PN79443_RTA_V2_APPENDICES.pdf

RFP No. W912PM18R0003

SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)

PN 79443

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Specifications - Volume 2 of 3 Appendices

September 2018

HPTC BR79443

Ft. Bragg, NC

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 – PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS(Volume 1 of 2) Standard Form 1442

00 10 00 Solicitation 00 21 16 Instructions to Proposers 00 45 00 Representations and Certifications 00 70 00 Conditions of the Contract 00 73 00 Supplementary Conditions

SPECIFICATIONS DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Volume 1 of 2)

01 10 00.10 38 SUPPLEMENTARY SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 11 00.01 01 11 00.02 01 11 00.03 01 11 00.04 01 11 00.05 01 11 00.06 01 32 01 01 33 00 01 33 16 01 33 29 01 35 26 01 42 00 01 45 00.00 10 01 45 00.15 10 01 45 35 01 50 00 01 57 19 01 57 19.00 37 01 74 19 01 78 00 01 78 23 02 41 00

SITE, CIVIL, UTILITIES, AND LANDSCAPING SUMMARY OF WORK

ARCHITECTURAL AND INTERIOR DESIGN SUMMARY OF WORK

STRUCTURAL SUMMARY OF WORK

MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING SUMMARY OF WORK

FIRE PROTECTION SUMMARY OF WORK

ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS SUMMARY OF WORK

PROJECT SCHEDULE

SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

DESIGN DATA (DESIGN AFTER AWARD)

SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING

GOVERNMENT SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS

QUALITY CONTROL

RESIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTOR MODE (RMS CM)

SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

INDOOR AIR QUALITY (IAQ) MANAGEMENT

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT

CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

DEMOLITION

APPENDICES (Volume 2 of 2)

APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

APPENDIX B SOCOM RESIDENT OFFICE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL POLICIES

APPENDIX C ENVIRONMENTAL

APPENDIX D HYDRANT FLOW TEST DATA

APPENDIX E FORT BRAGG, NC WEATHER DATA

APPENDIX F FORT BRAGG INSTALLATION DESIGN GUIDE

APPENDIX G PATRIOT POINT ARCHITECTURAL COLORS AND MATERIALS

APPENDIX H HPTC PLANNING TOOL BASELINE

APPENDIX I UTILITY RATES AND CHARGES

APPENDIX J TOTAL DESIGN ANALYSIS EXAMPLE FORMAT

APPENDIX K CONTRACTOR INSTALLATION DESIGN CRITERIA (IDC) FOR FORT BRAGG

SPECIFIC COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS FORT

APPENDIX L BRAGG TELECOM EQUIPMENT LABELING SCHEMATIC

APPENDIX M USASOC G6 DESIGN PACKAGE - TELECOM ROOM LAYOUTS, RACK

ELEVATIONS, AND DETAILS

APPENDIX N TELECOM ROOM REQUIREMENTS

APPENDIX O LEED v4 UNREGISTERED PROJECT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS PERMIT

APPENDIX P LIST AND FORMS

APPENDIX Q USASOC VTC PRODUCT DESIGN GUIDE

APPENDIX R EQUIPMENT LIST

APPENDIX S VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY

APPENDIX T USASOC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) TECHNICAL DESIGN GUIDE

APPENDIX U ASBESTOS SURVEY

APPENDIX V IDG PRACTICAL PLANTINGS LIST

APPENDIX W YARBOROUGH COMPLEX AT PATRIOT POINT TOTAL DESIGN ANALYSIS

APPENDIX X FAA INSTRUCTIONS-NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR

ALTERATION

-- End of Project Table of Contents –

SOF Human Performance Training Center, FY-18, PN 79443, Ft. Bragg, NC.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

REPORT

PRELIMINARY

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

AND

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

SOF Human Performance Training Center

L.I. 79443, FY-18

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

By Soils Section

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

March 2018

Table of Contents

Section Page

1. PURPOSE

2. QUALIFICATION OF REPORT

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

a. Site Reconnaissance

b. Field Exploration

c. Infiltration Testing

d. 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 Properties

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: Subsurface Exploration Location Plan ATTACHMENT B: Subsurface Explorations’ Logs ATTACHMENT C: Soil Percolation and Infiltration Data ATTACHMENT D: USDA NRCS Soils Report

PRELIMINARY

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)

