W912QR22R0016_Final_Soils_Report-0002.pdf

4518 Taylorsville Road—Dayton, Ohio 45424—937.236.8805 www.bowser-morner.com

Soil Study for Proposed Pipe Supports, G Street, WPAFB, Ohio

Submitted To:

LJB Inc.

2500 Newmark Drive

Miamisburg, Ohio 45342

Report No. 201083-0721-118

July 16, 2021

W912QR22R0016_Final_Soils_Report-0002

DAYTON ENGINEERING SERVICES

P.O. Box 51

Dayton, Ohio 45401-0051

P. 937.236.8805 F. 937.233.2016 www.bowser-morner.com

Civil & Geotechnical Engineering

Environmental Consulting

Construction QA/QC & Special Inspections

Analytical, Construction Materials & Geotechnical Laboratories

Dayton, OH • Toledo, OH • Springfield, IL • Birmingham, AL

July 16, 2021

LJB Inc.

2500 Newmark Drive

Miamisburg, Ohio 45342

Attention: Mr. Kyle Wright, EI

Project Engineer

Re: Report No. 201083-0721-118; Soil Study for Proposed Pipe Supports, G Street, WPAFB, Ohio

Dear Mr. Wright:

Bowser-Morner, Inc. is pleased to submit our report of the soil study for the above-referenced project. The purpose of this study is to determine the physical characteristics of the soil strata and allowable bearing capacity for the proposed pipe supports. Also noted are other conditions that could affect the design and/or construction of the structure.

The samples collected that were not used to perform the laboratory tests will be kept in our laboratory for 30 days unless you advise us otherwise. If you have any questions or if we can help you in any way on this project or future work, please call us.

Sincerely, BOWSER-MORNER, INC.

Daniel M. Otieno

Geotechnical Engineer

“This document was originally issued by Chris R. Ryan, M.S.C.E., P.E. and Daniel Otieno on July 16, 2021.

This document is not considered a sealed document.

Chris R. Ryan, M.S.C.E., P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer

DMO/CRR/ac

3-Client

2-File

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE NO.

I TEXT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 WORK PERFORMED

2.1 FIELD WORK

2.2 LABORATORY WORK

3.0 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4.2 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.3 COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS

4.4 FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS

4.5 CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING

4.6 DRAINAGE

5.0 CLOSURE

5.1 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

5.2 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES

5.3 WARRANTY

II SUGGESTED SPECIFICATIONS

CLEARING AND GRADING

III BORING LOG TERMINOLOGY, BORING LOGS,

LABORATORY DATA, AND PRINTS

Section I

Text

Report No. 201083-0721-118 -1-

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) proposes to construct pipe supports/columns on the west side of G Street in Area “B”, WPAFB, Ohio. A vicinity map (Figure 1) is included in Section III of this report. Our findings on the soil conditions and groundwater levels with respect to the potential construction problems, and recommendations for the allowable bearing capacity for the construction of the pipe supports are given in this report.

Authorization to proceed with this soil study was given by LJB Inc. in an email from LJB Inc. dated

May 27, 2021. The work was to proceed in accordance with our proposal and agreement, Quotation No. 21-2771-049 dated May 25, 2021. For this study, one (1) boring was performed at the location shown on the attached boring location plan. Three borings were initially planned, but the drillers could not access two of the borings due to existing structures.

The draft soil boring logs and preliminary foundation recommendations were emailed to Mr. Kyle

Wright of LJB Inc. on June 30, 2021.

Bowser-Morner Report No. 159261-0912-199 dated September 7, 2012 discusses the subgrade soil and bedrock conditions for a section of water line replacement along Skyline Drive. Eight borings were made for that study. That report was prepared for WPAFB. Bowser-Morner Report

No. 177510-0217-039 dated February 24, 2017 discusses the subgrade soil and bedrock conditions for a proposed sewer improvement project along a section of Norfolk Southern

Railroad in Area “B” WPAFB, Ohio. Thirteen borings were made for that study. Bowser-Morner

Report No. 177766-0317-047 dated March 3, 2017 discusses the subgrade soil and bedrock conditions for an 855-foot –long section of steam line replacement project along 5th Street in

Area "B", WPAFB, Ohio. Three borings were made for that study. Bowser-Morner Report No.

