Geotechnical_Investigation_Report_(May_2014)_Sandy_projects.pdf

The attached is the Geotechnical Investigation Report that was completed in May-2014 for the NJARNG Sea Girt Superstorm Sandy Disaster Response projects shall be considered

Non-Binding Supplemental Information Only for the Contractor's use. The Contract Plans and Specifications have taken into consideration the discussions and recommendations in the report and as such the Contract Plans and Specifications govern as construction requirements. The Contractor is required to verify all existing conditions necessary for proper installation, construction, and operation of all elements indicted in, and in accordance with the Contract documents.

FINAL

Phase III - SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

NATIONAL GUARD TRAINING CENTER

SEA GIRT, NEW JERSEY

Jacobs GBNA Project No. FDYD9400 1100 North Glebe Road, Suite 500 Arlington, VA 22201

PREPARED BY:

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

104 West 29th Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10001

May 2014 File No. 12.0076224.00

Copyright 2014 GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No

1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

2.1 Existing Conditions

2.2 Proposed Development

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

3.1 Soil Borings

3.2 Laboratory Soil Testing

3.3 Falling Head Permeability Tests

4 SUBSURFACE INFORMATION

4.1 Geologic Overview

4.2 Generalized Subsurface Conditions

4.3 Groundwater Observations and Falling Head Test

5 KEY GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Foundation Recommendations

5.2 Subgrade Parameters

5.3 Lateral Earth and Water Pressures

5.4 Settlement

5.5 Groundwater Control

5.6 Seismic Assessment

5.7 Pavement Design

5.8 Geothermal Feasibility

6 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Subgrade Preparation

6.2 Fill Material and Compaction

6.3 Reuse of Existing Material

6.4 Temporary Excavations and Excavation Shoring

6.5 Groundwater Control

6.6 Assessment and Monitoring Adjacent Structures

6.7 Quality Assurance and Control

7 LIMITATIONS

Table 1: Recommended Use and Gradation Criteria for Fill Materials Table 2: Compaction Methods

Figure 1: Site Location Figures 2 and 2A thru 2C: Exploration Location Plan

Appendix A - Limitations Appendix B - Soil Boring Logs Appendix C - Lab Results Appendix D - Falling Head Test Results Appendix E - Pavement Section Calculations Appendix F - Signed Declaration Forms

1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

This report contains the results of GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA’s) subsurface exploration and foundation design recommendations for Phase III at the National Guard Training Center in Sea Girt, New Jersey (Site). The proposed facilities for this phase will consist of the Medical Clinic, General Instruction, Vehicle Maintenance Shop, Engineering Maintenance Shop, and Power Plant buildings including administration offices, storage, IT rooms, toilets/showers/lockers, high bay general purpose maintenance work areas, tool/supply area, flammable material storage, medical clinic areas and classroom/instruction facilities. The work described herein was performed in accordance with GZA’s revised proposal (Rev3) to Jacobs GBNA (Client), dated May 31, 2013, and the modified Soil Boring Location Plan Rev 4, dated March 21, 2014.

The objectives of our work were to evaluate subsurface conditions and develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of the proposed buildings and associated parking areas. Our scope of work consisted of the following:

Coordinated and executed a subsurface exploration program which included drilling nine (9) soil borings to approximately 42 feet within the proposed building footprints, two (2) soil borings to approximately 17 feet within the proposed parking lot areas, and two (2) falling head permeability test at depths of 4 feet and 14 feet in the proposed parking lot areas.

Provided full time observation and logging of the above explorations, Conducted geotechnical laboratory testing of selected soil samples, Performed geotechnical engineering analyses in order to make foundation engineering recommendations, and Prepared and submitted this report.

No environmental investigation or flood assessment was performed as part of our work.

The findings and recommendations of this report are subject to the limitations presented in Appendix A and the Terms and Conditions of the executed proposal. All elevations provided in this report are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988

(NAVD88).

2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

Our understanding of the project is based on the Revised Request for Geotechnical Proposal dated May 29, 2013 provided to us by you, which includes “Attachment A, Requirements for Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Report - Rev1”, subsequent email discussions and the following:

Soil Boring Location Plan Rev 4 showing proposed buildings layout and proposed boring locations provided by client and dated March 21, 2014

Observations by GZA personnel during the subsurface exploration program

Previous site experience and investigations performed by our firm in May 2011 and March 2012

2.1 Existing Conditions

The Site is located inside the existing National Guard Training Center in Sea Girt, New Jersey. Refer to Figure 1 for a Site Locus plan.

The Site is relatively level with ground surface elevations ranging from approximately +4.5 feet to +15.0 feet.

The Site is developed with various one story buildings, asphalt roadways and parking lots, concrete walkways, and grass covered fields, and training equipment. We are unaware of structures that may have formerly occupied the Site. The Site is surrounded by Sea Girt Avenue to northeast, Stockton Lake to the southwest, and the Atlantic Ocean to the southeast. Access to the Site is made via Camp Drive off Sea Girt Avenue which wraps around the northwest and southwest perimeter of the Site.

2.2 Proposed Development

Based on the most recent Site Plan provided to us, it appears that the proposed development consists of three free standing buildings for five new facilities on the Site.

The proposed facilities and their square footages are as follows: Vehicle Maintenance Shop (5,100 sf), Medical Clinic Facility (9,864 sf), Engineering Maintenance Shop Support Facility (10,301 sf), General Instruction Building (11,492 sf), and Generator Farm Structure (2,070 sf). Additionally, two parking lots will be constructed. Refer to Figure 2-Exploration Location Plan for an illustration of the proposed layout.

