VOLUME_II_-_APPENDICIES.pdf

Volume II - Appendices

CERTIFIED FINAL SUBMITTAL

April, 2017

Wilmington District prepared for

PN #: TMKH003003

Solicitation #: W912PM-17-R-0007 M&H Project #: 0145.02

Ft. Bragg, North Carolina

SOF Special Tactics Squadron (STS) Operations Facilities

SOF STS Operations Facilities PN TMKH003003

W912PM-17-R-0007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

SOF STS Operations Facilities

Fort Bragg

VOLUME I - DIVISION 01 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Sections

01 10 00 Statement of Work

01 14 00 Work Restrictions

01 30 00 Administrative Requirements

01 32 01.00 37 Project Schedule

01 33 00 Submittal Procedures

Attachment: Submittal Register

01 33 16 Design After Award

01 33 29 Sustainability Reporting

01 35 26 Governmental Safety Requirements

01 42 00 Sources For Reference Publications

01 45 00.00 10 Quality Control

01 45 00.10 10 Quality Control System (QSC)

01 50 00 Temporary Construction Facilities and Control

01 57 16 Temporary Pest Control

01 57 20.00 10 Environmental Protection

01 57 23 Temporary Storm Water Pollution Control

01 58 00 Project Identification

01 62 35.37 Recycled/Recovered/Biobased Materials

01 74 19.00 37 Construction and Demolition Waste Management

01 78 00 Closeout Submittals

01 91 00.00 37 Commissioning

VOLUME II – Appendices

Appendix A Geotechnical Information

Appendix B Hurst Drive Widening

Appendix C Utility Connections

Appendix D Fire Flow Tests

Appendix E Preliminary Hydraulic Calculations

Appendix F Conceptual Aesthetic Considerations and Existing Photos

Appendix G Room Requirements

Appendix H Exterior Signage

SOF STS Operations Facilities PN TMKH003003

W912PM-17-R-0007

Appendix I Acceptable Plant List

Appendix J Ft Bragg Telecom Labeling Scheme

Appendix K Utility Cost Information

Appendix L Not Used

Appendix M Not Used

Appendix N Exterior Building Color Checklist

Appendix O Simulator Requirements

Appendix P Not Used

Appendix Q Not Used

Appendix R Shed Asbestos Survey

Appendix S Air Force Special Ops Command FRD

Appendix T Intrusion Detection System (IDS) Installation

Appendix U Ft Bragg Weather Data

Appendix V USASOC Inter-TR Conduit Counts & Size

Appendix W IDC Ft Bragg Comm Infrastructure Requirements

Appendix X Environmental Protection Plan

Appendix Y Wetland Delineation & Permitting

Appendix Z Not Used

Appendix AA Not Used

Appendix BB Traffic Engineering IDG

Appendix CC HPTC Equipment List

Appendix DD Soil and Groundwater Contamination SOP

Appendix EE Physical Security Risk Analysis

Appendix FF Permit Information

Appendix GG FAA Instructions

VOLUME III – FURNITURE, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT PACKAGE (FF&E)

Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Drawings Section 3 Specifications

End of Table of Contents

Appendix A

APPENDIX A

GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION

PRELIMINARY

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

AND

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

SOF 21 Special Tactics Squadron (STS) Operations Facilities

L.I. TMKH003003, FY-16

Fort Bragg (Pope AAF), North Carolina

By Soils Section

Geotechnical & HTRW Branch U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah

October 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBJECT PAGE

1. PURPOSE 1

2. QUALIFICATION OF REPORT 1

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1

4. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES 2

a. Site Reconnaissance 2

b. Field Exploration 2

c. Laboratory Soils Testing 3

5. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3

a. Site Description 3

b. Regional and Site Geology 3

c. Subsurface Conditions 4

d. Groundwater Conditions 5

e. Seasonal High Water Table Evaluation 5

6. PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6

a. General 6

b. General Site Preparation 6

c. Foundation Design and Construction 6

d. Seismic Design 7

e. Pavement Design Criteria 7

f. Concrete Slabs-On-Grade 7

g. Groundwater and Surface-Water Considerations 8

h. Structural Fill 8

i. Construction Quality Control Testing 9

j. Specifications 10

k. Drawings 10

7. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT 10

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A Soil Test Boring Location Plan ATTACHMENT B Legends and Logs of SPT Borings and CPT Soundings ATTACHMENT C Laboratory Soils Testing Results ATTACHMENT D US Department of Agriculture Soil Resource Report ATTACHMENT E One-Point and Two-Point Compaction Methods

PRELIMINARY

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

SOF 21 Special Tactics Squadron (STS) Operations Facilities

Fort Bragg (Pope AAF), North Carolina

1. PURPOSE

The Government has conducted a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed Special Operations Forces (SOF) 21 STS Operations Facilities project. This report provides a general overview of the site conditions, including subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. Preliminary recommendations are also provided with respect to the geotechnical design and construction of the project.

2. QUALIFICATION OF REPORT

The field exploration performed for this report was made to determine the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and was not intended to serve as an assessment of site wetlands, environmental, or contaminant conditions. No effort was made to define, delineate, or designate any areas of environmental concern or of contamination. The contractor’s team shall include a licensed geotechnical engineer to interpret the report and develop foundation and earthwork recommendations and design parameters on which to base the contractor’s proposal. The preliminary findings and evaluation presented in this report are based on widely-spaced explorations performed at the project site. Any additional subsurface investigations and laboratory analyses conducted to better characterize the site and to develop the final design shall be performed under the direction of a licensed geotechnical engineer and shall be the full responsibility of the contractor. A final geotechnical evaluation report shall be prepared by the licensed geotechnical engineer and submitted along with the first design submittal.

