Amendment 0007_Sherman Barracks GER.pdf

EXHIBIT B-1

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

Sherman Barracks Renovation US Military Academy, West Point, New York

February 6, 2019 Terracon Project No. JD185277

Prepared for:

JACOBS

299 Madison Avenue Morristown, New Jersey 07960

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants-GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc.

Ashburn, VirginiaDRAFT

19955 Highland Vista Dr., Suite 170 Ashburn, Virginia 20147

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

February 6, 2019

Mr. Neil Mehta, AIA

JACOBS

299 Madison Avenue Morristown, New Jersey 07960

Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Sherman Barracks Renovation (Our JD185277) US Military Academy, West Point, New York

Dear Mr. Mehta:

GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc. (GeoConcepts) is pleased to present the following preliminary geotechnical engineering report prepared for Sherman Barracks Renovation at the US Military Academy in West Point, New York.

We appreciate the opportunity to serve as your geotechnical consultant on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or want to meet to discuss the findings and recommendations contained in the report.

Sincerely, GEOCONCEPTS ENGINEERING, INC.

Rebecca L. Smith-Zakowicz, PG Senior Associate Rebecca.Smith-Zakowicz@terracon.com

DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Geology

3.2 Stratification

3.3 Groundwater

3.4 Soil Laboratory Test Results

3.5 Seismic Site Classification

3.6 Metal Corrosion/Concrete Attack Test Results

3.7 Rock Moisture/Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results

3.8 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Results

3.9 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Test Results

4.0 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

4.1 Earthwork

5.0 GENERAL LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX A: SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

APPENDIX B: SOIL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Sherman Barracks Renovation ■ US Military Academy, West Point, New York February 6, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. JD185277

February 6, 2019 JD185277 Page 1

1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

This preliminary geotechnical engineering report presents the results of the field investigation, soil laboratory testing, and engineering analysis of the geotechnical data. This report specifically addresses the following:

n An evaluation of subsurface conditions within the area of the proposed site development, including seismic site classification parameters per the International Building Code.

n Results of the compressive strength tests of the concrete cores.

n Earthwork recommendations for construction of loadbearing fills, including an assessment of on-site soils to be excavated for re-use as fill.

Services not specifically identified in the contract for this project are not included in the scope of services.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

The site is located at the existing Sherman Barracks at the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point, New York. Specifically, Sherman Barracks is located on the east side of the campus, southwest of the intersection of Thayer Road and Brewerton Road. Sherman Barracks was constructed in 1962 and has one basement level and five above-grade levels. The total area of the building is approximately 111,715 square feet.

Image provided by Google Maps dated April 2018.

February 6, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. JD185277

February 6, 2019 JD185277 Page 2

Based on the Field Investigation Plan provided to us by the Jacobs-EwingCole team dated November 21, 2018, it is our understanding that the Sherman Barracks will be undergoing various renovations including both interior and exterior alterations. Exterior renovations include roof replacement, replacement of rooftop equipment screens, stone masonry repairs, window replacement, hardscaping, landscaping, and site security improvements. Interior renovations include new heating and ventilation systems, plumbing systems, electrical systems, telecommunication systems, cable television systems, and security alarm systems. Based on this information, it is our understanding that additional load will not be added to the existing building foundations.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling one Standard Penetration Test (SPT) boring in the building area. The SPT boring was completed by Uni-Tech Drilling of Franklinville, New Jersey under our observation on December 28, 2018, utilizing 3-¼ inch inside diameter hollow stem auger with automatic hammer. The sampler was advanced by driving the spoon into undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140-lbf hammer free-falling from 30 inches height per ASTM D1586-11. The boring was located in the field by GeoConcepts using available site plans. A test boring log and a boring location plan are presented in Appendix A of this report.

3.1 Geology

The site lies within the Hudson Highlands Physiographic Province of New York. According to local geologic maps, the site is mapped in Grenville and Canada Hill Granite. Based on our subsurface investigation, the sediments and strata correspond favorably to the geologic publications. The existing fill soils are believed to be associated with previous site development. Bedrock was cored for identification and evaluation of the rock. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values in the cored rock was measured to be 0 to 14 percent, indicating very poor rock quality.

3.2 Stratification

The subsurface materials encountered have been stratified for purposes of our discussions herein. These stratum designations do not imply that the materials encountered are continuous across the site. Stratum designations have been established to characterize similar subsurface conditions based on material gradations and parent geology. The generalized subsurface materials encountered in the test borings completed at the site have been assigned to the following strata:

Stratum A (Existing Fill) loose to very dense, WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND

SAND, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND,

SILTY CLAYEY SAND, POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND

GRAVEL, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, FILL, moist, gray to dark gray

Stratum B1 (Weathered Rock) very dense, SILTY SAND (SM) WITH GRAVEL, moist, dark brown

February 6, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. JD185277

February 6, 2019 JD185277 Page 3

Stratum B2 (Rock) slightly weathered, very hard, intensely fractured, GRANITE, dark gray

The two letter designations included in the strata descriptions presented above and on the test boring log represent the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) group symbol and group name for the samples based on laboratory testing per ASTM D2487 and visual classifications per ASTM D2488. It should be noted that visual classifications per ASTM D2488 may not match classifications determined by laboratory testing per ASTM D2487.

3.3 Groundwater

Groundwater level observations were made in the field during drilling of the test boring.

Groundwater was not encountered during drilling of the test boring. Due to safety concerns to pedestrians, the borehole was backfilled upon completion.

The groundwater observations presented herein are considered to be an indication of the groundwater levels at the dates and times indicated. Accordingly, the groundwater information presented herein should be used with caution. Also, fluctuations in groundwater levels should be expected with seasons of the year, construction activity, changes to surface grades, precipitation, or other similar factors.

