SOW_Attachment_7.e._-_Geotechnical_Report_MKAB_Haz_Cargo.pdf

APPENDIX E

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (Task 4) Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) – Hot Cargo Apron Mihail Kogalniceanu (MK) Air Base, Romania

Contract No. W912GB-16-D-0049

Task Order No: W912GB18F0066P00001

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 580560002G

27 August 2018

FINAL VERSION

Created for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Europe District Konrad-Adenauer-Ring 39 D-65187 Wiesbaden

Created by: Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Weserstraße 4 D-60329 Frankfurt/Main

Page I

© Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2 Data Gathering

2.1 DATA REVIEW

2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION

2.3 LABORATORY TESTING

3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 AREA AND SITE GEOLOGY

3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.2.1 Topsoil

3.2.2 Fill

3.2.3 Loess

3.2.4 Bedrock

3.3 GROUNDWATER

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 EXISTING FILL

4.2 COLLAPSIBLE SOILS

4.3 SITE GRADING

4.4 PAVEMENT DESIGN

4.5 UTILITY INSTALLATION

4.6 STORMWATER

4.7 FROST ZONE

4.8 SEISMIC DESIGN

4.8.1 Peak Ground Acceleration

4.8.2 Site Class

4.8.3 Liquefaction

4.8.4 Corrosion Potential

5 QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Figure 1: Field Exploration Plan Figure 2-3: Cross Sections Table 1: Summary of Laboratory Results Appendix A: Boring Logs Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results GBA Information on Geotechnical Reports

Phase II ESA - Hot Cargo Apron - MK Air Base, Romania Task 4 Geotechnical Report - Final Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 580560002G

1 INTRODUCTION

Amec Foster Wheeler has completed the authorized geotechnical exploration for the proposed new explosive unloading apron, fixed wing apron, and related taxiways at the MK Air Base in Constanta County, Romania.

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions in the area of the proposed aprons and taxiways and to analyze these conditions as they relate to proposed construction.

This report briefly discusses our understanding of the project, describes our exploratory procedures, and presents our conclusions and recommendations from this investigation.

1.2 Site Description

The MK Air Base shares a runway with a commercial airport. The planned construction is in an area of about 17 hectares west of the runway and including but generally north of existing ladder Taxiway E. Most of the area is undeveloped or occupied by various dispersion taxiways, revetment berms (to protect parked aircraft), small buildings, as well as above and below-ground bunkers with open grassy areas and a few small trees. The runway elevation is at about 102.5 meters and the construction area, apart from the berms, is generally lower than this by a few meters.

1.3 Project Description

Our understanding of the proposed airfield improvements is based on the documents provided.

Principal elements of the project will include:

1. A hazardous cargo apron of about 7,515 square meters (SM) capable of accommodating a single C-17 aircraft and large enough to allow the aircraft to taxi-in/taxi out under its own power. The aircraft will access this apron via a new ladder taxiway parallel to and about 340 meters north of Taxiway E.

2. A parking apron of about 45,092 SM capable of accommodating three C-17 aircraft and large enough to allow the aircraft to taxi-in/taxi out under their own power. The apron will be accessed from Parallel Taxiway F from the south and ladder Taxiway E from the east.

3. Replacement of Taxiway E and portions of Taxiway F to make the connections.

4. 15.2 M wide shoulders around the Hazardous Cargo Apron and 7.6 M wide shoulders around the remaining apron and taxiways.

5. An apron access road (about 798 SM) connecting the Hazardous Cargo Apron to the road network to the south.

6. Incidental structures such as jet blast deflectors, utilities (mainly lighting), etc.

No grading plan was available. We assume aprons and taxiways will be at elevations similar to the existing taxiways E and F and aprons to the south, generally slightly lower than the runway.

