W912QR20R0057Specs_Vol2-0000.pdf

Solicitation For Fort Campbell Middle School Fort Campbell, KY

P2: 372494

Design Bid Build

Specifications Ready To Advertise (RTA) Volume 2 of 5

29 June 2020

W912QR20R0057

ARIMS: 200A

Disposition: Maintain for 15yrs after construction

W912QR20R0057-0000

Fort Campbell Middle School Fort Campbell, Kentucky

Specifications RTA Submittal

Volume 2 – Division 02

March 11, 2020

Project Number: AM00029 WTS Project Number: 1416-3-C

P2 Number: 372494

FORT CAMPBELL MIDDLE SCHOOL AM00029

FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY 3/11/20

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME ONE

DIVISION 00 – PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 10 00 PRICE BREAKOUT SCHEDULE

00 80 00.00 06 SPECIAL PROVISIONS

APPENDIX ALL ATTACHMENTS

PROJECT SUBMITTAL REGISTER

DIVISION 01 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 03 00 OPTIONS

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 32 01.00 06 PROJECT SCHEDULE

01 33 00.00 06 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 33 29.00 06 SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING

DODEA LEED CHECKLIST

LEED v4 BD+C; SCHOOLS CHECKLIST

01 35 26.00 06 GOVERNMENT SAFETY PROCEDURES

01 42 00 SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS

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

01 45 04.10 06 CONTRACTOR QUALITY CONTROL

01 45 35 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

SCHEDULE OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

01 46 00.10 06 TOTAL BUILDING COMMISSIONING (INDEPENDENT CxA)

01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 57 19.00 06 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS AND PERMITS

STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP)

RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

VOLUME 2

DIVISION 02 – EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 06 14 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

02 26 00 REPORT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

02 41 00 DEMOLITION

02 82 00 ASBESTOS REMEDIATION

02 83 00 LEAD REMEDIATION

02 84 16 HANDLING OF LIGHTING BALLASTS AND LAMPS CONTAINING PCBs AND

MEUCURY

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2

VOLUME 3

DIVISION 03 – CONCRETE

03 11 19.00 06 INSULATING CONCRETE FORM (ICF) SYSTEM

03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

03 35 36 POLISHED CONCRETE FLOOR SYSTEM

DIVISION 04 – MASONRY

04 20 00 UNIT MASONRY

04 26 16 ADHERED MASONRY VENEER

DIVISION 05 – METALS

05 12 00 STRUCTURAL STEEL

05 21 00 STEEL JOIST FRAMING

05 30 00 STEEL DECKS

05 40 00 COLD-FORMED METAL FRAMING

05 50 13 MISCELLANEOUS METAL FABRICATIONS

05 51 00 METAL STAIRS

05 51 33 METAL LADDERS

05 52 00 METAL RAILINGS

DIVISION 06 – WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

06 10 00 ROUGH CARPENTRY

06 20 00 FINISH CARPENTRY

06 41 16.00 10 PLASTIC-LAMINATE-CLAD ARCHITECTURAL CABINETS

06 61 16 SOLID SURFACING FABRICATIONS

DIVISION 07 THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 05 23 PRESSURE TESTING AN AIR BARRIER SYSTEM FOR AIR TIGHTNESS

07 13 53 ELASTOMERIC SHEET WATERPROOFING

07 21 13 BOARD INSULATION

07 21 16 MINERAL FIBER BLANKET INSULATION

07 22 00 ROOF AND DECK INSULATION

07 27 10.00 10 BUILDING AIR BARRIER SYSTEM

07 27 19.01 SELF-ADHERING AIR BARRIERS

07 41 13 METAL ROOF PANELS

07 42 13 METAL WALL PANELS

07 46 00 FIBER REINFORCED CEMENT PANEL VENEER

07 52 00 MODIFIED BITUMINOUS MEMBRANE ROOFING

07 60 00 FLASHING AND SHEET METAL

07 72 00 ROOF ACCESSORIES

07 76 00 PEDESTAL PAVER ROOFING

07 84 00 FIRESTOPPING

07 92 00 JOINT SEALANTS

07 95 13 EXPANSION JOINT COVER ASSEMBLIES

07 95 13.13 INTERIOR EXPANSION JOINT COVER ASSEMBLIES

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3

DIVISION 08 – OPENINGS

08 11 13 STEEL DOORS AND FRAMES

08 14 00 WOOD DOORS

08 17 00 INTEGRATED WOOD DOOR OPENING ASSEMBLIES

08 31 00 ACCESS DOORS AND PANELS

08 33 13 COILING COUNTER DOORS

08 34 73 SOUND CONTROL DOOR ASSEMBLIES

08 41 13 ALUMINUM-FRAMED ENTRANCES AND STOREFRONTS

08 44 00 CURTAIN WALL AND GLAZED ASSEMBLIES

08 44 23.00 22 INSULATED TRANSLUCENT FIBERGLASS SANDWICH PANEL SYSTEM

08 62 50 TUBULAR DAYLIGHTING DEVICES

08 71 00 DOOR HARDWARE

HARDWARE SET SCHEDULE

08 81 00 GLAZING

08 87 23.13 DECORATIVE ARCHITECTURAL FILMS

08 91 00 METAL WALL LOUVERS

DIVISION 09 - FINISHES

09 22 00 SUPPORTS FOR GYPSUM BOARD

09 29 00 GYPSUM BOARD

09 30 10 CERAMIC AND QUARRY TILING

09 51 00 ACOUSTICAL CEILINGS

09 62 38 STATIC CONTROL FLOORING

09 64 53 RESILIENT WOOD FLOORING ASSEMBLIES

09 64 66 WOOD ATHLETIC FLOORING

09 65 00 RESILIENT FLOORING

09 66 53 RESINOUS MATRIX TERRAZZO FLOORING

09 68 00 CARPETING

09 72 00 WALLCOVERINGS

09 78 10 ACOUSTICAL WOOD WALLS

09 84 20 ACOUSTICAL WALL PANELS

09 90 00 PAINTS AND COATINGS

DIVISION 10 – SPECIALTIES

10 11 00 VISUAL DISPLAY UNITS

10 14 00.10 EXTERIOR SIGNAGE

10 14 00.20 INTERIOR SIGNAGE

10 21 13 TOILET COMPARTMENTS

10 21 23.16 CUBICLE TRACK, CURTAIN, AND HARDWARE

10 22 39 FOLDING PANEL PARTITIONS

10 26 00 WALL PROTECTION

10 28 13 TOILET ACCESSORIES

10 44 16 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS

10 51 13 METAL LOCKERS

10 73 26.39 PRE-ENGINEERED CANOPY COVER

10 75 00 FLAGPOLES

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4

DIVISON 11 - EQUIPMENT

11 13 19.13 LOADING DOCK LEVELERS

11 31 13 ELECTRIC KITCHEN EQUIPMENT

11 46 01.06 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT

11 61 43 STAGE CURTAINS

11 66 23 GYMNASIUM EQUIPMENT

11 68 13 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT

DIVISION 12 - FURNISHINGS

12 24 13 ROLLER WINDOW SHADES

12 32 00 WOOD LABORATORY CASEWORK AND COUNTERTOP

12 93 00 SITE FURNISHINGS

DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING EQUIPMENT

14 24 23 HYDRAULIC PASSENGER ELEVATORS

VOLUME 4

DIVISION 21 - FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 13 13.00 10 WET PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, FIRE PROTECTION

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

22 00 00 PLUMBING, GENERAL PURPOSE

22 07 19.00 40 PLUMBING PIPING INSULATION

22 14 29.00 40 SUMP PUMPS

22 31 00 WATER SOFTENERS, CATION-EXCHANGE (SODIUM CYCLE)

22 33 30.00 10 SOLAR WATER HEATING EQUIPMENT

DIVISION 23 - HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC)

23 00 00 AIR SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION, VENTILATION, AND EXHAUST SYSTEMS

23 03 00.00 20 BASIC MECHANICAL MATERIALS AND METHODS

23 05 15 COMMON PIPING FOR HVAC

23 05 48.00 40 VIBRATION AND SEISMIC CONTROLS FOR HVAC PIPING AND

EQUIPMENT

23 05 93 TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR HVAC

23 07 00 THERMAL INSULATION FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

23 09 00 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL FOR HVAC

23 09 13 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL DEVICES FOR HVAC

23 09 23.02 BACNET DIRECT DIGITAL CONTROL FOR HVAC AND OTHER BUILDING

CONTROL SYSTEMS

23 09 93 SEQUENCES OF OPERATION FOR HVAC CONTROL

23 11 25 FACILITY GAS PIPING

23 21 23 HYDRONIC PUMPS

23 23 00 REFRIGERANT PIPING

23 25 00 CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF WATER FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

23 52 00 HEATING BOILERS

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 5

23 64 26 CHILLED, CHILLED-HOT, AND CONDENSER WATER PIPING SYSTEMS

23 65 00 COOLING TOWERS

23 81 00 DECENTRALIZED UNITARY HVAC EQUIPMENT

23 81 47 WATER-LOOP AND GROUND-LOOP HEAT PUMP SYSTEMS

DIVISION 25 - INTEGRATED AUTOMATION

25 05 11.01 CYBERSECURITY FOR FACILITY-RELATED CONTROL SYSTEMS – HVAC

ATTACHMENT – DESIGNER CONTROLS HVAC (CIA L-L-L)

25 05 11.02 CYBERSECURITY FOR FACILITY-RELATED CONTROL SYSTEMS -

PUBLIC ADDRESS, INTERCOMMUNICATION, PROGRAM BELL/MASTER

CLOCK

DESIGNER CONTROLS LIGHTING/PA/INTERCOMMUNICTIONS/PROGRAM

BELL/MASTER CLOCK (CIA L-L-L)

25 05 11.03 CYBERSECURITY FOR FACILITY-RELATED CONTROL SYSTEMS - FIRE

ALARM AND MASS NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS

DESIGNER CONTROLS FIRE ALARM AND MASS NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS

25 05 11.04 CYBERSECURITY FOR FACILITY-RELATED CONTROL SYSTEMS -

ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEMS (ESS)

DESIGNER CONTROLS ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEMS (ESS)

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

26 05 48.00 10 SEISMIC PROTECTION FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT

26 08 00 APPARATUS INSPECTION AND TESTING

26 09 13 ENERGY EFFICIENCY EDUCATION DASHBOARDS

26 20 00 INTERIOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

26 24 13 SWITCHBOARDS

26 28 01.00 10 COORDINATED POWER SYSTEM PROTECTION

26 29 23 VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE SYSTEMS UNDER 600 VOLTS

