AppendixCGeotechReportForReferenceONLY.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

MUNITIONS STORAGE AREA PHASE 1

PTFL 023003

JOINT BASE MCGUIRE/DIX/LAKEHURST

MCGUIRE AIR FORCE BASE, NEW JERSEY 08641

Prepared for:

Frankfurt-Short-Bruza Associates, PC 5801 Broadway Extension, Suite 500 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118-7436 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York District 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278-0090

Prepared by:

Matrix New World Engineering, Land Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C.

26 Columbia Turnpike Florham Park, New Jersey 07932

Original CityScape No. 2011175 Matrix No. 21-138

Original Report December 2012 Revised February 2021

Michael J. Soltys, P.E.

NY Professional Engineer License No. 096896-1

FOR REFERENCE ONLY

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SITE LOCATION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING

4.0 SUBSURFACE FIELD PROGRAM

4.1 SPT Borings

4.2 Test Pits

4.3 Laboratory Testing

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Site Preparation

7.2 Foundations

7.2.1 Deep Foundations

7.2.2 Soil Reinforcement

7.2.3 Mat/Raft Foundations

7.2.4 Foundation Recommendations

7.2.5 Floor Slabs

7.3 Roadway Areas

7.4 Seismic Design Considerations

7.5 Soil Corrosivity

7.6 Excavations/Dewatering/Drainage

7.7 Select Fill

7.8 Supplemental Post Investigation Services

8.0 CLOSURE

FIGURES

1 Site Location Map 2 Boring Location Plan 3 Bedrock Geology Location Map 4 Surficial Geology Location Map

APPENDICES

A FSB Provided Documents B Logs of Borings C Logs and Photographs of Test Pits D Results of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing E Geotechnical Calculations F Results of Liquefaction Analysis

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Matrix New World Engineering, Land Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C. (Matrix) has performed geotechnical engineering services in support for the design of the Munitions Storage Area Phase 1, Project

No. PTFL 023003, at the McGuire Air Force Base (AFB), New Jersey. Matrix provided geotechnical services as a subconsultant to Frankfurt-Short-Bruza Associates, PC (FSB), who was contracted by U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers.

The purpose of the geotechnical engineering services was to investigate subsurface conditions beneath the site, and to provide foundation recommendations related to the construction of approximately 29 concrete earth covered storage igloos/munitions bunkers, a Munitions Administration Building, and a single bay

Maintenance Building. The munitions bunkers are to be constructed at or near existing grade and consist of concrete rooms with 11-foot clear inside height with earth covering approximately 2 feet over the roof and full height earth berms on three sides. The Munitions Administration Building and Maintenance

Building are to be one-story each with no basement. For this investigation, 10 borings were advanced and four test pits were excavated in the area of the planned construction.

Matrix’s geotechnical evaluation and conclusions are based on an engineering evaluation of the subsurface conditions as indicated by the field exploration data and geotechnical laboratory test results on representative soil samples.

2.0 SITE LOCATION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project site is located in northeast corner of McGuire AFB and northeast of existing runways. FSB provided Matrix with a Boring Location Plan, which identified proposed boring locations in relation to the proposed Munitions Storage Area. A copy of this proposed Boring Location Plan is presented in Appendix

A. The location of the project site is shown on Figure 1.

The project site is currently occupied by several buildings and earth covered munitions storage bunkers.

The elevation of the ground surface varies from about El. 104 at the west side of the site to about El. 100 at the east side of the site. All elevations in this report refer to NAVD 88 Datum. The existing topography at the site was established by a Matrix survey.

3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING

Based on the Engineering Soil Survey of New Jersey, Report No. 20, Burlington County, published by

Rutgers University and the data collected in the subsurface exploration program, the project site is in an area of stratified deposits, mostly marine origin, composed mostly of uniform sand with interbedded silty sand layers. Minor lenses of clayey sand and clay are present in some areas. Historically, the site is also located in an area of alluvium deposits composed of silt and sand with some clay and organic matter. This is consistent with the findings from the subsurface investigation in which the subsurface material was predominately silty sand with minor lenses of clay. Groundwater was also relatively shallow with some areas about 6 to 7 feet below the existing ground surface, where encountered.

4.0 SUBSURFACE FIELD PROGRAM

The boring location plan provided by FSB identified 15 boring locations (B-1 through B-15) to investigate the subsurface conditions beneath the site for the proposed Munitions Storage Area. During the subsurface investigation, very loose to medium dense sands were encountered in alternating inconsistent layers to depths of up to 77 to 82 feet below the ground surface (bgs) in borings B-1, B-4, B-14 and B-15. In these borings consistent medium dense sands were encountered at this depth, which was much deeper than anticipated. This situation was discussed with FSB and it was decided that the investigation would be reduced to 10 total borings, with the remaining six borings going down to 32 feet bgs. These remaining six borings were borings B-5, B-6, B-8, B-9, B-11, and B-13.

In addition, four test pits (TP-1 through TP-4) were excavated to about 5 feet in order to collect soil for laboratory California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing and compaction tests.

4.1 SPT Borings

Between April 11 and 17, 2012, Craig Test Boring Co., Inc., retained by Matrix, completed the boring investigation at the site under the observation of Matrix geotechnical engineers. A total of 10 borings (B-

1, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-8, B-9, B-11, B-13, B-14, and B-15) were advanced to depths ranging from 32 to 82 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Borings B-2, B-3, B-7, B-10, and B-12 were subsequently cancelled per the aforementioned discussions with FSB. Borings B-1, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-8, B-9, and B-11 were performed for the proposed munitions bunkers. Borings B-13 and B-14 were performed for the proposed

Maintenance Building. Boring B-15 was performed for the proposed Munitions Administration Building.

The locations of the borings are shown on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan on Figure 2.

To access the boring locations, a truck-mounted drill rig was used to advance the borings. The borings were drilled using mud rotary techniques, and a standard 2-inch outer diameter split spoon was used to collect samples. Split spoon samples were collected using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), performed in accordance with ASTM D-1586, Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of

Soils. A hydraulically operated, automatic hammer was used to drive the split spoon sampler.

Matrix geotechnical engineers provided oversight of the boring and sampling operations. Matrix prepared the field boring logs which included sample depths and recovery, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts, soil recovery, and soil descriptions. All recovered samples were examined and representative material placed in sealed containers for further examination.