2 Data Gathering

2.1 Data Review

In 2015, Amec Foster Wheeler conducted an Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) and Geotechnical Survey of the MK Base and PFOS which included 4 borings (B16, B18, B19, and B19A) in the vicinity of the planned Hot Cargo Apron project as well as lab testing on a number of samples from these and other borings at the greater MK Air Base site. The data was presented in the Part II: Geotechnical Survey – Final report, Contract No. W912GB-10-D-0030, Order No:

0008, AFW Project No. 578200008G, dated 14 September 2015.

2.2 Field Exploration

The exploration for this project (2018) included a total of 22 soil borings including 6 offsets, designated D1 through D16 with offsets D2A, D3A, D4A-C, and D16A. Prior to drilling, locations were cleared for subsurface utilities and UXO by base personnel.

The boring locations were marked in the field by the field geologist using a hand-held GPS device (positional error pf approximately 3 to 5 meters). Boring elevations were interpolated based on the topographic site plan. As such, the boring locations shown on Figure 1 and elevations indicated on the logs and sections (Figures 2 and 3) should be considered approximate.

The Soil Boring Records, Appendix A, show the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistances and presents the soil descriptions. The stratification lines and depth designations on the boring records represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, which may be gradual.

Geotechnical soil drilling was performed by a subcontractor using a CME-55 drill rig mounted on an ex-military 6 x 6 truck. Drilling was accomplished in accordance with ASTM D-1586 using standard SPT sampling methods. The borehole was advanced with hollow stem augers which remained in the borehole to serve as casing. Standard penetration tests were conducted by driving an ASTM standard split barrel sampler into the bottom of the borehole at selected intervals using a CME automatic hammer designed to meet ASTM requirements (30-inch drop of 140 lb hammer). Blow counts were measured for each 15 cm (6 inch) interval.

Between the SPT sampling intervals a continuous soil sample was taken with a larger split barrel sampler which was hammered or pushed into the subsurface. This oversize split spoon consisted of a split barrel, a drive shoe, sample catcher and threaded adaptor. The unit was approximately 1.5m long, with an interior diameter of about 70mm and an exterior diameter of roughly 100mm.

Photos 1 & 1 Drill Rig showing automatic hammer conducting SPT

Photo 2 Oversized Split barrel sample used between SPTs

2.3 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory testing included:

1. Classification tests to confirm field classifications:

a. Moisture Content - STAS 1913/1-82, similar to ASTM D2216.

b. Grain size – STAS 1913/5-85 similar to ASTM D61913 and D7928

c. Plasticity – Atterberg Limits, STAS 1913/4-86 similar to ASTM D4318

d. Specific Gravity – STAS 1913/2-76 similar to ASTM D854

2. Strength tests - Direct Shear STAS 8942/2-82 similar to ASTM D3080

3. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests for subgrade support – SR EN 13286, Similar to

ASTM D1883

4. Collapse Tests – STAS 8942/1-89 similar to ASTM D5333

5. Moisture/density (Modified Proctor) tests – STAS 1913/13-83 similar to ASTM D1557

Results are summarized in Table 1 and included in Appendix B.

3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Area and Site Geology

The Air Base lies between the Danube River and Black Sea on the Romanian Black Sea Shelf.

Published mapping (“The hydrocarbon potential of the Romanian Black Sea continental plateau”, Ion Morosanu, Romanian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 86, 2012) suggests the site overlies the Greenschist Block of the Moesian Platform, which appears to be confirmed by the presence of several greenschist quarries in Sibioara, about 7 km southeast of the site. An historic (1928) geologic map – “Harta geologica a Romaniei” by the “Dupa Institutil Geologic al Romaniei” indicates the site is underlain by loess (aeolian deposits) of recent (Holocene) age.

3.2 Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface conditions discussed in the following paragraphs and those shown on the soil Test Boring Records represent an interpretation of the field and laboratory data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments considering local geology and experience. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata represent approximate boundaries only, as transitions between materials may be gradual. Soil conditions may vary between and away from the boring locations.