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The SOF 21 STS Operations Facilities project consists of the design and construction of three building structures measuring approximately 41,800 square feet (SF), 13,000 SF and 12,300 SF.

The project also includes covered areas for activities related to drying and rinsing scuba gear and boat storage. Supporting facilities include site preparation, utilities (electrical, water, sanitary sewer, propane, chilled water, and information systems), lighting and traffic modulators, vehicle parking, access drives, curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm drainage, landscaping, and other site improvements. Since the project will be constructed under a design-build contract, detailed structural information for the proposed buildings is unavailable. The design-build construction contractor shall be responsible for final connections to all site utilities, including relocation of existing utilities if necessary, unless otherwise specified in the RFP specification.

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report (Preliminary) October 2015 SOF 21 STS Operations Facilities, Fort Bragg (Pope AAF), NC

4. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

a. Site Reconnaissance

Prior to the field explorations, the proposed project site and surrounding areas were visually inspected by a geotechnical engineer. The observations were used in planning the exploration, in determining areas of special interest, and in relating site conditions to known geologic conditions in the area.

b. Field Exploration

(1) Subsurface conditions at the project site were explored by six soil borings with standard penetration tests (borings B-03, B-04, B-06, B-07, B-08 and B-09), and two Cone Penetration Test (CPT) soundings (B-02 and B-10). The soil borings were drilled to depths ranging from 11 to 35 feet and the CPT soundings were pushed to depths of 20 and 47 feet. The borings and soundings were performed at the approximate locations shown on the Soil Test Boring Location Plans in Attachment A.

(2) Boring locations were established in the field by an engineer using a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) device having sub-meter accuracy. Since the measurements were not precise, the locations shown on the boring location plans and the locations indicated on the boring logs should be considered approximate. The ground surface elevation at each boring location was determined by interpolation from the site topography survey; therefore, the elevations shown on the boring logs should also be considered approximate.

(3) The soil test borings were drilled by Baltimore District Core Drill using a rubber tire truck-mounted CME 55 drill rig equipped with an automatic trip hammer. The test borings were advanced through the soils by mechanical drilling procedure, using 6 ¼ inch outside diameter (O.D.) hollow stem continuous spiral flight augers with a steel fingered bit as the cutting device.

Standard penetration tests (SPT) with split-barrel sampling were performed in the soil test borings at the intervals shown on the boring logs. All soil sampling and SPT were in accordance with ASTM D 1586. In the SPT, a soil sample is obtained with a standard 1⅜ inch I.D. by 2 inch O.D. split-barrel sampler. The sampler is first seated 6 inches and then driven an additional 12 inches with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is recorded and is termed the “standard penetration resistance,” or the “N-value.” Penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, is an index of the soil’s strength, density, and foundation support capability.

(4) The CPT soundings were performed by the Savannah District in accordance with ASTM D 5778-07. A 10-ton load capacity ARA Vertek cone penetrometer with a 10 square centimeter tip and 150 square centimeter sleeve was used. A 20-ton, track-mounted rig was used to push the cone penetrometer. During a CPT sounding, an electronically instrumented cone is hydraulically pushed through the soil to measure tip stress, sleeve friction and pore water pressure at two-centimeter intervals. It is also possible to generate a shear wave at discrete intervals in order to measure its velocity in the investigated soil, as was done in sounding B-10.

The CPT sounding data were electrically recorded and used to determine soil stratigraphy and to estimate soil-engineering parameters such as strength and compressibility. The soil stratigraphic profiles in the CPT logs represent the normalized friction ratio-based soil behavior types derived from the established relationships based on cone tip resistance, sleeve resistance and penetration induced pore pressure described by Robertson and Campanella (1990). Groundwater levels were estimated from the penetration induced pore pressure.

(5) The soil samples obtained from the soil test borings were examined by a geologist and/or a geotechnical engineer and visually field classified in accordance with ASTM D 2488 (Visual-Manual Procedure for Description of Soils). The soil classifications include the use of the Unified Soil Classification System described in ASTM D 2487 (Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes). Since the soil descriptions and classifications are based on visual examination and manual tests, they should be considered approximate. Logs of the SPT borings graphically depicting soil descriptions and standard penetration resistances are included in Attachment B. The logs of the CPT soundings depicting soil behavior types, cone tip resistances, sleeve resistance, shear wave velocity, and penetration induced pore pressures are also included in Attachment B.

c. Laboratory Soils Testing

Six discrete soil samples that were obtained during the field investigations were tested in the laboratory. Testing was performed by the US Army Corps of Engineers Savannah District Environmental Materials Unit lab located in Marietta, GA. The tests conducted on the various samples include natural moisture content, Atterberg limits, and grain-size distribution. Tests were performed in accordance with applicable ASTM Standards to confirm the visual classifications and to aid in the evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions at the project site.

Where there is a difference between the field and laboratory classification, the laboratory classification shall take precedence for the interval tested. The laboratory soils test data and results are included in Attachment C.

5. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

a. Site Description

The SOF 21 STS Operations Facilities are proposed to be sited on approximately 1.5 acres on Pope Army Airfield (AAF) on Fort Bragg, approximately half a mile due east of the runway. The proposed project limits are within a currently fenced-in area that encloses building 3910 and is bounded to the northwest by Gena Street, to the east by railroad tracks, and to the south by Hurst Drive. The area encompassed by the project limits is thickly vegetated with tall vines and grasses, and trees roughly 8 to 12 inches in diameter mid chest level and spread approximately 10 to 25 feet apart. The topography of the site is hilly with a generally northwestward slope and approximate elevations ranging from 255 to 221 feet mean sea level.

b. Regional and Site Geology

(1) Fort Bragg is situated in the Sand Hills area of the Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. The Coastal Plain extends westward from the Atlantic Ocean to the

Fall Line, a distance of about 130 miles. The Fall Line is the boundary between the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont physiographic provinces.

(2) Geologic units in the Fort Bragg area, ranging from oldest to youngest, include the

Carolina Slate Belt rocks, which comprise the basement rock, the Cape Fear Formation, and the Middendorf Formation. The Cape Fear and Middendorf Formations overlie the basement rock and are part of the generally southeastward-dipping and thickening wedge of sediments that constitute the Atlantic Coastal Plain deposits.

(3) The Middendorf Formation is exposed at land surface throughout the Fort Bragg area. The formation is composed of tan, cross-bedded, medium- and fine-grained, micaceous quartz sand and clayey sand interbedded with clay or sandy clay lenses or layers. Layers of hematite-cemented sandstone occur locally throughout the Middendorf Formation as do thin layers of hard kaolin and kaolin-cemented sandstone. Below the water table, these units are generally friable or plastic. In places, the Middendorf Formation is a mottled orange, gray, and tan color with streaks and laminae of red and purple hematite and manganese oxide stains.

c. Subsurface Conditions

(1) The visual and manual examination of all samples - and the results of the laboratory testing of discrete samples - obtained from soil borings drilled at the project site indicate the area’s subsurface to be comprised primarily of sandy soils with varying amounts of fines and clayey soils with varying amounts of sand. Most of the soil samples that were collected within 5 to 15 feet of the surface were field classified as silty sand. The near-surface sandy soils were typically underlain by soils that were field classified as lean silt or elastic silt (ML or MH respectively) with the discrete samples from this elevation that were lab-tested classified as lean clays (CL). These clayey soils either extended to the terminations of the borings, or were interspersed with seams of sandy material in 5-to-10-foot-thick bands.

(2) Generally, the sandy soils encountered in the borings are of very loose to loose density, based on a majority of N-values observed within the ranges of 0 to 4 and 4 to 10 blows per foot (bpf) respectively. Based upon observed N-values, the consistencies of the silty and/or clayey soils’ seemed to depend on their proximity to the groundwater table, with the soils near the groundwater table being of soft consistency with N-values typically within the range of 2 to 4 bpf, and the deeper soils being of hard consistency with N-values in excess of 30 bpf.

(3) The above subsurface descriptions are of a generalized nature to highlight the major subsurface stratification features and material characteristics. The boring logs should be reviewed for specific information at individual boring locations. The stratifications shown on the boring logs represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between the subsurface materials; the actual transitions are typically more gradual.

(4) A soil survey for Cumberland County, North Carolina was obtained from the Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) website. The report, included as Attachment D, was used to obtain an overview of possible soil series located within the project area. According to the report, the project site is characterized by Wagram-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes (WgB) with the following general soil profile and a typical depth to water table of 60 to 80 inches:

0 - 8 inches: Loamy sand 8 - 24 inches: Loamy fine sand 24 - 75 inches: Sandy clay loam 75 - 83 inches: Sandy loam

This profile correlates with the soil profiles observed during subsurface investigation of the site.

d. Groundwater Conditions

(1) Groundwater level measurements were performed in all of the boreholes at the completion of drilling, with 24-hour measurements in discrete borings in which temporary piezometers were installed. The 24-hour water levels which are generally considered the true groundwater levels were measured at depths ranging from 5.5 to 11.7 feet. It should be noted that soil samples with sufficient water content to be field-classified as saturated were encountered at various depths and in various borings to include borings in which groundwater was not encountered, and this is indicative of perched-water conditions.

(2) A perched-water condition occurs when water seeping downward is blocked by an impermeable soil layer, such as a fine-grained silt or clay, and saturates the more permeable soil above it. The true groundwater level can be several feet below the perched-water level. The silts and clays, and the silty and clayey sands encountered at various depths in the different soil borings as well as the erratic groundwater measurements are conducive to, and indicative of, the potential to encounter a perched-water condition during construction.

(3) It should be noted that groundwater conditions vary during periods of prolonged drought and excessive rainfall as well as seasonally. Therefore, fluctuations in the elevation of the groundwater should be anticipated with changing climatic and rainfall conditions.

e. Seasonal High Water Table Evaluation

(1) The depth to the seasonal high water table (SHWT) is an important parameter in determining suitability of storm water features. It is defined as the highest groundwater level at atmospheric pressure, of sufficient duration for anaerobic conditions to be established. The SHWT can be determined based on observations and evaluation of soil characteristics such as color, presence of redoximorphic features, and other evidence of previous saturation.

(2) The NRCS soils survey report identifies the predominant soil type at this site as

“Wagram-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes (WgB)”. Per the report, this soil type typically exhibits groundwater at a depth range of 60 to 80 inches below the ground surface and this was corroborated by several of the soil borings performed at the site. Final evaluation of the SHWT and any recommendations for the storm water features shall, however, be confirmed by the Contractor’s consulting geotechnical engineer.

6. PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

a. General

The following evaluations and recommendations are based on the information available on the proposed structures, observations made at the project site, interpretation of the data obtained from the soil test borings, and previous experience with soils and subsurface conditions similar to those encountered at the site. It is emphasized that the preliminary findings and evaluation presented in this report are based on widely-spaced explorations performed at the project site. Additional subsurface investigations and/or laboratory analyses, if required to determine site soil conditions and develop the final design, shall be performed under the direction of a licensed geotechnical engineer and shall be the full responsibility of the contractor.

b. General Site Preparation

It is recommended that following the demolition of any existing pavement and the removal of existing vegetation, the construction areas should be stripped of all other deleterious materials. It is also recommended that the zones of demolition and pavement and vegetation removal extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the outer edges of all proposed structures and paved areas.

c. Foundation Design and Construction

(1) Given the proposed site and structures and based on past experience with similar sites in the region, shallow spread foundations may likely be used for support of the proposed building. The in-situ densities or consistencies of soils encountered, inferred by the N-values observed in these soils, indicate that a significant amount of the sandy soils in this area are of very loose to loose density. Improvement of these soils, using suitable means such as vibratory compaction or undercutting and replacement, may likely be required prior to the placement of any structural loads on these soils. The design-build contractor should also be prepared to deal with softer plastic soils that could be encountered during construction activities. It shall be the responsibility, however, of the contractor’s consulting geotechnical engineer to determine the appropriate foundation system for each of the proposed structures and evaluate any impacts of the very loose and loose soils encountered in the attached borings. An adequate level of protection against structural failure due to uniform and/or differential foundation settlement or general shear shall be provided.

(2) Assuming shallow foundations are feasible, it is recommended that all load-bearing wall footings and column footings have a minimum width of 24 inches and a minimum depth of 24 inches, as measured from finish floor or finish grade, whichever is lower, to the bottom of the footing. For all other wall footings, the recommended minimum width is 18 inches and the recommended minimum depth is 18 inches, as measured from finish floor or finish grade, whichever is lower, to the bottom of the footing.

(3) Foundation excavations should be concreted as soon as practical following excavation.

Exposure to the environment could weaken the soils at the footing bearing level should the foundation excavations remain open for an extended period of time. Bottoms of foundation excavations should be inspected immediately prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that adequate bearing soils are present and that all debris, mud, and loose, frozen or water-softened soils are removed. If the bearing surface soils have been softened by surface-water intrusion or by exposure, the softened soils must be removed to firm bearing and replaced with additional concrete during the concreting or replaced to design subgrade with No. 57 or No.

67 stone, compacted to a non-yielding condition. To minimize exposure, the final excavation (4 to 6 inches) to design subgrade could be delayed until just prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concreting.

d. Seismic Design

It is recommended that seismic loads be computed in accordance with IBC 2012. The project site is anticipated to classify as Site Class D. The design-build contractor’s consulting geotechnical engineer shall, however, make the final determination for Site Class and recommend spectral accelerations for seismic design.

e. Pavement Design Criteria

Based on the preliminary subsurface investigations and previous experience in the general area, the soil types expected to be encountered at the site are poorly graded sands, silty sands, and clayey sands. These soil types have typically been considered satisfactory material for pavement subgrade. Any unsatisfactory subgrade soils that are encountered would need to be removed and replaced with satisfactory soils. Since a final grading plan is yet to be developed, the location or elevation of proposed pavements has not been determined. The contractor’s geotechnical engineer shall determine the appropriate California bearing ratio (CBR) and modulus of subgrade reaction for the design of pavements.

f. Concrete Slabs-on-Grade

(1) Previous experience and the subsurface conditions encountered at the site indicate concrete floor slabs could be supported on densified in situ soils or on fill soils placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report regarding structural fill. It is recommended that all concrete slabs-on-grade in inhabitable areas, including storage areas, be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of open graded, washed pea gravel, or stone, often termed “capillary water barrier,” to prevent the capillary rise of ground water. Nos. 57, 67, 78, or 89 stone could be used. An additional recommendation is to provide a moisture vapor barrier consisting of lapped polyethylene sheeting having a minimum thickness of 10 mils beneath the building floor slabs to reduce the potential for slab dampness from soil moisture. Concrete slabs should be jointed around columns and along supported walls to minimize cracking due to possible differential movement.

(2) Construction activities and exposure to the environment often cause deterioration of the prepared slab-on-grade subgrade. It is recommended that the slab subgrade soils be inspected and evaluated immediately prior to floor slab construction. The evaluation might include a combination of visual observations, hand rod probing, and field density tests to verify that the subgrade has been properly prepared. If unstable soils are revealed, the affected area should be excavated to firm bearing, and material removed should be replaced to design subgrade with suitable structural fill soil placed and compacted as recommended, or replaced with additional capillary water barrier material.

g. Groundwater and Surface Water Considerations

Based on the sandy soils with varying amounts of fines as well as the fine-grained soils that were encountered at relatively shallow depths in the borings, it is estimated that “perched water” conditions could be encountered. The accumulation of run-off water or seepage at the base of excavations may thus occur during foundation construction and site work. Water should not be allowed to collect near the foundation or on floor slab areas of the building either during or after construction. Undercut or excavated areas should be sloped toward one corner to facilitate removal of any collected rainwater, groundwater, or surface runoff. Positive site drainage should be provided to reduce infiltration of surface water around the perimeter of the building and beneath floor slabs.

h. Structural Fill

In order to achieve high density structural fill, the following evaluations and recommendations are offered:

(1) Based on the soil test borings, excavated on-site soils (excluding any organics/topsoil and debris) can be used as structural fill. Some moisture content adjustment will probably be necessary to achieve proper compaction. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil by discing.

(2) It is recommended that the contractor have appropriate disc harrows on site during earthwork for mixing, drying, and wetting of the soils.