Temporary observation wells consisting of two-inch diameter well screen and solid riser were installed in three of the boreholes (B-1, B-4, and B-14) after the completion of sampling. While on-site, Matrix personnel measured the water levels in the wells. The observation wells were removed on the last day of field work.

The boring locations and the surface elevations proposed on the boring location plan provided by FSB were surveyed by Matrix. The as-drilled boring locations were performed within two (2) feet of the proposed locations with the exception of boring B-8 which was relocated about five (5) feet north due to existing buried utilities. The surface elevations of the as-drilled are not expected to vary significantly from the surface elevations of the proposed boring locations. The locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2.

Final boring logs, with descriptions based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), were prepared by Matrix and are presented in Appendix B.

4.2 Test Pits

On April 16, 2012, Craig Test Boring Co., Inc. excavated four test pits (TP-1 through TP-4) under the observation of a Matrix geotechnical engineer. Each test pit was excavated to a depth of about 5.0 feet bgs.

Soil was collected from test pits TP-1 through TP-4 for laboratory California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing and compaction tests. Upon completion of the excavation, each test pit was backfilled with excavated material by the excavator. The locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 2.

Logs of the test pits, with descriptions based on the USCS, were prepared by Matrix and are presented in

Appendix C. Also included in Appendix C is a photograph log of the test pit excavations.

4.3 Laboratory Testing

Upon review of the boring logs, Matrix selected representative samples for laboratory testing.

Representative soil samples collected from each test pit was also tested. Laboratory testing of selected samples was completed by TerraSense, LLC, retained by Matrix. The following table presents a summary of the testing program:

Table 4.1 Laboratory Testing Program

Test Testing Procedure Quantity Performed

Water Content ASTM D2216 33

Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 33

Plasticity Indexes ASTM D4318 3

Maximum Modified Proctor ASTM D1557 4

CBR (Single Point) ASTM D1883 4 pH ASTM G51 8

Resistivity ASTM G57 8

Sulfate Content SW-846 Method 9056 8

Geotechnical laboratory testing results are presented in Appendix D.

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subsurface conditions beneath the site can be characterized by the following stratigraphy, proceeding from the surface materials downward.

Surface Materials

The surface material generally consisted of two to four inches of topsoil.

Sand

At the locations of the borings and test pits, the subsurface material consists predominately of Sand with varying amounts of silt, clay, and gravel. This stratum is present beneath the Surface Material in all of the borings and test pits. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values (the sum of the SPT values for the 6 to 12 inches and 12 to 18 inches intervals that the split spoon sampler was driven by a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches) range from 2 to 43, reflecting the variable density of the material. The density of the granular fill material ranges from very loose to dense in compactness. The compactness of the sand was inconsistent throughout the site, especially in the deep borings (B-1, B-4, B-14, B-15) in which a consistent medium dense zone was encountered in the bottom 10 feet.

All the borings and test pits were terminated in this stratum. Test pits were excavated to depth of about 5.0 feet bgs. Borings were advanced to depths ranging from 32 feet to 82 feet bgs.

Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed on 29 samples of this stratum. The water content and grain size distribution of each sample were determined. The water contents of the tested samples ranges from

14.7 % to 38.2 %. The amount of material retained on the No. 4 sieve, or amount of gravel size particles, ranges from 0.0 % to 5.3 % by weight, the amount of material between the No. 4 sieve and the No. 200 sieve, or amount of sand sized particles, ranges from 51.3 % to 94.7 % by weight, and the amount passing the No. 200 sieve, or amount of fines, ranges from 5.1 % to 48.5 % by weight.

The Atterberg Limits (plasticity indices) of three samples of this stratum were determined at the laboratory.

The Liquid Limits for the tested samples ranged from 32 to 51, the Plastic Limits for all samples was 17, and the Plasticity Indices ranged from 15 to 34.

Groundwater

To measure the depth to groundwater level, three temporary wells were installed in borings B-1, B-4, and

B-14 after the completion of sampling. The temporary wells in borings B-1 and B-4 were installed on April

12, 2012 and the temporary well in boring B-14 was installed on April 11, 2012. Groundwater levels were measured between April 13 and 17, 2012 and are shown on borings logs included in Appendix B. The depth to water measured in boring B-1 was at 7 feet bgs, which is about El. 93.0. The depth to water measured from boring B-4 was at 6 feet bgs, which is about El. 94.0. The depth to water measured from boring B-14 was at 6 feet bgs, which is about El. 95.5.

The level of the groundwater will vary with the amount of precipitation, the temperature, and other factors.

Change in coloration for redox, indicating a seasonal high groundwater table, was not observed during the field investigation.

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS

The following table summarizes the recommended geotechnical design parameters for the various soil strata encountered at the site. The values are based on review and interpretation of the subsurface investigation and laboratory test data results.

Table 6.1: Geotechnical Design Parameters

Stratum Unit

Weight, pcf

Friction Angle, φ

Strength, ksf

Coefficient of Active

Earth Pressure

Coefficient of Passive

Earth Pressure

Coefficient of At Rest

Earth Pressure

Controlled Fill γ = 130* γ' = 70

36° 0 0.26 3.85 0.41

Loose Sand γ = 115 γ' = 55 30° 0 0.33 3.00 0.50

Medium Dense Sand γ = 120 γ' = 60 32° 0 0.31 3.25 0.47

∗γ = moist unit weight, γ' = buoyant unit weight

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following sections present the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluation and recommendations for support of the planned Munitions Storage Area.

It is our understanding that the proposed bottom of the foundations for the Munitions Storage Area structures are to be constructed about 3.5 feet below existing grade. Matrix’s recommendations are based on this information. No permanent retaining structures were proposed for this project. Matrix should be notified if any retaining structures or design conditions requiring lateral earth pressure estimations are required for this project.

7.1 Site Preparation

Prior to demolition and stripping operations, all utilities should be identified and protected. Existing pavements, slabs, foundations, topsoil, trees, roots, vegetative matter, and deleterious materials should be removed at least five feet beyond the limits of the proposed structure areas.

All remaining underground utilities and utility backfill should be evaluated to determine if these elements are suitable for support of the planned loads. The Contractor must keep those utilities to be reused in workable condition, and protected from damage during earthwork activities. Utilities not planned for re-use should be removed from planned structural areas, capped off at the property lines, and either removed or abandoned in place. All soils disturbed by the demolition and utility abandonment operations should be removed or re-compacted in-place. The resulting excavations during the soils exchange should be backfilled in accordance with the recommendations provided within Sections 7.6 and 7.7 of this report.

Although not encountered during the subsurface investigation, there is a possibility that remnant foundations, walls, and slabs are present at the site. If encountered during construction excavation activities, remnant structural elements should be removed entirely from below proposed foundations and slab areas.

Specifications should require that the Demolition Contractor remove all subsurface structures, utilities to be abandoned, and demolition debris from the Site and replace all excavated areas with approved controlled fill. Specifications should require that the Contractor provide a clean and structurally prepared site.

7.2 Foundations

Based on the significant amount of very loose to loose sands encountered within several borings to depths of about 70 feet, intolerable total and differential settlement of the proposed structures using conventional foundation and slab-on-grade-construction is anticipated. Thus, shallow foundations are not recommended without the implementation and verification of ground improvement techniques recommended in the report due to the risk of liquefaction. Matrix understands from FSB that a surcharge load on the loose soils to speed up the settlement process is preferred. However, surcharging is more commonly used to compress cohesive clay and silt soils that normally take significant periods of time to squeeze the water out of these materials and settle. Sand and gravel soils are not typically subjected to surcharging loads as these materials are considered to settle almost immediately and surcharging generally only compacts the surficial or shallow soil depths depending on the height of surcharge. Matrix did evaluate this method and estimated up to approximately 18 inches of total settlement within a three month span based on a surcharge of about

25 feet to achieve the design contact pressure of 3,000 psf (calculations included within Appendix E).

Additionally, settlement plates would be necessary and a Professional Land Surveyor would need to take daily readings at each settlement plate over the three month span.

The concern that Matrix has after surcharging the site is the impact the surcharge will have on deeper very loose sand. Confirmatory borings will have to be performed to evaluate the subsurface conditions after the surcharge in order to determine if the surcharge did improve the soils. In the event that the surcharge is ultimately ineffective, a form of soil improvement would then need to be implemented. In order to avoid additional costs and delays associated with the potential ineffectiveness of a surcharge, Matrix has evaluated several different alternatives to support the proposed structures such as deep foundations, soil reinforcement, and raft/mat foundations.

7.2.1 Deep Foundations

Deep foundations including but not limited to driven displacement piles (timber, concrete, auger pressure grouted, helical, steel H, concrete-filled closed end, open end) and drilled shafts (caissons, micropiles, drilled piers) were considered as support alternatives. Typical costs per length of pile can range anywhere from $15 per foot to $100 per foot, depending on the type of pile selected, in addition, but not limited to mobilization of equipment and other incidentals.

However, due to the anticipated extensive lengths necessary to achieve a minimum desired support capacity, the potential of requiring multiple piles/drilled shafts to provide column load support, the potential for a full scale load test to evaluate pile/drilled shaft deformations due to capacities exceeding 40 tons per pile/drilled shaft, and the need for a structural slab and grade beam system, this may prove to be a cost prohibitive alternative.

7.2.2 Soil Reinforcement

Alternatives in the form of soil reinforcement were considered. These include but are not limited to

GeoPiers, Vibro-Replacement Stone Columns, Jet Grouting, Deep Soil Mixing, Deep Dynamic

Compaction, and Vibro-Compaction. GeoPiers and Stone Columns are similar in nature as they consist of installing aggregate either by “punching” it or vibrating it into the subsurface from the bottom up to the design grade as required. Typical costs associated with Vibro-Replacement Stone Columns can range from approximately $2 to $6 per cubic yard of soil treated plus an approximately 5% to 15% markup on the materials used to treat the soils. GeoPiers also fall within these cost estimates. Both remedial methods are design-build and will require input from the design-build contractor to determine actual costs, including but not limited to mobilization of equipment and other incidentals. Unfortunately, the very loose to loose soils extend beyond the capable reach of the installation equipment, which is typically up to 40 feet, rendering both remedies inefficient.

Jet grouting consists of a jet grout drill string initially advanced to the design depth, typically within medium dense soils under self-weight and erosion of soil under light jet water or grout pressure. Once at the design depth the grout is fed through the jets at a significantly higher pressure with the drill string slowly rotating at the bottom of the treatment zone so it is allowed to thoroughly mix the bottom of the treatment zone for several minutes to establish a soil-cement mixture. Next, the drill string, while slowly rotating, is slowly extracted so a soil-cement column is created all the way to the design grade. Deep soil mixing is similar to jet grouting in that the equipment can reach the design depth and place grout into the subsurface. However, the drill string diameter is much larger compared to jet grouting and uses a cutting head to advance and mix the soil and cement, either dry or wet, to create soil-cement columns. Typical costs associated with jet grouting can range from approximately $100 to $300 per cubic yard of soil treated, perhaps even larger depending on the actual size of the job that requires jet grouting. Typical costs associated with deep soil mixing can range from approximately $25 to $30 per cubic yard of soil treated (dry) and approximately $50 to $100 per cubic yard of soil treated (wet). Both remedial methods are also design-build and will require input from the design-build contractor to determine actual costs, including but not limited to mobilization of equipment and other incidentals.

Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) is a ground improvement technique that uses a drop weight to densify loose soils by creating high-energy shock waves. This is carried out by the repeated, controlled impact of a heavy weight (10-40 tons) on the ground surface. This method is effective down to 20-25 feet. Vibro-compaction densifies clean, cohesionless granular soils with a downhole vibrator. Loose soil or fill can be compacted at depth through insertion of vibrating probes together with a large volume of water to generate localized liquefaction of the soil. This enables the particles to rearrange themselves in a denser formation and thus increases the overall density of the soil. The use of a vibrating probe makes it possible to reach large depths compared to compaction carried out at the surface. Vibro-Compaction relies on overburden pressure of soils above the treatment level therefore it is not very effective in the top six feet of soil generally due to a lack of vertical confinement. It can be used for treating the soils below the reach of dynamic compaction, where liquefiable soils are also found.

7.2.3 Mat/Raft Foundations

Another alternative considered is the installation of mat/raft foundations. This is typically a thicker and more reinforced concrete slab that can translate the applied load over a large area to reduce the contact pressure and reduce the potential of a hinge crack situation. However, concerns pertaining to rotation of the overall structure are warranted and may likely require structure subsurface remediation in the future.

Typical costs associated with a mat/raft foundation are expected to be based on additional concrete and reinforcing steel compared to conventional foundations and slab-on-grade construction.

7.2.4 Foundation Recommendations

After reviewing several alternatives as discussed above, Matrix recommends that a hybrid solution of deep dynamic compaction and vibro-compaction be implemented at the site, which upon verification would permit the use of shallow foundations. All design information such as length/depth of treatment, spacing of elements, overall areas of improvement among others will ultimately be determined by the specialty contractor selected to perform the work. Matrix recommends that a ground improvement contractor such as Menard Group USA be contacted to perform this work. Menard is a specialized ground improvement contractor and will also be able to provide detailed information for a cost/benefit analysis. Additionally, this improvement will also improve the Seismic Site Class in accordance with the New Jersey version of the International Building Code, which is further discussed within Section 7.4 of this report. However, installation of mat/raft foundations would not improve the Seismic Site Class.

Matrix also recommends that the suitability of the bearing soils along and below the footing bottoms be verified by a geotechnical engineer prior to placing concrete for the footings. Should any unsuitable materials be encountered beneath proposed foundation bearing depths, deeper footing embedment or overexcavation and replacement of the unsuitable materials will be required to provide a suitable footing subgrade.

For frost protection, the subgrade of the footings should be set a minimum of 2’-6” below the finished grade. Regardless of loading conditions, proposed foundations should be sized no less than minimum dimensions of 24 inches for continuous wall footings and 36 inches for isolated column footings.

Table 1804.2 of the International Building Code also provides allowable coefficients of friction to be used in the evaluation of resistance to sliding. For the Sand stratum and Controlled Fill, the recommended coefficient is 0.25. No basements or other below grade spaces are planned for the structure.

7.2.5 Floor Slabs

The subgrade of the finished floors for the Munitions Storage Area structures is anticipated to be constructed within the top 3.5 feet of existing grade. Assuming soil improvement methods are used per our above recommendations, all fill used for the backfill of footings excavations and to establish the floor subgrade level should be select fill, placed and compacted under engineering controls. The sand stratum which would be either at the planned floor subgrade level or below the select fill could support a ground floor slab constructed on grade if it is proofrolled, and soft or loose areas excavated and backfilled with select fill.

Any areas that become softened or disturbed as a result of wetting and/or repeated exposure to construction traffic should be removed and replaced with compacted controlled fill. The properly prepared natural soils and imported controlled fill/backfill materials are expected to yield a minimum subgrade modulus (k) of

125 psi/in.

A minimum 4 inch layer of clean stone should be installed below the floor slab to provide a capillary break.

An impervious membrane also should be provided as a vapor barrier beneath the floor slab. Total settlements of the floor slab installed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in this report are estimated to be less than one-quarter inch, assuming soil improvement methods are treated per our above recommendations.

7.3 Roadway Areas

To assist in the pavement design, to be designed by others, test pits TP-1 through TP-4 were excavated to collect soil to depths up to 5 feet below existing grade for laboratory California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing and compaction tests. Soil conditions encountered in the borings and test pits are described in Section 5.0 of this report.

Based on a review of the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, a subgrade modulus of 125 lbs/in3 is recommended for pavement design.

CBR testing was performed on four samples collected from the four test pits. The CBR at a 0.1” penetration ranged from 16.6 to 30.6. The CBR at a 0.2” penetration ranged from 17.8 to 34.5. CBR testing was performed at 95% Modified effort maximum dry density.

The average CBR at a 0.1” penetration from all four samples is 22.2. The average CBR at a 0.2” penetration from all four samples is 23.4. Laboratory results of the CBR testing and compaction test are presented in

Appendix D.

7.4 Seismic Design Considerations

Based on guidance in the International Building Code, 2009, ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for

Buildings and Other Structures, and the subsurface conditions, seismic design parameters are presented below.

Table 7.1 Seismic Design Parameters

Parameter Value

0.2 sec. Bedrock Acceleration, Ss 0.27

1.0 sec. Bedrock Acceleration, S1 0.06

Site Class E

0.2 sec. Site Coefficient, Fa 2.4

1.0 sec. Site Coefficient, Fv 3.5

0.2 sec. Design Acceleration, SDS 0.43

1.0 sec. Design Acceleration, SD1 0.14

The potential for liquefaction during a seismic event was evaluated using the procedure described in a paper entitled Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and the 1998

NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, by Youd (Chair.), Idriss (Co-

Chair.), et. al., published in the ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October, 2001. The peak ground acceleration used in the liquefaction analysis was based on the 5% damped design spectral response acceleration at short periods (SDS) divided by 2.5; the peak ground acceleration used for the analysis was 0.17g, which was computed assuming a Site Class E. Based on the evaluation, the loose granular material below the water table would likely liquefy during a seismic event; the results of the analysis, with the factor of safety against liquefaction plotted with depth, are included in Appendix F.

Since the structures are to be used as storage areas or the occupancy is low, a relatively low factor of safety of 1.1 would be considered acceptable. However, many of the N-values for the loose granular material below the water table were so low that the computed factor of safety was typically less than 1.1.

Consequently, the loose granular material is considered to be potentially liquefiable.

According to the International Building Code, a Site Class “F” is to be used where soils are vulnerable to potentially liquefiable soils and a site specific seismic response spectrum is to be developed to establish seismic parameters and ground motions for use in the structural design. However, according to ASCE/SEI

7-05, for structures having a fundamental vibration equal to or less than 0.5 seconds, a site-response analysis is not required to determine a spectral accelerations for liquefiable soils. Therefore, the seismic design parameters are based on a Site Class E.

However, if a soil improvement method, such as jet grouting or deep soil mixing is utilized as recommended above, the site class would improve.

But, if a soil improvement method is not utilized, settlement of the liquefied soils can be expected in a seismic event. Settlement of the ground surface is typically estimated to be about 2% of the liquefied zone;

therefore, site features including pavements and utility lines, which are to be supported on-grade, and foundations and floor slabs, could settle about 12 inches.

7.5 Soil Corrosivity

Corrosivity testing was performed on eight soil samples to screen for the presence of soils which could be corrosive to foundations or buried utilities. pH, resistivity, and sulfate content were tested from borings B-

1, B-9, B-14, and B-15. The samples were tested within the top 10 feet of the existing ground surface.

Soils with a pH less than 4.5 are considered to have aggressive conditions for corrosion of steel. None of the eight tested samples had a pH value less than 4.5. Soils with resistivity values less than 2 kilo-ohm cm

(kilo-ohm centimeters) are also considered to indicate aggressive conditions for steel corrosion. The eight tested samples had resistivity values greater than 2.0 kilo-ohm cm. Soils with sulfate contents greater than

3,000 mg/kg are considered to be very corrosive to concrete. The eight tested samples had sulfate contents of less than 3,000 mg/kg. At this time, corrective measures due to the potential for corrosion for steel or concrete is not warranted. Therefore, Matrix recommends that Portland Cement Type I, Type II, or Type

I/II be used for construction.

7.6 Excavations/Dewatering/Drainage

The contractor is solely responsible for construction site safety, including excavation safety. Excavations should be performed in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR Part 1926, OSHA Safety and Health

Regulations for Construction, Excavations. It is anticipated that excavations will generally be open cut.

The Fill and underlying soils above and below the water table are considered to be Type C soils. The maximum allowable slopes stipulated by OSHA for Type C soils are 1.5 H: 1V. Flatter slopes may be required based on actual conditions encountered. Sheeting and bracing, if required, should be designed by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of New Jersey, and earth and water pressures, as well as equipment and other surcharge loads, considered.

As mentioned previously, groundwater was encountered in the temporary observation wells at depths of approximately six to seven feet below existing grade. Difficulties may be encountered for the construction of the proposed foundations if excavations are deeper than six feet below existing grade. These difficulties will require dewatering, such as cutoff walls, sheeting, and/or pumps. For foundation construction, the contractor should be prepared to provide adequate dewatering in order to depress the groundwater level to a depth of at least two feet below foundation subgrades. The appropriate measures to be taken for groundwater control during construction should be determined in the field at the time of excavation and are the responsibility of the contractor.

At the time of report preparation, finished grading of the site and structures was not available for comparison to existing static groundwater conditions. At this time, static groundwater may be within approximately two feet of proposed floor slab, foundation and pavement subgrade levels, but is susceptible to climatic conditions and will vary as stated above. Additionally, Matrix recommends installing interceptor drains at the perimeter of foundations, and underdrains beneath pavements to collect and reroute perched groundwater to the stormwater management system or appropriate drainage outlet. Proper drainage must be provided for the pavement structures including appropriate grading and surface water control, as well as measures to drain water from the subgrade materials such as bleeder drains at inlets. Groundwater which remains at or near subgrade levels may result in premature failure of floor slabs and pavements as a result of hydrostatic forces and freeze-thaw cycles.

Perimeter drains and underdrains typically consist of top perforated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping within a 12-inch by 12-inch, clean ¾- inch crushed stone layer surrounded by a fines filtration fabric. For the soils present on the subject site, a woven fabric such as long term clog-resistant Mirafi 140NC is recommended.

Perimeter drains and underdrains should be designed to pitch towards and discharge into the stormwater drainage system or appropriate drainage outlet. The pipes should have a minimum slope of 0.5 percent. If sufficient fall is available, gravity flow is preferable; otherwise, the water should be collected in a sump and pumped. Clean-out ports should be provided to permit periodic flushing of the system. Pipes leading from collection areas should be impervious to prevent leakage under paved areas.

7.7 Select Fill

Select Fill placed and compacted under engineering supervision is known as Controlled Fill. Matrix recommends that the on-site natural soils can be reused as Select Fill as long as it meets the requirements provided within this section. If not, imported select fill should be used as Controlled Fill. Select fill should be a natural sand or sand and gravel with no particles larger than three inches, with not more than 70% by weight passing a No. 40 sieve, and not more than 10% by weight passing a No. 200 sieve. The material passing the No. 200 sieve shall be non-plastic. Select fill should be free of organic material and any other deleterious material. Imported material should also be tested for contaminant levels, which should be below

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection residential soil clean up levels.

Select fill is to be placed in lifts not exceeding twelve inches in thickness, and compacted to 95% of the maximum Modified Proctor density, determined in accordance with the procedures of ASTM D1557, Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-M/M3)).

Controlled Fill placed within ten feet of walls, foundations, utility lines and auxiliary structures should be compacted with plate compactors; the lift thickness should be adjusted if necessary to obtain the required degree of compaction. In-place density tests should be performed at a frequency of not less than one per

2,500 sf (square feet) of backfill placed, and not less than one test per two feet of material placed.

Appropriate documentation with supporting laboratory test results for proposed fill materials should be submitted for approval prior to its use. Grain size distribution, maximum dry density, and optimum water content determinations should be performed on representative samples of the proposed select fill.

Preparation of the subgrade and the placement of fill should be performed under the oversight of a qualified geotechnical engineer or a technician under his direction. No fill material should be placed on areas where free water is standing, on frozen subgrade areas, or on surfaces which have not been approved by qualified geotechnical personnel.

7.8 Supplemental Post Investigation Services

The owner’s geotechnical engineer should perform inspection, testing, and consultation during construction as described in previous sections of this report. Monitoring and testing also should be performed to verify that suitable materials are used for controlled fill, and that they are properly placed and compacted over suitable subgrade soils.

8.0 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared to assist Frankfurt-Short-Bruza Associates, PC and its consultants with the design of the Munitions Storage Area Phase 1 PTFL 023003 at the McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey.

The conclusions and recommendations were prepared based on our understanding of the project and through the application of generally accepted soils and foundations engineering practices. No warranties, expressed or implied, are made. Matrix should be notified of any changes to the planned construction or if subsurface conditions differing from those described herein are encountered, so the impact on the geotechnical recommendations can be evaluated.

FIGURES

APPENDIX A

FSB PROVIDED DOCUMENTS

N

B O

R

IN

G L

O C

A

TI

O N

P

LA

N

B -1

B -2 B -3

B -4

B -5

B -6

B -7

B -8

B -1

B -1

18.80'

86.25'

2.

4.

90.85'

3.

0.

150.30'

EX

IS

TI

N

G B

U

IL

D

IN

G

B -9

B -1

B -1

.5

0'

75.00'

.4

0'

.0

0'

65.35'

69.40'

.0

0'

75.50' 73.40' 82.10'15

8.

.6

0'

.6

0'

5.

155.00'

179.20' 57.20'

PR

O

PO

SE

D

SI

N G

LE

B

A Y

M A

IN

TE

N A

N C

E B

U

IL

D

IN

G

EX

IS

TI

N

G

SE

C U

R

IT

Y

FE

N C

E

B O

R

IN

G N

O

TE

S

126.90'110.00'

.7

7'

B -1

B

-1

4.

160.00'

140.00'

APPENDIX B

LOGS OF BORINGS

APPENDIX C

LOGS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF TEST PITS

Munitions Storage Area CityScape Engineering & Surveying, PC Geotechnical Report

PHOTO LOG

PHOTO 1: Test pit TP-1.

PHOTO 2: Test pit TP-1.

PHOTO 3: Test pit TP-2.

PHOTO 4: Test pit TP-2.

PHOTO 5: Test pit TP-3.

PHOTO 6: Test pit TP-3.

PHOTO 7: Test pit TP-4.

PHOTO 8: Test pit TP-4.

APPENDIX D

RESULTS OF GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING

CityScape #2011175

Munitions Storage Area, McGuire AFB, NJ

LABORATORY TESTING DATA SUMMARY

BORING SAMPLE DEPTH IDENTIFICATION TESTS REMARKS

WATER LIQUID PLASTIC PLAS. USCS SIEVE

NO. NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX SYMB. MINUS

(1) NO. 200

(ft) (%) (-) (-) (-) (%)

B-1 S-5 8-10 26.1 SM 25.4

B-1 S-8 20-22 17.6 SM 28.1

B-1 S-11 35-37 27.2 51 17 34 SP-SC 11.6

B-1 S-18 70-72 28.8 SC 15.0

B-4 S-3 4-6 19.4 SP-SM 9.5

B-4 S-6 10-12 22.7 SM 29.4

B-4 S-12 40-42 27.1 32 17 15 SC 12.0

B-4 S-17 65-67 33.7 SM 13.7

B-5 S-7 15-17 31.8 SM 29.5

B-5 S-10 30-32 27.4 SW-SM 11.6

B-6 S-4 6-8 25.4 SM 22.6

B-6 S-5 8-10 35.1 SM 44.6

B-8 S-4 6-8 23.3 SM 23.5

B-8 S-8 20-22 24.8 SM 23.6

B-8 S-10 30-32 28.1 SC 12.2

B-9 S-1 0-2 18.1 SM 25.8

B-9 S-7 15-17 32.7 SM 42.5

B-9 S-8 20-22 30.5 SM 29.8

B-11 S-5 8-10 21.5 SM 20.6

B-11 S-10 30-32 28.9 SC 12.7

B-13 S-4 6-8 18.5 SP-SM 6.4

B-13 S-7 15-17 33.0 SM 40.5

B-14 S-2 2-4 15.0 SP-SM 11.0

B-14 S-7 15-17 33.8 SM 47.1

B-14 S-12 40-42 38.2 SM 22.6

B-15 S-3 4-6 20.6 SM 19.0

B-15 S-5 8-10 26.5 SM 48.5

B-15 S-10 30-32 25.5 36 17 19 SC 20.0

B-15 S-15 55-57 30.0 SM 12.1

Note: (1) USCS symbol based on visual observation and Sieve and Atterberg limits reported.

Prepared by: JR Reviewed by: GET Date: 5/7/2012

TerraSense, LLC

45H Commerce Way Totowa, NJ 07512

Project No.: 7783-12003 File: Indx3.xls

LABORATORY TESTING DATA SUMMARY

BORING SAMPLE DEPTH IDENTIFICATION TESTS COMPACTION REMARKS

WATER USCS SIEVE

NO. NO. CONTENT SYMB. MINUS ASTM OPT. WATER MAX . DRY - 3/8 - 3/4 PREP

(1) NO. 200 STD. CONTENT UNIT WGT. wet dry

(ft) (%) (%) (%) (pcf)

TP-1 S-1 0-5 16.2 SP-SM 10.0 D1557 13.8 109.9 X X See CBR TP-2 S-1 0-5 14.7 SM 23.9 D1557 13.3 109.7 X X See CBR TP-3 S-1 0-5 16.7 SP-SM 5.1 D1557 13.3 111.2 X X See CBR TP-4 S-1 0-5 22.6 SM 25.9 D1557 14.4 109.5 X X See CBR

Note: (1) USCS symbol based on visual observation and Sieve results reported.

Prepared by: JR Reviewed by: GET Date: 5/7/2012

TerraSense, LLC 45H Commerce Way Totowa, NJ 07512

Project No.: 7783-12003 File: Indx2.xls

COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY Symbol o n

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE Boring B-1 B-1 U.S. Standard Sieve Size Sample S-5 S-8

Depth 8-10 20-22 % +3" 0.0 0.0

% Gravel 0.0 0.0

% SAND 74.6 71.9

%C SAND 0.0 4.4

%M SAND 1.8 50.5

%F SAND 72.8 17.0

% FINES 25.4 28.1

% -2m D100 (mm) 4.75 4.75 D60 (mm) 0.11 0.92 D30 (mm) 0.08 0.09 D10 (mm)

Cc Cu

Particle Size PERCENT FINER

(Sieve #) o n

4" 3"

1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8"

4 100.0 10 100.0 95.6 20 99.8 57.8 40 98.2 45.1 60 96.7 41.9

SYMBOL w (%) LL PL PI USCS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Date Tested 100 95.6 39.8 o 26.1 SM 4/25/2012 200 25.4 28.1 n 17.6 SM 4/25/2012 7783-12003 2011175

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

TerraSense, LLC CityScape

Munitions Storage Area, McGuire AFB, NJ

Brown, Silty sand

Brown, Silty sand

0.0010.010.1110100

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G B

Y W

E

IG

H T

PARTICLE SIZE -mm

#4

#6

#4

#2

#1

/8

/4

/2

#1

#2

Analysis File: 3SV-MasterRev3 siev3a.xls 5/7/2012

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE Boring B-1 B-1 U.S. Standard Sieve Size Sample S-11 S-18

Depth 35-37 70-72 % +3" 0.0 0.0

% Gravel 0.2 0.0

% SAND 88.2 85.0

%C SAND 0.7 0.2

%M SAND 15.1 10.2

%F SAND 72.3 74.6

% FINES 11.6 15.0

% -2m D100 (mm) 9.50 4.75 D60 (mm) 0.27 0.27 D30 (mm) 0.18 0.18 D10 (mm) 0.06

Cc 2.0 Cu 4.5

Particle Size PERCENT FINER

(Sieve #) o n

4" 3"