We understand that the anticipated column loads are 60 kips for the one-story portions of the buildings and 250 kips for the two-story portions of the buildings. The anticipated wall and floor slab live loads are 15 kips per foot and 150 pounds per square foot, respectively.

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

Our subsurface exploration program was performed between March 28 and April 2, 2014 in general accordance with our proposal and the requested work scope. The borings were drilled by Craig Test Boring Inc. (Craig) under subcontract to GZA and were observed and logged by a GZA engineer.

3.1 Soil Borings

Soil borings were drilled within the general bounds of the proposed structure and facilities from existing grades. The borings were drilled using a track mounted drill rig.

Nine (9) borings (B-1 through B-9) were advanced to a final depth of approximately 42 feet below ground surface (bgs) and the other two (2) borings (P-1 and P-2) were advanced to approximately 17 feet bgs.

Borings B-1 through B-4 were advanced within the footprint of the proposed Engineering Housing Maintenance Shop/Vehicle Maintenance Shop in the west corner of the property (to the north of Commissary Drive/Academy Way). Boring B-5 was advanced within the footprint of the proposed Power Plant Building in the northeast corner of the property (to the northeast of Camp Drive). Borings B-6 through B-9 were advanced within the footprint of the proposed Medical Building/General Instruction Building, to the northeast of existing Building No. 37 (to the south west of Commissary Drive / Academy Way and northeast of Anderson Drive). Boring P-1 was advanced in the footprint of the proposed POV parking area (between Camp Drive and Stockton Lake in southwest corner of site).

Boring P-2 was advanced on the proposed organizational parking area (to the southeast of Anderson Drive).

Boring locations were determined based on tape measurements from existing site features and are shown on Figure 2 entitled, Boring and Test Pit Location Plan. Boring logs are included in Error! Reference source not found..

The boring program consisted of drilling 4-inch diameter cased mud rotary borings and completing Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) to obtain split spoon samples. Samples were collected continuously in the upper 12 feet and on approximate 5-foot intervals thereafter in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. A 2-inch OD split spoon sampler was driven 24 inches into the soil with blows from a 140 lb automatic hammer that fell a distance of 30 inches; the number of blows required to drive the sampler for each six-inch interval was recorded. The cumulative number of blows for the middle two six-inch intervals (blows/foot) is termed the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Resistance (N-value) which can be correlated empirically with relative density of granular soils or consistency of fine-grained soils and, in turn, their approximate shear strength and compressibility characteristics.

Soil samples collected from the spoons were classified in accordance with a Modified Burmister Soil Classification System and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS, ASTM D-2487). The description of the soil samples based on visual identification and the SPT values at various depths are recorded on the boring logs.

Boreholes were filled with soil cuttings upon completion. Where drilling was performed in asphalt parking lot, surface was patched with asphalt upon completion of drilling.

3.2 Laboratory Soil Testing

Selected soil samples were tested in laboratory for water content, grain size distribution (sieve analysis), and Atterberg limits. Laboratory results are included in Appendix C.

3.3 Falling Head Permeability Tests

Falling head tests were performed in borings P-1 and P-2 at two depth intervals, 4 and 14 feet below grade. A 4 inch diameter casing was driven to the test depth and then soil was washed out with drilling techniques using only water. The casing was filled up with water multiple times until a constant falling head was observed. The rate at which the water level dropped was recorded until the water reached the stable groundwater level in the casing. The results of the falling head permeability testing are included in Appendix D.

4 SUBSURFACE INFORMATION

This section presents a geologic overview of the project Site area and subsurface conditions encountered in the borings.

4.1 Geologic Overview

The terrain in the general vicinity of the Site is relatively flat with a few hills comprising erosion-resistant sediments containing gravel or iron-stained sands. The Site is within the New Jersey Coastal Plain, where depth to rock is known to be greater than 1,000 feet.

According to the New Jersey Geologic Survey and USGS Map I-2540-B Cross Section CSB, the Site is underlain by Tertiary sands, silts and clays of the Kirkwood, Shark River, Manasquan, and Vincentown Formations to a depth of approximately 400 feet, and Lower Tertiary and Upper Cretaceous formations below.

4.2 Generalized Subsurface Conditions

The following is our interpreted summary of the information obtained from our drilling explorations below the surface cover. The surface cover at all exploration locations was unpaved and vegetated with grass except at borings B-5 and P-1. Boring B-5 was drilled in an existing asphalt paved parking lot (where approximate thickness of asphalt and sub base was approximately 6 inches) and boring P-1 was drilled in an existing fenced lot where 12 inches of ¾-inch crushed stone covers the ground surface. Refer to the boring logs in Appendix B for more specific information and Figure 2, 2A, 2B, 2C for location of borings.

Fill: This stratum was encountered immediately beneath the topsoil layer, asphalt layer (at B-5), or crushed stone layer (at P-1) to depths of approximately 2 to 3 feet. The majority of the fill samples consisted of very loose to medium dense, red-brown/orange-brown (gray/brown at B-5 and P-1 location), fine to coarse sand, trace to little gravel, trace to some silt, and with trace amounts of vegetation underlying the topsoil layer. The Fill appeared to be mostly re-worked native soils. The Fill was observed to extend from the surface cover to a maximum depth of approximately 2 feet below existing grade at the borings advanced in the unpaved grass covered areas and to approximately 3 feet below existing grade in other areas.

