Ft_Bragg_SOF_CMTF_Specs_Vol_2of3.pdf

RFP No. W912PM17R0021

SOF

Combat Medic Training Facility, PN 85958

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Specifications – Volume 2 of 3 (Appendices)

December 2017

SOF Combat Medic Training Facility

Fort Bragg, NC PN #85958

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

SOF COMBAT MEDIC TRAINING FACILITY; PN 89598

FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA

DIVISION 00 – PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS (SEE VOLUME 1 OF 3)

STANDARD FORM 1442

00 10 00 SOLICITATION

00 20 00 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROCUREMENT

00 21 16 INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

00 45 00 REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

00 70 00 CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT

00 73 00 SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS

DIVISION 01 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ( SEE VOLUME 1 OF 3)

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 11 01 STATEMENT OF WORK - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 11 02 STATEMENT OF WORK - SITE, CIVIL, UTILITIES & LANDSCAPING

01 11 03 STATEMENT OF WORK - ARCHITECTURAL & INTERIOR DESIGN

SYSTEMS

01 11 04 STATEMENT OF WORK - STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

01 11 05 STATEMENT OF WORK - MECHANICAL, PLUMBING

AND FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS

01 11 06 STATEMENT OF WORK - ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS

01 11 07 STATEMENT OF WORK - SPECIAL EQUIPMENT

01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS

01 30 00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

01 32 01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE

01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 33 00 ATTACHMENT A PRELIMINARY DIVISION 01 SUBMITTAL REGISTER

01 33 00 ATTACHMENT B ENG FORM 4025-R SAMPLE

01 33 16.00 10 DESIGN DATA (DESIGN AFTER AWARD)

01 33 16.00 10 ATT-A STRUCUTRAL INTERIOR DESIGN (SID) REQUIREMENTS

01 33 16.00 10 ATT-B FURNITURE, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT (FF&E) REQUIREMENTS

01 33 16.00 10 ATT-C TRACKING COMMENTS IN DRCHECKS

01 33 16.00 10 ATT-D SAMPLE FIRE PROTECTION & LIFE SAFETY CODE REVIEW

01 33 16.00 10 ATT-E ANALYSIS OF WINDOW UNIT STRUCTURAL SUPPORT

01 33 16.00 10 ATT-F BIM REQUIREMENTS

01 33 16.00 10 ATT-G DESIGN SUBMITTAL DIRECTORY & SUBDIRECTORY

FILE ARRANGEMENT

01 33 16.00 10 ATT-H LEED SUBMITTALS

01 33 16.00 10 ATT-I DQC SUBMITTAL MATRIX SUMMARY EXHIBIT I-A-1

01 33 16.00 10 ATT-J 1-TOTAL DESIGN ANALYSIS

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 00.00 10 ATT-A 1-QC CHECKLISTS PART 4 2016-03-18

01 45 00.00 10 ATT-B 2010 QA CODE COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST – TELCOM

01 45 00.00 10 ATT-C DQC - COST ESTIMATE CHECKLIST

01 45 00.00 10 ATT-D DQC – DRAWINGS CHECKLIST

01 45 00.00 10 ATT-E DQC – ENERGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST

01 45 00.00 10 ATT-F DQC – PREDESIGN CHECKLIST

01 45 00.00 10 ATT-G DQC – SPECIFICATION PREP CHECKLIST

01 45 00.00 10 ATT-H DQC – STRUCTURAL CHECKLIST

01 45 00.15 10 RESIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTOR MODE (RMS CM)

01 45 35 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

01 45 35 ATTACHMENT A STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 57 19 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

01 58 00 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT

01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS

01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

01 78 24.00 10 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY DATA REQUIREMENTS

01 91 00.15 TOTAL BUILDING COMMISSIONING

APPENDICES (VOLUME 2 OF 3)

A PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

B SWMG CONSTRUCTION SECURITY SOP AND NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