1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 100.0

4 99.8 100.0 10 99.1 99.8 20 95.1 98.6 40 83.9 89.6 60 57.7 55.2

SYMBOL w (%) LL PL PI USCS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Date Tested 100 19.2 21.6 o 27.2 51 17 34 SP-SC 4/24/2012 200 11.6 15.0 n 28.8 SC 4/25/2012 7783-12003 2011175

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

TerraSense, LLC CityScape

Munitions Storage Area, McGuire AFB, NJ

Brown, Poorly-graded sand with clay

Gray, Clayey sand

0.0010.010.1110100

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G B

Y W

E

IG

#4

#2

#1

/8

/4

/2

Analysis File: 3SV-MasterRev3 siev3b.xls 5/7/2012

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE Boring B-4 B-4 U.S. Standard Sieve Size Sample S-3 S-6

Depth 4-6 10-12 % +3" 0.0 0.0

% Gravel 0.0 0.0

% SAND 90.5 70.6

%C SAND 0.0 0.7

%M SAND 15.0 11.4

%F SAND 75.4 58.4

% FINES 9.5 29.4

% -2m D100 (mm) 4.75 4.75 D60 (mm) 0.23 0.12 D30 (mm) 0.12 0.08 D10 (mm) 0.08

Cc 0.8 Cu 3.0

Particle Size PERCENT FINER

(Sieve #) o n

4" 3"

1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8"

4 100.0 10 100.0 99.3 20 96.7 96.6 40 85.0 87.9 60 64.0 82.6

SYMBOL w (%) LL PL PI USCS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Date Tested 100 44.6 79.4 o 19.4 SP-SM 4/25/2012 200 9.5 29.4 n 22.7 SM 4/25/2012 7783-12003 2011175

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

TerraSense, LLC CityScape

Munitions Storage Area, McGuire AFB, NJ

Brown, Poorly-graded sand with silt

Gray, Silty sand

0.0010.010.1110100

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G B

Y W

E

IG

#4

#2

#1

/8

/4

/2

Analysis File: 3SV-MasterRev3 siev3c.xls 5/7/2012

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE Boring B-4 B-4 U.S. Standard Sieve Size Sample S-12 S-17

Depth 40-42 65-67 % +3" 0.0 0.0

% Gravel 3.8 2.0

% SAND 84.2 84.3

%C SAND 0.5 5.7

%M SAND 14.5 19.5

%F SAND 69.2 59.0

% FINES 12.0 13.7

% -2m D100 (mm) 19.00 19.00 D60 (mm) 0.31 0.33 D30 (mm) 0.19 0.18 D10 (mm)

Cc Cu

Particle Size PERCENT FINER

(Sieve #) o n

4" 3"

1 1/2" 3/4" 100.0 100.0 3/8" 96.2 99.3

4 96.2 98.0 10 95.8 92.2 20 92.2 84.8 40 81.2 72.8 60 48.7 49.6

SYMBOL w (%) LL PL PI USCS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Date Tested 100 18.9 20.7 o 27.1 32 17 15 SC 4/24/2012 200 12.0 13.7 n 33.7 SM 4/25/2012 7783-12003 2011175

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

TerraSense, LLC CityScape

Munitions Storage Area, McGuire AFB, NJ

Brown, Clayey sand

Brown, Silty sand

0.0010.010.1110100

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G B

Y W

E

IG

#4

#2

#1

/8

/4

/2

Analysis File: 3SV-MasterRev3 siev3d.xls 5/7/2012

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE Boring B-5 B-5 U.S. Standard Sieve Size Sample S-7 S-10

Depth 15-17 30-32 % +3" 0.0 0.0

% Gravel 0.2 0.5

% SAND 70.3 87.9

%C SAND 0.4 1.6

%M SAND 2.5 23.2

%F SAND 67.5 63.1

% FINES 29.5 11.6

% -2m D100 (mm) 9.50 9.50 D60 (mm) 0.11 0.33 D30 (mm) 0.08 0.19 D10 (mm) 0.06

Cc 2.0 Cu 6.0

Particle Size PERCENT FINER

(Sieve #) o n

4" 3"

1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 100.0 100.0

4 99.8 99.5 10 99.4 97.9 20 98.5 92.8 40 97.0 74.8 60 92.1 47.5

SYMBOL w (%) LL PL PI USCS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Date Tested 100 87.3 17.9 o 31.8 SM 4/25/2012 200 29.5 11.6 n 27.4 SW-SM 4/25/2012 7783-12003 2011175

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

TerraSense, LLC CityScape

Munitions Storage Area, McGuire AFB, NJ

Brown, Silty sand

Black, Well-graded sand with silt

0.0010.010.1110100

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G B

Y W

E

IG

#4

#2

#1

/8

/4

/2

Analysis File: 3SV-MasterRev3 siev3e.xls 5/7/2012

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE Boring B-6 B-6 U.S. Standard Sieve Size Sample S-4 S-5

Depth 6-8 8-10 % +3" 0.0 0.0

% Gravel 0.0 1.0

% SAND 77.4 54.4

%C SAND 0.0 5.6

%M SAND 1.5 9.0

%F SAND 75.8 39.8

% FINES 22.6 44.6

% -2m D100 (mm) 4.75 9.50 D60 (mm) 0.11 0.11 D30 (mm) 0.08 D10 (mm)

Cc Cu

Particle Size PERCENT FINER

(Sieve #) o n

4" 3"

1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 100.0

4 99.0 10 100.0 93.4 20 99.9 87.9 40 98.5 84.4 60 97.0 80.8

SYMBOL w (%) LL PL PI USCS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Date Tested 100 95.8 77.4 o 25.4 SM 4/25/2012 200 22.6 44.6 n 35.1 SM 4/25/2012 7783-12003 2011175

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

TerraSense, LLC CityScape

Munitions Storage Area, McGuire AFB, NJ

Brown, Silty sand

Brown, Silty sand

0.0010.010.1110100

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G B

Y W

E

IG

#4

#2

#1

/8

/4

/2

Analysis File: 3SV-MasterRev3 siev3f.xls 5/7/2012

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE Boring B-8 B-8 B-8 U.S. Standard Sieve Size Sample S-4 S-8 S-10