3.2.1 Topsoil

Borings generally encountered a layer of slightly organic topsoil or cultivated soil at the surface, likely related to agricultural activity. In some borings, similar material was encountered below apparent fill soils.

3.2.2 Fill

Fill was present at 12 of the 16 boring locations, to depths ranging up to 5.4 M. The various revetment berms also appear to be comprised of local earth fill. Fill generally consisted of material similar to the natural soils described below, but also contained various rubble and debris, including concrete, brick, and wood. Some voids between the debris were noted. Borings and split-barrel samplers cannot reliably quantify larger debris present in the fill as penetration may occur between such materials. No records of fill compaction or quality control were discovered, but the presence of debris suggests compaction was likely not conducted. SPT N-values in the fill were highly variable, with lower values (3 bpf) likely representing the relatively soft state of the soils and higher values likely representing the effects of concrete and other debris.

3.2.3 Loess

The natural soils below the topsoil were primarily silt sized material with some generally fine sand and sufficient clay to produce low plasticity such that behavior and USCS classification would be CL (lean or low-plasticity clay). The material composition appeared relatively consistent with similar grain size and plasticity across the Hot Apron site as well as the overall base as indicated in the 2015 report. SPT N-values in the loess were variable, from 2 to 25 bpf, but no pattern as to the higher and lower consistency zones was evident. Collapse tests on the material showed low to moderate collapse potential (about 3-4 percent). Soils are generally of low to moderate plasticity and the risk of swelling issues is expected to be small.

3.2.4 Bedrock

Geologic mapping indicates bedrock should consist of greenschist at this site. Some apparent greenschist gravel was encountered in two of the deepest borings (D1 and D10) at an approximate elevation of 84 M. This may represent the upper surface of weathered bedrock.

3.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered in 6 of the deeper borings at elevations ranging from approximately 87 to 90 M - well below existing and planned future grades. Groundwater levels can fluctuate with changes in weather, drainage, and ground disturbance in the area. Seasonal fluctuations are unlikely to allow groundwater levels to rise enough to significantly impact the planned construction.

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the previously presented project information (2015), data obtained in this exploration (2018), and our experience with similar projects. If the structural information is incorrect, or if the location of the proposed construction is changed, please contact us so that our recommendations can be reviewed and modified, if necessary.

The discovery of site and/or subsurface conditions during construction different from the data obtained in this exploration should be reported to us for our evaluation. The assessment of environmental conditions or the presence of pollutants in soil, rock, or groundwater of the site will be documented in an own environmental report

4.1 Existing Fill

The existing fill appears to have been placed without acceptable compaction or quality control and contains debris and possibly other deleterious materials. Where present, the debris appears to have created voids within the fill. Utilities and underground structures are also likely present underneath the fill.

We recommend removing all the existing fill beneath and extending at least 3 meters horizontally beyond the edge of any planned pavement, utility, or other structure. Fill should be removed to expose natural subgrade and confirm removal of rubble, existing foundations, utilities, underground structures, and other deleterious materials. We anticipate sloping excavations at slopes of maximum 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical will allow fill removal but, if necessary, localized shoring can be considered to protect existing pavements, utilities, etc. that will remain. Most of the excavated fill material, if raked to remove larger debris and moisture conditioned, should be acceptable for re-use as structural fill.

There are various buildings and structures in the construction area as well as buried and stockpiled concrete and other debris. The debris and demolition materials may be disposed of at an acceptable off-site landfill. Disposing these materials by burial in undeveloped areas within the MK site is not recommended as future development of those areas may be compromised. If such debris is to be stored on site pending disposal, we recommend above ground storage to reduce the potential that future development could occur over unacceptable subgrade/foundation materials.

The volume of debris and demolition material may justify a crusher to reduce these materials to a graded aggregate and allow re-use on site. Metal, wood, tires, wallboard, and other materials that may degrade over time should be segregated before or during the crushing process.

Concrete, brick, mortar, and similar materials may be crushed to create a mix of material that could be re-used as fill. Although such recycled materials are sometimes used as a substitute for pavement base, we anticipate the mix of materials and necessary quality control effort required would render such substitution impractical at this site. It may, however, be possible to control the crushing operation to provide acceptable select fill, pipe bedding, frost-resistant fill, sub-base, or general structural fill.

4.2 Collapsible Soils

Available geologic site maps indicate the site is underlain by aeolian deposits (loess). Loess can present hazards due to collapse potential. Testing of the collected samples indicated low to moderate collapse potential but collapse potential can vary throughout the formation and greater collapse potential may occur in local pockets. Collapse can occur when collapsible soils, typically characterized by a low-density structure with water soluble cementation between particles, are wetted and loaded. Measures to limit collapse risk include compacting (densifying) the near surface soils, that is, those most likely to be wetted, and implementing drainage measures to reduce potential for saturation of deeper soils that may contain collapsible zones.

We recommend compacting the upper 600 mm of soils beneath structural areas i.e. fill, foundations, pavements, utilities and maintaining positive site drainage. Compacted site soils, primarily low plasticity clayey silts/silty clays, should be relatively low permeability and discourage infiltration to untreated soils beneath. Since much of the site will require undercut and replacement of existing fill, additional over-excavation and replacement as a treatment for collapsible soils should be needed only in limited portions of the site.

Care should be taken in use of granular fills, such as crushed concrete or sand, to avoid creating zones of preferential infiltration or trapping water in the subsurface. The subgrade should be sloped to drain and outlets provided for pavement base to prevent storage of water and wetting of subgrade. Utilities should be designed to reduce the risk of leaks (from water, sewer, and other lines that may carry water) as well as transmission and trapping of water, such as along trenches or in bedding of other utility lines i.e. gas, electric, communication.

4.3 Site Grading

Although grading plans are not available to define planned fill and excavation, we anticipate site grading will be significant, including extensive undercut of existing fill and rubble and replacement with engineered fill as well as mass grading to achieve subgrade elevations.

4.3.1 Excavation

Soils can generally be excavated with conventional equipment i.e. excavators, pan-scrapers, loaders. Larger pieces of rubble, building foundations, and existing slabs/pavements may require breaking up with backhoe-mounted, pneumatic hammers (hoe-rams) or similar equipment to facilitate excavation and removal. Based on the collected boring data, rock, groundwater, or other excavation difficulties are not anticipated.

4.3.2 Site Balance

Details of future grading were not provided. It is unclear if the site will require wasting of excess fill, import of fill, or nearly balance. Removal of existing fill, wasting of concrete rubble and debris, and replacement of the fill with compaction is likely to result in significant shrinkage of that fill.

4.3.3 Slopes

We anticipate excavation of existing fill can be accomplished by sloping the sides of the excavation, though temporary shoring may be required locally to protect utilities, pavements, or other structures that will not be demolished. Temporary slopes as steep as 1.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical will likely be acceptable. However, a competent person should observe all slopes for signs of instability prior to exposing workers in excavations. Stockpiles of soils or other material and heavy equipment should generally be kept a minimum distance equal to the height of the slope away from the crest of the slope. Excavations should be protected from surface water by means of diversion berms or other techniques to prevent saturation of and/or erosion of slopes.

4.3.4 Subgrade Preparation

Exposed subgrade should be assessed by the geotechnical engineer to confirm soils are as anticipated based on boring data and acceptable for support of fill, pavements, and utilities. At that time, proof-rolling should be conducted under the observation of the geotechnical engineer using a fully-loaded, tandem-axle, dump truck to detect zones of soft, weak, or unacceptable soils.

Such zones, if detected, may be treated per the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer.

Such treatment may include undercutting and replacement or stabilization in place.

