program and/or state specific certification programs as applicable.

Client Service contact: Kelly Patterson 732-329-0200

Nancy Cole Laboratory Director

Dayton, NJ 01/25/18 e-Hardcopy 2.0 Automated Report

SGS is the sole authority for authorizing edits or modifications to this document.

Unauthorized modification of this report is strictly prohibited.

Review standard terms at: http://www.sgs.com/en/terms-and-conditions

The results set forth herein are provided by SGS North America Inc.

JC58612

Terracon Consultants J6175124 Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Hanover Township, New Jersey.

NJ PN163005 Regional Maintenance Training Facility SGS

Job Number: JC58486

Table of Contents -1-

Sections:

Section 1: Sample Summary Section 2: Summary of Hits Section 3: Sample Results

3.1: JC58612-1: MAINTENCE TRAINING FAC BORING B-1 @ 4-6'

3.2: JC58612-2: BORING B-2 @4-6'

Section 4: Misc. Forms 4.1: Chain of Custody

JC58612

SGS North America Inc.

Sample Summary

Terracon Consultants Job No: JC58612

JC58612-1 01/10/18 09:00 JP 01/11/18 SO Soil MAINTENCE TRAINING FAC

BORING B-1 @ 4-6'

JC58612-2 01/10/18 10:00 JP 01/11/18 SO Soil BORING B-2 @4-6'

Soil samples reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise indicated on result page.

JC58612

Project No: J6175124

Sample Collected Matr ix Client Number Date Time By Received Code Type Sample ID

Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Result/ Analyte Qual RL MDL Units Method

JC58612-1 MAINTENCE TRAINING FAC BORING B-1 @ 4-6'

Acetone a 4.5 J 6.7 4.3 ug/kg SW846 8260C Methylene chloride 2.4 J 3.4 1.7 ug/kg SW846 8260C Aluminum 11600 59 mg/kg SW846 6010C Arsenic 3.5 2.4 mg/kg SW846 6010C Beryllium 0.34 0.24 mg/kg SW846 6010C Calcium 694 590 mg/kg SW846 6010C Chromium 18.4 1.2 mg/kg SW846 6010C Copper 4.9 3.0 mg/kg SW846 6010C Iron 12200 59 mg/kg SW846 6010C Lead 6.5 2.4 mg/kg SW846 6010C Magnesium 839 590 mg/kg SW846 6010C Manganese 47.0 1.8 mg/kg SW846 6010C Vanadium 22.0 5.9 mg/kg SW846 6010C Zinc 10.2 5.9 mg/kg SW846 6010C

JC58612-2 BORING B-2 @4-6'

JC58612

Methylene chloride 3.8 J 5.3 2.7 ug/kg SW846 8260C Aluminum 2250 57 mg/kg SW846 6010C Chromium 9.5 1.1 mg/kg SW846 6010C Iron 3690 57 mg/kg SW846 6010C Lead 2.6 2.3 mg/kg SW846 6010C Manganese 9.1 1.7 mg/kg SW846 6010C Vanadium 7.4 5.7 mg/kg SW846 6010C

Summary of Hits Page 1 of 2 Job Number : JC58612 Account: Terracon Consultants Project: Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst Collected: 01/10/18

Sample Results

Report of Analysis

Dayton, NJ Section 3

ND = Not detected MDL = Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound

JC58612

3.1Repor t of Analysis Page 1 of 2

Client Sample ID: MAINTENCE TRAINING FAC BORING B-1 @ 4-6' Lab Sample ID: JC58612-1 Date Sampled: 01/10/18 Matr ix: SO - Soil Date Received: 01/11/18 Method: SW846 8260C Percent Solids: 86.7 Project: Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical…