Camp Buckner - RTA Specifications Appendix 1.1 Final Geotechnical Report.pdf

EXHIBIT B-1

Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report

Training Camps Revitalization at West Point Camp Buckner, West Point Military Reservation, New York

June 11, 2020 Terracon Project No. JD195203

Prepared for:

EwingCole

100 N. 6th Street Philadelphia, PA 19106

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants-GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc.

Ashburn, Virginia

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

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

June 11, 2020

Ms. Barbara Kolonauski, RA, LEED AP EwingCole 100 N. 6th Street Philadelphia, PA

Subject: Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Training Camps Revitalization at West Point Camp Buckner, West Point Military Reservation, New York (Our JD195203)

Dear Ms. Kolonauski:

GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc. (GeoConcepts) is pleased to present the following revised geotechnical engineering report prepared for the Training Camps Revitalization at West Point, at Camp Buckner, West Point Military Reservation, 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., A Terracon Company

Katherine N. Fordney, PE Project Engineer Katherine.Fordney@Terracon.com

Table of Contents

1.0 Scope of Services

2.0 Site Description and Proposed Construction

3.0 Subsurface Conditions

3.1 Geology

3.2 Stratification

3.3 Test Pit Investigation

3.4 Groundwater

3.5 Soil Laboratory Test Results

3.6 Seismic Site Classification

3.7 Metal Corrosion/Concrete Attack Test Results

3.8 Concrete Slab Cores

4.0 Engineering Analysis

4.1 Soil Design Parameters

4.2 Spread Footings

4.3 Slabs on Grade

4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures

4.5 Temporary Construction Dewatering

4.6 Utility Installations

4.7 Earthwork

4.8 Rock Excavation

5.0 General Limitations

Figure 1: Geology Map Figure 2: Design Earth Pressures for Site Retaining Walls

Appendix A: Subsurface Investigation Appendix B: Soil Laboratory Test Results

June 11, 2020 JD195220 Page 1

1.0 Scope of Services

This 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:

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

· Foundation recommendations for support of the proposed buildings.

· Lateral earth pressures for use in design of site retaining walls, including recommended backfill and subdrainage requirements.

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

· Rock excavation requirements for the site development, including methods of rock excavation.

· Results of compressive strength testing of concrete cores obtained from the Barracks buildings.

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 associated with the revitalization project is located at Camp Buckner on the West Point Military Reservation in New York. The site currently consists of existing barracks and support facilities, surrounded by wooded areas, with Popolopen Lake to the northeast. The elevation at the site ranges from approximately elevation (EL) 785 to EL 695, sloping downward towards the northeast.

Camp Buckner

Based on the Revised Statement of Work provided by the Department of the Army dated September 17, 2019 and Field Investigation Report dated January 20, 2019, the proposed construction consists of the repair and revitalization of the existing Camp Buckner Facilities to address immediate structural, health, June 11, 2020 JD195220 Page 2 and safety concerns. We understand that all barracks buildings at Camp Buckner will be repaired and revitalized utilizing the existing foundations. We understand that the largest service level foundation loads for the proposed revitalized structures are expected to be approximately 15 to 20 kips. Some command buildings may also be selected for repair and revitalization. The subject buildings are highlighted in the map above. We also understand new foundations and retaining walls may be constructed at the site.

3.0 Subsurface Conditions

Subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling a total of 13 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings at various locations throughout Camp Buckner. The SPT borings were completed by Unitech Drilling of Franklinville, New Jersey under our observation from December 11 through 13, 2019, 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.

Test pits were also completed by Unitech Drilling under our observation on December 16 and 18, 2019.

Test pits were excavated adjacent to the existing buildings to document the depth and dimension of the existing foundations.

Test boring and test pit logs, and subsurface exploration plans are presented in Appendix A of this report.

Additionally, 38 slab cores were obtained from the barracks from December 3 to 6, 2019 to be tested for compressive strength. Concrete slab coring was performed by Unitech Drilling using a core machine and 2-inch diameter core barrel.

3.1 Geology

The project site lies within the Hudson Highlands Province of New York. The Hudson Highlands is bordered to the north by the Hudson-Mohawk Lowlands and by the Atlantic Costal Plain to the South. The Hudson Highlands typically consist of crystalline rocks eroded from very rugged terrain.

The geologic map of New York indicates that bedrock beneath the site consists primarily of one rock formation from the Middle Proterozoic Geologic Period:

qpg – quartz plagioclase gneiss; may contain pyroxenes, hornblende, biotite; locally interlayered with amphibolite; subordinate biotite mesoperthite gneiss (Middle Proterozoic)

The surficial geologic map of New York indicates that surficial deposits at the site consist of:

t – Till; variable texture, usually poorly sorted diamict, deposition beneath glacier ice, relatively impermeable, variable clast context, thickness variable, generally 1-50 meters (Pleistocene)

However, till was not encountered in the test boring and test pit locations. Accordingly, a stratification designation was not assigned.

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:

June 11, 2020 JD195220 Page 3

Stratum A (Existing Fill) generally medium dense or firm, WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL, FILL, moist, brown, gray

Stratum B1 (Residual) generally stiff to hard, SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL (ML), SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL (CL) moist, brown, gray

Stratum B2 (Residual) generally medium dense, CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC), SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GM), SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), moist, gray, brown

Stratum B3 (Weathered Rock) generally very dense or very hard, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC), SANDY SILT (ML), moist, gray, brown

The two letter designations included in the strata descriptions presented above and on the test boring logs 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 Test Pit Investigation

Eight test pits were excavated adjacent to eight of the existing buildings to document the depth and dimension of the existing foundations. The results of these test pits are presented below in Table 3.3-1, and photographs of the test pits are provided in Appendix A at the end of this report.

Table 3.3-1: Test Pit Investigation Results

Test Pit No./Barrack Building No.

Depth to Bottom of

Footing from Ground

Surface (inch)

Footing Thickness

(inch)

Footing Width (inch)

Footing Description Bearing Soils

TP-1/1570 19 10.5 23.5 Square spread footing FILL - SANDY SILT, moist, gray-brown

TP-2/1616 24 1 17

Thin circular concrete layer between pier and bedrock

Weathered Rock - SILTY SAND (SM) with boulders, moist, light brown

TP-3/1575 29 18 -

Irregular shaped concrete cylinder around bottom of pier

Residual – SILTY SAND (SM) with cobbles, wet, yellow brown

TP-4/1522 23 7 37 Square spread footing Residual – SANDY SILT (ML) with cobbles, moist, yellow brown

TP-5/1516 9 7 24 Oval spread footing FILL – SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL, moist, yellow brown

TP-6/1564 11 9 23 Irregularly shaped, stepped spread footing

FILL – SANDY SILT (ML) with cobbles, moist, gray brown

TP-71/1548 - - - - -

TP-8/1503 37 12 24 Highly eroded, square spread footing

FILL – SANDY SILT (ML) with cobbles, moist, gray brown

1. Test pit abandoned due to rapid groundwater infiltration.

June 11, 2020 JD195220 Page 4

3.4 Groundwater

Groundwater level observations were made in the field during excavation of the test pits and during drilling of the test borings and one day after the completion of the test borings. A summary of the water level readings rounded off to the nearest 0.5 feet is presented below in Table 3.4-1.

Table 3.4-1: Groundwater Readings Test Boring No. Depth to Groundwater (ft) Groundwater Elevation (ft)

TB-5 1.5 EL 701.5

TB-7 2.0 EL 689

TB-11 1.5 EL 666.5

TP-3 1.1 EL 693

TP-7 2.7 EL 665.5

The groundwater observations presented herein are considered to be an indication of the groundwater levels at the dates and times indicated. Where groundwater was encountered, we believe it was perched groundwater conditions. The groundwater information presented herein should be used with caution as fluctuations in groundwater levels should be expected with seasons of the year, construction activity, changes to surface grades, precipitation, or other similar factors.

3.5 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 3.5-1, and the results of natural moisture content tests are presented on the test boring logs in Appendix A.

Table 3.5-1: 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

TB-1 0.5-2.0 Jar A

WELL GRADED

GRAVEL (GW-GC)

WITH CLAY AND SAND

47.5 7.2 21 14 7 4.6

TB-1 4.0-6.0 Jar B2 CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC)

WITH SAND 49.6 28.8 36 22 14 19.0

TB-2 2.0-4.0 Jar B1 SANDY SILT (ML) 9.4 57.0 22 18 4 20.8

TB-3 0.0-2.0 Jar B2 SILTY GRAVEL (GM)

WITH SAND 57.0 17.1 31 25 6 9.8

TB-5 2.0-4.0 Jar B1 SANDY SILTY CLAY

(CL-ML) 6.1 55.4 21 15 6 14.9

TB-5 4.0-6.0 Jar B1 SANDY LEAN CLAY

(CL) 7.8 55.0 24 15 9 13.7

TB-5 8.0-10.0 Jar B1 SANDY LEAN CLAY

(CL) WITH GRAVEL 20.6 51.6 23 13 10 11.6

TB-7 4.0-5.5 Jar B2 SILTY SAND (SM) 1.1 49.3 NP NP NP 18.4

TB-8 0.0-2.0 Jar B1 GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY

(CL) WITH SAND 28.2 54.7 31 22 9 30.6

June 11, 2020 JD195220 Page 5

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

TB-11 0.0-2.0 Jar A SILY SAND (SM) WITH

GRAVEL 16.6 18.8 NP NP NP 10.7

TB-11 4.0-6.0 Jar A SILTY GRAVEL (GM)

WITH SAND 47.0 14.1 NP NP NP 26.3

TB-11 6.0-8.0 Jar B2 SILTY CLAYEY GRAVEL

(GC-GM) WITH SAND 51.5 18.2 27 20 7 15.6

TB-13 0.0-2.0 Jar B2 SILTY SAND (SM)

WITH GRAVEL 23.2 20.0 22 18 4 10.6

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; NP = nonplastic

3.6 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 International Building Code (IBC).

3.7 Metal Corrosion/Concrete Attack Test Results

In addition to standard geotechnical soil laboratory testing, ten samples were 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), reduction-oxidation potential (Electrode), sulfates (EPA 375.4), and chloride (CA-422). The results of these tests are presented below in Table 3.7-1:

Table 3.7-1: Analytical Laboratory Test Results Test

Boring No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

Moisture Content pH Resistivity

(ohm – cm) Sulfides (ppm)

Red-ox Potential

(mV) Point Total

TB-1 0-5 16 7.8 2,200 <1.2 +21 7

TB-2 0-5 13 6.4 47,000 <1.2 +20 5

TB-4 0-5 20 7.3 16,000 <1.2 +26 5

TB-5 0-5 24 6.6 10,000 <1.2 +26 5

TB-7 0-5 19 6.6 11,000 <1.2 +33 5

TB-8 0-5 27 7.0 15,000 <1.2 +29 5

TB-11 0-5 16 7.0 10,000 <1.2 +9 5

TB-13 0-5 11 7.3 21,000 <1.2 +13 5

TP-1 0-5 9.4 7.2 54,000 <1.2 +33 5

TP-5 0-5 28 5.5 82,000 <1.2 +115 1

June 11, 2020 JD195220 Page 6

For each test, 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 samples tested averaged approximately 5. Accordingly, the site soils are considered non-corrosive to ductile iron pipes.

Sulfate (EPA 375.4) tests were performed on the soil samples to determine the severity of a sulfate attack on concrete structures. The results of the sulfate and chloride testing are presented below in Table 3.7-2.

Table 3.7-2: Analytical Laboratory Test Results

Test Boring No. Sample Depth

(ft) Sulfates (ppm) Chloride (ppm)

TB-1 0.0-5.0 19 86

TB-2 0.0-5.0 18 12

TB-4 0.0-5.0 13 8.6

TB-5 0.0-5.0 22 11

TB-7 0.0-5.0 84 28

TB-8 0.0-5.0 48 12

TB-11 0.0-5.0 27 10

TB-13 0.0-5.0 19 9.7

TP-1 0.0-5.0 30 11

TP-5 0.0-5.0 36 12

Based on the results of the sulfate tests, the severity of concrete attack is calculated to be negligible.

3.8 Concrete Slab Cores

A total of 38 concrete cores were collected from buildings across the site. Encountered concrete floor slab thicknesses ranged from approximately 4.0 to 7.0 inches. Each core was tested for compressive strength per ASTM C39, and results of these tests are presented in Appendix B. Core ID for these tests correspond to the associated building numbers.

4.0 Engineering Analysis

Recommendations regarding soil design parameters, foundations, lateral earth pressures, subdrainage, earthwork, and rock excavation are presented herein.

4.1 Soil Design Parameters

We recommend the following soil design parameters as presented on the following page in Table 4.1-1 be used for this project:

June 11, 2020 JD195220 Page 7

Table 4.1-1: Soil Design Parameters

Stratum Total Unit

Weight (pcf)

Angle of Internal Friction

(degrees)

Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients Coefficient of Sliding FrictionActive

(Ka) At-

Rest (Ko)

Passive (Kp)

A 125 30 0.33 0.50 3.00 0.35

B1 120 28 0.36 0.53 2.77 0.30

B2 125 32 0.31 0.47 3.25 0.40

B3 130 36 0.26 0.41 3.85 0.55

4.2 Spread Footings

Firm natural soils, firm existing fill, or new compacted fill should be encountered at typical spread footing elevations. Spread footings founded in these materials are considered suitable for support of proposed buildings, and may be designed with a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Fill material and compaction requirements are presented in Section 4.7 of this report. Exterior footing subgrades should be located at least 4.0 feet below final exterior grades for frost considerations.

Individual column footings and continuous wall footings should be at least 30 inches and 18 inches wide, respectively, for local or punching shear considerations. A maximum slope of one horizontal to one vertical (1H:1V) should be maintained between the bottom edges of adjacent footings. Settlement of spread footings should not exceed about 1-inch, and differential settlement between adjacent foundation elements should not exceed about one-half this amount, including not exceeding an angular distortion of 0.002 inch/inch along continuous wall footings.

Footing subgrades should be observed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record or his/her representative prior to placement of concrete, to ascertain that footings are placed on suitable bearing soils as recommended herein. Footings should be excavated and concrete placed the same day in order to avoid disturbance from water or weather. Disturbance of footing subgrades by exposure to water seepage or weather conditions should be avoided. Any unsuitable existing fill, disturbed, frozen, or soft subgrade soils should be removed prior to placing footing concrete. It may be desirable to place a 3 to 4-inch thick “mud mat” of lean concrete immediately on the approved footing subgrade to avoid softening of the exposed subgrade. Forms may be used if necessary, but less subgrade disturbance is anticipated if excavations are made to the required dimensions and concrete placed against the soil. If footings are formed, the forms should be removed and the excavation backfilled as soon as possible. Water should not be allowed to pond along the outside of footings for long periods of time.

4.3 Slabs on Grade

Slabs on grade supported by natural soils or new compacted fill are considered feasible at the site. Where floor subgrades consist of existing fill, we recommend undercutting the existing fill to a depth of at least 2 feet and backfilling with new compacted fill. After undercutting the existing fill and prior to placement of any new compacted fill, the undercut subgrade should be observed during proofrolling by the geotechnical engineer to confirm that the new subgrade is suitable to receive new compacted fill.

June 11, 2020 JD195220 Page 8

All debris and soft soils near the final floor slab subgrade as a result of construction operations should be stripped and removed prior to placement of underfloor stone. A 4-inch minimum thickness of washed gravel or crushed stone meeting the requirement of AASHTO No. 57 should be placed below floor slabs on grade to serve as a capillary break. An impermeable plastic membrane should be placed on top of the crushed stone layer to assist as a moisture barrier. Special attention should be given to the surface curing of the slab in order to minimize uneven drying of the slab and associated cracking.

We recommend that mesh (fiber or welded wire fabric) reinforcement be included in the design of the floor slab to minimize the development of any shrinkage cracks near the surface of the slab. If welded wire fabric is used, the mesh should be located in the top half of the slab.

4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures

Site retaining walls should be designed to withstand lateral earth pressures. An equivalent fluid pressure of 40H (psf) should be used for design of site retaining walls, where H refers to the height of the wall. The design should account for any surcharge loads within a 45 degree slope from the base of the wall. Retaining walls may be designed to include a passive equivalent fluid pressure of 360D (psf), where D represents the depth of wall embedment below the exposed wall face. The upper 1.5 feet of soil at the base of retaining walls should not be included in the design of passive soil resistance. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used for sliding resistance at the soil/concrete interface. A recommended lateral earth pressure diagram for use in the design of site retaining walls is presented as Figure 2 at the end of this report.

Hydrostatic pressures are not included in the lateral earth pressure diagram assuming the use of relatively granular or free draining backfill, and perimeter subdrainage (weepholes) at the base of walls below grade.

Recommended subdrainage for site retaining walls is presented on Figure 2 at the end of this report.

Recommendations for backfill against walls below grade are presented in Section 4.7 of this report.

4.5 Temporary Construction Dewatering

Groundwater was encountered at depths of about 1.1 to 2.7 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on the groundwater observations, temporary construction dewatering may be required during excavations for foundations. We recommend that the dewatering consist of both an aggressive system of individual sumps and pumps during excavation. To help maintain bottom stability of excavations, groundwater levels should be drawn-down a minimum of 3 feet below the lowest portion of the excavation.

It is critical that as soon as water seepage is observed, the contractor should excavate surface trenches from the observed water seepage to a sump pit and sump pump. If the water is allowed to saturate subgrades, softening of the subgrade will occur very quickly and extra costs will be incurred. However, if the contractor can channel the water to a sump pit and keep the majority of the subgrade from getting saturated, extra costs due to water softening should be significantly reduced.

4.6 Utility Installations

We have assumed that the underground utilities will be placed up to 10 feet below proposed grades. We generally expect that firm existing fill of Stratum A, natural soils of Strata B and B2, and weathered rock of Stratum B3 will be encountered at utility subgrades, which should be suitable for support of utilities.

Accordingly, we do not recommend that any special bedding be specified, and that construction of utility trenches is performed in accordance with the proposed pipe type and specifications. Rock excavation methods may be required to install utilities on weathered rock subgrade.

The excavations may be constructed by laying back the earth with temporary slopes. Based on the on-site soils, an OSHA type C soil classification should be used for design of earth slopes. A type C classification requires a maximum allowable slope of 1.5H:1V for excavations less than 20 feet in depth. Any benching of excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA requirements.

June 11, 2020 JD195220 Page 9

Temporary excavations may extend below groundwater levels at some locations. Groundwater will decrease the stability of open cuts. Accordingly, construction dewatering will be necessary to excavate and maintain temporary slopes, and to preserve the integrity of the bearing materials.

4.7 Earthwork

Fill may be required for site grading in building areas. Unsuitable existing fill, soft or loose natural soils, organic material, and rubble should be stripped to approved subgrades as determined by the geotechnical engineer. Topsoil and asphalt depths presented on the boring logs should not be considered as stripping depths, as these depths may vary widely across the site. Stripping depths will probably extend to greater depths than the topsoil depths indicated herein due to the presence of minor amounts of organics, roots, and other surficial materials that will require removal as a part of the stripping operations. In addition, seasonal soil moisture variations can affect stripping depths. In general, less stripping may occur during summer months when drier weather conditions can be expected. The depth of required stripping should be determined prior to construction by the excavation contractor using test pits, probes, or other means that the contractor wishes to employ, and this determination should be the responsibility of the excavation contractor. All subgrades should be proofrolled with a minimum 20 ton, loaded dump truck or suitable rubber tire construction equipment approved by the geotechnical engineer, prior to the placement of new fill.

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 for support of footings, floor slabs, and pavements should consist of soils classifying SC, SM, SP, SW, GC, GM, GP, or GW per ASTM D2487, with less than 10% passing the No. 200 sieve. Materials used for backfill against walls below grade should consist of soils classifying SM, SP, SW, GM, GP, or GW, with a liquid limit and plasticity index less than 40 and 15, respectively. It is expected that the majority of soils excavated at the site will be suitable for re-use as fill based on classification. 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.

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, 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 or pavement areas, construction of building elements or asphalt 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.

June 11, 2020 JD195220 Page 10

4.8 Rock Excavation

Rock excavation methods such as hoe-ramming may be required for site development. The depths and elevations where rock excavation methods may be required for removal of bedrock at the test boring locations are estimated below in Table 4.8-1, and are based on materials equal to or harder than an SPT resistance of 50/4”:

Table 4.8-1: Estimated Depth Where Rock Excavation Methods May be Required

Test Boring No.

Estimated Depth Below Ground Surface Where Rock Excavation Methods May be Required (ft)

Estimated Elevation Where Rock Excavation Methods May be

Required (ft)

TB-1 8.0 EL 658

TB-2 6.5 EL 727.5

TB-3 2.0 EL 773

TB-4 4.0 EL 714

TB-5 14.5 EL 685.5

TB-6 0.5 EL 714.5

TB-7 5.5 EL 685.5

TB-8 2.5 EL 700.5

TB-9 2.0 EL 720

TB-10 0.5 EL 683.5

TB-11 8.0 EL 658

TB-12 1.0 EL 682

TB-13 3.5 EL 708.5

The elevations given above are based upon the use of normal earth excavation equipment including up to a Caterpillar 330 hydraulic backhoe or equivalent, for mass excavation. Project specifications should include the following as a definition of rock excavation for mass excavation: “Rock is defined as any material which cannot be dislodged by a Caterpillar 330 hydraulic backhoe without the use of hoe-ramming. This classification does not include material such as loose rock, concrete or other materials that can be removed by means other than hoe-ramming, but which for reasons of economy in excavating, the contractor chooses to remove by hoe-ramming.” Variations in rock conditions should be expected from the elevations presented in the table above, since the rock surface can vary over the site. Also, the extent of rock excavation will depend on Contractor’s methods, rock jointing, and rock foliation/bedding.

5.0 General Limitations

Recommendations contained in this report are based upon the data obtained from the relatively limited number of test borings and test pits. 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 test pits 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.

June 11, 2020 JD195220 Page 11

It is critical to the successful completion of this project that Terracon 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 wet fill materials, soft subgrade conditions, unexpected groundwater problems, rock excavation, 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 Terracon Consultants, 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.”

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, INC.

Paul E. Burkart (VA) Michele A. Fiorillo, PE (NY) Senior Principal Geotechnical Department Manager

RKS/KF/RSZ/PEB/clm N:\Projects\2019\JD195203\Working Files\DRAFTS (Proposal-Reports-Communications)\GER_JD195203.docx knfordney Typewriter for

(703) 726-8032 fax

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

Appendix A Subsurface Investigation Subsurface Investigation Procedures (1 page) Identification of Soil (1 page) Figures 3 to 6, Subsurface Investigation Plans (4 pages) Test Boring and Test Pit Notes (1 page) Test Boring Logs (14 pages) Test Pit Logs (8 pages) Figures 7 to 9, Subsurface Diagrams A-A’, B-B’, C-C’ (3 pages) Test Pit Photo Log (4 pages)

Subsurface Investigation Procedures

1. Test Borings – Hollow Stem Augers The borings are advanced by turning an auger with a center opening of 3-¼ 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. Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests Testing is performed by driving a 1-¾ inch diameter penetration cone with a 15-pound hammer free falling 20 inches. The number of blows required to drive the cone for an interval of 1-¾ inches is recorded. The cone was generally driven for three intervals at each test depth, with the first interval considered a seating interval.

4. Test Pits Test pits were excavated using a mini-excavator. Test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of about 3 feet below the existing ground surface. On completion of the test pit observations, test pits were backfilled with excavated soil material to existing grades. It should be noted that although some effort to compact backfill soils in test pit excavations was made during the field investigation, some settlement of test pit backfill materials should be expected.

5. Test Boring and Test Pit Stakeout The test boring and test pit stakeout was provided by Terracon 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

TB-1

Ashburn, Virginia 20147

TB-2

A A'

Ashburn, Virginia 20147

TB-7

B B'

Ashburn, Virginia 20147

TB-12

C C'

Test Boring and Test Pit 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. The N60 values are also presented on the test boring logs.

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. Test pit excavations are logged to provide a record for geotechnical evaluation, construction inspection or other specialized purpose. Any significant features such as existing fill conditions, underground structures, groundwater or water seepage conditions, etc. are recorded.

8. 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. 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+7+7

7+9+20+37

50+12+7+9

7+7+9+16

10+50/2

50/0

666.0 665.5

664.0

662.0

658.0

657.3

Asphalt = 6 in.

Fill, brown-gray, fine to coarse, WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND, medium dense, moist, GW-GC

Dense

Residual, brown-gray, fine to coarse, CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND, medium dense, moist, GC

Weathered rock, brown-gray, fine to coarse, CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND, very dense, moist, GC Auger and Spoon Refusal at 8.7 ft.

A

B2

B3

4.6

19.0

DRILLER:

DRILLING METHOD:PROJECT NUMBER:

12/13/19 - 12/13/19EwingCole

JD195203

M. Shepherd

666.0 ±

DATES DRILLED:OWNER/CLIENT:

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.): DRILL RIG:

CME 553.25 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

12/18/2019: NOT ENCOUNTERED

Training Camps Revitalization at West Point

Camp Buckner, West Point Military Reservation, New York

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

SAMPLE TYPES:

SPT

REMARKS:

Unitech Drilling

J. Von Erden

TB-1LOCATION:

LOGGED BY:

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

LOCATION:

PROJECT:

Coordinates: 41.35317°N, -74.05141°W

19955 Highland Vista Dr #170 Ashburn, Virginia 20147

B O

R E

H O

LE

/T

E S

T P

IT

J

D

T R

A

IN

IN

G

C A

M P

S R

E V

IT

A

LI

Z

A T

IO

N

.G P

J G

E O

C O

N C

E P

T S

6.

G

D T

/2

3/

N

60 SPT

BLOW

COUNTS R

E C

(in

ELEV.

(ft.)

20 40 60 80

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESISTANCE

(BPF)

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

3+6+5+12

7+4+3+3

5+6+8+12

12+27+50/1

50/0

732.0 731.8

730.0

728.0

726.0

724.9

Topsoil = 3 in.

Residual, gray-brown, SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL, stiff, moist, ML

Without gravel

Very stiff

Weathered rock, gray-brown, SANDY SILT, very hard, moist, ML

Auger and Spoon Refusal at 7.1 ft.

B1

B3

20.8

DRILLER:

DRILLING METHOD:PROJECT NUMBER:

12/11/19 - 12/11/19EwingCole

JD195203

M. Shepherd

732.0 ±

DATES DRILLED:OWNER/CLIENT:

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.): DRILL RIG:

CME 553.25 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

12/12/2019: NOT ENCOUNTERED

Training Camps Revitalization at West Point

Camp Buckner, West Point Military Reservation, New York

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

SAMPLE TYPES:

SPT

REMARKS:

Unitech Drilling

J. Von Erden

TB-2LOCATION:

LOGGED BY:

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

LOCATION:

PROJECT:

Coordinates: 41.35333°N, -74.05307°W

19955 Highland Vista Dr #170 Ashburn, Virginia 20147

B O

R E

H O

LE

/T

E S

T P

IT

J

D

T R

A

IN

IN

G

C A

M P

S R

E V

IT

A

LI

Z

A T

IO

N

.G P

J G

E O

C O

N C

E P

T S

6.

G

D T

/2

3/

N

60 SPT

BLOW

COUNTS R

E C

(in

ELEV.

(ft.)

20 40 60 80

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESISTANCE

(BPF)

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

13 2+3+7+4

50/4

775.0 774.8

773.0

772.7

Topsoil = 2 in.

Residual, gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, medium dense, moist, GM

Weathered rock, gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, very dense, moist, GM Auger Refusal at 2.3 ft.

B2

B3

9.8

DRILLER:

DRILLING METHOD:PROJECT NUMBER:

12/11/19 - 12/11/19EwingCole

JD195203

M. Shepherd

775.0 ±

DATES DRILLED:OWNER/CLIENT:

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.): DRILL RIG:

CME 553.25 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

12/12/2019: NOT ENCOUNTERED

Training Camps Revitalization at West Point

Camp Buckner, West Point Military Reservation, New York

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

SAMPLE TYPES:

SPT

REMARKS:

Unitech Drilling

J. Von Erden

TB-3LOCATION:

LOGGED BY:

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

LOCATION:

PROJECT:

Coordinates: 41.35241°N, -74.05397°W One offset boring was attempted. Offset boring refused at a depth of approximately 1.0 ft.

19955 Highland Vista Dr #170 Ashburn, Virginia 20147

B O

R E

H O

LE

/T

E S

T P

IT

J

D

T R

A

IN

IN

G

C A

M P

S R

E V

IT

A

LI

Z

A T

IO

N

.G P

J G

E O

C O

N C

E P

T S

6.

G

D T

/2

3/

N

60 SPT

BLOW

COUNTS R

E C

(in

ELEV.

(ft.)

20 40 60 80

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESISTANCE

(BPF)

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

2+4+4+9

7+3+4+4

50/2

50/0

718.0 717.8

716.0

714.0

713.8

Topsoil = 2 in.

Fill, brown-gray, fine to coarse, SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL, stiff, moist, ML

Residual, gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, medium dense, moist, SM

Weathered rock, gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, very dense, moist, SM Auger and Spoon Refusal at 4.2 ft.

A

B2

B3

DRILLER:

DRILLING METHOD:PROJECT NUMBER:

12/12/19 - 12/12/19EwingCole

JD195203

M. Shepherd

718.0 ±

DATES DRILLED:OWNER/CLIENT:

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.): DRILL RIG:

CME 553.25 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

12/12/2019: NOT ENCOUNTERED

Training Camps Revitalization at West Point

Camp Buckner, West Point Military Reservation, New York

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

SAMPLE TYPES:

SPT

REMARKS:

Unitech Drilling

J. Von Erden

TB-4LOCATION:

LOGGED BY:

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

LOCATION:

PROJECT:

Coordinates: 41.35199°N, -74.05660°W

19955 Highland Vista Dr #170 Ashburn, Virginia 20147

B O

R E

H O

LE

/T

E S

T P

IT

J

D

T R

A

IN

IN

G

C A

M P

S R

E V

IT

A

LI

Z

A T

IO

N

.G P

J G

E O

C O

N C

E P

T S

6.

G

D T

/2

3/

N

60 SPT

BLOW

COUNTS R

E C

(in

ELEV.

(ft.)

20 40 60 80

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESISTANCE

(BPF)

DEPTH

(ft.)

S T

R A

T U

M

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

G R

A P

H

IC

3+11+2+2

4+5+7+8

8+10+16+18

6+9+14+17

7+7+8+9

9+9+8+8

14+17+27+32

27+35+50/3

50/0

703.0 702.8

699.0

697.0

695.0

691.0

689.0

687.8

Topsoil = 3 in.

Residual, brown-gray, SANDY SILTY CLAY, stiff, moist, CL-ML

Residual, brown-gray, SANDY LEAN CLAY, hard, moist, CL

Very stiff, with gravel

Weathered rock, brown-gray, SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, very hard, moist, CL

Auger and Spoon Refusal at 15.3 ft.

B1

B3

14.9

13.7

11.6

DRILLER:

DRILLING METHOD:PROJECT NUMBER:

12/12/19 - 12/12/19EwingCole

JD195203

M. Shepherd

703.0 ±

DATES DRILLED:OWNER/CLIENT:

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.): DRILL RIG:

CME 553.25 ID HSA; Automatic Hammer

SOIL

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

BORING NUMBER:

SHEET 1 OF 1

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ft.

ft.

ft.

6.0

4.0

1.5

UPON COMPLETION:

ENCOUNTERED:

(703) 726-8030

(703) 726-8032 fax

12/18/2019

Training Camps Revitalization at West Point

Camp Buckner, West Point Military Reservation, New York

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

SAMPLE TYPES:

SPT

REMARKS:

Unitech Drilling

J. Von Erden

TB-5LOCATION:

LOGGED BY:

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

LOCATION:

PROJECT:

Coordinates: 41.35327°N, -74.05458°W

19955 Highland Vista Dr #170 Ashburn, Virginia 20147

B O

R E

H O

LE

/T

E S

T P

IT

J

D

T R

A

IN

IN

G

C A

M P

S R

E V

IT

A

LI

Z

A T

IO

N

.G P

J G

E O

C O

N C

E P

T S

6.

G

D T

/2

3/

N

60 SPT

BLOW

COUNTS R

E C

(in

ELEV.

(ft.)

697.0

699.0

701.5

ELEV.

ELEV.

ELEV.

ELEV.

ELEV.

696.0

700.0

20 40 60 80

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESISTANCE

(BPF)

7.0

3.0 ft.

ft.

CAVED:

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

3+3+50/4

50/0

713.0 712.8

711.7

Topsoil = 2 in.

Weathered rock, gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, very dense, moist, SM

Auger and Spoon Refusal at 1.3 ft.

B3

DRILLER:

DRILLING METHOD:PROJECT NUMBER:

12/11/19 - 12/11/19EwingCole

JD195203

M. Shepherd

713.0 ±

DATES DRILLED:OWNER/CLIENT:

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.): DRILL RIG:

CME 553.25 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

12/12/2019: NOT ENCOUNTERED

Training Camps Revitalization at West Point

Camp Buckner, West Point Military Reservation, New York

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

SAMPLE TYPES:

SPT

REMARKS:

Unitech Drilling

J. Von Erden

TB-6LOCATION:

LOGGED BY:

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

LOCATION:

PROJECT:

Coordinates: 41.35381°N, -74.05307°W One offset boring was attempted. Offset boring refused at a depth of approximately 1 inch.

19955 Highland Vista Dr #170 Ashburn, Virginia 20147

B O

R E

H O

LE

/T

E S

T P

IT

J

D

T R

A

IN

IN

G

C A

M P

S R

E V

IT

A

LI

Z

A T

IO

N

.G P

J G

E O

C O

N C

E P

T S

6.

G

D T

/2

3/

SPT

BLOW

COUNTS R

E

C (in

ELEV.

(ft.)

20 40 60 80

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESISTANCE

(BPF)

DEPTH

(ft.)

S T

R A

T U

M

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

G R

A P

H

IC

2+3+4+4

2+2+4+4

1+5+25+50/0

691.0 690.8

687.0

685.5

Topsoil = 2 in.

Residual, gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, loose, moist, SM

Dense, without gravel

Auger Refusal at 5.5 ft.

B2

18.4

DRILLER:

DRILLING METHOD:PROJECT NUMBER:

12/11/19 - 12/11/19EwingCole

JD195203

M. Shepherd

691.0 ±

DATES DRILLED:OWNER/CLIENT:

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.): DRILL RIG:

CME 553.25 ID HSA; Automatic Hammer

SOIL

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

BORING NUMBER:

SHEET 1 OF 1

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ft.2.0UPON COMPLETION:

NOT ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING

(703) 726-8030

(703) 726-8032 fax

12/12/2019: NOT ENCOUNTERED

Training Camps Revitalization at West Point

Camp Buckner, West Point Military Reservation, New York

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

SAMPLE TYPES:

SPT

REMARKS:

Unitech Drilling

J. Von Erden

TB-7LOCATION:

LOGGED BY:

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

LOCATION:

PROJECT:

Coordinates: 41.35397°N, -74.05241°W

19955 Highland Vista Dr #170 Ashburn, Virginia 20147

B O

R E

H O

LE

/T

E S

T P

IT

J

D

T R

A

IN

IN

G

C A

M P

S R

E V

IT

A

LI

Z

A T

IO

N

.G P

J G

E O

C O

N C

E P

T S

6.

G

D T

/2

3/

N

60 SPT

BLOW

COUNTS R

E C

(in

ELEV.

(ft.)

ELEV. 689.0

20 40 60 80

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESISTANCE

(BPF)

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

5 3+2+2+4

3+50/4

50/0

703.0 702.8

701.0

700.2

Topsoil =…