(3) Materials selected for use as structural fill should be free from roots and other organic matter, trash, debris, frozen soil, and stones larger than 3 inches in any dimension, and in general, should have a liquid limit less than 50 percent and a plasticity index of less than 30. The following soils represented by their Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487) group symbols will be suitable for use as structural fill: GP, GW, GC, GM, SP, SP-SM, SP-SC, SW, SC, SM, SM-SC, CL, and ML. The following soil types are considered unsuitable: Pt, OH, OL, CH, and MH.

(4) Suitable fill soils should be placed in lifts of maximum 8 inches loose measurement.

The soil should be compacted by mechanical means such as steel drum, sheepsfoot, tamping, or rubber-tired rollers. Compaction of clays is best accomplished with a sheepsfoot or tamping roller. Periodically rolling with heavily loaded, rubber-tired equipment may be desirable to seal the surface of the compacted fill, thus reducing the potential for absorption of surface water following a rain. This sealing operation is particularly important at the end of the work day and at the end of the week. Within confined areas or foundation excavations, we recommend the use of manually operated, internal combustion activated compactors (“whacker packers” or sled tamps). The compactors should have sufficient weight and striking power to produce the same degree of compaction that is obtained on the other portions of the fill by the rolling equipment as specified. Where hand operated equipment is used, the soils should be placed in lifts of maximum 4 inches loose measurement.

(5) It is recommended that the structural fill and subgrades be compacted to the following minimum percents of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557):

Beneath structures and building slabs, to 5 feet beyond building and structure line, around footings and in trenches

92 percent

Beneath paved areas, except top 12 inches 92 percent Beneath paved areas, top 12 inches 95 percent Beneath shoulders 90 percent Beneath sidewalks and grassed areas 85 percent Base course beneath paved areas 100 percent

i. Construction Quality Control Testing

(1) Prior to initiating any structural fill placement and/or compaction operations, it is recommended that representative samples of the soils which will be used as structural fill or subgrade, both suitable on-site soils and off-site soils (borrow), be obtained and tested to determine their classification and compaction characteristics. The samples should be carefully selected to represent the full range of soil types to be used. The moisture content, maximum dry density, optimum moisture content, grain-size, and plasticity characteristics should be determined. These tests are required to determine if the fill and subgrade soils are acceptable and for compaction quality control of the subgrades and structural fill. Tests for the above soil properties should be in accordance with the following:

Moisture Content ASTM D 2216 Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture ASTM D 1557 Grain-Size (Wash No. 200, less hydrometer) ASTM D 422 and D 1140 Plasticity ASTM D 4318

(2) A representative number of in-place field density tests should be performed in the subgrade of compacted on-site soils and in the structural fill and backfill to confirm that the required degree of compaction has been obtained. In-place density tests should be performed in accordance with the sand cone method prescribed in ASTM D 1556. It is recommend at least one density test be performed for each 5,000 square feet and 12,500 square feet, or portion thereof, for buildings and pavements, respectively, of compacted native soil subgrade and in each lift of compacted structural fill. It is also recommended that at least one density test be performed for each 100 linear feet in the bearing level soils of continuous footings. Density tests should be performed at 100-foot intervals along roadway subgrades. In addition, a density test should be performed for each 100 linear feet of backfill placed per foot of depth in trenches for utilities systems. Where other areas are compacted separately by manually operated compactors, a minimum of one density test should be performed for every 250 square feet, or portion thereof, of fill placed per foot of depth.

(3) Compaction control of soils requires the comparison of fill water content and dry density values obtained in the field density tests with optimum water content and maximum dry density determined in a laboratory compaction test performed on the same soil. It is, however, not feasible to do this as the testing could not keep pace with fill construction. It is, therefore, recommended that compaction control of the earthwork construction be performed using a “family” of compaction curves and the one-point or two-point compaction methods described in Attachment E.

(4) Any area that does not meet the required compaction criteria should be reworked and retested. If the moisture content of the soil is within the recommended range, additional compaction may be all that is necessary to increase the density. If the moisture content is not within the recommended range, the moisture content should be adjusted to within the range and the area recompacted.

(5) All laboratory and field density testing should be performed by a commercial testing laboratory that has been validated by the Engineer Research and Development Center Materials Testing Center (MTC) under the Corps of Engineers laboratory inspection and validation program.

j. Specifications

It is recommended that the design-build contractor use the Unified Facilities Guide

Specifications SOIL TREATMENT FOR SUBTERRANEAN TERMITE CONTROL Specification 31 31 16 when editing the specifications for this project. It is also recommended that the design-build contractor use the Savannah District’s EARTHWORK specification, 31 00

00. The EARTHWORK specification (in SpecsIntact format) and associated compaction figures are available at the following website:

http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/About/DivisionsandOffices/EngineeringDivision/EngineeringDes ignCriteria/SASGuideSpecifications.aspx

k. Drawings

The exploration locations shown in ATTACHMENT A and the soil test boring logs in

ATTACHMENT B shall be shown on the final design and on the project as-built drawings completed by the design-build contractor. In addition, the selected design-build contractor shall show all boring logs, records of additional alternative subsurface investigations, laboratory soils test data, etc. used for design on the final design drawings and on the as-built drawings.

7. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT

A final geotechnical evaluation report shall be prepared by the selected design-build contractor’s licensed geotechnical engineer and submitted along with the first foundation design submittal.