Depth 6-8 20-22 30-32 % +3" 0.0 0.0 0.0

% Gravel 0.9 1.7 0.2

% SAND 75.6 74.7 87.6

%C SAND 0.6 4.6 0.8

%M SAND 4.0 35.8 22.1

%F SAND 71.0 34.2 64.7

% FINES 23.5 23.6 12.2

% -2m D100 (mm) 9.50 9.50 9.50 D60 (mm) 0.12 0.53 0.33 D30 (mm) 0.08 0.09 0.18 D10 (mm)

Cc Cu

Particle Size PERCENT FINER

(Sieve #) o n

4" 3"

1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 100.0 100.0 100.0

4 99.1 98.3 99.8 10 98.5 93.6 99.0 20 97.0 66.6 94.4 40 94.5 57.8 76.9 60 90.9 54.9 47.3

SYMBOL w (%) LL PL PI USCS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Date Tested 100 85.8 53.1 21.0 o 23.3 SM 4/25/2012 200 23.5 23.6 12.2 n 24.8 SM 4/25/2012 7783-12003 2011175

28.1 SC 4/25/2012 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

TerraSense, LLC CityScape

Munitions Storage Area, McGuire AFB, NJ

Brown, Silty sand

Gray, Silty sand

Gray, Clayey sand

0.0010.010.1110100

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G B

Y W

E

IG

#4

#2

#1

/8

/4

/2

Analysis File: 3SV-MasterRev3 siev3g.xls 5/7/2012

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE Boring B-9 B-9 B-9 U.S. Standard Sieve Size Sample S-1 S-7 S-8

Depth 0-2 15-17 20-22 % +3" 0.0 0.0 0.0

% Gravel 0.8 0.0 5.3

% SAND 73.4 57.5 64.9

%C SAND 0.3 0.2 5.7

%M SAND 6.1 1.2 22.7

%F SAND 66.9 56.1 36.4

% FINES 25.8 42.5 29.8

% -2m D100 (mm) 9.50 4.75 19.00 D60 (mm) 0.13 0.10 0.14 D30 (mm) 0.08 0.08 D10 (mm)

Cc Cu

Particle Size PERCENT FINER

(Sieve #) o n

4" 3"

1 1/2" 3/4" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 98.7

4 99.2 100.0 94.7 10 98.8 99.8 88.9 20 96.7 99.3 71.6 40 92.7 98.7 66.2 60 87.4 98.0 64.3

SYMBOL w (%) LL PL PI USCS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Date Tested 100 76.3 97.2 62.8 o 18.1 SM 4/25/2012 200 25.8 42.5 29.8 n 32.7 SM 4/25/2012 7783-12003 2011175

30.5 SM 4/25/2012 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

TerraSense, LLC CityScape

Munitions Storage Area, McGuire AFB, NJ

Brown, Silty sand

Brown, Silty sand

Gray, Silty sand

0.0010.010.1110100

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G B

Y W

E

IG

#4

#2

#1

/8

/4

/2

Analysis File: 3SV-MasterRev3 siev3h.xls 5/7/2012

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE Boring B-11 B-11 U.S. Standard Sieve Size Sample S-5 S-10

Depth 8-10 30-32 % +3" 0.0 0.0

% Gravel 1.7 0.0

% SAND 77.7 87.3

%C SAND 3.3 0.4

%M SAND 21.5 20.7

%F SAND 52.9 66.2

% FINES 20.6 12.7

% -2m D100 (mm) 19.00 4.75 D60 (mm) 0.14 0.31 D30 (mm) 0.09 0.18 D10 (mm)

Cc Cu

Particle Size PERCENT FINER

(Sieve #) o n

4" 3"

1 1/2" 3/4" 100.0 3/8" 99.3

4 98.3 100.0 10 94.9 99.6 20 82.6 96.6 40 73.4 79.0 60 69.9 50.0

SYMBOL w (%) LL PL PI USCS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Date Tested 100 68.0 20.6 o 21.5 SM 4/25/2012 200 20.6 12.7 n 28.9 SC 4/25/2012 7783-12003 2011175

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

TerraSense, LLC CityScape

Munitions Storage Area, McGuire AFB, NJ

Brown, Silty sand

Gray, Clayey sand

0.0010.010.1110100

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G B

Y W

E

IG

#4

#2

#1

/8

/4

/2

Analysis File: 3SV-MasterRev3 siev3i.xls 5/7/2012

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE Boring B-13 B-13 U.S. Standard Sieve Size Sample S-4 S-7

Depth 6-8 15-17 % +3" 0.0 0.0

% Gravel 0.4 0.0

% SAND 93.2 59.5

%C SAND 1.4 0.1

%M SAND 40.2 0.7

%F SAND 51.6 58.8

% FINES 6.4 40.5

% -2m D100 (mm) 9.50 4.75 D60 (mm) 0.45 0.10 D30 (mm) 0.25 D10 (mm) 0.10

Cc 1.4 Cu 4.7

Particle Size PERCENT FINER

(Sieve #) o n

4" 3"

1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 100.0

4 99.6 100.0 10 98.2 99.9 20 89.0 99.6 40 58.0 99.2 60 30.2 98.6

SYMBOL w (%) LL PL PI USCS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Date Tested 100 18.9 96.8 o 18.5 SP-SM 4/25/2012 200 6.4 40.5 n 33.0 SM 4/25/2012 7783-12003 2011175

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

TerraSense, LLC CityScape

Munitions Storage Area, McGuire AFB, NJ

Brown, Poorly-graded sand with silt

Gray, Silty sand

0.0010.010.1110100

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G B

Y W

E

IG

#4

#2

#1

/8

/4

/2

Analysis File: 3SV-MasterRev3 siev3j.xls 5/7/2012

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE Boring B-14 B-14 B-14 U.S. Standard Sieve Size Sample S-2 S-7 S-12

Depth 2-4 15-17 40-42 % +3" 0.0 0.0 0.0

% Gravel 0.0 0.0 0.0

% SAND 89.0 52.9 77.4

%C SAND 0.4 0.1 9.5

%M SAND 24.5 1.4 26.8

%F SAND 64.1 51.3 41.1

% FINES 11.0 47.1 22.6

% -2m D100 (mm) 4.75 4.75 4.75 D60 (mm) 0.28 0.09 0.38 D30 (mm) 0.13 0.13 D10 (mm) 0.07

Cc 0.8…