26 31 00 SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) COMPONENTS

26 32 23.13 HORIZONTAL-AXIS WIND TURBINES

26 41 00 LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEM

26 51 00 INTERIOR LIGHTING

26 55 61 THEATRICAL LIGHTING

26 56 00 EXTERIOR LIGHTING

DIVISION 27 - COMMUNICATIONS

27 10 00 BUILDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLING SYSTEM

27 51 16 RADIO AND PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS

27 51 23.10 INTERCOMMUNICATION SYSTEM

DIVISION 28 - ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 08 10 ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEM ACCEPTANCE TESTING

28 10 05 ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEMS (ESS)

28 31 76 INTERIOR FIRE ALARM AND MASS NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 6

VOLUME 5

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

31 00 00.00 06 EARTHWORK

31 31 16.13 CHEMICAL TERMITE CONTROL

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 05 33 LANDSCAPE ESTABLISHMENT

32 11 23 AGGREGATE BASE COURSES

32 12 16 HOT-MIX ASPHALT (HMA) FOR ROADS

32 13 13.06 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT FOR ROADS AND SITE

FACILITIES

32 16 19 CONCRETE CURBS, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS

32 17 23 PAVEMENT MARKINGS

32 18 16.13 PLAYGROUND PROTECTIVE SURFACING

32 31 22 METAL DECORATIVE FENCING

32 92 23 SODDING

32 93 00 EXTERIOR PLANTS

DIVISION 33 - UTILITIES

33 11 00 WATER UTILITY DISTRIBUTION PIPING

33 30 00 SANITARY SEWERAGE

33 32 13.13 PACKAGED SEWAGE LIFT STATIONS, WET WELL TYPE

33 40 00 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES

33 71 02 UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION

33 82 00 TELECOMMUNICATIONS OUTSIDE PLANT (OSP)

-- End of Project Table of Contents --

Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Ft. Campbell Middle School

Ft. Campbell, Tennessee August 20, 2018

Revised November 20, 2019 Terracon Project No. 18185035

Prepared for:

GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc.

Virginia Beach, Virginia

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Nashville, Tennessee

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

2.2 Site Location and Description

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Geology

3.2 Typical Profile

3.3 Groundwater

3.4 Infiltration Tests

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

4.2 Earthwork

4.2.1 Site Preparation

4.2.2 Material Requirements

4.2.3 Compaction Requirements

4.2.4 Utility Trench Backfill

4.2.5 Grading and Drainage

4.2.6 Earthwork Construction Considerations

4.3 Foundations

4.3.1 Foundation Design Recommendations

4.3.2 Foundation Construction Considerations

4.4 Floor Slabs

4.4.1 Floor Slab Design Recommendations

4.4.2 Floor Slab Construction Considerations

4.5 Seismic Considerations

4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures

4.7 Pavements

4.7.1 Pavement Design Recommendations

4.7.2 Pavement Construction Considerations

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Boring Location Plan Exhibit A-2 Field Exploration Description Exhibit A-3 to A-24 Boring Logs

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Description Exhibit B-2 to B-5 Laboratory Standard Proctor Tests Results Exhibits B-6 to B-9 Laboratory CBR Tests Results

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-1 General Notes Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System Supporting Documents/ Calculations

Geotechnical Engineering Report-Rev Proposed Ft. Campbell Middle School ■ Ft. Campbell, TN November 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 18185035

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This geotechnical investigation has been performed for the proposed Ft. Campbell Middle School to be constructed at the existing High School facility at 1101 Bastogne Avenue in Fort Campbell Army Post, Tennessee. The new construction will occur within and around the footprint of the existing building after partial demolition of existing school building. Twenty-two (22) borings, were advanced to depths of approximately 10 to 50½ feet below the existing ground surface within the proposed development area. The following geotechnical considerations were identified:

n Beneath the surface topsoil and pavement cover, all borings except P-9 and P-10 encountered about 3½ to 14 feet of existing fill. Most building borings encountered about 6 to 14 feet of fill. The fill predominantly consisted of lean clay with several samples containing some organics or roots at varying depths. Fill contained some wood debris in boring B-2.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values were erratic with some values as low as 0 to 6 bpf. Underlying the existing fill and below the surface cover in borings P-9 and P-10, natural lean clay was encountered to boring termination and/or auger refusal depths. The natural clay is typically medium stiff to stiff but occasionally soft to very soft.

n The lack of fill placement documentation, presence of some organics and some relatively low field penetration test values (SPT N-values as low as 0 to 6 bpf) indicate that fill was placed in an uncontrolled manner without proper compaction and engineering control. At some boring locations fill was directly placed over softer natural soils. These conditions pose a potential risk for excessive foundation, slab and pavement settlement. This risk can be mitigated by removing the existing fill in its entirety and/or ground improvement using stone columns. An undercut/replacement option may not be cost effective in deep fill areas;

therefore, we recommend that ground improvement using stone columns should be performed beneath all foundations to address the existing fill and the underlying soft natural soils.

The floor slab subgrade should also be repaired using stone columns to mitigate excessive settlement risk. It may be possible to partially undercut the existing fill and replace with approved engineered fill provided some risk of higher slab settlement is acceptable in exchange for cost saving for not performing the ground improvement using stone columns. If this option is selected and risk is acceptable, we recommend the existing fill be undercut, as needed, to construct a minimum 2-foot thick “buffer” layer of new engineered fill beneath the slab finished subgrade elevation. Any remaining fill beneath the buffer should be recompacted to a non-yielding state. Any unsuitable soils uncovered or exposed after undercut should be undercut and replaced with new engineered fill. We also recommend the exposed fill subgrade be covered with a high modulus biaxial geogrid prior to placing new engineered fill as outlined herein. The first lift of engineered fill placed directly on top of geogrid should consist of crushed stone.

November 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 18185035

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive ii

The existing fill within the proposed pavement area should also be undercut as needed to construct a minimum 1-foot thick layer of new engineered fill. The fill subgrade exposed after undercut should be recompacted to a non-yielding state prior to placing new engineered fill.

Furthermore, we recommend fill conditions be further evaluated by a Terracon representative by excavating test pits and DCP testing and proofrolling. Any unsuitable soil discovered during this evaluation should be undercut and replaced as directed by the engineer.

n Assuming the subsurface conditions at the boring locations are representative, subgrade is repaired as discussed herein, and the Terracon engineer is allowed to review the exposed subgrades and foundation excavations, the proposed building may be supported on shallow spread footings bearing on approved engineered fill or stone column modified subgrade or new engineered fill extending to suitable natural subgrade. Shallow foundations designed to bear on these soils may be dimensioned using a net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf.

This bearing pressure is based on our experience on similar subsurface conditions with ground improvement on other projects and based on our conversation with stone column specialty contractor. This bearing pressure should be confirmed by the stone column specialty contractor. Performance specifications developed by the design-build stone column specialty contractor should meet the above required bearing pressure with total and differential settlement not to exceed 1 inch and ½ inch, respectively.

n Borings were performed in accessible areas within/near the proposed construction footprint outside the existing building footprint. We understand that a large portion of the proposed building is currently occupied by existing building which will be razed prior to new construction. Subsurface conditions beneath the existing building are unknown. It is possible that subgrade conditions beneath the existing building could be better than encountered in our borings and extensive subgrade remediation as recommended herein may not be necessary. Therefore, we recommend additional post demolition field exploration (borings and test pits) be performed to evaluate the subsurface conditions for building support and recommendations outlined herein may be confirmed and/or revised as deemed necessary.

n The near-surface soils are moisture sensitive and will require stringent moisture control techniques in the field to achieve compaction. If the grading is performed during wet weather, we expect near surface subgrade soils will be unstable and will require remediation across most of the construction footprint. The use of cement or lime additives may be necessary during inclement weather. Subgrade stabilization alternatives are discussed in this report.

We recommend the grading activities be performed during dry weather.

n The proposed site is situated in karst-prone geology, and the associated risks and challenges are inherent in this setting and cannot be eliminated. Any construction in karst topography is accompanied by some risk for future internal soil erosion and ground subsidence (sinkhole development) that could affect the stability of the proposed structure. Building borings B-3 and

November 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 18185035

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive iii

B-8 disclosed some soil softening at depth below the existing fill. At boring B-3 softer soils extended to auger refusal on apparent bedrock. In our opinion, the strength reduction of soil with depth may be associated with karst activity occurring at the site at this location.

Furthermore, our review of available USGS topographic mapping disclosed several closed depressions in close proximity to the site that may be associated with karst activity. Based on the above discussion we believe site is located within an active karst terrain. Therefore, site grading should incorporate passive measures to minimize water ponding onsite and surface water, to the extent possible, should not be allowed to penetrate into the ground. The specialty contractor should recognize that the site is underlain by karst terrain and proper measures should be incorporated into the ground improvement plan to minimize potential risk of water penetration into the ground. The stone column backfill material should consist of well graded crushed rock or aggregate containing sufficient fine-grained rock particles (e.g., dense graded aggregate base material). Open graded stone should not be used as backfill to construct stone columns. Considerations may be given to incorporate a cement treated plug layer of stone column material in the upper horizon of each stone column to minimize surface water migration into the ground through the stone columns.

We also recommend that cap and compaction grouting be performed at/near borings B-3 and B-8, located at the northeast corner and south side of the building pad, prior to constructing the stone columns. The cap grouting is recommended to address the karst impacted softer soils and minimize potential for ground movement or excessive settlement beneath the proposed building. Cap and compaction grouting should be performed by an experienced grouting contractor after site demolition. It may be necessary to perform additional exploration around borings B-3 and B-8 to delineate karst impact zone to help facilitate bidding contractors to determine extent of required grouting and provide a relatively accurate cost for grouting.

n The 2012 IBC/Chapter 20 ASCE 7 seismic site classification for this site is C.

n Four laboratory California Bear Ratio (CBR) tests were performed on representative bulk samples obtained from the client requested locations indicated on Exhibits B-6 to B-9. CBR values ranged from 2.3 to 14 at compaction levels of 94 to 100½ percent of maximum Standard Proctor dry density. An average CBR value of 5 was used for the pavement design as discussed in Section 4.7. To help achieve this CBR value during construction, we recommend the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade be scarified, moisture conditioned to -1 to +2 percentage points of optimum moisture and compacted to at least 98 percent standard Proctor maximum dry density.

n Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in achieving the design subgrade support. We therefore recommend that Terracon be retained to monitor this portion of the work.

November 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 18185035

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive iv

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT-REVISED

PROPOSED FT. CAMPBELL MIDDLE SCHOOL

FT. CAMPBELL, TENNESSEE

Terracon Project No. 18185035

August 20, 2018 Revised November 20, 2019

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This geotechnical engineering report has been completed for the proposed Ft. Campbell Middle School to be located at the existing high school facility at the southeast corner of Falcon Loop and Bastogne Avenue intersection in the Tennessee side of Fort Campbell Army Post. Twenty-two (22) borings were drilled to depths of approximately 10 to 50½ feet below the existing ground surface within the area proposed for construction. Logs of the borings along with a boring location plan are included in Appendix A.

The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

n subsurface soil conditions n seismic considerations n groundwater conditions n slab design and construction n earthwork n foundation design and construction n pavement section thickness n lateral earth pressures

November 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 18185035

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 2

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

Item Description

Site layout See Appendix A, Exhibit A-1, Boring Location Plan

Proposed improvements

Approximately 64,000 square feet of the existing Fort Campbell High School is to be demolished (primarily the east half), approximately 41,000 sf of the high school is to be renovated (approximate west half) and 123,500 sf of new construction is proposed. The majority of the new construction will occur in the area of the existing high school that is to be demolished. More specifically, the first floor will include 75,000 sf of new construction and a second floor having 48,500 sf is to be built above the approximate east half of the first floor expansion. The renovations and new construction is part of a plan to convert the existing high school into a new middle school. In addition, the existing parking lot located in the northeast portion of the site will be demolished and a new parking lot will be constructed north of the new middle school.

Building construction Anticipated to be concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls with brick veneer and possibly some interior steel columns Concrete slab-on-grade

Finished floor elevation (FFE) Unknown, but assumed to match the FFE of the existing high school

Maximum loads (assumed)

Columns: 200 kips Walls: 2 to 4 klf Slabs: 125 psf max

Grading requirements Unknown, but assumed to require less than 5 feet of fill and minimal cut.

Cut and fill slopes Assumed to be no steeper than 3H:1V (Horizontal to Vertical) Free-standing retaining walls Not expected

Below Grade Areas None expected

2.2 Site Location and Description

Item Description

Location 1101 Bastogne Avenue, Fort Campbell, TN Latitude/Longitude: N 36.624891° / W 87.438687°

Existing improvements

Existing Fort Campbell High School, a large portion of the existing school building will be razed for new building construction

Current ground cover Existing building, asphalt and concrete pavement and grass

November 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 18185035

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 3

Item Description

Existing topography

Based on aerial imagery available on the internet, the ground surface appears to slope downward from southeast to northwest from about El. 526 to El. 518 feet, MSL. Publicly available USGS topographic surveys indicate the area proposed for the new parking lot along the northern portion of the property is encroaching on a large closed depression that may be indicative of karst impacted soils.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Geology

Formation Description

St. Genevieve Limestone 1 Gray, slightly oolitic and cherty, with some green shale and fine-grained sandstone lenses

1. Geologic Map of the Oak Grove Quadrangle, Kentucky-Tennessee published by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, University of Kentucky and Kentucky Geologic Survey (1966).

The site is underlain by carbonate limestone that is highly susceptible to dissolution along joints and bedding planes in the rock mass. This results in voids and solution channels within the rock strata and a highly irregular bedrock surface. The weathering of the bedrock and subsequent collapse or erosion of the overburden into these openings results in what is referred to as karst topography. Any construction in karst topography is accompanied by some degree of risk for future internal soil erosion and ground subsidence that could affect the stability of the proposed structures. Our review of the available topographic mapping revealed a few large closed depressions within about 500 feet radius of the subject property including one encroaching a portion of the proposed northern parking lot. Furthermore, borings B-3 and B-8 drilled at the site disclosed some soil softening at depth that may be associated with karst activity that is occurring at the site.

Ft. Campbell military base is located in an active karst terrain and has a history of active karst activity and sinkholes. The soils in the area are a combination of near surface alluvium underlain by a cherty residual soil derived from the St. Genevieve and St. Louis Limestone Formations. The weathering of these formations results in a terrain characterized by sinkholes, sinking streams, caves and a well-integrated subsurface drainage network. Factors that influence the formation of sinkholes include the depth of overburden, water table fluctuation in the residuum, and permeability of the soils.

Sinkhole formation is commonly grouped into three major types. This includes solution, soil piping, and physical collapse of conduits in consolidated rock. An in-depth discussion on sinkhole formation is beyond the scope of this report. From our experience however, a majority of the sinkhole development in the Ft. Campbell military base is most likely caused by soil piping.

November 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 18185035

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 4

Soil piping is the process by which the overburden is "sapped" into a cavity or void commonly located at the soil/bedrock interface. This sapping forms soil pipes which may migrate toward the surface and ultimately create a sinkhole. An integral part of this process is the presence and movement of water in the void. Fluctuation of water levels cause a saturation in the soil forming an arch over the cavity. When water levels drop, buoyancy is no longer supplied by the water and the saturated soil collapses into the void where it is carried away. These voids commonly migrate vertically and horizontally until they stabilize. If a soil pipe reaches the surface, it commonly forms a sinkhole.

Depending on the direction and rate of formation, soil piping can take the shape of a near vertical tunnel or "chimney" and is dependent on a number of natural and man-made variables. More importantly, the degree of solutioning and weathering at any given location can be highly variable and the resulting degree of soil piping may be at any stage of development.

3.2 Typical Profile

Borings B-1 through B-10, B-3A and B-3B were drilled within/near the proposed building footprint.

Borings B-9 and B-8 were offset to the south outside the proposed building footprint due to several buried utilities. Offset borings B-3A and B-3B were drilled near boring B-3 during our second drill rig mobilization to evaluate karst activity. Borings P-1 through P-10 were drilled within the proposed pavement areas on the north and east sides of the proposed building.

Beneath the surface topsoil and pavement cover, all borings except P-9 and P-10, encountered about 3½ to 14 feet of the existing fill. Most building borings encountered about 6 to 14 feet of fill. The fill predominantly consisted of lean clay with several samples containing some organics or roots and chert fragments at varying depths. The fill contained some wood pieces in boring B-

2. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values were erratic in the existing fill and ranged from about 0 to 22 blows per foot (bpf). The higher N-values appear to be exaggerated due to chert fragments in fill and may not represent the true strength of the existing fill.

Underlying the existing fill and below the surface cover in borings P-9 and P-10, natural lean clay was encountered to boring termination and/or auger refusal depths. The natural clay is typically medium stiff to stiff but occasionally soft to very soft based on SPT N-values ranging from 0 to 23 bpf. Softer soils were encountered immediately beneath the existing fill in borings B-2, B-3, B-3B and B-8. Softer soils were also encountered at deeper depths within 3 to 6 feet of the bedrock interface in borings B-3, B-4 and B-7. Borings B-2, B-3, B-4 and B-7 were extended to auger refusal on apparent bedrock at depths ranging from about 43½ to 50½ feet below existing grade.

The following table summarizes fill thickness encountered at each boring location.

Boring No. Fill Thickness (ft.) Boring No. Fill Thickness

(ft.)

B-1 28 B-10 6 B-2 14 P-1 8 ½

November 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 18185035

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 5

Boring No. Fill Thickness (ft.) Boring No. Fill Thickness

(ft.)

B-3 13 P-2 10

B-3A 8 P-3 8 ½ B-3B 9 P-4 10 B-4 12 P-5 8 ½ B-5 9 P-6 8 ½ B-6 9 P-7 8 ½ B-7 3 ½ P-8 5 B-8 6 P-9 0 B-9 8 P-10 0

Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can be found on the logs in Appendix A. A discussion of field sampling procedures is included in Appendix A and laboratory testing procedures are presented in Appendix B.

3.3 Groundwater

The boreholes were observed while drilling and after completion for the presence and level of groundwater. Groundwater was not observed in the borings while drilling, or for the short duration that the borings were allowed to remain open. However, this does not necessarily mean the borings terminated above groundwater. Due to the low permeability of the soils encountered in the borings, a relatively long period of time may be necessary for a groundwater level to develop and stabilize in a borehole in these materials. Long term observations in piezometers or observation wells sealed from the influence of surface water are often required to define groundwater levels in materials of this type.

Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Perched water can also develop within the low permeability soils and/or porous fill zones. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations and perched water should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

3.4 Infiltration Tests

Four (4) infiltration tests were performed at the approximate locations as outlined in Exhibit A-1.

Soil test borings were initially advanced to a depth of about 4 feet below grade. All loose material and any smeared soils were removed from the bottom of the borings to provide a natural soil

November 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 18185035

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 6 interface for the water to infiltrate. Test casings, consisting of 4-inch diameter rigid pipes, were installed in the boreholes to a depth of about 6 inches into the in situ soil.

The test casings were filled with clean distilled water to a height of 2 feet above the infiltration surface, and the underlying soil was allowed to presoak for 24 hours. After 24 hours, the test casings were refilled with another 2 feet of clean distilled water and the drop in water level within the test casings were recorded after one hour. This procedure was repeated three additional times giving a total of four observations for each of the four test casing locations. The infiltration rate obtained from each run is reported in the following table:

Infiltration Test No.

Depth of Test

Casing (ft)

Rate of Infiltration (in./hr.)

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Average

IT-1 4 3.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

IT-2 4 2 2 1 1.25 1.56

IT-3 4 2.5 1 1.25 0.25 1.31

IT-4 4 0 1 1.5 1.25 0.94

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site can be developed for the proposed Ft. Campbell Middle School, however, due to existing fill, soft natural soils and some localized karst activity noted in our borings subgrade remediation will be required prior to any construction. These geotechnical concerns are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.

n Existing Fill – The results of our field exploration revealed about 3½ to 14 feet of existing fill in all borings. The fill predominantly consisted of lean clay with some samples containing small content of organics. At some locations, fill was directly placed over low strength natural soils. The lack of fill placement documentation, erratic and some low field penetration test values (SPT N-values as low as 0 to 6 bpf) are a geotechnical concern for the project, which poses a potential risk for excessive foundation, slab and pavement settlement. This risk can be mitigated by removing the existing fill in its entirety or modifying the subgrade using stone columns. As previously discussed, considering the excessive fill thickness, and the presence of some soft natural soils beneath the fill, in our opinion undercut and replacement may not be a cost effective and viable option to repair subgrade. This option might be feasible in some areas where fill thickness is minimal and stiff natural soils are present beneath fill.

Therefore, we recommend subgrade beneath the proposed building be reinforced (modified) using stone columns to address the existing fill and the underlying soft natural soils. Stone

November 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 18185035

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 7 columns should extend to stiff natural soils. Subgrade improvement should be performed beneath all foundations and floor slabs. Ground modification using stone columns is discussed in detail in Section 4.3.1 of this report.

In floor slab areas it is possible to partially undercut and replace the existing fill provided some risk of higher slab settlement is acceptable in exchange for cost saving for not removing the fill in its entirety or ground improvement using stone columns. If partial undercut/replacement option is selected and risk is acceptable, we recommend the existing fill be undercut, as needed, to construct a minimum 2-foot thick “buffer” layer of new engineered fill beneath the floor slab finished subgrade elevation. Any remaining fill beneath the buffer should be further evaluated by a Terracon representative via test pits, proofrolling and DCP testing. Any unsuitable soils uncovered or exposed after undercut should be undercut and replaced with new engineered fill. We also recommend the exposed fill subgrade be recompacted to a non-yielding state and then covered with a high modulus biaxial geogrid prior to placing new engineered fill. The first lift of engineered fill placed on top of geogrid should consist of crushed stone.

The existing fill within the proposed pavement area should also be undercut as needed to construct a minimum 1-foot thick layer of new engineered fill. The fill subgrade exposed after undercut should be recompacted to a non-yielding state prior to placing new engineered fill. Furthermore, we recommend fill conditions be further evaluated by a Terracon representative by excavating test pits and DCP testing and proofrolling. Any unsuitable material discovered during this evaluation should be undercut and replaced as directed by the engineer. Additional site preparation recommendations including subgrade improvement and fill placement are provided in the Earthwork section.

n Karst Risk and Remediation – The proposed site is situated in karst-prone geology and is underlain by carbonate limestone, and the associated risks and challenges are inherent in this setting and cannot be eliminated. Any construction in karst topography is accompanied by some risk for future internal soil erosion and ground subsidence (sinkhole development) that could affect the stability of the proposed structure.

Building borings B-3 and B-8 disclosed some soil softening at depth below the existing fill.

Boring B-8 was offset outside the building footprint due to several buried utilities. At boring B- 3 softer soils extended to auger refusal on apparent bedrock. In our opinion, the soil strength reduction with depth may be associated with karst activity occurring at the site at this location.

Furthermore, our review of available USGS topographic mapping disclosed several closed depressions in close proximity to the site including one encroaching the northern parking lot that could be associated with karst activity. Based on the above discussion we believe the site is located within an active karst terrain. Therefore, site grading should incorporate passive measures to minimize water ponding onsite and, to the extent possible, surface water should not be allowed onsite to penetrate into the ground. The specialty contractor should recognize

November 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 18185035

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 8 that the site is underlain by karst terrain and proper measures should be incorporated into the ground improvement plan to minimize potential risk of water penetration into the ground.

The stone column backfill material should consist of well graded crushed rock containing sufficient fine-grained rock particles (e.g., dense graded aggregate base material). Open graded stone should not be used as backfill in stone columns. Considerations may be given to incorporate a cement treated plug layer(s) in the upper horizon of each stone column or other effective measures in stone columns to minimize surface water migration into the ground.

We recommend cap and compaction grouting be performed at/near boring B-3 and B-8 at the northeast corner and south side of the building pad prior to constructing stone columns.

The cap and compaction grouting are recommended to address the karst impacted softer soils, seal any voids in bedrock and minimize potential for ground movement beneath the proposed building. Cap/compaction grouting should be performed by an experienced grouting contractor after site demolition.

Compaction grouting utilizes low mobility (low slump) cement grout that is injected into the subsurface to fill large voids, enhance the overburden density in the repair area, and to increase the soil shear strength. Compaction grouting is typically performed by a specialty contractor. Compaction grouting will incorporate a scheme to install a blanket or cap of grout at the bedrock surface, and thereafter create columns of grout extending from the lower limits of injection to the height at which stiff soils are encountered. The process typically involves pumping or injecting grout in a grid pattern of cased boreholes as the primary grouting sequence. We recommend that cap grouting occur on a 10-foot spaced grid with each injection point extending to the top of bedrock. Secondary and, as deemed necessary, tertiary rounds of grouting are performed based on the observed grout take in the first and second passes. The second and third rounds utilize grout holes at tighter spacing in the overall grid.

However, as a preliminary guide, we recommend at least 9 primary grouting holes be performed in a grid format with the middle hole being at the center of the boring location.

The primary advantage of the grouting program is the ability to mitigate the situation with no excavation and the grouting would be essentially considered a permanent fix at the subject location. Grouting work comes with some uncertainty due to the inherent difficulties with predicting and controlling grout take. In addition, the work is performed “in the blind” and the final product is unseen. Success of grouting is determined based on the implementation of a structured grout hole pattern and monitoring of conditions during the grouting work. Despite some of the uncertainties with this work, it is considered to be a viable and prefered option and is routinely utilized to mitigate sinkholes.

The primary grouting points are suggested to use about 20 psi of net grout-line pressure and should be terminated if net pressures reach 150 psi and that no more than 2 cubic yards of

November 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 18185035

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 9 grout be placed per injection point for each 2-foot height increment. The final extent and limits of subgrade remediation areas will be determined in the field by the grouting contractor.

Compaction grouting is performed by specialty contractors. Prospective specialty contractors should submit a grout mix with the materials, viscosity, strength, design slump value for approval. Terracon will be pleased to provide, if desired, names of a few local specialty contractors who are experienced in compaction grouting and can provide you a cost estimate for this project.

It may be necessary to perform additional exploration around borings B-3 and B-8 to delineate karst impact zone to help facilitate bidding contractors to determine extent of required grouting and provide a relatively accurate cost for grouting. A geophysical study may also be helpful in determining the extent of below grade karst features.

n Subgrade Instability During Inclement Weather –The near-surface soils are moisture sensitive and will require stringent moisture control techniques in the field to achieve compaction. If the grading is performed during wet weather, we expect near surface subgrade soils will be unstable and will require remediation across most of the construction footprint. The use of cement or lime additives may be necessary during inclement weather. Subgrade stabilization alternatives are discussed in detail Section 4.2. We recommend the grading activities be performed during dry weather.

n Subgrade Remediation in Existing Building to be Razed – Borings were performed in accessible areas within/near the proposed construction footprint outside the existing building.