3.4 Soil Laboratory Test Results

Selected soil samples obtained from the field investigation were tested for grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, and natural moisture contents. A summary of soil laboratory test results is presented below in Table 3.4-1, and the results of natural moisture content tests are presented on the test boring logs in Appendix A.

Table 3.4-1: Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results

Test Boring

No.

Depth

(ft) Sample

Type Stratum Description of Soil Specimen

Sieve Results

Atterberg Limits Natural

Moisture Content

Percent

Retained #4 Sieve

Percent Passing

#200 Sieve

LL PL PI

B-1 2.5-4.0 Jar A

WELL GRADED

GRAVEL (GW-GM)

WITH SILT AND SAND

56.0 6.4 24 21 3 5.1

B-1 4.0-6.0 Jar A

SILTY CLAYEY SAND

(SC-SM) WITH

GRAVEL

37.0 16.0 22 17 5 7.9

B-1 6.0-8.0 Jar A

POORLY GRADED

SAND (SP-SM) WITH

SILT AND GRAVEL

38.6 10.6 20 17 3 7.3

B-1 8.0-10.0 Jar A SILTY SAND (SM)

WITH GRAVEL 32.4 17.8 19 16 3 11.9

B-1 10.0-12.0 Jar A

POORLY GRADED

GRAVEL (GP-GC)

WITH CLAY AND

SAND

62.1 8.0 24 18 6 7.7

February 6, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. JD185277

February 6, 2019 JD185277 Page 4

Test Boring

No.

Depth

(ft) Sample

Type Stratum Description of Soil Specimen

Sieve Results

Atterberg Limits Natural

Moisture Content

Percent

Retained #4 Sieve

Percent Passing

#200 Sieve

LL PL PI

B-1 12.0-14.0 Jar A SILTY SAND (SM) 12.2 26.8 18 16 2 11.6

Notes:

1. Soil tests are in accordance with applicable ASTM standards

2. Soil classification symbols are in accordance with Unified Soil Classification System

3. Visual identification of samples is in accordance with ASTM D2488

4. Key to abbreviations: LL = liquid limit; PL = plastic limit; PI = plasticity index

3.5 Seismic Site Classification

Based on the results of the subsurface investigation and our knowledge of local geologic conditions, the site soils have been assigned to a site class C per the 2015 International Building Code (IBC).

The site coefficients and adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) spectral response acceleration parameters were obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) website for Risk Category I/II/III and are presented below in Tables 3.5-1 and 3.5-2.

Table 3.5-1: Site Coefficients Mapped Spectral Accelerations for Site

Class B and 5% Damping (Step 1) Site Coefficients to Modify Accelerations Based on Site Classification C (Step 2) SS = 0.230 g Fa = 1.2

S1 = 0.069 g FV = 1.7

Table 3.5-2: Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Spectral Response Acceleration MCE Spectral Response Accelerations

(Step 3) Design Spectral Response Accelerations

(Step 4) SMS = 0.277 g (=SS*Fa) SDS = 0.184 g (=2/3*SMS)

SM1 = 0.117 g (=S1*FV) SD1 = 0.078 g (=2/3*SM1)

3.6 Metal Corrosion/Concrete Attack Test Results

In addition to standard geotechnical soil laboratory testing, one sample was submitted to an analytical laboratory for metal corrosion and concrete attack testing. Corrosion testing consisted of analysis for moisture content (EPA), pH (CA-643), resistivity (ASTM G187), sulfides (EPA 376.2), and reduction-oxidation potential (Electrode). The results of these tests are presented below in Table 3.6-1:

Table 3.6-1: Analytical Laboratory Test Results Test

Boring No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

Moisture Content pH Resistivity

(ohm – cm) Chloride

(ppm) Sulfides

(ppm) Redox

Potential (mV)

Point Total

B-1 1-5 7.6 10.6 7300 57 <1.2 +104 6

February 6, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. JD185277

February 6, 2019 JD185277 Page 5

For each test presented in Table 3.6-1, points are assigned based on the range of the test results.

If the total points from the five tests completed for a particular sample are 10 or more, the soil is considered to be corrosive. The methods described herein are based on information from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) for ductile iron pipes. Using the methods described by AWWA, the point total for the sample was 6. Accordingly, the site soils are considered non-corrosive.

A sulfate test (EPA 375.4) was performed on a selected soil sample to determine the severity of a sulfate attack on concrete structures. The results of sulfate testing are presented below in Table 3.6-2.

Table 3.6-2: Sulfate Test Results Test Boring No. Sample Depth

(ft) Sulfate Concentration

(ppm) B-1 1.0-5.0 32

Based on correlations between sulfate concentrations and severity of sulfate attack as presented in American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318, the above sulfate concentrations are concentrations are considered to pose a negligible threat of sulfate attack on concrete.

3.7 Rock Moisture/Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results

Rock moisture and unconfined compressive strength tests were conducted on a core specimen of the granite rock. The results of the rock moisture and unconfined compressive strength test are presented below in Table 3.7-1.

Table 3.7-1: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Rock Moisture Test Results Test Boring No. Sample Depth

(ft) Unconfined Compressive

Strength (psi) Moisture Content

B-1 19-20 12,410 0.1

3.8 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Results

A total of six concrete cores were collected from the existing slabs and columns inside the Sherman Barracks. Specific locations of the cores are shown on Figures 2 through 5 in Appendix A. The concrete cores were tested for compressive strength testing in accordance with ASTM- C39. The results of the compressive strength tests are presented below in Table 3.8-1 and in Appendix B of this report.

Table 3.8-1: Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results Test Boring No. Location Compressive Strength

(psi) C-1 Wall, Basement, Mechanical Room

9A 7,120

C-2 Wall, Basement, Storage Room 14A 4,780

C-3 Wall, Basement, Elevator Room B21 3,680

C-4 Slab, Third Floor, Janitor’s Closet 4,140

February 6, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. JD185277

February 6, 2019 JD185277 Page 6

Test Boring No. Location Compressive Strength (psi)

C-5 Slab, Fourth Floor, Janitor’s Closet 3,940

C-6 Slab, Fifth Floor, Janitor’s Closet 3,310

3.9 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Test Results

A total of nine areas throughout Sherman Barracks were scanned using ground penetrating radar (GPR) by GPRS. Five slab locations between the second floor and the basement mechanical rooms were scanned to locate rebar and potential utilities. Four wall locations between the third through fifth floor janitor’s closet, as well as the basement, were scanned. The GPRS report can be found in Appendix A.

4.0 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

Preliminary recommendations regarding earthwork are presented herein.

4.1 Earthwork

New fill may be required for the site improvements. Unsuitable existing fill, soft or loose natural soils, organic material, and rubble should be stripped to approved subgrades as determined by the geotechnical engineer.

Fill material should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches loose thickness, with fill materials compacted by hand operated tampers or light compaction equipment placed in maximum 4-inch thick loose lifts. Fill should be compacted at +/- 2% of the optimum moisture content to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557.

Materials used for compacted fill should consist of soils classifying SC, SM, SP, SW, GC, GM, GP, or GW per ASTM D2487. The Stratum A existing fill may not be suitable for re-use as new compacted fill due to deleterious man-made materials in the fill. The existing fill contained construction debris at a depth of approximately 10 feet. In addition, drying of excavated soils by spreading and aerating may be necessary to obtain proper compaction. This may not be practical during the wet period of the year. Accordingly, earthwork operations should be planned for early spring through late fall, when drier weather conditions can be expected. Individual borrow areas, both from on-site and off-site sources, should be sampled and tested to verify classification of materials prior to their use as fill.

Fill materials should not be placed on frozen or frost-heaved soils, and/or soils that have been recently subjected to precipitation. All frozen or frost-heaved soils should be removed prior to continuation of fill operations. Borrow fill materials should not contain frozen materials at the time of placement.

Compaction equipment that is compatible with the soil type used for fill should be selected.

Theoretically, any equipment type can be used as long as the required density is achieved;

however, sheepsfoot roller equipment are best suited for fine-grained soils and vibratory smooth drum rollers are best suited for granular soils. Ideally, a smooth drum roller should be used for sealing the surface soils at the end of the day or prior to upcoming rain events. In addition, February 6, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. JD185277

February 6, 2019 JD185277 Page 7 compaction equipment used adjacent to walls below grade should be selected so as to not impose undesirable surcharge on walls. All areas receiving fill should be graded to facilitate positive drainage of any water associated with precipitation and surface run-off.

After completion of compacted fill operations in building areas, construction of building elements should begin immediately, or the finished subgrade should be protected from exposure to inclement weather conditions. Exposure to precipitation and freeze/thaw cycles will cause the finished subgrade to soften and become excessively disturbed. If development plans require that finished subgrades remain exposed to weather conditions after completion of fill operations, additional fill should be placed above finished grades to protect the newly placed fill. Alternatively, a budget should be established for reworking of the upper 1 to 2 feet of previously placed compacted fill.

5.0 GENERAL LIMITATIONS

Preliminary recommendations contained in this report are based upon the data obtained from the relatively limited number of test borings. This report does not reflect conditions that may occur between the points investigated, or between sampling intervals in test borings. The nature and extent of variations between test borings and sampling intervals may not become evident until the course of construction. Therefore, it is essential that on-site observations of subgrade conditions be performed during the construction period to determine if re-evaluation of the recommendations in this report must be made. It is critical to the successful completion of this project that GeoConcepts be retained during construction to observe the implementation of the recommendations provided herein.

This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of the site and to assist your office and the design professionals in the design of this project. It is intended for use with regard to the specific project as described herein. Changes in proposed construction, grading plans, structural loads, etc. should be brought to our attention so that we may determine any effect on the recommendations presented herein.

An allowance should be established for additional costs that may be required for foundation and earthwork construction as recommended in this report. Additional costs may be incurred for various reasons including rubble fill, wet fill materials, soft subgrade conditions, unexpected groundwater problems, etc.

This report should be made available to bidders prior to submitting their proposals to supply them with facts relative to the subsurface conditions revealed by our investigation and the results of analyses and studies that have been performed for this project. In addition, this report should be given to the successful contractor and subcontractors for their information only.

We recommend the project specifications contain the following statement: “A geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for this project by GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc. This report is for informational purposes only and should not be considered part of the contract documents. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the geotechnical engineer and represent their interpretation of the subsoil conditions, tests and results of analyses that they performed. Should the data contained in this report not be adequate for the contractor’s purposes, the contractor may make their own investigations, tests and analyses prior to bidding.”

February 6, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. JD185277

February 6, 2019 JD185277 Page 8

This report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, expressed or implied, are made as to the professional services included in this report.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service for this project. Please contact the undersigned if you require clarification of any aspect of this report.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants

Paul Burkart, P.E.

Senior Principal

DJN/KF/RSZ/PEB/shm \\dcmetrowest1\Data\Projects\2018\JD185277\PROJECT DOCUMENTS (Reports-Letters-Drafts to Clients)\GER\Sherman Barracks GER.docx

Appendix A Subsurface Investigation Subsurface Investigation Procedures (1 page)

Identification of Soil (1 page)

Engineering Descriptions of Rock (2 pages)

Figure 1, Boring Location Plan (1 page)

Figures 2 to 5, Coring Location Plans (4 pages)

Test Boring Notes (1 page)

Test Boring Log (1 page) Rock Core Photograph (1 page)

GPRS Job Summary (2 pages)

Subsurface Investigation Procedures

1. Test Borings – Hollow Stem Augers The borings are advanced by turning an auger with a center opening of 4-¼ inches. A plug device blocks off the center opening while augers are advanced. Cuttings are brought to the surface by the auger flights.

Sampling is performed through the center opening in the hollow stem auger, by standard methods, after removal of the plug. Usually, no water is introduced into the boring using this procedure.

2. Standard Penetration Tests Standard penetration tests are performed by driving a 2-inch O.D., 1-⅜ inch I.D. sampling spoon with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches, according to ASTM D1586. After an initial 6 inches penetration to assure the sampling spoon is in undisturbed material, the number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional 12 inches is generally taken as the N value. In the event 30 or more blows are required to drive the sampling spoon the initial 6-inch interval, the sampling spoon is driven to a total penetration resistance of 100 blows or 18 inches, whichever occurs first.

3. Rock Core Drilling Rock is core drilled using NQ size core bits set with carbide steel or diamond, depending upon the rock texture. The bit is fitted onto a double tube swivel-type core barrel in which an exterior tube and bit rotate, and an interior barrel remains stationary to receive the rock core. Water is circulated between the barrels and across the bit face to cool the core bit and to flush away cuttings.

4. Test Boring Stakeout The test boring stakeout was provided by GeoConcepts personnel using available site plans. Ground surface elevations were estimated from topographic information contained on the site plan provided to us and should be considered approximate. If the risk related to using approximate boring locations and elevations is unacceptable, we recommend an as-drilled survey of boring locations and elevations be completed by a licensed surveyor.

Identification of Soil I. DEFINITION OF SOIL GROUP NAMES ASTM D2487 Symbol Group Name

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

GW WELL GRADED GRAVEL

GP POORLY GRADED GRAVEL

Gravels with Fines More than 12% fines

GM SILTY GRAVEL

GC CLAYEY GRAVEL

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

Clean Sands Less than 5% fines

SW WELL GRADED SAND

SP POORLY GRADED SAND

Sands with fines More than 12% fines

SM SILTY SAND

SC CLAYEY SAND

Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays Liquid Limit less than

Inorganic CL LEAN CLAY

ML SILT

Organic OL ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT

Silts and Clays Liquid Limit 50 or more

Inorganic CH FAT CLAY

MH ELASTIC SILT

Organic OH ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT

Highly Organic Soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT PEAT

II. DEFINITION OF MINOR COMPONENT PROPORTIONS

Minor Component Approximate Percentage of Fraction by Weight Gravelly, Sandy (adjective) 30% or more coarse grained Sand, Gravel 15% to 29% coarse grained Silt, Clay 5% to 12% fine grained

III. GLOSSARY OF MISCELLANEOUS TERMS

SYMBOLS Unified Soil Classification Symbols are shown above as group symbols. Use “A” Line Chart for laboratory identification. Dual symbols are used for borderline classification.

BOULDERS &

COBBLES

Boulders are considered pieces of rock larger than 12 inches, while cobbles range from 3 to 12 inches.

WEATHERED ROCK Residual rock material with a standard penetration test (SPT) resistance of at least 50 blows per 6 inches.

ROCK/SPOON

REFUSAL

Rock material with a standard penetration test (SPT) resistance of 50 blows for 1 inch.

ROCK FRAGMENTS Angular pieces of rock which have separated from original vein or strata and are present in a soil matrix. Only used in residual soils

QUARTZ A hard silicate mineral often found in residual soils. Only used when describing residual soils.

CEMENTED SAND Usually localized rock-like deposits within a soil stratum composed of sand grains cemented by calcium carbonate, iron oxide, or other minerals. Commonly encountered in Coastal Plain sediments, primarily in the Potomac Group sands (Kps).

MICACEOUS A term used to describe soil that “glitters” or is shiny. Most commonly encountered in fine-grained soils.

ORGANIC MATERIALS

(Excluding Peat)

Topsoil - Surface soils that support plant life and contain organic matter.

Lignite - Hard, brittle decomposed organic matter with low fixed carbon content (a low grade of coal).

FILL Man-made deposit containing soil, rock, and other foreign matter.

CONTAINS This is used when a soil contains a secondary component that does not apply to a USCS classification.

WITH This is used when a residual soil contains a secondary component that is included in the USCS classification.

PROBABLE FILL Soils which contain no visually detected foreign matter but which are suspect with regard to origin.

LAYERS ½ to 12 inch seam of minor soil component.

COLOR Two most predominant colors present should be described.

MOISTURE

CONDITIONS

Wet, moist, or dry to indicate visual appearance of specimen.

GRAIN SIZE Fine-medium-coarse

Engineering Descriptions of Rock The terminology used by GeoConcepts to describe rock cores can also be applied to rock outcrops and hand sized specimens.

Rock Hardness Very Hard Specimen cannot be scratched with a knife.

Hard Specimen can be scratched with a knife with difficulty.

Moderately Hard Specimen can be scratched with a knife with ease.

Soft Specimen can be scratched with a fingernail.

Very Soft Specimen can be deformed by hand.

Rock Weathering Unweathered No evidence of chemical or mechanical alteration Slightly Weathered slight discoloration on surface, slight alteration along fractures, <10% of the rock volume altered Moderately Weathered Obvious discoloration, iron and magnesium minerals look rusty, 10-50% of the rock volume altered Highly Weathered Entire mass discolored, alteration through most of the rock, some pockets of slightly weathered rock, some minerals leached away Decomposed Rock reduced to soil with relic rock structure. Can be molded and crumbled by hand

Fracturing (excludes mechanical breaks) Very widely fractured: No observed fractures. Spacing >5 ft.

Slightly Fractured: Core recovered mostly in lengths of 2 ft. to less than 5 ft.

Moderately Fractured: Core recovered mostly in lengths of 0.7 ft. to less than 2 ft.

Highly Fractured: Core recovered mostly in lengths of 0.2 ft. to less than 0.7 ft.

Intensely Fractured: Core recovered mostly in lengths of less than 0.2 ft.

Percent Core Recovery and Rock Quality Designation Percent Core Recovery: Percent of recovered core calculated as the length of the core recovered, divided by the length of the core run, times 100.

Rock Quality Designation: RQD is the summed length of individual rock core pieces 4 inches or greater divided by the length of the rock core run times 100. Based on the percent RQD the following designations are assigned:

RQD Designation 0 to 25 % Very Poor Rock 25 to 50 % Poor Rock 50 to 75 % Fair Rock 75 to 90 % Good Rock 90 to 100 % Excellent Rock

For example, the sum of the rock core pieces greater than 4 inches in length from a core run of 5.0 feet equals 3.5 feet, then the RQD equals 3.5 feet, divided by 5.0 feet, times 100, or 70 % - Fair Rock.DRAFT

B-1

(703) 726-8032 fax

(703) 726-803019955 Highland Vista Dr., Suite 170

B-1 DRAFT

C-2C-3 C-1

(703) 726-803019955 Highland Vista Dr., Suite 170

C-1 DRAFT

C-4

(703) 726-803019955 Highland Vista Dr., Suite 170

C-5

(703) 726-803019955 Highland Vista Dr., Suite 170

C-6

(703) 726-803019955 Highland Vista Dr., Suite 170

Test Boring Notes

1. Classification of soil is by visual inspection and is in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification

System.

2. Estimated groundwater levels are indicated on the logs. These are only estimates from available data and may vary with precipitation, porosity of soil, site topography, etc.

3. Sampling data presents standard penetrations for 6-inch intervals or as indicated with graphic representations adjacent to the sampling data.

4. The energy applied to the split-spoon sampler using the automatic hammer is about 33 percent greater than the applied energy using the standard safety hammer. The hammer blows shown on the boring logs are uncorrected for the higher energy.

5. The logs and related information depict subsurface conditions at the specific locations and at the particular time when drilled. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at the test locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface conditions at the test locations.

6. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil types as determined in the sampling operation. Some variation may be expected vertically between samples taken. The soil profile, groundwater level observations and penetration resistances presented on the logs have been made with reasonable care and accuracy and must be considered only an approximate representation of subsurface conditions to be encountered at the particular location.

7. Weathered rock is defined as residual earth material with a penetration resistance between 50 blows per 6 inches and refusal. Spoon refusal at the surface of rock, boulders, or obstructions is defined as a penetration resistance of 50 blows for 1 inch penetration or less. Auger refusal is taken as the depth at which further penetration of the auger is not possible without risking significant damage to the drilling equipment.

8. Rock Quality Designation (RQD) represents the sum of cores recovered with lengths of 4-inches or longer, divided by the total length of rock core, expressed in percentage.

8+9+21

18+31+36

12+6+5+5

12+5+4+4

5+3+3+3

3+3+2+2

6+9+5+4

6+15+50/2

175.0 174.8 174.3 174.1 172.5

171.0

169.0

167.0

165.0

163.0

161.0

159.8

153.8

A

B1

B2

Asphalt = 2 in.

Concrete = 7 in.

Crushed stone = 2 in.

Fill, gray, fine to coarse, WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND, dense, moist, GW-GM Very dense Fill, dark gray, fine to coarse, SILTY CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, moist, SC-SM Fill, dark gray, fine to coarse, POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL, medium dense, moist, SP-SM

Fill, dark gray, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, loose, moist, SM

Fill, dark gray, fine to coarse, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND, contains brick fragments, loose, moist, GP-GC Fill, dark gray, fine to medium, SILTY SAND, medium dense, moist, SM

Weathered rock, dark brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, very dense, moist, SM Slightly weathered, very hard, dark gray, GRANITE, intensely fractured

Bottom of Borehole at 21.2 ft.

5.1

7.9

7.3

11.9

7.7

11.6

3.3

DRILLER:

DRILLING METHOD:PROJECT NUMBER:

12/26/18 - 12/27/18JACOBS-EwingCole JV

JD185277

D. Gough

175.0 ±

DATES DRILLED:OWNER/CLIENT:

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.): DRILL RIG:

CME 7504.25 ID HSA; Automatic Hammer

SOIL

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

BORING NUMBER:

SHEET 1 OF 1

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

NOT ENCOUNTERED UPON COMPLETION

NOT ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING

703-726-8030 703-726-8032 fax

Sherman Barracks Renovation

USMA, West Point, New York

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES. THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.

SAMPLE TYPES:

SPT

Rock Core

REMARKS:

Uni-Tech Drillilng

J. Von Erden

B-1LOCATION:

LOGGED BY:

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

LOCATION:

PROJECT:

Ended first run of rock coring at 16.2 feet due to clogged rock barrel. Resumed rock coring at 16.2 feet and performed 5 foot run.

19955 Highland Vista Dr., #170 Ashburn, Virginia 20147

B O

R E

H O

LE

/T

E S

T P

IT

S

H E

R M

A N

B A

R R

A C

K S

L O

G S

.G P

J G

E O

C O

N C

E P

T S

.G

D T

/5

/1

R E

C

R Q

D

ROCK

SPT

BLOW

COUNTS R

E

C (i n)

ELEV.

(ft.)

ELEV. 160.0

20 40 60 80

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESISTANCE

(BPF)

15.0 ft.CAVED:

DEPTH

(ft.)

S T

R A

T U

M

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

G R

A P

H

IC

M

C

Sherman Barracks Renovation, United States Military Academy (USMA), West Point, New York Project No. JD185277

Rock Core Photographs

Boring # Run # Length From To Recovery Length (feet)

Recovery (%) RQD (%)

B-1 1 1.0 15.2 16.2 0.7 71 0

B-1 2 5.0 16.2 21.2 2.9 58 14DRAFT

Equipment Used

The following equipment was used on this project:

400 MHz GPR antenna. Typically capable of detecting objects several feet deep. Maximum effective depth depends on site and soil conditions.

RD 7000/8000 Radio Frequency detector. Detects electromagnetic fields. Used to actively trace metallic pipes and tracer wires, or passively detect electric,communications and other lines.

Work Performed

Ground Penetrating Radar Systems performed the following work on this project:

Scanning areas where holes are to be drilled through the concrete. The areas to be drilled were scanned to locate any reinforcing steel, conduits, beams, or other significant obstructions to drilling. Unless otherwise directed, the locations of these obstructions are marked directly onto the surface, and the results discussed with the onsite contact.

A total of 9 hole locations were scanned.

Some or all of the areas were scanned on walls.

The slab is a cast-in-place rebar slab. GPRS marked the locations of any rebar, conduits, beams, and other obstructions to drilling.

5 floor scans and 4 wall scans of various sizes.

walls were approx 8" thick with rebar, floors were 8-9" thick with bottom and top rebar, and potential conduits.

Thank you for using Ground Penetrating Radar Systems on your project. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you. If you have questions regarding the results of this scanning, please contact the lead GPRS technician on this project.

GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc.Customer Phone Number 703-376-4170

Billing Address

19955 Highland Vista Dr, Ste

Lead Technician BERTHOLD, DENNIS Phone Email dennis.berthold@gp-radar.com

Job Details

929-418-0069

City

Ashburn

State

VA

Zip

20147

City West Point State NY

Jobsite Location Sherman Barracks

105138 Job Num JD185277

PO Num

WA Number

Job Date : 26-Dec-18

Job Summary

Scanning the specified area to locate underground utilities and other significant anomalies. A tracer signal was sent along any accessible metallic utility or tracer wire, and the area was scanned with GPR to locate any additional targets. The locations of any detected utilities and anomalies were marked directly at the site with paint, flags, stakes, or other appropriate means, and results were reviewed with onsite personnel.

scan one area exterior to the building 10'x10'

The total area scanned was approximately 100 square feet.

bracketed out an area in which no known utilities or detections were found, to a max depth of 6'.

no reporting requested

Pictures

Cast In Place Rebar Slab

TERMS & CONDITIONS

http://www.gprsinc.com/termsandconditions.html

Please avoid all marks by at least 1'. Cannot scan within 3' of any obstructions.

SIGNATURE

Contact Name Contact Phone Contact Email Jen Von Erden 703-376-4170 jvonerden@geoconcepts-eng.com http://m.gprsinc.com/terms-conditions

Appendix B Soil Laboratory Test Results Liquid and Plastic Limit, and Grain Size Analysis Test Data (12 pages)

Unconfined Rock Compressive Strength Test Report (1 page)

Corrosion Series Test Results (2 pages)

Drilled Core Test Report (1 page)

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT - ASTM D4318

Project No. JD185277 Project Name Sherman Barrack Renovation

Sample ID B-1 Depth (Feet) 2.5-4.0

Lab Order No. 4507-1 Date 01.04.2019

Material Description LL PL PI % Passing USCS w (%)#4 #200

WELL GRADED GRAVEL

with silt and sand 24 21 3 44.0 6.4 GW-GM 5.1

Color Gray AASHTO Classification A-1-a

Test Method: ASTM D 4318 Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Reviewed by

1009080706050403020100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PL

AS

TI

CI

TY

I

N D

EX

PI

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

Project No.

Sample ID

Lab Order No.

SIEVE % Passing

1 ½ " 100

3/4" 88

3/8" 66

#4 44

#10 32

#20 23

#40 16

#60 12

#100 9

#200 6

Pan -- Test Method: ASTM D 422

Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Reviewed by:

A-1-a

Gravel

Sand

Fines

AASHTO Classification

Cu

6.4

WELL GRADED GRAVEL with silt and sand

48.3

1.9

56.0

37.5

USCS Group Name

GW-GMUSCS Group Symbol

LL

PI

Color Gray

Cc

Sherman Barrack RenovationJD185277

B-1

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D422

Project Name

Depth (Feet)

01.04.2019Date4507-1

2.5-4.0

0.010.1110100

Grain Size Diameter (mm)

N o

N o

N o

¾ in

P e rc e n t

F in e r

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT - ASTM D4318

Project No. JD185277 Project Name Sherman Barrack Renovation

Sample ID B-1 Depth (Feet) 4.0-6.0

Lab Order No. 4507-2 Date 01.04.2019

Material Description LL PL PI % Passing USCS w (%)#4 #200 SILTY CLAYEY SAND with gravel 22 17 5 63.0 16.0 SC-SM 7.9

Color Dark Gray AASHTO Classification A-1-b

Test Method: ASTM D 4318 Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Reviewed by

1009080706050403020100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PL

AS

TI

CI

TY

I

N D

EX

PI

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D422

Project No. JD185277 Project Name Sherman Barrack Renovation

Sample ID B-1 Depth (Feet) 4.0-6.0

Lab Order No. 4507-2 Date 01.04.2019

SIEVE % Passing USCS Group Symbol SC-SM 1 ½ " 100 USCS Group Name SILTY CLAYEY SAND with gravel 3/4" 84 Cu --- 3/8" 75 Cc ---

#4 63 LL 22

#10 54 PI 5

#20 43 Gravel 37.0 #40 31 Sand 46.9 #60 28 Fines 16.0 #100 22 AASHTO Classification A-1-b #200 16 Color Dark Gray Pan -- Test Method: ASTM D 422

Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Reviewed by:

0.010.1110100

Grain Size Diameter (mm)

No . 2

No . 4

No . 4¾ in

Pe rc en t F in er

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT - ASTM D4318

Project No. JD185277 Project Name Sherman Barrack Renovation

Sample ID B-1 Depth (Feet) 6.0-8.0

Lab Order No. 4507-3 Date 01.04.2019

Material Description LL PL PI % Passing USCS w (%)#4 #200

POORLY GRADED SAND

with silt and gravel 20 17 3 61.4 10.6 SP-SM 7.3

Color Dark Gray AASHTO Classification A-1-a

Test Method: ASTM D 4318 Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Reviewed by

1009080706050403020100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PL

AS

TI

CI

TY

I

N D

EX

PI

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

Project No.

Sample ID

Lab Order No.

SIEVE % Passing

1 ½ " 100

3/4" 100

3/8" 76

#4 61

#10 46

#20 35

#40 25

#60 20

#100 15

#200 11

Pan -- Test Method: ASTM D 422

Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Reviewed by:

A-1-a

Gravel

Sand

Fines

AASHTO Classification

Cu

10.6

POORLY GRADED SAND with silt and gravel

38.6

50.7

USCS Group Name

SP-SMUSCS Group Symbol

LL

PI

Color Dark Gray

Cc

Sherman Barrack RenovationJD185277

B-1

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D422

Project Name

Depth (Feet)

01.04.2019Date4507-3

6.0-8.0

0.010.1110100

Grain Size Diameter (mm)

N o

N o

N o

¾ in

P e rc e n t

F in e

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT - ASTM D4318

Project No. JD185277 Project Name Sherman Barrack Renovation

Sample ID B-1 Depth (Feet) 8.0-10.0

Lab Order No. 4507-4 Date 01.04.2019

Material Description LL PL PI % Passing USCS w (%)#4 #200

SILTY SAND with gravel 19 16 3 67.6 17.8 SM 11.9

Color Dark Gray AASHTO Classification A-1-b

Test Method: ASTM D 4318 Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Reviewed by

1009080706050403020100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PL

AS

TI

CI

TY

I

N D

EX

PI

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D422

Project No. JD185277 Project Name Sherman Barrack Renovation

Sample ID B-1 Depth (Feet) 8.0-10.0

Lab Order No. 4507-4 Date 01.04.2019

SIEVE % Passing USCS Group Symbol SM 1 ½ " 100 USCS Group Name SILTY SAND with gravel 3/4" 100 Cu --- 3/8" 82 Cc ---

#4 68 LL 19

#10 57 PI 3

#20 46 Gravel 32.4 #40 36 Sand 49.7 #60 29 Fines 17.8 #100 24 AASHTO Classification A-1-b #200 18 Color Dark Gray Pan -- Test Method: ASTM D 422

Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Reviewed by:

0.010.1110100

Grain Size Diameter (mm)

No . 2

No . 4

No . 4¾ in

Pe rc en t F

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT - ASTM D4318

Project No. JD185277 Project Name Sherman Barrack Renovation

Sample ID B-1 Depth (Feet) 10.0-12.0

Lab Order No. 4507-5 Date 01.04.2019

Material Description LL PL PI % Passing USCS w (%)#4 #200

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL

with clay & sand 24 18 6 37.9 8.0 GP-GC 7.7

Color Dark Gray AASHTO Classification A-1-a

Test Method: ASTM D 4318 Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Reviewed by

1009080706050403020100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PL

AS

TI

CI

TY

I

N D

EX

PI

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

Project No.

Sample ID

Lab Order No.

SIEVE % Passing

1 ½ " 100

3/4" 100

3/8" 58

#4 38

#10 28

#20 22

#40 17

#60 14

#100 11

#200 8

Pan -- Test Method: ASTM D 422

Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Reviewed by:

A-1-a

Gravel

Sand

Fines

AASHTO Classification

Cu

8.0

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with clay & sand

82.5

5.2

62.1

29.8

USCS Group Name

GP-GCUSCS Group Symbol

LL

PI

Color Dark Gray

Cc

Sherman Barrack RenovationJD185277

B-1

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D422

Project Name

Depth (Feet)

01.04.2019Date4507-5

10.0-12.0

0.010.1110100

Grain Size Diameter (mm)

N o

N o

N o

¾ in

P e rc e n t

F in e

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT - ASTM D4318

Project No. JD185277 Project Name Sherman Barrack Renovation

Sample ID B-1 Depth (Feet) 12.0-14.0

Lab Order No. 4507-6 Date 01.04.2019

Material Description LL PL PI % Passing USCS w (%)#4 #200

SILTY SAND 18 16 2 87.8 26.8 SM 11.6

Color Dark Gray AASHTO Classification A-2-4

Test Method: ASTM D 4318 Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Reviewed by

1009080706050403020100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PL

AS

TI

CI

TY

I

N D

EX

PI

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D422

Project No. JD185277 Project Name Sherman Barrack Renovation

Sample ID B-1 Depth (Feet) 12.0-14.0

Lab Order No. 4507-6 Date 01.04.2019

SIEVE % Passing USCS Group Symbol SM 1 ½ " 100 USCS Group Name SILTY SAND 3/4" 100 Cu --- 3/8" 97 Cc ---

#4 88 LL 18

#10 72 PI 2

#20 60 Gravel 12.2 #40 51 Sand 61.0 #60 44 Fines 26.8 #100 37 AASHTO Classification A-2-4 #200 27 Color Dark Gray Pan -- Test Method: ASTM D 422

Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Reviewed by:

0.010.1110100

Grain Size Diameter (mm)

No . 2

No . 4

No . 4¾ in

Pe rc en t F

Sample No.