SPT N-values ranged from 2 blows per foot (bpf) to 16 bpf.

Sand/Silty Sand: Very loose to very dense, tan to light-brown, brown, light to dark gray, fine to coarse sand with various amount of fine to coarse gravel and various amount of silt (mostly trace to little silt in top 25 feet bgs with some silt content in some borings below this depth), and moisture content varying between moist and saturated, was encountered immediately below the Fill in all borings. This stratum extended to depths ranging from approximately 2 feet to 42 feet bgs. SPT N-values ranged from 3 bpf to 51 bpf (with an average SPT N-value of 21 bpf). USCS soil classifications included SP, SP-SM, SM and SC. Based on the laboratory test results, the sand stratum was found to consist of 1.0 to 12.0% fines and 12.2 to 21.1% water content.

Silty Clay: At B-1, B-2, B-3, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8 and B-9 locations, approximately 33-42 feet below grade, a layer of gray to dark gray, medium stiff to very stiff clay with various amounts of silt and trace sand was encountered. SPT N-values in this clay ranged from 7 to 25 bpf (with an average SPT N-value of 16 bpf). USCS soil classifications included CL and CH. Based on the laboratory test results, the liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, and water content of this layer (sample taken at B-5, 35 to 37 ft bgs) was found to be 53, 22, 31 and 35.0%, respectively.

Silty/Clayey Sand: At borings B-6, B-7, B-8, B-9, gray fine sand and fine to medium sand with little to some silt or clayey silt was encountered beneath the silty clay stratum and extended beyond the termination depths of exploration in these borings.

Measured SPT N-values in the silty sand stratum ranged between 31 and 49 bpf, indicating a dense consistency. The USCS group symbol for this stratum is SM and SC. Based on the laboratory test results, the silty sand stratum was found to consist of 29.7 to 37.5% fines and 14.5 to 15.8% water content

Peat, expansive soils, and bedrock were not observed in our explorations.

4.3 Groundwater Observations and Falling Head Test

Groundwater levels in the borings were generally determined by observing the moisture content of the collected samples before drilling fluids were implemented. The depths of the ground water table ranged from approximately 2 to 8 feet below grade (2-3 feet bgs at boring P-1, 4 feet bgs at boring P-2, 8 feet bgs at boring B-5, and 4-6 feet bgs at all other borings). It should be noted that fluctuations in groundwater levels will occur due to variations in seasonal influences, precipitation amounts, tidal, utility leakage, and other factors different from those existing at the time the observations were made during drilling. Based on these factors, site topography, presence of adjacent stream, we anticipate these fluctuations in groundwater levels can result in groundwater level variations on the order of 1 to 3 feet from the groundwater levels encountered in the borings. These fluctuation values do not address stormwater that may influence or flow into open excavations.

Falling head test measurements were obtained generally in 30 second intervals. At boring P-1, which was in close proximity to an existing stream (Stockton Lake), the artesian pressure from the well prevented a successful completion of the falling head test at a depth of 4 feet. Groundwater was approximately 2-3 feet bgs. After driving casing to test depth of 4 feet, artesian pressure resulted in the water level in the casing rising to 6 inches above ground surface. As such, no test was performed at this depth. After drilling and driving casing to 14 feet, water level in casing rose to 1.2 feet bgs. A test was conducted at this depth. Results of the falling head test at the 14-foot level are included in Appendix D.

Results of the falling head tests at the 4 and 14-foot level at P-2 are also included in Appendix D.

5 KEY GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Foundation Recommendations

Based on the results of our subsurface explorations, we understand that the site is underlain by approximately 2 to 3 feet of fill overlying natural soils, which are suitable for supporting the proposed new building on shallow foundations. The new foundations, including the floor slabs, should bear on the Sand stratum or on controlled, compacted structural fill (see Table 1 for gradation requirements) placed over the Sand following removal of the existing Fill. Foundations bearing on the sand stratum, or controlled fill, should be designed using allowable bearing pressures as defined in Section 5.2.

Allowable bearing pressures may be increased 33% for temporary loading conditions, such as wind or seismic loads. The recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure presented above is for spread footings with a minimum width of 4 feet and strip footings with a minimum width of 2 feet.

Footings should be constructed at a level of at least 3.5 feet below existing grade where the density of the sand is generally medium, and will also address any frost protection requirements. The Sand is not considered to be expansive.

Foundations should be designed in accordance with the IBCNJ (2009) utilizing the design soil parameters defined in Section 5.2 below. In no case should existing Fill be left in place below footings..

Floor slabs and mats may be constructed on grade and designed assuming a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci). This value is recommended for concrete slabs constructed on compacted structural fill and natural Sand and is based on empirical correlations and our experience on other projects. The modulus of subgrade reaction value are for a loading applied over a 1-foot by 1-foot square area and must be adjusted for the actual size and geometry of the loaded area prior to use in analysis. The modulus values are only valid for contact pressures up to the allowable bearing pressures indicated herein. The values should be reviewed if a mat foundation is selected for support of the new structure. The recommended value is subject to subgrade preparation work described later in this report.

A minimum 6-inch thick layer of Sand-Gravel fill should be provided below slab-on-grade as a base course. Refer to Table 1 for gradations.