L.I. 79443, FY-18

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

1. PURPOSE

The Government has conducted a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC) 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 proposed SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC) project consists of the design and construction of a 57,050 square foot (SF) HPTC. The building is required to be constructed with concrete and steel columns and beams with metal deck and concrete floors, and the structure’s exterior is required to consist of masonry with stone-front glazing. Since the project will be constructed under a design-build contract, detailed structural information for the proposed building is unavailable. The project’s supporting facilities include all related site-work and utilities to include electrical, water, gas, sanitary sewer, and information systems distribution, security lighting, privately owned vehicle parking, access drives, roads, curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm drainage and treatment structures, signage, landscaping, and other site improvements. 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 March 2018

L.I. 79443, FY-18

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 and eight cone penetration test (CPT) soundings. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed in three of the soil borings (B-01 through B-03), while the remaining soil borings (SHWT-01, PT-01 and PT-

02) were simply advanced for the soils to be examined for indications of prior saturation conditions and infiltration properties. The soil borings were drilled to depths ranging from 11 to 25 feet and the CPT soundings were pushed to depths ranging from 15 to 81 feet at the approximate locations shown on the Subsurface Exploration Location 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 borings were drilled by Froehling & Robertson, Inc. of Raleigh, North

Carolina, under contract to the Savannah District. The borings were drilled using an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) CME 550 drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer and using a 2.25-inch inside diameter (I.D.) hollow stem auger to advance the boreholes. Split-barrel sampling with standard penetration testing was performed at intervals shown on the boring logs. All soil sampling in the SPT borings was in accordance with ASTM D 1586. In SPT borings, a soil sample (splitspoon sample) is obtained with a standard 1 3/8-inch I.D. by 2-inch outside diameter (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) The soil auger borings (SHWT-01, PT-01, and PT-02) were also performed by Froehling & Robertson, Inc. of Raleigh, North Carolina, under contract to the Savannah District, using a 31⁄4-inch diameter continuous flight spiral auger. Cuttings from the auger borings were first examined by a geotechnical engineer for indications of a seasonal high water table, and then soil percolation tests were conducted in borings PT-01 and PT-02.

L.I. 79443, FY-18

(5) 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.

(6) 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, truck-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 penetration induced pore water pressure at two-centimeter intervals. At CPT-08, shear wave velocity measurements were obtained at one-meter intervals. 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 logs of the CPT soundings depicting cone tip resistances, sleeve friction, pore pressures, friction ratio, equivalent N60, shear wave velocities, and soil behavior types; are also included in Attachment B. Interpretation of the Equivalent N60 values shown on the CPT logs was performed using the Rapid CPT software module developed by Data Forensics and run as part of the gINT software application. The soil stratigraphic profiles in the CPT logs represent 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.

c. Infiltration Testing

(1) Two soil percolation tests were conducted at discrete locations and depths where storm water management features were anticipated at the time of the field investigation - to the north of the project site. Test locations are identified on the Subsurface Exploration Location Plan in Attachment A of this report. The percolation tests were done in accordance with USACE SAD DM 110-1-1 July 1983 chapter 20. Soil percolation rates measured in the tests were converted to infiltration rates using the Michigan method.

(2) The Michigan method uses an area reduction factor (Rf) to account for the exfiltration occurring through the sides of a percolation hole. It assumes that the percolation rate is affected by the depth of water in the hole and that the percolating surface of the hole is in uniform soil. The Michigan method could thus be used to convert soil percolation rates to infiltration rates as follows:

Infiltration Rate = Percolation Rate

Reduction Factor

L.I. 79443, FY-18

where Reduction Factor (R𝑓)is given by: R𝑓 = 2𝑑1−Δd

𝐷𝐼𝐴

+ 1 and:

d1 = initial water depth (in.)

Δd = water level drop (in.)

DIA = diameter of the percolation hole (in.)

Results of the soil percolation tests and the computed infiltration rates are included in Attachment C.

d. Review of available USDA NRCS soils data Prior to initiating the abovementioned field investigation, a soil survey for Cumberland

County, North Carolina was obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) website. The report was used to obtain an overview of possible soil series located within the project area, and it is included as Attachment D of this report.

5. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

a. Site Description The SOF HPTC is proposed to be sited on approximately 8.5 acres in the northern central portion of the Yarborough Complex of Fort Bragg, NC. The Yarborough Complex consists of approximately 600 acres of land on the southeastern boundary of Fort Bragg, NC, jutting into nearby Fayetteville, NC. This area was previously the location of an Ammunition Supply Point that has been relocated. Within the last few years the area has undergone, and is still undergoing, considerable urban development; and thus the site for the proposed SOF HPTC is surrounded by ongoing adjacent projects. The project area, located approximately 1500 feet east of the intersection of Eagle Talon Drive and African Lion Boulevard, is bordered to its north by approximately 600 feet of Eagle Talon Drive, and extends southward for approximately 450 feet.

Most of the site is covered with sparse woodlands consisting of trees spread roughly 25 to 50 feet apart. There is a very small portion of the site that is void of any vegetation and consists of remnant portions of a paved road that cuts through the project limits. The topography of the site gently slopes to the southwest with approximate elevations varying from 263 to 251 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 area, ranging from oldest to youngest, include the Carolina

Slate Belt rocks, which are the basement rocks, the Cape Fear Formation, and the Middendorf

L.I. 79443, FY-18

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 of varied gradation and containing varying amounts of fines. The soil samples recovered were field classified as either silty sand or clayey sand (SM or SC respectively). Most of the near-surface soils, encountered within the first 5 feet of the soil borings, are of very loose or loose density based on these soils exhibiting N-values within the range of 0 to 4 and 4 to 10 blows-per-foot respectively. These very loose and loose sands are typically underlain by sands of medium density with N-values in the range of 10 to 30 blows-per-foot that typically extended to the terminations of the borings.

The tip resistance data collected in the CPT soundings correlates with the observations made in the SPT borings, with cone tip resistances typically increasing with depth. The predicted soil behavior types roughly correlate the soil samples collected at corresponding depths, indicating the presence of sandy materials in the subsurface.

(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 soils report for the project site, the site is characterized by the Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes (FaB) soil map unit. Per the report, soils in the FaB soil map unit typically exhibit the following general soil profile:

0 to 7 inches: Loamy sand 7 to 17 inches: Loamy sand 17 to 80 inches: Clay.

L.I. 79443, FY-18

This general soil profile, described by the USDA NRCS soils report, roughly correlates with the sands of varied gradation and containing varying amounts of fines 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. Additionally, groundwater levels were estimated from the penetration induced pore pressure in the CPT soundings. Out of the 13 soil explorations that were performed for this investigation, groundwater was only encountered in 1 CPT sounding. Groundwater was encountered in CPT-08 where the pore pressures measured indicate a groundwater depth of approximately 41-feet.

(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 fine-grained silty sands and clayey sands 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 Properties

(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 the time of this report, the locations of proposed storm water management structures for the HPTC project are yet to be finalized. Per the USDA NRCS WSS report the site’s soil map unit, Faceville loamy sand and Wagram loamy sand, typically exhibits groundwater at a depth in excess of 60 inches below the ground surface. Soil boring SHWT-01 was drilled to a depth of 15 feet and did not encounter evidence of a SHWT. Based on the borings for infiltration testing and the SPT borings, the SHWT should be considered to be at a depth greater than 15 feet below ground surface. This determination roughly correlates with the NRCS soil survey profile for the Faceville loamy sand soil map unit. Final evaluation of the SHWT and any recommendations for the storm water features shall be confirmed by the Contractor’s consulting geotechnical engineer.

L.I. 79443, FY-18

(3) The infiltration tests conducted resulted in the infiltration rates tabulated below. The tests resulted in low infiltration rates as could be expected based on the gradation and fines content of the soils typically encountered in the subsurface of the project site. The data collected during the soil infiltration tests and the computed values of soil infiltration rates are included in Attachment C.

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 or properly abandoned, 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

Infiltration Test

Test Depth (feet)

Infiltration Rate (inches/hour)

PT-01 11 0.02

PT-02 12 0.03

L.I. 79443, FY-18

structures and evaluate any impacts of the very loose and loose soils that were encountered at shallow depths ( 0 – 5 feet) in the attached borings. 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

L.I. 79443, FY-18

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)

L.I. 79443, FY-18

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.

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.

(4) It is recommended for all structural fill and subgrades to be compacted, at a minimum, to dry densities corresponding to 92% of the materials’ maximum dry density at moisture contents within 2% of the materials’ optimum moisture content as obtained by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). The top two feet of all areas to receive pavement or structures should be compacted to 95% of the materials’ Modified Proctor values. The base course beneath paved areas should be compacted to 100% of the materials’ maximum dry density as determined by

ASTM D1557.

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

L.I. 79443, FY-18

(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. The use of the ASTM D6938 - Standard Test Method for In-Place Density and Water Content of Soil and Soil- Aggregate by Nuclear Methods is authorized provided the test results are checked for accuracy at a minimum rate of one ASTM D1556 test for every ten ASTM D6938 tests in the same material.