Sample Depth

(feet) Rock Type Test Date

Length

Uncapped (0.01 in.)

Diameter

(0.01 in.)

Area

(in

Load (lbs.)

Compressive

Strength (psi) L/D

B-1 19.0-20.0 Granite 1/21/2019 3.86 1.98 3.08 38210 12410 1.95

Reported by:

Project

Number:

JD185277

Project Name: Sherman Barracks

UNCONFINED ROCK COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT

19955 Highland Vista Dr., Suite 170 Ashburn, Virginia 20147

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc Report Number: 193004 Dylan Nixon Date Received: 01/02/19 16:00 19955 Highland Vista Dr., Suite 170 Date Reported: 01/04/19 13:00 Ashburn, VA 20147 Project Location: Sherman Barracks, USMA, West Point, NY

Client Sample No: B-1 Lab Sample No.: 193004-01 Sample Matrix: Soil Collection Date/Time: 12/26/18 12:00 Sample Description: 1.0-5.0 ft

Soil Corrosion Potential Tests

Parameter Method Result Units Limit Dilution Qualifier Cont. Analysis Date Analyst Resistivity ASTM G187 7300 ohm-cm N/A 1 A 01/03/19 JMP Redox Potential Electrode + 104 mV N/A 1 A 01/03/19 JMP pH CA-643 10.6 pH N/A A 01/03/19 JMP Chloride (Water Soluble) CA-422 57 mg/Kg 2.5 4 D A 01/04/19 JMP Sulfate (Water Soluble) EPA 375.4 32 mg/Kg 5.0 1 A 01/04/19 JMP Sulfide (Water Soluble) EPA 376.2 < 1.2 mg/Kg 1.2 1 U A 01/04/19 JMP Moisture (Percent) EPA 7.6 % N/A A 01/03/19 JMP

Certificate of Laboratory Analysis

HP ENVIRONMENTAL INCORPORATED

GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc Report Number: 193004 Dylan Nixon Date Received: 01/02/19 16:00 19955 Highland Vista Dr., Suite 170 Date Reported: 01/04/19 13:00 Ashburn, VA 20147 Project Location: Sherman Barracks, USMA, West Point, NY

Qualifier Codes:

U = Analyte was not detected at or above reporting limit D = Analyte reported from a sample dilution

Sample Container Codes:

Plastic Bag A Soil

Notes:

Soil Results are reported on a wet weight basis (as received) unless stated as "dry".

The lab results reflect the measurement of the sample received only and may not be completely representative of the sampled site.

The Client has the responsibility for assessing risk and appropriate data interpretation of the results contained herein.

Laboratory reports issued are intended for the exclusive use by the Client and shall not be reproduced except in its entirety.

The chain-of-custody is a part of the entire analytical report.

Residual sample(s) will be disposed of in three months unless otherwise notified.

Laboratory Report Approved by:

J Pfaff Laboratory Director, Chemistry Date

Certificate of Laboratory Analysis

HP ENVIRONMENTAL INCORPORATED

01/04/19

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

Project: Project No.:

Client: JACOBS-EwingCole JV Test Date:

Test Time:

Core ID Date Poured Date Drilled Time Drilled Drilled By Length as

Drilled (0.25")

C-1 12/28/2018 8:00 AM

Uni-Tech Drilling 7.30

C-2 12/28/2018 9:15 AM

Uni-Tech Drilling 7.28

C-3 12/28/2018 10:30 AM

Uni-Tech Drilling 7.23

C-4 12/27/2018 1:22 PM

Uni-Tech Drilling 7.32

C-5 12/27/2018 2:45 PM

Uni-Tech Drilling 7.35

C-6 12/27/2018 4:04 PM

Uni-Tech Drilling 7.34

Core ID

Length Before

Capping

(0.05")

Length After

Capping

(0.05")

Avg. Diameter

(0.01")

Area

(0.1 in.

L/D Load (lbs.)

Compressive

Strength

Uncorrected

(1 psi)

Correction

Factor

Compressive

Strength

Corrected

(10 psi)

Fracture

Type

C-1 7.05 7.31 3.70 10.8 1.98 76940 7124 1.00 7120 3 C-2 7.03 7.25 3.70 10.8 1.96 51570 4775 1.00 4780 5 C-3 6.98 7.22 3.70 10.8 1.95 39720 3678 1.00 3680 5 C-4 7.10 7.30 3.70 10.8 1.97 44710 4140 1.00 4140 5 C-5 7.15 7.39 3.70 10.8 2.00 42500 3935 1.00 3940 2 C-6 7.14 7.37 3.70 10.8 1.99 35770 3312 1.00 3310 4

Notes:

Wall - Basement Storage Room 14A

Wall - Basement Elevator Room B21

Floor - 3rd Floor Janitor Closet

Floor - 4th Floor Janitor Closet

Floor - 5th FloorJanitor Closet

9:00am

Drilled Location

DRILLED CORE TEST REPORT (ASTM C42)

Sherman Barracks Renovation JD185277

1/8/2018

Wall - Basement Mechanical Room 9A

1. cover