5.2 Subgrade Parameters

In their unimproved states, it is recommended that the following properties of subsurface materials be used for design purposes:

Stratum Total Unit Weight (pcf)

Friction Angle (deg)

Maximum Allowable Foundation Bearing

Pressure (tsf)

Fill 110 28 0 Sand 120 32 2 Controlled Fill* placed over Sand

120 32 2

* Granular Fill, Sand-Gravel, or Crushed Stone as defined later in this report

The recommended values for the maximum allowable foundation bearing pressure assume that foundation subgrades are prepared as described herein.

The design groundwater level should be taken to be approximately 4 feet below existing grade, though it is possible to vary to as high as 2 feet below ground surface seasonally.

5.3 Lateral Earth and Water Pressures

Foundation walls with unbalanced loading should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures due to soil weight, neighboring foundation loads, and other surcharges. At a minimum, an equivalent “at-rest” fluid pressure of 60 pcf should be used for the design of all permanent (rigid, fixed) structures, 40 pcf “active” pressure for temporary (flexible, cantilever) structures, and 48 pcf under active seismic loads where exposed to soil.

Passive soil forces of up to 360 pcf equivalent fluid pressure may be utilized to resist active soil pressures.

These values assume the buried structures, including walls, columns, and foundations, are backfilled with free-draining material and provided with toe drains so that hydrostatic pressures cannot develop on the back of walls, and that the surface of the backfill is horizontal for a distance of at least 10 feet behind the wall. An additional uniform horizontal pressure should be used for design of temporary and permanent walls where surcharges are anticipated due to, for example, pedestrian or vehicular traffic, foundations loads, etc. Such additional uniform horizontal pressure should be equal to one-half of the anticipated surcharge load.

It is not anticipated that any basement spaces will be constructed below the groundwater level and hydrostatic water pressures need not be considered.

The recommended coefficient of friction to resist sliding between mass concrete/formed concrete and natural soils or structural fill is 0.4.

The factors of safety for overturning and sliding under static loads should be at least 1.5.

Passive pressure should not be included as a resisting force when analyzing for overturning and sliding.

5.4 Settlement

For shallow foundations, immediate (elastic) settlement may occur during construction, and is anticipated to be less than 1 inch where the foundation subgrade is prepared in accordance with the recommendations of this report. The differential settlement between footings is anticipated to be less than ¾ inch. Long term consolidation settlement of the underlying relatively stiff Silty Clay stratum is not expected to occur given the stiffness, the proposed loading conditions, and depth below foundations.

5.5 Groundwater Control

Since no basement levels are planned, permanent groundwater controls, such as waterproofing or regular pumping, are not expected to be required. However, foundation walls for pit walls extending below grade (such as elevator pits) and slabs-on-grade should be damp-proofed with mastic or polyethylene barriers to prevent the general ground moisture from entering the building.

5.6 Seismic Assessment

Based on the type and relative density of the soils encountered in the borings and in accordance with the IBCNJ and our understanding of the site geology, we recommend a Seismic Site Class D for calculation of seismic loading and the corresponding response spectrum (see Section 1613.5.4 of the code). At this site classification, the maximum considered earthquake spectral response accelerations for short and long periods should be taken as SMS = 0.426g and SM1 = 0.142g, respectively.

We assessed the susceptibility of the in-situ material to liquefaction during a seismic event and determined that the underlying soils are generally not susceptible to liquefaction and loss of soil strength due to liquefaction need not be considered for design purposes. Some general settlements may occur due to a seismic event causing densification of the Sand. Such settlements are expected to be 0.25 inches or less.

We performed an analysis utilizing the Youd et al (2001) methodology to model the liquefaction potential of the soil at the site during a seismic event based on the SPT N-values measured in the test borings. The factors of safety against liquefaction for a seismic event with a moment magnitude of 5.75 (2% probability of being exceeded at the site in 50 years), are greater than 1.7, indicating that liquefaction is not a concern.

5.7 Pavement Design

We reviewed the design criteria for pavements and assessed the minimum required pavement thicknesses against the existing subgrade conditions observed in our explorations, in accordance with the Department of Defense Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC 3-250-01FA, dated 16 January 2004). Pavement section support calculations are included in Appendix E.

For parking areas, we recommend a flexible pavement minimum section consisting of a minimum 2½-inch thick asphalt concrete layer over a minimum 4-inch thick base course consisting of asphalt concrete and/or crushed stone (NJDOT I-5 soil aggregate or Dense Graded Aggregate (DGA)) compacted to at least 100 percent of its maximum Modified Proctor dry density, as measured by ASTM D1557. The base course should be underlain by a minimum 6-inch thick subbase course consisting of granular fill or sand-gravel compacted to at least 100 percent of its maximum Modified Proctor dry density, as measured by ASTM D1557. If crushed stone is used as a base course, a non-woven filter fabric should be placed between the base course and the subbase course. Furthermore, to prevent densification under traffic, it is recommended that the subgrade is compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum Modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D1557) prior to placement of the subbase course, in accordance with the UFC. In short, the top 6 inches of subgrade material should be scarified and compacted to minimum 95 percent compaction, followed by placement of 6 inches of subbase, 4 inches of base course, and

2.5 inches of asphalt pavement, all compacted to minimum 100 percent compaction.

These flexible pavement recommendations are based on Category III traffic and Road/Street Classification E.