C RESULTS OF FIRE FLOW TESTS

D ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST

E FORT BRAGG TREE MITIGATION

F INSTALLATION BADGE REQUEST FORM

G FORT BRAGG SEEDING SPECIFICATIONS

G-1 SECTION 02921FB – EROSION CONTROL AND TURF SEEDING

G-2 SECTION 02936 – TURF-BERMUDA GRASS SEEDING (FOR FORT BRAGG AND POPE AFB)

H SUSTAINABILITY GUIDANCE

I UTILITY RATES

J FORT BRAGG IGI&S NON-DISCLOSURE/DATA SHARING AGREEMENT FOR GIS DATA

K FORT BRAGG PLANT LIST

L USANEC INSTALLATION DESIGN CRITERIA FOR FORT BRAGG SPECIFIC

COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

M FORT BRAGG NEC LABELING SCHEME

N FORT BRAGG INTERIOR FINISH STANDARDS

O TELECOM ROOM REQUIREMENTS

P FORT BRAGG ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN

Q FORT BRAGG TRAFFIC CONTROL AND WORKZONE SAFETY POLICY

R BASIS OF DESIGN PRODUCT DATA SHEETS

S TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERIOR INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING & DESIGN

T ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY RECORD CARD TEMPLATE

U ELECTRICAL SERVICE LOAD CALCULATIONS

V SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS

W MATERIAL RECYCLE/DIVERSION/DISPOSAL REPORTING FORM

X PEARSON VUE GOVERNMENT CENTER PVTC TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

Y FORT BRAGG TYPICAL SECTIONS

Z PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS (PNG) SPECIFICATION

AA GEOTHERMAL CONDUCTIVY TEST

BB DPW TRAFFIC ENGINEERING INSTALLATION DESIGN GUIDELINES

CC TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT & AV EQUIPMENT (SEE VOLUME 3 OF 3)

--END OF SECTION--

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

SOF Combat Medic Training Facility PN# 85958

Fort Bragg, NC

APPENDIX A

PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION &

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PRELIMINARY

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

AND

SOF COMBAT MEDIC TRAINING FACILITY

L.I. 85958, FY-17

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

By

Soils Section

Geotechnical & HTRW Branch

U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah

July 2017

Table of Contents

Section Page

1. PURPOSE

2. QUALIFICATION OF REPORT

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

a. Site Reconnaissance

b. Field Exploration

c. Review of available USDA NRCS soils data

5. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

a. Site Description

b. Regional and Site Geology

c. Subsurface Conditions

d. Groundwater Conditions

e. Seasonal High Water Table and Infiltration Rates

6. ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

a. General

b. Site Preparation

c. Foundation Design and Construction

d. Seismic Design

e. Concrete Slabs-On-Grade

f. Pavement Design

g. Groundwater and Surface-Water Considerations

h. Structural Fill

i. Construction Quality Control Testing

j. Drawings

k. Specifications

7. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT

ATTACHMENT A: Soil Boring Location Plan

ATTACHMENT B: Soil Boring Logs

ATTACHMENT C: USDA NRCS Soils Report

PRELIMINARY

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND

1. PURPOSE

The Government has conducted a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed 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 design-build 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 Combat Medic Training Facility project consists of the design, site preparation, and construction of a 32,900 square foot (SF) vertical structure to house a laboratory instructional facility comprised of classrooms, test center, reference library, administrative area, conference room, break area, supply and storage areas, male and female shower and locker rooms, and an elevator. Supporting facilities include all related site-work and utilities (electrical, water, gas, sanitary sewer, and information systems distribution), lighting, parking, access drives, roads, hardstands, curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm drainage, landscaping, and other site improvements. The project includes the demolition of existing facilities as part of the site preparation. Since the project will be constructed under a design-build contract, detailed structural information for the proposed building is unavailable. The design-build construction contractor shall be responsible for final connections to all site utilities (including connections from new utilities to existing utilities) unless otherwise specified in the RFP specification.

Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report July 2017

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 five soil borings, with standard penetration tests (SPT) performed in all of these borings (A-1 through A-5). The soil borings, drilled to depths ranging from 10 to 60 feet, were drilled at the approximate locations shown on the Soil Boring Plan in Attachment A of this report.

(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 be considered approximate.

(3) The SPT soil borings were drilled by the Savannah District utilizing a rubber tire truck-mounted Mobile B-60 drill rig that was equipped with an automatic hammer and used hollow stem augers with a 41⁄4-inch inside diameter (I.D.) to advance the boreholes. Split-barrel sampling with standard penetration testing was performed at intervals shown on the boring logs.

All soil sampling and standard penetration testing were in accordance with ASTM D 1586. In the standard penetration test, a soil sample is obtained with a standard 13⁄8-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 lb. 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) Soil classifications shown on the boring logs were determined in the field by a geologist. Classification of the soil samples was performed in accordance with ASTM D 2488

(Visual-Manual Procedure for Descriptions 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 soil borings graphically depicting soil descriptions, N-values, and observed groundwater levels are included in Attachment B of this report.

c. Review of available USDA NRCS soils data

Prior to initiating the abovementioned field investigation, a web soil survey for

Cumberland County, North Carolina was obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) website. The web soil survey report was used to obtain an overview of possible soil map units that located within the project area, and it is included as Attachment C of this report.

5. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

a. Site Description

The SOF Combat Medic Training Facility is proposed to be sited on approximately 1.7 acres in the southern portion of the cantonment area of Fort Bragg, NC. Beginning approximately 110 yards north, and occupying mostly the northwestern quadrant, of the intersection between Kedenburg Street and Bastogne Street. The site presents a varied landscape with most of the project limits covered by woody vegetation consisting of trees spread roughly

25 to 50 feet apart and measuring approximately 15 to 22 inches in diameter mid chest level.

There is also a portion of Bastogne Street that cuts through the project limits, accounting for a very small portion of the site that is void of any vegetation. The topography of the site slopes generally to the northeast, with approximate elevations over the entire site varying from 248 to

225 feet mean sea level and with the highest elevations to the southwest.

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 area, ranging from oldest to youngest, include the Carolina

Slate Belt rocks, which are the basement rocks, 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 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) Field classification of the samples obtained from soil borings drilled at the project site indicate the area’s subsurface to be comprised primarily of sands with varying amounts of fines. Most of the soil samples recovered were field classified as silty sand, clayey sand or poorly graded sand (SM, SC or SP respectively), and a few of them exhibited sufficient fines-content to be field classified as lean clay or fat clay (CL or CH respectively). Based on N-values observed, the subsurface soils at this location are of varied in-situ densities and consistencies.

Very loose sands and loose sands, with N-values in the ranges of 0 to 4 and 4 to 10 blows per foot (bpf) respectively, were encountered at random depths in the various borings. These very loose and loose sands are randomly interbedded with sands of medium density with N-values in the range of 10 to 30 bpf. The very loose, loose , and medium dense sands are also randomly interbedded with clays of soft, medium stiff, or stiff consistencies with N-values in the ranges of

2 to 4, 4 to 8, or 8 to 15 bpf respectively.

(2) The above subsurface description is 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 are 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.

(3) According to the USDA NRCS web soil survey report for the project site, the site is characterized by the following soil types; 56% Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes (BaB), 23.8% Lakeland-Urban land complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes (LbB), and 20.2% Wagram-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes (WgB). Per the soil report, these soil map units typically exhibit the following profiles:

Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes (BaB)

Lakeland-Urban land complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes (LbB)

Wagram-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes (WgB)

0 to 4 inches: loamy sand

4 to 25 inches: loamy sand

25 to 62 inches: sandy clay loam

62 to 80 inches: loamy coarse sand

** Depth to groundwater: more than 80 inches

0 to 6 inches: sand

6 to 48 inches: sand

48 to 80 inches: sand

** Depth to groundwater:

more than 80 inches

0 to 8 inches: loamy sand

8 to 24 inches: loamy fine sand

24 to 75 inches: sandy clay loam

75 to 83 inches: sandy loam

** Depth to groundwater: 60 to 80 inches

The general soil profiles described by the USDA NRCS web soil survey report roughly correlate with the sandy soils with varying amounts of fines and the clays that were observed during the subsurface investigation.

d. Groundwater Conditions

(1) Water levels were measured in all of the boreholes during drilling and at the completion of drilling. Typically when groundwater is encountered during drilling, a temporary piezometer is installed in the bore hole to mitigate cave-in, and water level measurements are made 24 hours after termination of drilling. In such instances, the 24-hour water level is generally considered the true groundwater level. Out of the five soil borings that were performed for this investigation, groundwater was encountered in three soil borings (borings A-1, A-2, and

A-3) at the following depths, approximate elevations, and indicated intervals after drilling:

Boring

No.

Boring

Depth

(ft)

0 hrs After Drilling 24 hrs After Drilling

Water Table

Depth

(ft)

Water Table

Elevation

(ft)

Water Table

Depth

(ft)

Water Table

Elevation

(ft)

A-1 35 14.42 219 14.7 218.8

A-2 35 13.2 217.3 13.3 217.2

A-3 60 19.5 217 18.7 217.8

A-4 10 --- --- --- ---

A-5 10 --- --- --- ---

Note: --- indicates water table not encountered

(2) A perched-water condition occurs when water seeping downward is slowed by a low permeability soil layer, such as clayey sand or clay, and saturates the more permeable soil above

it. The perched-water level can be any number of feet above the true groundwater level. Due to the prevalence of interbedded poorly graded sands, silty sands, clayey sands, and clays at the project site, the successful design-build contractor should expect to encounter perched water 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 and Infiltration Rates

(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 observed, at atmospheric pressure, for anaerobic conditions to be established. In the southeastern

United States, this typically occurs during periods of sustained precipitation such as the winter or spring. The SHWT is estimated by soil color, redoximorphic features, saturation observations, and professional assessment.

(2) At this stage in the project’s design, the locations of the project’s storm water management structures are yet to be finalized. Per the NRCS web soil survey report, one of the soil map units identified at the site typically exhibits groundwater at a depth of 60 to 80 inches, and the other two soil map units typically exhibit groundwater at a depth in excess of 80 inches below the ground surface. Based on the SPT borings and the NRCS web soil survey report, and depending on what portion of the site is being considered, the SHWT should be considered to be at a depth of 5 feet below ground surface or at a depth in excess of 6.5 feet below the ground surface. Final evaluation of the SHWT and any recommendations for the storm water features shall be confirmed by the Contractor’s consulting geotechnical engineer.

6. ENGINEERING 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. Site Preparation

(1) Following clearing and removal of trees, structures, pavement, etc., the construction area should be grubbed and stripped of all vegetation, topsoil, organics, and other deleterious materials. Clean topsoil can be stockpiled and reused in landscaped areas. It is recommended that the zone of stripping extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the outer edges of structures and pavements. Any utilities in the project area should be located and rerouted, as necessary.

(2) Areas to receive fill and excavated subgrade areas of buildings and pavements should be prepared as follows. Surface areas containing poorly graded sands or silty sands should be densified by compaction of a vibratory roller weighing at least 7 tons. Areas of cohesive soils such as clayey sands and clays should be proof rolled with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck or similar rubber-tired equipment. Soils which are observed to rut or deflect excessively under the moving loads should be undercut to firm soil and backfilled with properly compacted, suitable soils. The proof rolling should be performed only during and following a period of dry weather.

c. Foundation Design and Construction

(1) Given the proposed site and the proposed structures, shallow spread foundations can most likely be used for support of the proposed buildings. However, the contractor’s consulting geotechnical engineer must determine the appropriate foundation system for the proposed structures and evaluate any impacts of the very loose and loose sands and soft clays that were encountered at various depths as indicated on the attached soil boring logs. The foundation design shall provide an adequate level of protection against structural failure due to uniform and/or differential foundation settlement or general shear.

(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 concrete.

d. Seismic Design

Seismic loads should be computed in accordance with the 2015 International Building

Code (IBC 2015) section 1613. Seismic site class should be evaluated using the criteria given in the ASCE Standard 7-10 - Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures - Chapter

20. The contractor’s consulting geotechnical engineer shall make the final determination of the mapped acceleration parameters, the site class, the site coefficients and adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters, the design spectral response acceleration parameters, and the seismic design category to be used for seismic design of the project.

e. Concrete Slabs-On-Grade

(1) Based upon past experience and the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, concrete floor slabs can 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 groundwater. Nos. 57, 67, 78, or 89 stone could be used. It is also recommended that a moisture vapor barrier consisting of lapped polyethylene sheeting having a minimum thickness of 10 mils be provided 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. Therefore, the slab subgrade soil shall 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 soil is revealed, the affected soil should be removed to firm bearing. The unstable soil shall then be replaced to design subgrade with suitable structural fill soil placed and compacted as recommended or replaced with additional capillary water barrier material.

f. Pavement Design

The contractor’s consulting geotechnical engineer must determine the appropriate

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and modulus to be utilized in the design of pavements. Since a final site grading plan for the project has yet to be developed at the time of this report, it is not certain where pavements will be located nor what soil types will be in the subgrades. The contractor’s consulting geotechnical engineer shall also provide recommendations regarding the treatment and handling of plastic soils that could be encountered in the subgrades of pavements.

g. Groundwater and Surface-Water Considerations

Due to the presence of clayey sand and clay layers in the subsurface soils at the project site, perched-water conditions could be encountered, and the accumulation of run-off water or seepage at the base of excavations may 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. It is recommended that the contractor have appropriate disc harrows on site during earthwork for mixing, drying, and wetting of the soils.

(2) 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 (USCS) (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.

(3) Suitable fill soils should be placed in lifts of maximum eight 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 four inches loose measurement.

(4) Cut or fill slopes should not be steeper than 3.0H:1.0V. Fill slopes should be compacted in horizontal lifts not to exceed 8 inches in loose thickness as fill is placed.

(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 recommended to perform at least one density test 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.

(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 shall 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. 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 additional soil boring logs, records of additional alternative subsurface investigations, and laboratory soils test data on the final design drawings and on the as-built drawings.

k. Specifications

It is recommended that the design-build contractor use the Savannah District’s

EARTHWORK specification 31 00 00 when editing the specifications for this project. It is also recommended that the design-build contractor use the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications

CHEMICAL TERMITE CONTROL Specification 31 31 16.13. These specifications and associated compaction figures, are available at the following website:

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

A SpecsIntact format of the specifications can be obtained by following the instructions provided at the above website.

7. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT

A final geotechnical evaluation report shall be prepared by the contractor’s licensed geotechnical engineer and submitted along with the first foundation design submittal. The geotechnical report shall summarize the subsurface conditions and provide recommendations for the design of appropriate foundations, floor slabs, retaining walls, embankments, roadways, and pavements. Additionally, the report shall evaluate and mitigate the impacts of the very loose and loose sands and the soft clays that were encountered at various depths in the subsurface of the project site. The report shall recommend the type of foundation system to be used, lateral load resistance capacities for foundation systems, and 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, and 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, seasonal high water table levels, soil infiltration rates, expected groundwater levels, and recommendations for dewatering and groundwater control. The report must also identify the 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.

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

ATTACHMENT A

Soil Boring Location Plan

A-1 A-2

A-3

A-4 A-5

ESSAYONS

ST

KEDENBURG ST

BASTOGNE ST

BA

ST

OG

NE

ST

260 24

DATE: JUNE 2016 FIGURE: 1

PN 85958 (FY 17 -

SOF Combat Medic

Training Facility

SOIL BORING LOCATION MAP

Fort Bragg, NC

Legend !< Soil Boring

Proposed Building Footprint

Construction Limit

Topo-Major (5')

Topo-Minor

U.S. ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

SAVANNAH DISTRICT

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

0 100 20050

Feet

Document Path: G:\EN-GS\FT BRAGG\FY17\PN_85958_SOF Combat Medic Training Facility\Drawings\PN85958_boringloc.mxd

NOTE:

B-XX = Soil Boring Location (All borings were either staked and/or marked with paint) Imagery Date: 19 June 2014

ATTACHMENT B

Soil Boring Logs

233.4

231.5

219.9

215.0

209.3

0.1

2.0

13.6

18.5

24.2

Dry, No topsoil present, likely fill material on surface.

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SM), light brown, fine to medium grained, dry, little silt, trace clay.

CLAYEY SAND (SC), light tan, fine to medium grained, dry, some clay, trace mica, light red clay lenses.

LEAN CLAY (CL), dark gray, dry, low plasticity, trace silt, and sand, Trace mica.

FAT CLAY (CH), dark gray to light brown, moist, medium plasticity.

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), light yellow and red, wet, medium plasticity, few sand.

John Haskew

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

2/25/17

SHEETSDRILLING LOG

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

A-1

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

South Atlantic Division

See Remarks

2/25/17

N/A

14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEET

Ft. Bragg

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

Mobile B-60

BEARING

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

4 1/4" ID Hollow Stem Auger

INSTALLATION

10 0

INCLINED

USACE, Savannah District

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

NAD83Combat Medic Training Facility - PN85958 FY17

>35'

0'

35'

N 502074.7 E 2003650

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

Jeff Schwindaman, Geologist

233.5' (estimated from plans)

State Plane

Boring Designation A-1 SHEET 1 of 2

REMARKS

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p N o.

REC

Boring Designation A-1

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

E N

D

DEPTH

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V al ue

Water Level Data Reading Depth Notes

205.0

198.5

28.5

35.0

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light tan to reddish brown, poorly graded, subangular, medium to coarse grained, wet, few gravel, trace silt, quartz and feldspar fragments.

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 35.0 ft Notes:

1. Soils visually field classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

2. N-Value: Total blows over last 1.0-foot of 1.5-foot driven interval, unless otherwise indicated, using a 1-3/8-inch ID splitspoon sampler with 140-pound hammer falling 30-inches.

3. The Mobile B-60 drill rig utilizes an automatic trip hammer.

During drilling 14.42 2/25/2017 24 hours 14.7 2/26/2017

ELEVATION TOP OF BORINGLOCATION COORDINATES

DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet)

NAD83

N 502074.7 E 2003650

INSTALLATION

233.5' (estimated from plans)

Combat Medic Training Facility - PN85958 FY17

SHEETS

HORIZONTAL VERTICALPROJECT

SHEET

OFFt. Bragg

COORDINATE SYSTEM

State Plane NAVD88

Boring Designation A-1 SHEET 2 of 2

REMARKS

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p N o.

REC

Boring Designation A-1

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

E N

D

DEPTH

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V

3 &

5 &

230.2

228.5

226.3

223.0

221.7

215.9

0.3

2.0

4.2

7.5

8.8

14.6

Dry, Topsoil.

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), reddish yellow, Poorly Graded, fine grained, trace clay lenses.

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), light pinkish white and light gray, medium plasticity, medium toughness, some very fine sand lenses, trace root debris.

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light tan, poorly graded, fine grained, trace clay.

Light reddish gray, poorly graded, fine grained.

CLAYEY SAND (SC), very light gray with dark purpleish gray, fine grained, little clay.

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), light pinkish white and light gray, medium plasticity, medium toughness, Some interbedded fine poorly graded sand seams.

CLAYEY SAND (SC), brownish yellow with very light gray, poorly graded, fine to medium grained, wet, Trace iron staining.

John Haskew

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

2/23/17

SHEETSDRILLING LOG

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

A-2

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

South Atlantic Division

See Remarks

2/23/17

N/A

14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEET

Ft. Bragg

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

Mobile B-60

BEARING

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

4 1/4" ID Hollow Stem Auger

INSTALLATION

10 0

INCLINED

USACE, Savannah District

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

NAD83Combat Medic Training Facility - PN85958 FY17

>35'

0'

35'

N 502077.3 E 2003839.05

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

Michael Loveland, Geologist

230.5' (estimated from plans)

State Plane

Boring Designation A-2 SHEET 1 of 2

REMARKS

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p N o.

REC

Boring Designation A-2

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

E N

D

DEPTH

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V

Set temporary PVC piezometer to 35 with 5 ft screen. WL measured in piezometer.

Water Level Data Reading Depth Notes

197.0

195.5

33.5

35.0

CLAYEY SAND (SC), brownish yellow with very light gray, poorly graded, fine to medium grained, wet, Trace iron staining. (continued)

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light brown, poorly graded, fine to medium grained, trace silt.

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 35.0 ft Notes:

1. Soils visually field classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

2. N-Value: Total blows over last 1.0-foot of 1.5-foot driven interval, unless otherwise indicated, using a 1-3/8-inch ID splitspoon sampler with 140-pound hammer falling 30-inches.

3. The Mobile B-60 drill rig utilizes an automatic trip hammer.

End of day 13.2 2/23/2017 24 hours 13.3 2/24/2017 After drilling 13.2 2/23/2017

ELEVATION TOP OF BORINGLOCATION COORDINATES

DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet)

NAD83

N 502077.3 E 2003839.05

INSTALLATION

230.5' (estimated from plans)

Combat Medic Training Facility - PN85958 FY17

SHEETS

HORIZONTAL VERTICALPROJECT

SHEET

OFFt. Bragg

COORDINATE SYSTEM

State Plane NAVD88

Boring Designation A-2 SHEET 2 of 2

REMARKS

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p N o.

REC

Boring Designation A-2

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

E N

D

DEPTH

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V

5 &

8 &

236.0

234.5

229.2

227.0

223.0

217.8 217.3

213.0

207.2

0.5

2.0

7.3

9.5

13.5

18.7 19.2

23.5

29.3

Dry, Topsoil.

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light brown, poorly graded, fine grained.

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), light pinkish white and light gray, medium plasticity, medium toughness, trace root debris, with some fine poorly graded sand seams.

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light brown with orangeish red, poorly graded, fine grained, trace silt.

SILTY LEAN CLAY (CL), light gray with light brownish red, low plasticity, high toughness, trace very fine sand strata or lenses, trace root debris.

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light brown to light gray, poorly graded, fine grained, trace clay.

FAT CLAY (CH), very light gray, wet, high plasticity, medium toughness.

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light brown to light gray, poorly graded, fine grained, trace clay.

SILTY FAT CLAY (CH), light gray, medium plasticity, high toughness, trace fine sand.

CLAYEY SAND (SC), very light gray with dark purpleish gray, poorly graded, fine grained, trace mica.

CLAYEY SAND, brownish yellow with very light gray, poorly graded, fine to medium grained, trace clay strata

John Haskew

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

2/24/17

SHEETSDRILLING LOG

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

A-3

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

South Atlantic Division

See Remarks

2/24/17

N/A

14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEET

Ft. Bragg

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

Mobile B-60

BEARING

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

4 1/4" ID Hollow Stem Auger

INSTALLATION

15 0

INCLINED

USACE, Savannah District

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

NAD83Combat Medic Training Facility - PN85958 FY17

>60'

0'

60'

N 502027.06 E 2003725.74

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

Michael Loveland, Geologist

236.5' (estimated from plans)

State Plane

Boring Designation A-3 SHEET 1 of 2

REMARKS

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p N o.