This report shall summarize the subsurface conditions and provide recommendations for the http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/About/DivisionsandOffices/EngineeringDivision/EngineeringDesignCriteria/SASGuideSpecifications.aspx http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/About/DivisionsandOffices/EngineeringDivision/EngineeringDesignCriteria/SASGuideSpecifications.aspx design of appropriate foundations, floor slabs, retaining walls, embankments, and pavements.

The report shall recommend the type of foundation system to be used, lateral load resistance capacities for foundation systems, allowable bearing elevations for footings, grade beams, slabs, etc. An assessment of post-construction settlement potential, including total and differential, shall be provided. Recommendations regarding lateral earth pressures (active, at-rest, passive) to be used in the design of retaining walls shall be provided. The report shall include the recommended spectral accelerations and Site Class for seismic design along with an evaluation of any seismic hazards and recommendations for mitigation, if required. Calculations shall be included to support the recommendations for bearing capacity, settlement, and pavement sections. Supporting documentation shall be included for all recommended design parameters such as Site Class, shear strength, earth pressure coefficients, friction factors, subgrade modulus, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), etc. In addition, the report shall provide earthwork recommendations; expected frost penetration; expected groundwater levels; expected seasonal high water table levels; expected soil infiltration rates; recommendations for dewatering and groundwater control; and possible presence of any surface or subsurface features that may affect the construction of the project such as sinkholes, boulders, shallow rock, undocumented fill, old structures, soft areas, or unusual soil conditions. The design-build construction contractor should assume that they will be responsible for final connections to all site utilities (including connections from new utilities to existing utilities) unless specified otherwise in the RFP specifications.

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A

Soil Test Boring Location Plan

P S

B -1

.d g n

U .S

A R

M Y C

O R

P S O

F E

N G

IN

E E

R S

W

IL

M

IN

G T

O N

N O

R T

H C

A R

O L

IN

A

D

A R

L

IN

G T

O N A

V E

N U

E

W

IL

M

IN

G T

O N D

IS

T R

IC

T

A N

S I

D

C H

E C

K E

D B

Y

D R

A W

N B

Y

IS

S

U E D

A T

E

SHEET ID

F

IL

E N

A M

E

B

C

D

E

F

G

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

S O

L

IC

IT

A T

IO

N N

O

D E

S

IG

N E

D B

Y

A

M A

R K

S

IZ

E

S U

B M

IT

T E

D B

Y

D A

T E

C O

N T

R A

C T N

O

®of Engineers

US Army Corps

C A

T E

G O

R Y C

O D

E

D E

S C

R

IP

T

IO

N

M A

S O

N H

A N

G E

R

P S

T S O p e ra ti o n s F a c il ie s D

B R

F P \C

A D

B

IM

S h e e ts \0

G e o te c h \P

S

B -1

.d g n

/6 /2

:1

:2

A

M

F T

B R

A G

G

N C

-7

-0

X X

X X

X X -X

X -X -X

X X

X

S

T S O

P E

R A

T

IO

N S F

A C

IL

IT

IE

S

W P

M -1

-R -0

P O

P E F

IE

L D

J A

N U

A R

Y

LP

LP

G A T E

G A

TE

"NO PARKING" SIGN

SIDEWALK

CONC.

C A

R P

O R

T

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

A S P H A

LT

A S P H A

LT

A S P H A

LT

G

EN

A S

TR

EE

T

E

DEPLOYMENT AREA

EXISTING STAGING/

T R

A

IN

IN

G C

E N T E R

H U

M A

N P

E R F O

R M

A N

C E

T E

A M B

U

IL

D

IN

G

S P E C

IA

L T

A C T

IC

S

F .F .E .5

F .F .E .5

BOLLARDS

BOLLARDS

BOLLARDS

BOLLARDS

BOLLARDS

BOLLARDS (TYP)

BOLLARDS (TYP)

STEPS

CARPORT

G R

A V E L

G R

A V E L

G R

A V E L

G R

A V E L

G R

A V E L

G R

A V E L

G R

A V E L

G R

A V E L

C E N T E R L

IN

E

R

O A

D

C E N T E R L

IN

E

R

O A

D

F E

N C E

FEN

C E

FE

N C E

FE

N C E

R A

IL

R O

A D

T R

A C

K S

R A

IL

R O

A D

T R

A C

K S

ELEC. MH

WALL

SIGN

SPILLWAY

BOX CULVERT

INV. IN 18" RCP 228.68

BOX CULVERT

INV. IN 18" RCP 227.61

FLARED END HW

INV. IN 18" RCP 227.23

FLARED END HW

INV. IN 18" RCP 228.26

B-9

B-8

B-7

B-6

B-3

B-4

B-10

B-2

N 515,989.00

E 1,998,061.00

N 515,979.00

E 1,998,060.00

N 515,880.00

E 1,998,056.00

N 515,791.00

E 1,998,175.00

N 515,737.00

E 1,998,039.00

N 515,703.00

E 1,998,166.00

N 515,625.00

E 1,998,100.00

N 515,606.00

E 1,998,380.00

GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=40'-0"

120'80'40'020'40'

N

S

C U

R R

Y

B

B

ID

D L E

C L

O W

E

LEGEND

J U

N E

J U

N E

B-101

SOIL CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT) LOCATIONS

SOIL TEST BORING LOCATIONS

S O

IL

T

E S

T B

O R

IN

G A

N D C

P T L

O C

A T

IO

S

ATTACHMENT B

Legends and Logs of SPT Borings and CPT Soundings

Water Level Data

223.0 11.5

SILTY SAND (SM), light brown, fine grained, trace root debris.

Fine to medium grained, trace clay, trace mica.

Very moist, trace clay.

Very light gray with very light brown, fine to coarse grained.

Fine grained, trace coarse sand, few clay.

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 11.5 ft

Lab classification is SM with 27.7% passing #200

LL=27 & PI=5

Reading Depth NotesDate During drilling Not Encountered8/17/2015

N/A

14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEET

POPE ARMY AIRFIELD (Fort Bragg), NC

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

NAVD88

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

CME 55

BEARING

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

6 1/4 OD Hollowstem Auger

INSTALLATION

6 0

INCLINED

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

NAD83AFSOC 21 STS

FY 16 PN TMKH003003

>11.5'

0'

11.5'

N 515628.3809 E 1998100.253

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

John Blackson

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

8/17/15

SHEETSDRILLING LOG

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

B-03

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

South Atlantic Division

See Remarks

8/17/15

Kaylin Dunbar

State Plane - North Carolina

234.5' (Estimated from plans)

Boring Designation B-03

FEB 08

RECELEV

LE

G

E N

D

DEPTH

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V al ue

Boring Designation B-03 SHEET 1 of 1

REMARKS

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p o.

Water Level Data

248.2 247.9

224.5

1.3 1.6

25.0

SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, trace clay.

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL (GP), black, Possible asphalt.

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, fine grained, With black asphalt layers 0.1'.

Red and brown, trace gravel, few clay, Indications of undocumented man-made fill.

Very light brown with pale purple, fine grained, trace clay, no gravel, trace mica, End of indications of undocumented man-made fill.

Wet.

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 25.0 ft

Lab classification is SP-SM with 9.2% passing #200 and non-plastic fines passing #40.

Reading Depth NotesDate After drilling 22.78/17/2015

N/A

14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEET

POPE ARMY AIRFIELD (Fort Bragg), NC

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

NAVD88

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

CME 55

BEARING

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

6 1/4 OD Hollowstem Auger

INSTALLATION

8 0

INCLINED

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

NAD83AFSOC 21 STS

FY 16 PN TMKH003003

>25'

0'

25'

N 515605.7687 E 1998380.368

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

John Blackson

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

8/17/15

SHEETSDRILLING LOG

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

B-04

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

South Atlantic Division

See Remarks

8/17/15

Kaylin Dunbar

State Plane - North Carolina

249.5' (Estimated from plans)

Boring Designation B-04

FEB 08

RECELEV

LE

G

E N

D

DEPTH

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V al ue

Boring Designation B-04 SHEET 1 of 1

REMARKS

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p

Water Level Data

219.5

212.5

18.0

25.0

SILTY SAND (SM), light brown, fine grained, trace root debris.

Trace clay.

Light brown with yellowish red.

Pale yellowish red, fine to medium grained, trace mica.

Fine grained, very moist.

Very light reddish yellow with very light gray, very moist.

ELASTIC SILT (MH), gray with pale purple, high plasticity, little fine to medium sand.

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 25.0 ft

100+

Lab classification is CL with 77.6% passing #200

LL=38 & PI=21

Reading Depth NotesDate During drilling Not Encountered8/17/2015

N/A

14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEET

POPE ARMY AIRFIELD (Fort Bragg), NC

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

NAVD88

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

CME 55

BEARING

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

6 1/4 OD Hollowstem Auger

INSTALLATION

8 0

INCLINED

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

NAD83AFSOC 21 STS

FY 16 PN TMKH003003

>25'

0'

25'

N 515702.6783 E 1998166.244

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

John Blackson

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

8/14/15

SHEETSDRILLING LOG

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

B-06

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

South Atlantic Division

See Remarks

8/14/15

Kaylin Dunbar

State Plane - North Carolina

237.5' (Estimated from plans)

Boring Designation B-06

FEB 08

RECELEV

LE

G

E N

D

DEPTH

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V al ue

Boring Designation B-06 SHEET 1 of 1

REMARKS

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p

219.5

218.0

214.5

211.5

204.5

202.5

18.0

19.5

23.0

26.0

33.0

35.0

SILTY SAND (SM), light brown, fine grained.

Pale red, trace clay, trace mica.

Very light brown, very moist.

Pale reddish brown, fine to medium grained, wet.

ELASTIC SILT (MH), gray with pale purple, high plasticity, little fine sand.

SILTY SAND (SM), purple with light gray, fine to medium grained, With silty lenses.

LEAN SILT (ML), light gray with reddish yellow, non plastic, some fine sand.

SILTY SAND (SM), purpleish gray with reddish yellow, fine grained, trace mica, few clay.

CLAYEY SAND, purpleish gray with reddish yellow, fine to coarse grained, trace mica, trace silt.

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 35.0 ft

Lab classification is CL with 71.5% passing #200

LL=41 & PI=23

At time of drilling: 12' 24 hours after drilling: 11.37'

N/A

14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEET

POPE ARMY AIRFIELD (Fort Bragg), NC

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

NAVD88

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

CME 55

BEARING

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

6 1/4 OD Hollowstem Auger

INSTALLATION

10 0

INCLINED

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

NAD83AFSOC 21 STS

FY 16 PN TMKH003003

>35'

0'

35'

N 515790.9454 E 1998175.479

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

John Blackson

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

8/17/15

SHEETSDRILLING LOG

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

B-07

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

South Atlantic Division

See Remarks

8/17/15

Kaylin Dunbar

State Plane - North Carolina

237.5' (Estimated from plans)

Boring Designation B-07

FEB 08

RECELEV

LE

G

E N

D

DEPTH

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V al ue

Boring Designation B-07 SHEET 1 of 2

REMARKS

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p

Water Level Data Reading Depth NotesDate After drilling 11.378/17/2015 During drilling 128/17/2015

AFSOC 21 STS

SHEETS

HORIZONTAL VERTICALPROJECT

SHEET

OFPOPE ARMY AIRFIELD (Fort Bragg), NC

COORDINATE SYSTEM

State Plane NAVD88

ELEVATION TOP OF BORINGLOCATION COORDINATES

DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet)

NAD83

N 515790.9454 E 1998175.479

INSTALLATION

237.5'

Boring Designation B-07

FEB 08

RECELEV

LE

G

E N

D

DEPTH

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V al ue

Boring Designation B-07 SHEET 2 of 2

REMARKS

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p

Water Level Data

219.0

214.0

207.0

13.0

18.0

25.0

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, few organics.