Parking areas can specify 1.5 inches of 9.5M64 Superpave (or I-5 Marshall Mix) as a surface course and 2 inches of 19M64 Superpave (or I-2 Marshall Mix) as a binder course. The base course should be modified crushed stone (NJDOT I-5 soil aggregate or

DGA modified crushed stone). Subbase materials need to be compliant with gradations in Table 5-1 of the UFC specifications for subbase, having a maximum particle size of 3 inches, at least 50 percent smaller than a #10 sieve, and no more than 15% fines. The subbase materials have to be non-frost susceptible. As long as they meet the gradation requirements, there are a variety of materials that could be used, including recycled concrete or asphalt if any economical source can be found. Onsite soils can be used as subbase if it meets these criteria and approved by the inspecting engineer.

Pavement should be provided with adequate drainage to prevent accumulation of water on the surface or in the base course. The design engineer should note the high groundwater table during design of pavement in the vicinity of boring P-1 (adjacent to, in and/or around the limits of Stockton Lake). Special note should be made to the results of P-1 where artesian conditions were noted that may impact the performance of the pavement. Drainage is critical in the design and construction of hot mix asphalt pavements. In pavement areas of high water table, as in this case (or where water may accumulate in low areas), consideration must be given to subsurface drainage.

Groundwater control is an essential part of pavement design. The project civil engineer should design underdrains and/or interceptor drains in combination with a thicker permeable base course layer (that is insensitive to moisture) to prevent the accumulation of water beneath the pavement in this area. Catch basins and storm drains will be necessary for proper drainage.

For loading dock, dumpster locations, trailer/storage locations, or other truck traffic areas, we recommend a rigid pavement section consisting of a minimum 7-inch thick plain concrete layer with a minimum flexural strength of 650 psi over a minimum 4-inch thick base course consisting of asphalt concrete or crushed stone compacted to at least 100 percent of its maximum Modified Proctor dry density, as measured by ASTM D1557. No subbase course is required. A non-woven filter fabric should be placed between the base course and the underlying soil. Although not required by the UFC, we recommend using a welded wire mesh within the plain concrete. These rigid pavement recommendations are based on Category IVA traffic and Road/Street Classification E.

Appendix E includes support calculations.

Following excavation to the planned subgrade elevation, the subgrade, which may consist of fill material or sand, should be proof-rolled to a stable and firm consistency with a minimum of four passes of a smooth double drum roller to a minimum of 95% compaction as described above. Areas of unstable ground or deleterious or organic materials observed during proof-rolling should be over-excavated until the subgrade is stable and firm and filled with controlled and compacted Structural Fill. The final six inches of excavation should be performed with a smooth-edged blade to reduce disturbance of the subgrade.

It should be noted that during removal of Fill in the proposed parking lot area by boring P-1 location, groundwater will likely be encountered. In such case, we recommend minimizing excavation below the groundwater table. If groundwater is encountered, excavations below the groundwater should be stabilized by placing at least 6 inch thick layer of clean crushed stone over Mirafi 140N non-woven filter fabric. The subgrade should be proof compacted with a non-vibratory roller, prior to installation of pavement materials.

5.8 Geothermal Feasibility

The location of the proposed New Jersey ARNG Regional Training Institute is within the New Jersey Coastal Plain Sediments where depth to rock is greater than 1,000 feet.

Specifically, according to the New Jersey Geologic Survey and USGS Map I-2540-B Cross Section CSB the site is underlain by Tertiary sands, silts and clays of the Kirkwood, Shark River, Manasquan, and Vincentown Formations to approximately 400 feet, and Lower Tertiary and Upper Cretaceous formations below.

We are aware of several operating closed loop ground source heat pump systems installed and operating in schools in the Monmouth County area including Neptune, Middletown, and Long Branch Townships. The geology at these locations is generally similar to the geology at the site including unconsolidated deposits of the same or adjacent geologic formations. The thermal conductivity result from a test well at a location at Ft Monmouth, New Jersey performed by GZA was considered suitable for a proposed GSHP Closed Loop system. Typical closed well depths in the region are less than 500 feet. There appears to be available land around the facility for installation of a vertical closed loop well field.

Without further evaluation, we do not recommend installing an open loop system due to potential operation and maintenance issues over the long term. In our opinion, a closed loop system will provide significantly less operational risk than an open loop system for a similar installation cost.

6 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Subgrade Preparation

Topsoil and asphalt should be completely removed from within the proposed building footprint and parking areas. Removed topsoil and asphalt debris should be disposed offsite in accordance with any environmental regulations. Topsoil may be used in proposed landscaping areas (provided that it is deemed clean by sampling and analysis required by applicable environmental regulations). Any existing utilities should be removed within the limits of the proposed building footprint and capped outside the footprint. Excavations from removal of footings and/or utilities should be backfilled with structural fill as noted below unless the material will be removed during subsequent subgrade preparation activities.

Existing Fill should be entirely removed from beneath building proposed footings and floor slab areas. Fill may be left in place beneath proposed pavement areas subject to approval from the inspecting geotechnical engineer. The limit of over-excavation of the existing fill should extend vertically to the natural Sand subgrade to a depth of at least 4 feet below existing grades, and laterally to a limit defined by a 1H: 1V line measured outward from one-foot horizontally from the outside edge of the bottom of footing elevation. Following the removal of Fill for footing construction, the subgrade should be proof rolled to a stable and firm consistency with a minimum of four passes of a double drum roller. The slab and pavement subgrade areas should be compacted in accordance with recommendation provided in Table 2. Areas of unstable ground observed during proof-rolling should be over-excavated until the exposed ground is stable and firm. The over-excavated soils should be replaced with compacted granular fill, nominally compacted crushed stone wrapped in filter fabric, or lean concrete (concrete with f’c < 2,000 psi). Fill should not be placed over frozen soil.