REC

Boring Designation A-3

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

E N

D

DEPTH

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V

Water Level Data Reading Depth Notes

193.0

177.1 176.5

43.5

59.4 60.0 or lenses, trace iron staining.

CLAYEY SAND (SC), very light gray with dark purpleish gray, poorly graded, fine grained, trace mica. (continued)

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light brown, poorly graded, fine to medium grained, wet, trace silt.

SILTY LEAN CLAY (CL), light purpleish brown, low plasticity, high toughness, trace fine sand.

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 60.0 ft Notes:

1. Soils visually field classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

2. N-Value: Total blows over last 1.0-foot of 1.5-foot driven interval, unless otherwise indicated, using a 1-3/8-inch ID splitspoon sampler with 140-pound hammer falling 30-inches.

3. The Mobile B-60 drill rig utilizes an automatic trip hammer.

During drilling 19.5 2/24/2017 24 hours 18.7 2/25/2017

ELEVATION TOP OF BORINGLOCATION COORDINATES

DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet)

NAD83

N 502027.06 E 2003725.74

INSTALLATION

236.5' (estimated from plans)

Combat Medic Training Facility - PN85958 FY17

SHEETS

HORIZONTAL VERTICALPROJECT

SHEET

OFFt. Bragg

COORDINATE SYSTEM

State Plane NAVD88

Boring Designation A-3 SHEET 2 of 2

REMARKS

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p N o.

REC

Boring Designation A-3

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

E N

D

DEPTH

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V

Water Level Data Reading Depth Notes

238.8

232.5 231.9

230.0 229.6 229.0

0.2

6.5 7.1

9.0 9.4 10.0

Dry, Topsoil, dark gray, sandy, root debris, rock fragments.

SILTY SAND (SM), orangeish brown to light orangeish tan, subangular, medium grained, little silt, few clay, Clay nodules and rock fragments.

CLAYEY SAND (SC), light orangeish brown, fine to medium grained, little clay, few silt.

SILTY SAND (SM), light tan, subangular, medium grained, little silt, few clay.

CLAYEY SAND (SC), pale brownish tan, fine to medium grained, little clay.

LEAN CLAY (CL), light gray, medium plasticity, few sand.

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 10.0 ft Notes:

1. Soils visually field classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

2. N-Value: Total blows over last 1.0-foot of 1.5-foot driven interval, unless otherwise indicated, using a 1-3/8-inch ID splitspoon sampler with 140-pound hammer falling 30-inches.

3. The Mobile B-60 drill rig utilizes an automatic trip hammer.

During drilling not encountered 2/28/2017

John Haskew

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

2/28/17

SHEETSDRILLING LOG

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

A-4

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

South Atlantic Division

See Remarks

2/28/17

N/A

14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEET

Ft. Bragg

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-750

BEARING

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

4 1/4" ID Hollow Stem Auger

INSTALLATION

5 0

INCLINED

USACE, Savannah District

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

NAD83Combat Medic Training Facility - PN85958 FY17

>10'

0'

10'

N 501947.3 E 2003593

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

Jeff Schwindaman, Geologist

239' (estimated from plans)

State Plane

Boring Designation A-4 SHEET 1 of 1

REMARKS

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p N o.

REC

Boring Designation A-4

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

E N

D

DEPTH

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V

Water Level Data Reading Depth Notes

235.8 235.6

233.2 232.5

229.5

228.0

226.0

0.2 0.4

2.8 3.5

6.5

8.0

10.0

Dry, Topsoil, root debris.

SILTY SAND (SM), dark orange to gray, fine to medium grained, little silt, few clay.

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), orange, poorly graded, fine to medium grained.

LEAN CLAY (CL), gray to orange, medium plasticity, trace sand.

CLAYE…