It is recommend that 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 75 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.

L.I. 79443, FY-18

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. 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

Subsurface Exploration Location Plan

EAGLE TALON DR

B-01

CPT-01 CPT-02

CPT-03

CPT-04

CPT-05

CPT-06

CPT-07

SHWT-01

PT-02

PT-01

B-02

B-03

CPT-08

264262

261261

26025

263 262

259 260

262263

253254

258256

DATE: JAN 2018 FIGURE: 1

PN 79443 (FY 18) -

SOF HPTC

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

LOCATION PLAN

Fort Bragg, NC

U.S. ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

SAVANNAH DISTRICT

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, 0 100 20050

Feet

Document Path: G:\EN-GS\FT BRAGG\FY18\PN_79443_SOF HPTC\Drawings\PN79443Borings.mxd

NOTE:

B-XX = Soil Boring Location PT-XX = Percolation Test SHWT-XX = Seasonal High Water Table CPT-XX = Cone Penetrometer Test Location

Imagery Date: 20 December 2015

Legend Existing Topo Line

ATTACHMENT B

Subsurface Explorations’ Logs

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

Water Level Data Reading Depth Notes

237.5

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, fine to medium grained, very moist, with rootlets, trace clay.

Reddish brown, fine to coarse grained, moist, no rootlets, little clay.

Brownish red, fine to medium grained, moist, little clay.

Brownish red, fine grained, moist, some clay.

Reddish brown, fine to medium grained, very moist, trace clay.

Light gray and light tannish brown, fine to medium grained, very moist, some clay.

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 25.0 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 with 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.

3. The CME 550x drilling rig utilizes an automatic trip hammer.

After drilling Not Encountered 2/2/2018

25.0

Fort Bragg

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

NGVD29

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

CME-550x

BEARING

David Tignor

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

2/2/18

SHEETSDRILLING LOG

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

B-01

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

South Atlantic Division

See Remarks

2/2/18

N/A

14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEET

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

2.25" Hollow Stem Auger

INSTALLATION

8 0

INCLINED

Froehling & Robertson, Inc.

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

NAD83SOF Human Performance Training Center

PN 79443 FY 18

25'

N 484190.66 E 1991071.9

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

Forpu Njikam, Civil (Geotechnical) Engineer

262.5' estimated from plans

State Plane

Boring Designation B-01

Boring Designation B-01 SHEET 1 of 1

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p N o.

REC

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

E N

D

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V al ue

REMARKSDEPTH

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

Water Level Data Reading Depth Notes

237.0

SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, fine to medium grained, very moist, with rootlets.

Reddish brown, fine grained, moist, some clay, few rootlets.

Reddish brown, fine grained, moist, little clay, no rootlets.

Light reddish brown, fine to medium grained, moist, little clay.

Light reddish brown mottled with pale gray, fine grained, moist, some clay.

Orange reddish brown, fine to medium grained, moist, trace clay.

Pale orange reddish brown, fine to medium grained, moist, little clay.

Orangish tan, fine to medium grained, very moist, trace clay.

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 25.0 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 with 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.

3. The CME 550x drilling rig utilizes an automatic trip hammer.

After drilling Not Encountered 2/2/2018

25.0

Fort Bragg

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

NGVD29

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

CME-550x

BEARING

David Tignor

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

2/2/18

SHEETSDRILLING LOG

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

B-02

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

South Atlantic Division

See Remarks

2/2/18

N/A

14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEET

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

2.25" Hollow Stem Auger

INSTALLATION

8 0

INCLINED

Froehling & Robertson, Inc.

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

NAD83SOF Human Performance Training Center

PN 79443 FY 18

25'

N 484155.14 E 1991020.73

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

Forpu Njikam, Civil (Geotechnical) Engineer

262' estimated from plans

State Plane

Boring Designation B-02

Boring Designation B-02 SHEET 1 of 1

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p N o.

REC

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

E N

D

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V al ue

REMARKSDEPTH

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

Water Level Data Reading Depth Notes

236.0

SILTY SAND (SM), grayish brown, fine to coarse grained, very moist, with rootlets, trace clay.

Orangish and reddish brown, fine grained, moist, trace rootlets, little clay.

Reddish and orangish tan, fine to medium grained, moist, no rootlets, little clay.

Orangish and reddish tan, fine grained, very moist, some clay.

Reddish tan, fine to coarse grained, very moist, trace clay.

Reddish and tannish brown, fine grained, very moist, some clay.