182668-0218-035 dated February 20, 2018 discusses the subgrade soil and bedrock conditions for a steam line replacement project between G and K Streets in Area "B", WPAFB, Ohio. Three borings were made for that study. Bowser-Morner Report No. 189585-0519-096 dated May 28, 2019 discusses the subgrade soil and bedrock conditions for a retaining wall along K Street in Area

"B", WPAFB, Ohio. Three borings were made for that study. Bowser-Morner Report No. 193759-

0220-027 dated February 17, 2020 discusses the subgrade soil and bedrock conditions for a cooling tower on 12th Street in Area "B", WPAFB, Ohio. Two borings were made for that study.

These reports were prepared for LJB Inc. We reviewed the relevant soil boring and laboratory data from the previous study to assist in the evaluation of this project.

2.0 WORK PERFORMED

2.1 Field Work

One soil boring was made at the location specified and staked by the client, as shown on the boring location plan, Figure 2 in Section III. The boring logs and boring location plan are included in Section III. The borings were made with a truck-mounted boring rig using hollow-stem augers and standard penetration resistance methods. The standard penetration tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1586, which includes a 140-pound hammer, 30-inch drops, and two-inch-O.D. split-spoon samplers driven at maximum depth intervals of five feet or at major changes in stratum, whichever occurred first. The disturbed split-spoon samples were visually classified, logged, sealed in

Report No. 201083-0721-118 -2-moisture-proof jars, and taken to the Bowser-Morner, Inc. laboratory for study. The depths where these "SS"-type split-spoon samples were collected are noted on the corresponding boring logs.

In Boring 3, rock coring techniques were used to determine the composition and continuity of the refusal materials encountered in the borings. The core drilling procedure was performed in accordance with ASTM D2113. Initially the hollow-stem augers were seated against the surface of the rock to keep the hole from collapsing. Refusal materials were cored with a diamond-studded bit fastened to the end of a hollow, double-tube core barrel. Rock cuttings were brought to the surface by circulating water. Core samples of the materials penetrated were protected and retained in the swivel-mounted inner-tube.

After each drill run, the core barrel was brought to the surface and the samples removed and placed in boxes. The samples were then taken to our laboratory, where the rock was identified by a staff geologist or engineer, and the rock quality designation (RQD) were determined. Rock descriptions and RQD are indicated on the boring logs included with this report. The depths where these “NQ”-type rock core samples were collected are noted on the corresponding boring logs.

2.2 Laboratory Work

One Atterberg limits test was performed in accordance with ASTM D4318 to determine the liquid and plastic limits on the most visibly plastic cohesive soil or as needed for soil classification. In addition, four moisture content determinations were made in accordance with ASTM D2216. The moisture contents ranged from 10.7% to 19.6% for the dark brown silty clay. The moisture content for the apparent bedrock was 6.7%. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Table 2-1 and included in Section III of this report.

Table 2-1. Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Moisture Atterberg Limits

Boring No. Depth (ft.) Content (%) LL PL PI

3 1.0 – 2.5 19.6

3.5 – 5.0 15.0 35 18 17

6.0 – 7.5 10.7

7.5 – 8.5 6.7

3.0 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Based on the information from the one borings made for this study, the subgrade soil conditions are described in descending order below:

• 15 inches of undocumented and uncontrolled fill consisting of five inches of topsoil over brown silty clay.

• Below the fill layer, approximately six feet of medium-stiff-to-very-stiff brown silty clay.

• Below the silty clay layer, limestone bedrock extending to the bottom of this boring at a depth of 13.5 feet.

Report No. 201083-0721-118 -3-

Free groundwater was encountered during the advancement of the boring at the depth and elevation summarized in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Summary of Groundwater Observations

Boring

Depth Groundwater First

Observed (ft)

Groundwater Observations at

Completion of Boring

No. Depth Elevation Depth Elevation

3 No Water 7.5 825.5

Free groundwater is defined as water that seeps into an open borehole before it is backfilled.

Groundwater observations were made during the boring operations by noting the depth of water on the boring tools and in the open boreholes following withdrawal of the boring augers.

However, it should be noted that short-term water level readings are not necessarily a reliable indication of the groundwater level and that significant fluctuations may occur due to variations in rainfall and other factors. For specific questions on the soil conditions, please refer to the individual boring logs in Section III.