Pale brown, no organics.

Light brown and yellowish red, trace clay.

Very moist.

Very light brown with very light red, wet.

LEAN SILT (ML), light gray with reddish yellow, wet, non plastic, some fine sand.

SILTY SAND (SM), light gray with reddish yellow, fine to coarse grained, wet, trace clay, trace mica.

Reddish purple.

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 25.0 ft

WOH, 1,4

Lab classification is CL with 81.5% passing #200

LL=34 & PI=17

Reading Depth NotesDate 24 hours 5.88/17/2015

N/A

14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEET

POPE ARMY AIRFIELD (Fort Bragg), NC

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

NAVD88

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

CME 55

BEARING

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

6 1/4 OD Hollowstem Auger

INSTALLATION

8 0

INCLINED

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

NAD83AFSOC 21 STS

FY 16 PN TMKH003003

>25'

0'

25'

N 515880.3459 E 1998055.952

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

John Blackson

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

8/14/15

SHEETSDRILLING LOG

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

B-08

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

South Atlantic Division

See Remarks

8/14/15

Kaylin Dunbar

State Plane - North Carolina

232' (Estimated from plans)

Boring Designation B-08

FEB 08

RECELEV

LE

G

E N

D

DEPTH

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V al ue

Boring Designation B-08 SHEET 1 of 1

REMARKS

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p

Water Level Data

226.9 226.5

215.9

211.5

209.5

7.6 8.0

18.6

23.0

25.0

SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, fine grained, with organics.

Light brown, no organics.

Yellowish red with pale brown, fine to medium grained.

ELASTIC SILT (MH), gray, trace clay, with fine sand.

SILTY SAND (SM), pale purple with gray, fine grained, very moist, trace clay, With 0.1' ML lenses.

Fine to coarse grained, wet.

ELASTIC SILT (MH), gray with pale purple, wet, high plasticity, with fine sand.

SILTY SAND (SM), gray with yellowish red, fine and coarse grained, wet, trace clay.

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 25.0 ft

Lab classification is SC with 20.2% passing #200

LL=39 & PI=17

Reading Depth NotesDate During drilling 238/14/2015 24 hours 5.58/17/2015

N/A

14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEET

POPE ARMY AIRFIELD (Fort Bragg), NC

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

NAVD88

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

CME 55

BEARING

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

6 1/4 OD Hollowstem Auger

INSTALLATION

8 0

INCLINED

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

NAD83AFSOC 21 STS

FY 16 PN TMKH003003

>25'

0'

25'

N 515989.2538 E 1998060.566

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

John Blackson

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

8/14/15

SHEETSDRILLING LOG

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

B-09

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

South Atlantic Division

See Remarks

8/14/15

Kaylin Dunbar

State Plane - North Carolina

234.5' (Estimated from plans)

Boring Designation B-09

FEB 08

RECELEV

LE

G

E N

D

DEPTH

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V al ue

Boring Designation B-09 SHEET 1 of 1

REMARKS

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p

Electronic Filename:

B-2.cpt

Depth (ft)

Project No: TMKH003003 FY 16

AFSOC 21 STS

Fort Bragg, NC

Elevation:

Water Depth:

Total Depth: 20.0 ftProbe ID/Net Area Ratio:

Sep. 15, 2015 Johnston USACE, Savannah District

Date:

Operator:

Drilling Agency: DDG1117 / 0.8

C P

T R

E P

O R

T

D Y

N A

M

IC

B O

T T

O M

L E

G E

N D

A F

S O

C .G

P J

U S

A C

E W

IT

H

R A

P

ID

C P

T

2_

_0

1.

G

D T

/1

/1

Latitude:

Longitude:

35° 5' 6" 79° 1' 42.852"

1 - sensitive fine-grained

2 - organic soil: clays, peats

3 - clays: clay to silty clay

4 - silt mixtures: clayey silt & silty clay

5 - sand mixtures: silty sand to sandy silt

6 - sands: clean sands to silty sands

7 - dense sand to gravelly sand

8 - stiff sand to clayey sand (*)

9 - stiff fine-grained (*)

1 10 100

Equivalent N60Pore Pressure u2

(psi)

-60 80 220 360

Depth (ft)

Tip Resistance qt

(tsf)

80 160 240 320

Friction Ratio Rf

1 2 3 4

Sleeve Friction fs

(tsf)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SBT Fr Normalized

MAI = 1

(1990)

2418126 qt

(tsf)

Cone Penetration Test B-2

K6ENXAJS

Text Box N-515737.1094 E-1998038.758

Electronic Filename:

B-10.cpt

Depth (ft)

Project No: TMKH003003 FY 16

AFSOC 21 STS

Fort Bragg, NC

Elevation:

Water Depth:

Total Depth: 47.4 ftProbe…