4.3.5 Fill Placement

Site soils should generally be acceptable for re-use as fill if well raked to remove debris and moisture conditioned. Fill materials should be low to moderate plasticity (PI<30) and generally free of organic matter or particles greater than 3 inches in any dimension. If present, gravel sized particles should represent only a small proportion of the overall fill with sufficient soil to separate and fill voids between them.

Fill should be placed in maximum 200 mm thick loose lifts assuming standard heavy compaction equipment (at least 10,000 kg operating weight, Cat CS54 or similar). If lighter equipment is used, thinner lifts may be required to achieve compaction. Fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the MPMDD (soil's maximum dry density as determined by the modified proctor compaction test - ASTM D 1557 or AASHTO T180, similar to STAS 1913/13-83). Within 600 mm below pavement subgrade, fill should be compacted to 100 percent of MPMDD. Pad-Foot or Sheep’s Foot rollers are required for silty or clayey soils (CL, SM, SC, ML). Smooth drum vibratory rollers should be used for granular (SP, SP-SM) soils and to roll down the surface prior to rainfall or at the end of each shift to reduce potential surface water infiltration.

Soil moisture during placement should be maintained within three percent above to one percent below the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557. The contractor should be prepared to adjust moisture contents by wetting or drying of the soils.

Laboratory testing of proposed fill will be necessary during site grading to evaluate the compaction characteristics of the fill. All fill placement should be witnessed by a qualified soils technician under the direction of the geotechnical engineer who should make periodic density tests, at least one per 5,000 M2 of pavement area per ½ M of fill placed. Areas that do not meet the compaction specifications should be recompacted to achieve the specified density and retested for compliance.

Fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts and adequately keyed into stripped and scarified subgrade soils. Soils should be benched into existing slopes to reduce potential for sliding along the covered slope surface. In confined areas such as utility trenches, portable compaction equipment and thin lifts of three to four inches may be required to achieve specified degrees of compaction.

4.4 Pavement Design

Details of grading were not provided and existing fill may undergo significant shrinkage due to removal of deleterious materials (concrete rubble, etc.) and compaction. Assuming site soils or similar imported soils will form the pavement subgrade, we recommend design based on a CBR value of 3 or a modulus of subgrade reaction of 21 MN/M3 (75 pounds per cubic inch). If fill needs to be imported and material is available that would provide a higher subgrade modulus, that could be used preferentially for pavement subgrade and may allow revision of the design.

A uniform, well drained subgrade will be critical to pavement performance. We recommend the pavement subgrade be sloped to drain and the section include a drainage layer of at least 150 mm of graded aggregate or a composite drainage layer to remove water and prevent saturation of subgrade. This base layer should be provided with gravity outlets.

4.5 Utility Installation

Excavation for trenches for shallow utilities such as power for lighting should be routine and possible using conventional equipment. Utilities should be designed considering possible infiltration that could present collapse risk. Measures to limit the risk may include:

Keeping utility trenches in landscape/grass areas away from pavements.

Undercutting and recompacting soils beneath and beside utility trenches to reduce potential collapse and infiltration.

Sloping trenches to drain and providing outlets to allow water to drain from pipe bedding.

Use of higher quality piping systems and increased testing to reduce potential for leaks.

4.6 Stormwater

Given the risk of collapsible zones, stormwater ditches and ponds, especially infiltration ponds should be located away from planned pavements, utilities, and other structures.

4.7 Frost Zone

Per Stas 6054-77 (Maximum Frost Depth) Frost penetration at MK is approximately 85 cm. The site soils (CL) soils are frost susceptible. Therefore, if the planned pavement sections are less than 85 cm, additional, frost resistant soils may be required at subgrade. With proper control, the crushed concrete may provide some acceptable frost resistant material. Alternately, crushed aggregate, sand, or other frost resistant materials could be imported. The addition of the frost resistant materials may improve the subgrade CBR for design. Although the overall section thickness will be controlled by the frost depth so cannot be reduced, the improvement in subgrade CBR may allow reduction in the thickness of more expensive layers (concrete) and thickening of less expensive layers (aggregate base).

4.8 Seismic Design

4.8.1 Peak Ground Acceleration

The Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program mapping indicates a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.12 g (Gravity) for the 475-year return seismic event (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years).

4.8.2 Site Class

None of the borings penetrated to 30 meters. However, assuming the greenschist encountered represents bedrock, and based on SPT N-values in the overlying loess, a Site Class D can be assumed for the site. Direct shear wave velocity measurement using various geophysical techniques (such as Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves) can be used to confirm the site class.

4.8.3 Liquefaction

The site soils (CL) and the depth of groundwater substantially limit risk of liquefaction.

The risk of liquefaction for the aprons, taxiway and related pavements is low, for the following reasons:

1. Site soils are primarily silty clays (CL), which are generally not liquefiable. No saturated, loose sands were encountered.

2. Groundwater is relatively deep (8-10 M) below planned grades.

3. The design PGA is relatively low, near the lower limit of experienced liquefaction even for sites underlain by soils with liquefaction potential.

4.8.4 Corrosion Potential

Selected shallow samples were tested for Chlorides, Sulphate, and pH, results are indicated below and on the subcontractor laboratory report in Appendix B. California DOT guidelines for a corrosive site are included for reference.

Boring Depth (meters) pH Chloride Ion (mg/l)

Sulphate Ion (mg/l)

Resistivity (ohm

D9 2.5-3 7.0 218 183 4.5 D14 2.5-3 7.1 201 138 5.4 D15 2.5-3 7.4 175 < 50 6.7

CA DOT Limits for a corrosive site.

< 5.5 >500 >2000 < 1.5

Briefly, the corrosion potential for these soils is low, outside CA DOT guidelines.

5 QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Our evaluation of pavement design and construction conditions is based on our understanding of the site, available project information, our assumptions and the data obtained during our field exploration as described herein. The general subsurface conditions used were based on interpolation of the subsurface data at our borings. The design recommendations in this report have been developed based on the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions. If project criteria or locations change, these recommendations should be reviewed and revised to reflect changes.

Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations may vary from those encountered at specific boring locations. The nature and extent of variations may not become evident until the course of construction. If such variations then appear evident it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report after on-site observations of the conditions.

Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that conditions will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions. Therefore, experienced geotechnical engineers must observe earthwork and foundation construction to assess if the conditions anticipated during design actually exist.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings derived, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either express or implied. This company is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions or recommendations of others based on this data.

D9

D8

D7

D6 D5

D4

D3

D2

D1

D16A

D3A D2A

D16

D15

D14

D13

D12 D11

D10

D4B

D4A D4C

B19

B18

B16

B19 A Overview Map

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District Konrad-Adenauer-Ring 39 D-65187 Wiesbaden

0 60 12030 Meters

0 240 480120 Feet

Prepared for:

Mihail Kogalniceanu (MK) Air Base, Romania

Boring Location Plan

Contract No.:

Responsible/Checked:

Delivery Order:

Date:

File:

Graphics Technician:

Prepared by:

Figure 1

July 2018

MAK

W912GB-16-D-49

W912GB18F0066

KS

Geotechnical Exploration – Hot Cargo Apron

CargoApron_locations_new

Amec Foster Wheeler E & I GmbH Weserstraße 4 D-60329 Frankfurt am Main

PFOS Air Base

Legend

Approximate Soil Boring Locations – 2018

Approximate Soil Boring Locations – 2015

Cross-Section

A

A'

C

C'B

B' D

D' static water level line indicating color change in sediment spt (N - value) depth scale

Figure 2

CargoApron-Fig-2

AB

Cross Sections - A-A’ and B-B’

All units in meters

Vertical Exageration 1:5

Reference Elevation System:

Stereographic 1970 static water level line indicating color change in sediment spt (N - value) depth scale

Figure 3

CargoApron-Fig-3

AB

Cross Sections - C-C’ and D-D’