We note that at the recommended depth of over-excavation for footings, groundwater may be encountered. In such case, we recommend minimizing excavation below the groundwater table. Where groundwater is encountered, excavations below the groundwater should be stabilized by placing at least 6 inch thick layer of clean crushed stone over Mirafi 140N non-woven filter fabric. The subgrade should be proof compacted with a non-vibratory roller, and filled as above if necessary.

Where foundations will be supported directly on Sand, the final six inches of excavation should be performed with a smooth-edged blade attached to the bucket of the excavator, or by hand shoveling any loose disturbed material over the bearing layer.

6.2 Fill Material and Compaction

Compacted structural fill placed below the foundations, floor slab, and pavement areas should consist of clean, granular fill placed on proof-rolled subgrade. The fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D1557). The gradation requirements for the fill material are presented in Table 1. The recommended maximum loose lift thickness of fill and minimum number of passes of compaction equipment are given in Table 2. We recommend performing at least one gradation and one moisture-density test per each 100 cubic yards of fill. When placed in accordance with these tables, the allowable bearing capacity for such fill shall not exceed that for the underlying Sand as defined previously.

Bedding material for utility pipes, manholes and vault structures should be a well graded, granular material having a minimum void ratio when placed and compacted to prevent migration of fines from the surrounding soils into the bedding. GZA recommends the use of a well-graded crushed stone or gravel product. The bedding thickness required is dependent on the utility type, size, depth and subsurface conditions. The bedding should extend a minimum horizontal distance beyond the limits of the manhole or pipe equal to the thickness beneath it. Typically, the bedding materials around pipes should be placed and compacted to a minimum of 12 inches above the pipe. The pipe designer should design the bedding thickness and horizontal distance beyond the pipe, as necessary, to be consistent with the structural design of the pipe, the anticipated loadings on the pipe and the manufacturer’s recommendations. Excavation must extend to a suitable, undisturbed and stable subgrade. It is important that the pipe bedding be placed immediately upon completion of the excavation work in order to seal off and protect any sensitive subgrades (high silt or clay content).

Suitable materials obtained from on-site excavations or from off-site sources can be used as backfill in non-load bearing grass areas, provided that use of such materials is environmentally sound and in compliance with all environmental laws and regulations.

Suitable materials should consist of hard, durable materials and soil binder, free of tree roots, topsoil, organic matter and any other deleterious material. The sensitivity of fill with regard to frost and to disturbance when in the presence of excess moisture increases as the percentage of fines passing a No. 200 sieve increases. In general, GZA recommends that the minimum compaction limits for utilities are 95% of the maximum dry density by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor) for areas under roadway or sidewalk paved structures and 90% of the maximum dry density by ASTM D 698 under planted or seeded non-traffic areas.

Crushed stone, where used below foundations, should be compacted to a firm, stable configuration, and should be wrapped all around in non-woven filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N.

6.3 Reuse of Existing Material

Based on visual classification and grain size analyses, the existing upper 10 feet of the Sand generally satisfies the requirements for use as Granular Fill only, though at some locations excessive fines-contents were found. Therefore, re-use of this material for structural purposes will require close monitoring and visual assessments. The Contractor should be required to perform one grain size test and one modified Proctor density test per 100 cubic yards of material to be re-used. Reused material should not contain any boulder, cobbles, debris, organic material, or other deleterious materials.

In order to construct shallow foundations, the complete removal of Fill from under the footings/slab will be required. If Sand is not encountered at the proposed footing levels, then the subgrades would need to be over-excavated and brought back to grade with controlled compacted fill. Controlled compacted fill may include Granular Fill or Sand- Gravel Fill as described in Table 1.

6.4 Temporary Excavations and Excavation Shoring

The Owner and the Contractor should perform all excavations and support of excavations in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, including the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety generally is the sole responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. We are providing this information solely as a service to our Client. Under no circumstances should the information provided below be interpreted to mean that GZA is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor’s activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

The Contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulations, e.g., OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations. Such regulations are strictly enforced and, if they are not followed, the Owner, Contractor, and/or earthwork and utility subcontractors could be liable for substantial penalties.

As an alternative to temporary slopes, vertical excavations can be temporarily shored.

The Contractor or the Contractor’s specialty subcontractor would be responsible for the design of the temporary shoring in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements but the recommendations of this report will serve as a minimum requirement. Per OSHA requirements, if any excavation is extended to a depth of more than 20 feet, it will be necessary to have the side slopes and shoring designed by a Professional Engineer.

As a safety measure, it is recommended that all vehicles, construction equipment, and soil piles be kept a minimum lateral distance from the crest of slopes equal to no less than the slope height. Exposed slope faces should also be protected against the elements.

6.5 Groundwater Control

Groundwater is generally not anticipated to be encountered during the foundation construction. However, excavations for footings may be made to very near the groundwater level (see recommendations for subgrade preparation). The Contractor should be prepared to evacuate water that may enter smaller excavations for footings due to infiltration and other causes such as rainwater runoff. We anticipate this can be performed by submersible pumping. Excavation for proposed deep utilities, if any, will need to be performed below the groundwater table and will require groundwater control to facilitate utilities construction and backfilling/compaction Any ponded water should be evacuated to avoid disturbing subgrades and so that controlled fill materials are placed in dry conditions. Dewatering should be performed in accordance with any local, state, and federal and NJDEP regulations. Discharge of water generated during dewatering to catch basins, manholes, etc. is to be performed in accordance to NJDEP regulations.