4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Project Description

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) proposes to construct pipe supports/columns on the west side of G Street in Area “B”, WPAFB, Ohio. This study is intended to determine the subgrade soil and bedrock conditions for the design and construction of the proposed foundations. No design or loading information was provided.

For this study, one (1) boring was performed at the location shown on the attached boring location plan. Three borings were initially planned, but the drillers could not access two of the borings due to existing structures.

The following recommendations are based on this information. If the above statements are incorrect or changes are made, Bowser-Morner, Inc. should be notified so that the new data can be reviewed and additional recommendations and services can be given if required to meet the needs of your project.

4.2 Foundation Recommendations

4.2.1 Foundation Subgrade Preparation

Based on the subgrade soil conditions indicated in the boring performed in the proposed pipe support site, the site is covered with undocumented and uncontrolled fill, and/or weak soil that extends to the approximate depths outlined in Table 4-1. Based on the results of the standard penetration tests (SPT) in the boring, the net allowable bearing capacities in the original soil strata and the depths to bearing strata at each boring are also tabulated in Table 4-1.

Report No. 201083-0721-118 -4-

Table 4-1. Depths to Bottoms of Unreliable Soils

Boring

No.

Depth to Bottom of

Unreliable Soil (ft)

Elevation at Bottom of Unreliable Soil (ft)

Fill, and/or

Weak Soil

Allowable

Bearing Capacity

(psf)

3 1.3 831.7 Fill 2,000

6.0 827.0 Fill and

Weak Soil

3,000

Based on the requirement for foundation construction in WPAFB, the bottoms of the footing foundations will have to be placed at least 36 inches below the final grade to protect the foundations against the frost penetration and the potential heaving problem. The fill is unreliable to support any foundation. The foundation supported on the fill will settle and tilt to the side due to uneven settlement.

Within the construction limits, the undocumented and uncontrolled fill and weak soil should be removed to the depth and elevation with the suitable bearing capacity as outlined in Table 4-1. The excavation within the construction limits should extend to suitable soils.

The base of the excavation should extend one lateral foot for every foot of excavation below the bottom of the footing foundation as shown in Figure 3 in

Section III. If an excavation will extend more than five feet below the existing grade, a maximum allowable side slope of 1 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) should be maintained in any excavation for stability and for the safety of the workers.

After the foundation excavation extends to the desired grade, the top foot at the bottom of each excavation should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry-unit weight as defined by the modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557) before any new fill or foundation is placed. Any soft soil pockets should be undercut and replaced with compacted fill. After the bottom of the excavation has been compacted, structural fill can be placed to bring the bottom of the excavation to the desired grade if needed. The fill placed below the bottom of the foundation should be placed in eight-inch-thick lifts and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry-unit weight as determined by the modified Proctor test (ASTM

D1557). Fill placed above the bottoms of the footing foundations should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry-unit weight as determined by the modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557). Structural fill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations given in Section 4.3.

The footing foundations for the proposed pipe supports can be supported on the original subgrade soil or newly compacted backfill extending to the depths outlined in Table 4-1. The foundations can be designed with the corresponding net allowable bearing capacities outlined in Table 4-1.

The soil removed from this site that is free of organic or objectionable materials as defined by a field technician who is qualified in soil material identification and compaction procedures can be reused as fill. Objectionable or undesirable soils

Report No. 201083-0721-118 -5-are defined as those materials that cannot meet design placement specifications or materials that will deteriorate with time.

In winter or wet weather, the backfill should be granular material. During good weather, the existing wet soil removed from the site can be spread out to dry and reused as backfill. The silty and clayey soil also can be used as backfill in favorable weather. For the placement of the granular backfill, the bottom of the subgrade below the granular backfill layer should be graded to drain to an underdrain system. The underdrain system should discharge into the storm-drainage system or be “day lighted” away from the footprint of the structures. The groundwater level in the granular-backfill layer should be kept at a depth of 40 inches below the final grade to prevent potential frost penetration and heaving problems.