All units in meters

Vertical Exageration 1:5

Reference Elevation System:

Stereographic 1970

MK AB

Table 1

Geotech Lab Summary

B or in g

D ep th (M

U

SC

S

In -S itu M oi st ur e

ST

A

S

/1

-8

Li qu id L im it

ST

A

S

/4

-8

Pl as tic ity

In de x

ST

A S

/4 -8

Fi ne s

) S

TA

S

/5

Sp ec ifi c

G ra vi ty

S

TA

S

/2

-7

M od ifi ed

P ro ct or

M ax

D ry D en si ty (g m s/ cc

ST

A

S

/1

3-

M od ifi ed

P ro ct or

O pt im um M oi st ur e

C on te nt

) S

TA

S

/1 3-

Fr ic tio n A ng le

D ire

Sh ea r (

ST

A S

/2 co he si on

(k Pa

) D ire

Sh ea r

ST

A S

/2 -8

In -S itu D ry D en si ty

(g m

/c c)

S

TA

S

/3

D2 7.0-7.5 12.3 34.4 87

D6 0.5-1.0 CL 35.2 21 85 2.66 16 34

D6 9.2 CL 20.5 32.8 15.5 92

D9 2.5-3.0 CL 38.6 23.4 85

D11 1.0-1.5 17.4 31.6 93 1.47 D12 0.0-0.5 9.2 D12 2.5-3.0 9.3 D12 7.0-7.5 15.7

D13 1.0-1.5 CL 16.4 32.8 19.3 80 2.67 15 38

D14 2.5-3.0 CL 34.2 20.4 80 2.67

D15 2.5-3.0 CL 33.8 20.1 80

D2A 0-5.0 14.4 80 1.85 13.2 D3A 0-3.0 15.2 91 1.835 13.5 D16A 0-3.1 15.3 88 1.825 13.8

APPENDIX A – Field Testing

Key to Symbols

Boring Logs (22)

APPENDIX B – Laboratory Testing

Grain Size Tests

Collapse Tests

Direct Shear Tests

Proctor Tests

CBR Tests

Autorizatie ISC nr. 3070/24.09.2015 S.C. CARMEN Str. Popa Nan nr. 22 B, sector 2, Bucuresti GEOPROIECT S.R.L. Tel. 0731 334 384

ARGILA BOLOVANIS

(Cl) PRAF (Si) NISIP (Sa) PIETRIS (Gr) (Co)

ARGILA

coloidala ARGILA PRAF NISIP PIETRIS BOLOVANIS d60= d10= Un=

DIAGRAMA DISTRIBUTIEI GRANULOMETRICE

GEOPROIECT S.R.L. Tel. 0731 334 384

ARGILA BOLOVANIS

(Cl) PRAF (Si) NISIP (Sa) PIETRIS (Gr) (Co)

ARGILA

coloidala ARGILA PRAF NISIP PIETRIS BOLOVANIS d60= d10=

GEOPROIECT S.R.L. Tel. 0731 334 384

ARGILA BOLOVANIS

(Cl) PRAF (Si) NISIP (Sa) PIETRIS (Gr) (Co)

ARGILA

coloidala ARGILA PRAF NISIP PIETRIS BOLOVANIS d60= d10=

Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.

Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can construction project.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for

Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one

– not even you – should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few typical factors include:

• the client’s goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and risk-management preferences;

• the general nature of the structure involved, its size, configuration, and performance criteria;

• the structure’s location and orientation on the site; and

• other planned or existing site improvements, such as retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities.

Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:

• the site’s size or shape;

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;

• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure;

• the composition of the design team; or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

This Report May Not Be Reliable Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:

• for a different client;

• for a different project;

• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or

• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an “apply-by” date on the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.

Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are

The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the design team, to:

• confer with other design-team members,

• help develop specifications,

• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications, and

• be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.

You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction observation.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for informational purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.

Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.

Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six months old.

While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer’s services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.

Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent

Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org