6.6 Assessment and Monitoring Adjacent Structures

A monitoring program of adjacent structures should be instituted prior to any work taking place on site. An initial detailed pre-construction condition survey should be conducted to assess the existing conditions of adjacent structures. This includes photographing and measuring all existing conditions and defects within a 50 foot radius of proposed work to provide a quantifiable baseline prior to construction. Instrumentation, including tell-tales, crack gages, and/or survey points should be installed at applicable locations, and base values recorded. Readings should be taken of installed instrumentation on regular intervals until the new construction exceeds the height of the existing structures.

6.7 Quality Assurance and Control

We recommend retaining an engineer knowledgeable in soils and foundations and the requirements of the IBCNJ (Section 1704) to observe earthwork and subgrade preparation. This includes the review of plans prior to bidding and site visits at the time of construction. Such work is intended to reduce unexpected circumstances throughout the bidding and construction process and to expedite resolution should unanticipated conditions be encountered. Site visits are intended to allow an evaluation of actual conditions exposed during construction, document and observe that the contractor’s plans are implemented as designed and accepted by the design team. This includes observing that the appropriate bearing stratum has been reached and that the subgrade has been properly prepared for foundation construction.

7 LIMITATIONS

This report is subject to the limitations as described in Appendix A.

ATTACHMENTS

TABLES

Table 1: Recommended Use and Gradation Criteria for Fill Materials

USE OF FILL MATERIAL

Granular Fill: Below footings and slab base course, and 3 feet laterally behind walls provided that amount passing Sieve No. 200 is less than 8 percent.

Sand-Gravel: Slab base course and 3 feet laterally behind walls and as pavement subbase

Crushed Stone: Drain line backfill and foundation protective layer. Crushed stone should be wrapped all-around in non-woven filter fabric.

GRADATION REQUIREMENTS

Sieve Size Percent Finer by Weight

Granular Fill Shall be free from ice and snow, roots, sod, rubbish and other deleterious or organic matter. Granular Fill shall conform to the following gradation requirements:

2/3 of the loose lift thickness 100 No. 10 30 – 95 No. 40 10 – 70 No. 200 *0 – 15

*0 – 8 where used behind walls

Sand-Gravel Shall consist of durable sand and gravel and shall be free from ice and snow, roots, sod, rubbish and other deleterious or organic matter. Sand-Gravel shall conform to the following gradation requirements:

3 inch 100 ½ inch 50 – 85 No. 4 40 – 75 No. 40 10 – 35 No. 200 0 – 8

Crushed Stone Shall consist of durable crushed rock or durable crushed gravel stone and shall be free from ice and snow, roots, sod, rubbish and other deleterious or organic matter or material. Crushed Stone shall conform to the following gradation requirements:

1 inch 100 ¾ inch 90 – 100 ½ inch 10 – 50

3/8 inch 0 – 20 No. 4 0 – 5

No. 200 0 – 1

Table 2: Compaction Methods

Compaction Method Max.

Stone Size*

Maximum Loose Lift Thickness

Minimum Number of Passes

Below Structures and Pavement

Less Critical

Area

Below Structures and Pavement

Less Critical

Area

GRANULAR FILL, SAND-GRAVEL FILL, CRUSHED STONE

Hand-operated vibratory plate or light roller in confined areas

4” 6” 8” 4 4

Hand-operated vibratory drum rollers weighing at least 1,000# in confined areas

6” 10” 12” 4 4

Light vibratory drum roller

8” 12” 18” 4 4Min. weight at drum 3000#

Min dynamic force 10,000#

Medium vibratory drum roller

8” 18” 24” 6 6Min. weight at drum 10,000#

Min dynamic force 20,000#

Indicates not to exceed more than 2/3 the lift thickness

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

JERSEY

NEW

N

S

EW

SOURCE:

USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS: ASBURY PARK, NJ (1989) &

POINT PLEASANT, NJ (1989). CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FT.,

ORIGINAL SCALE 1:24,000 (1"=2,000 FT.).

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

SHEET NO.

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

Engineers and Scientists

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

www.gza.com

PROJECT NO.DATE: REVISION NO.

DESIGNED BY:

PROJ MGR:

DRAWN BY:

REVIEWED BY: CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE

NATIONAL GUARD TRAINING CENTER

SEA GIRT, NEW JERSEY

SITE LOCATION PLAN

JE JACOBS

APRIL 2014 12.0076224.00

FIGURE

AR

EC

AR

CRB

EM

1" = 2000'

Figures 2, 2A, 2B, 2C: Exploration Location Plan

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET

SHEET NO.

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

Engineers and Scientists

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

www.gza.com

PROJECT NO.DATE: REVISION NO.

DESIGNED BY:

PROJ MGR:

DRAWN BY:

REVIEWED BY: CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE

NATIONAL GUARD TRAINING CENTER

SEA GIRT, NEW JERSEY

EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN

JE JACOBS

APRIL 2014 12.0076224 0

FIGURE

AR

MM

AR

CRB

EM

GRAPHIC

NOTE:

1. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM FIGURE 4.1.1

ENTITLED" SUPERSTORM SANDY DIASTER

RESPONSE PROJECT OVERALL SITE LAYOUT

PLAN-BASE DESIGN", REVISED MARCH 14,

2014, ORIGINAL SCALE 1"=300' AND PROVIDED

BY JACOBS.