We understand that a large portion of the proposed building is currently occupied by the existing building which will be razed prior to new construction. Subsurface conditions beneath the existing building is unknown. It is possible that subgrade conditions beneath the existing building could be better than encountered in our current borings and subgrade remediation as recommended may not be necessary. Therefore, we recommend additional post demolition field exploration (borings and test pits) be performed to evaluate the subsurface conditions for building support and recommendations outlined herein may be confirmed and/or revised as deemed necessary. Subgrade remediation recommendations will be provided in a separate letter report based on subsurface conditions encountered in additional borings and test pits.

Assuming the subsurface conditions at the boring locations are representative, subgrade is repaired as discussed herein, and the Terracon engineer is allowed to review the subgrade remediation work and observe foundation excavations, the proposed building may be supported on shallow spread footings bearing on stone column modified subgrade or new engineered fill extending to suitable natural subgrade. Shallow foundations designed to bear on these soils may be dimensioned using a net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. This bearing pressure should be confirmed by the stone column specialty contractor.

November 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 18185035

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 10

4.2 Earthwork

4.2.1 Site Preparation

Site preparation should begin with the removal of existing above and below grade structures including footings, slabs, pavements, buried utilities, vegetation, topsoil, loose, and soft or otherwise unsuitable material from the area proposed for construction. After site clearing, stripping and grubbing, but prior to placing new fill, the pavement and building subgrades should be proof-rolled to aid in locating loose or soft areas. Proof-rolling can be performed with a loaded tandem axle dump truck. Soft, dry and low-density soil should be removed or compacted in place prior to placing fill. Where instability is perceived to be shallow (i.e., less than about 12 inches), acceptable remediation might consist of scarification, aeration and recompaction. Excavations resulting from removal of buried features should be repaired and backfilled with engineered fill as described hereinafter. Where depth of excavation exceeds 3 feet, fill should be properly benched in against existing subgrade soils. Any soils disturbed during excavation should be recompacted to compaction levels outlined in the Earthwork section.

As discussed in Section 4.1, we recommend the existing fill subgrade and the underlying soft natural soils beneath the proposed building be reinforced (modified) using stone columns. Stone columns should extend to stiff natural soils. In floor slab and pavement areas it is possible to partially undercut and replace the existing fill provided some risk of higher slab and pavement settlement is acceptable in exchange for cost saving for not performing stone column ground improvement. If this option is selected, we recommend the existing fill be undercut, as needed, to construct a minimum 2-foot thick “buffer” layer of new engineered fill beneath the floor slab finished subgrade elevation and 1-foot thick beneath pavement finished subgrade. Any remaining fill beneath the buffer should be further evaluated by a Terracon representative via test pits, proofrolling and DCP testing. Any unsuitable soils uncovered or exposed after undercut should be undercut and replaced with new engineered fill. We also recommend the exposed fill subgrade be recompacted to non-yielding state. In floor slab area the fill subgrade should be covered with a high modulus biaxial geogrid prior to placing new engineered fill. The first lift of engineered fill placed on top of geogrid should consist of crushed stone.

As discussed earlier, the site is located within an active karst terrain. Therefore, site grading should incorporate passive measures to minimize water ponding onsite and surface water should not be allowed onsite to penetrate into the ground. The specialty contractor should recognize that site is underlain by karst terrain and proper measures should be incorporated into the ground improvement plan to minimize potential risk of water penetration into the ground. We also recommend that cap grouting (compaction grouting) be performed at/near borings B-3 and B-8 at the northeast corner and south side of the building pad prior to constructing stone columns to address the karst impacted softer soils and minimize potential for ground movement beneath the proposed building.

November 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 18185035

Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 11

A thorough visual assessment of the site by a Terracon geotechnical engineer for any karst issues will be necessary once site clearing is performed but before any fill is placed. Karst associated risks can be reduced by careful attention to the details of site preparation as discussed herein.

In order to achieve the design CBR value of 5 used herein for pavement design, the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to between -1 and +2 percentage points of optimum moisture, and recompacted to at least 98 percent standard Proctor maximum dry density. Care should be taken not to disturb these soils after proper moisture conditioning and recompaction.

The on-site clayey soils are susceptible to disturbance and loss of strength from construction activity, particularly if the soil has a high natural moisture content and is wetted by surface water or seepage. Therefore, care should be taken during the site grading operation to provide adequate site drainage and minimize disturbance of the bearing soils. Heavy equipment traffic directly on bearing surfaces should be avoided in wet clay soils. If the grading is performed during wet weather, we expect near surface subgrade soils will be unstable and will require remediation across most of the construction footprint. We recommend the grading activities be performed during dry weather.

The appropriate method of subgrade improvement would depend on factors such as schedule, weather, the size of area to be stabilized, and the nature of the instability. More detailed recommendations are provided in Section 4.2.6. Performing site grading operations during warm, dry weather will help reduce the amount of subgrade stabilization required.

4.2.2 Material Requirements

Compacted structural fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Engineered Fill Description and Recommended Uses

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

Lean clay CL (LL< 45) All locations and elevations

Lean to fat clay

CL/CH