Orangish tan, fine to coarse grained, very moist, trace clay.

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 25.0 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 with 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.

3. The CME 550x drilling rig utilizes an automatic trip hammer.

After drilling Not Encountered 2/2/2018 24 hours Not Encountered 2/3/2018

25.0

Fort Bragg

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

NGVD29

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

CME-550x

BEARING

David Tignor

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

2/2/18

SHEETSDRILLING LOG

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

B-03

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

South Atlantic Division

See Remarks

2/2/18

N/A

14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEET

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

2.25" Hollow Stem Auger

INSTALLATION

8 0

INCLINED

Froehling & Robertson, Inc.

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

NAD83SOF Human Performance Training Center

PN 79443 FY 18

25'

N 484230.91 E 1991117.57

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

Forpu Njikam, Civil (Geotechnical) Engineer

261' estimated from plans

State Plane

Boring Designation B-03

Boring Designation B-03 SHEET 1 of 1

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p N o.

REC

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

E N

D

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V al ue

REMARKSDEPTH

Water Level Data Reading Depth Notes

252.0

247.5

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, fine to medium grained, dry, with rootlets, trace clay.

Reddish brown, fine to medium grained, no rootlets, trace clay.

Slightly mottled with gray, few clay clumps.

CLAYEY SAND (SC), brownish gray, fine to medium grained.

BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 15.0 ft

Notes:

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

2. The depth to the seasonal high water table (SHWT) is defined as the highest groundwater observed, at atmospheric pressure, for anaerobic conditions to be established.

3. The SHWT is estimated by soil color, redoximorphic features, saturation observations, and professional assessment.

4. No indications of prolonged saturation and anaerobic conditions were observed in this boring down to termination at a depth of 15', place Seasonal High Water Table at a depth in excess of 15'.

After drilling Not Encountered 2/2/2018

10.5

15.0

Fort Bragg

DISTURBED

6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

STARTEDVERTICAL

1. PROJECT

UNDISTURBED

NGVD29

2. HOLE NUMBER

18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR

CME-550x

BEARING

David Tignor

17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

2/2/18

SHEETSDRILLING LOG

12. TOTAL SAMPLES

13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

SHWT-01

DIVISION

11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

South Atlantic Division

See Remarks

2/2/18

N/A

14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEET

3. DRILLING AGENCY

OF

COMPLETED

15. DATE BORING

DEG FROM

VERTICAL

HORIZONTAL

3.25" spiral auger

INSTALLATION

0 0

INCLINED

Froehling & Robertson, Inc.

4. NAME OF DRILLER

5. DIRECTION OF BORING

9. COORDINATE SYSTEM

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

NAD83SOF Human Performance Training Center

PN 79443 FY 18

15'

N 484345.61 E 1990839.9

LOCATION COORDINATES

16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING

VERTICAL

Forpu Njikam, Civil (Geotechnical) Engineer

262.5' estimated from plans

State Plane

Boring Designation SHWT-01

Boring Designation SHWT-01 SHEET 1 of 1

B lo w s/

0.

ft

R Q

D

S am p N o.

REC

FEB 08

ELEV

LE

G

E N

D

SAS FORM 1836-A

FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

N -V al ue

REMARKSDEPTH

Electronic Filename:

DI-16-CPT-1-A.cpt

Depth (ft)

SOF HPTC, Fort Bragg PN79443 FY 18 Fayetteville, North Carolina

Elevation:

Water Depth:

Total Depth: 25.0 ftProbe ID/Net Area Ratio:

Feb. 6, 2018 Adam Tew USACE, Savannah District

Date:

Operator:

Drilling Agency: DDG1069 / 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

B R

A G

G .G

P J

C O

P Y

T H

IS

T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

/1

/1

Latitude:

Longitude:

36° 59' 41.9068" -76° 58' 56.5586"

1 - sensitive fine grained

2 - organic material

3 - clay

4 - silty clay to clay

5 - sandy silt to clayey silt

6 - sand to silty sand

7 - gravelly sand to sand

8 - very stiff fine grained (*)

9 - sand to clayey sand (*)

1 10 100

Equivalent (N1)60

-60 80 220 360

Pore Pressure u2

(psi)

-60 80 220 360 u0

Depth (ft)

Tip Resistance qt

(tsf)

40 80 120 160

Friction Ratio Rf

2 4 6 8

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 CPT-01

DI-16-CPT-1-B.cpt

Depth (ft)

SOF HPTC, Fort Bragg PN79443 FY…