2. REFER TO FIGURES 2A THROUGH 2C FOR

ACTUAL LOCATION OF THE BORINGS.

3. THE LOCATION OF THE BORINGS WERE

APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY LINE OF

SIGHT AND TAPE MEASUREMENTS, FROM

EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES AS

DEPICTED ON FIGURES 2A, 2B AND 2C.

THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED

ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED

BY THE METHOD USED.

OUTKLINE KEY

FOR FIGURE 2B

OUTLINE KEY

FOR FIGURE 2C

OUTLINE KEY

FOR FIGURE 2A

B-1

LEGEND:

BORING LOCATION

B-5

SHEET NO.

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

Engineers and Scientists

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

www.gza.com

PROJECT NO.DATE: REVISION NO.

DESIGNED BY:

PROJ MGR:

DRAWN BY:

REVIEWED BY: CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE

NATIONAL GUARD TRAINING CENTER

SEA GIRT, NEW JERSEY

EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN

JE JACOBS

APRIL 2014 12.0076224 0

FIGURE

2A

AR

MM

AR

CRB

EM

1"=100'

0 30050 100 200

1" = 100'

B-5

LEGEND:

BORING LOCATION

NOTE:

1. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM A REFERENCE DRAWING ENTITLED "EXHIBIT

SHOWING EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC CONCITIONS FOR NEW JERSEY NATIONAL

GUARD TRAINING CENTER, BOROUGH OF SEA GIRT, NEW JERSEY, BY HRG

ENGINEERS FIGURE EC2, SHEET 2 OF 9 ORIGINAL SCALE 1"=40', DATED 04/14/08 AND

PROVIDED BY JACOBS.

2. THE LOCATION OF THE BORINGS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY LINE OF

SIGHT AND TAPE MEASUREMENTS, FROM EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES.

THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED

BY THE METHOD USED.

B-9

B-8

B-7

B-6

P-1

P-2

SHEET NO.

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

Engineers and Scientists

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

www.gza.com

PROJECT NO.DATE: REVISION NO.

DESIGNED BY:

PROJ MGR:

DRAWN BY:

REVIEWED BY: CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE

NATIONAL GUARD TRAINING CENTER

SEA GIRT, NEW JERSEY

EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN

JE JACOBS

APRIL 2014 12.0076224 0

FIGURE

2B

AR

MM

AR

CRB

EM

1"=100'

0 30050 100 200

1" = 100'

B-9

LEGEND:

BORING LOCATION

NOTES:

1. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM A REFERENCE DRAWING

ENTITLED "EXHIBIT SHOWING EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC

CONCITIONS FOR NEW JERSEY NATIONAL GUARD

TRAINING CENTER, BOROUGH OF SEA GIRT, NEW

JERSEY, BY HRG ENGINEERS FIGURE EC5, SHEET 5 OF

9 ORIGINAL SCALE 1"=40', DATED 04/

AND PROVIDED

BY JACOBS.

2. THE LOCATION OF THE BORINGS WERE

APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY LINE OF SIGHT AND

TAPE MEASUREMENTS, FROM EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC

FEATURES. THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED

ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE

METHOD USED.

B-4

B-3 B-2 B-1

SHEET NO.

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

Engineers and Scientists

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

www.gza.com

PROJECT NO.DATE: REVISION NO.

DESIGNED BY:

PROJ MGR:

DRAWN BY:

REVIEWED BY: CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE

NATIONAL GUARD TRAINING CENTER

SEA GIRT, NEW JERSEY

EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN

JE JACOBS

APRIL 2014 12.0076224 0

FIGURE

2C

AR

MM

AR

CRB

EM

1"=100'

0 30050 100 200

1" = 100'

B-4

LEGEND:

BORING LOCATION

NOTE:

1. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM A REFERENCE DRAWING ENTITLED "EXHIBIT SHOWING EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC CONCITIONS FOR NEW

JERSEY NATIONAL GUARD TRAINING CENTER, BOROUGH OF SEA GIRT, NEW JERSEY, BY HRG ENGINEERS, FIGURE EC4, SHEET 4 OF 9

ORIGINAL SCALE 1"=40', DATED 04/14/08 AND PROVIDED BY JACOBS.

2. THE LOCATION OF THE BORINGS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY LINE OF SIGHT AND TAPE MEASUREMENTS, FROM EXISTING

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES. THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED.

APPENDICES

Appendix A

LIMITATIONS

GEOTECHNICAL LIMITATIONS

Use of Report

1. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) prepared this report on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of our Client for the stated purpose(s) and location(s) identified in the Proposal for Services and/or Report. Use of this report, in whole or in part, at other locations, or for other purposes, may lead to inappropriate conclusions; and we do not accept any responsibility for the consequences of such use(s). Further, reliance by any party not expressly identified in the agreement, for any use, without our prior written permission, shall be at that party’s sole risk, and without any liability to GZA.

Standard of Care

2. GZA’s findings and conclusions are based on the work conducted as part of the Scope of

Services set forth in Proposal for Services and/or Report, and reflect our professional judgment. These findings and conclusions must be considered not as scientific or engineering certainties, but rather as our professional opinions concerning the limited data gathered during the course of our work. If conditions other than those described in this report are found at the subject location(s), or the design has been altered in any way, GZA shall be so notified and afforded the opportunity to revise the report, as appropriate, to reflect the unanticipated changed conditions .

3. GZA’s services were…