The bearing capacity recommended above for foundations supported on structural fill applies to well-graded granular soils, low-to-medium plastic clays, clayey sands, and some silty sands that are placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations given in this report. However, uniformly graded or gap-graded granular soils (GP or SP), silts (ML), silty fine sands (SM), and high plasticity clays (CH) will be difficult to place and compact, and may result in a reduced bearing capacity. If these soils will be used as backfill, Bowser-Morner should be notified before the soils are placed so that the proposed placement methods and bearing capacity recommendations can be reviewed.

Based on the information from the rock core performed in the boring for this study, the depth and elevation to the top of competent bedrock is tabulated in

Table 4-2.

Table 2. Depths to Top of Bedrock

Boring No. Depth to Top of Bedrock (ft) Elevation at Top of Bedrock (ft)

3 8.5 824.5

Alternatively, the unreliable soil can be excavated to competent rock and the over-excavation backfilled with lean concrete to bring the bottom of the excavation to the desired grade. The lean concrete should have a 28-day compressive strength of at least 1,500 psi. If lean concrete will be used as backfill, the footing foundation excavations should be at least one foot wider on all sides.

The pipe support foundations can be constructed on the hardened lean concrete fill. The sloped excavations beyond the sides of the foundations can be backfilled with compacted soil backfill.

The foundation supported on the on the cured lean concrete fill extending to rock can be designed with a net allowable bearing capacity of 8,000 pounds per square foot (psf). For the allowable bearing capacity recommended above, the total settlement of the foundation is estimated to be less than one inch.

When determining the geometric size (the “footprint”) of the footing foundation, the total system loads applied to the tops of the foundations should be considered in the bearing pressure calculations.

Report No. 201083-0721-118 -6-

The bearing capacity of a soil is not a unique physical property of the soil. Instead, it depends explicitly on several factors including the footing type, size, and shape;

the depth of embedment; the eccentricity and inclination of the applied load; the footing base inclination; the stiffness of the footing; the proximity of the footing to open cuts or slopes; the relative distance between the bottom of the footing and the water table; and the allowable amounts of settlement.

The recommended allowable bearing capacity is based on the foundation design parameters given above and the assumptions that the applied load is vertical with no eccentricity, the base is horizontal and level, the footing is rigid, the footing is not close to an open cut or slope, and the water table is below the bottom of footing. If the actual conditions vary from the parameters and assumptions stated above, Bowser-Morner should be notified so that the new information can be reviewed and additional recommendations and services can be given to meet the needs of your project.

Foundations supported on soil settle as the result of externally applied loads.

While the foundations should be expected to settle, the amount of settlement should be within the tolerable limits for the structure.

4.2.2 Site Classification For Seismic Design

Based on the results of the standard penetration tests (SPT) in the one boring, the average “N” value is 29 blows per foot for the soil layer within 8.3 feet below the existing grade. Based on the rock samples recovered from the split-spoon samplers and the results of the standard penetration tests indicated in the boring made for this study, bedrock was encountered at a depth of 7.0 feet below the existing grade. As a result, it is our opinion that the site will be classified as a “D” type in accordance with the Ohio Building Code. If the foundations are constructed on competent rock, the site can be re-classified as a “B” type in accordance with the Ohio Building Code.

4.3 Compaction Requirements

Structural fill placed below the foundation bearing elevation should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry unit weight with moisture contents within 2% of the optimum moisture content as determined by the modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557).

Fill placed above the bottoms of the foundations or under pavement areas should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry unit weight with moisture contents within

2% of the optimum moisture content as determined by the modified Proctor test (ASTM

D1557). The compaction should be accomplished by placing the fill in successive, horizontal, approximately six- to eight-inch-thick loose lifts and mechanically compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. Field density tests should be performed at a minimum rate of one per 2,500 square feet of fill area and for each lift to verify that adequate compaction is achieved. Backfill for utility trenches, foundation excavations, etc., within structures or paved areas, is considered structural fill and should be placed in accordance with these recommendations.

It must be emphasized that the excavation and compaction of soil fill are highly influenced by weather conditions. Performing the earthwork under wet and frozen conditions is

Report No. 201083-0721-118 -7-generally very difficult. As a result, compaction of wet silty and clayey soil should be avoided during wet and frozen conditions because the wet soil cannot be compacted to the required unit weight without drying or other soil stabilization methods. Alternatively, granular soil can be used as backfill to facilitate the backfill and compaction work during winter and wet weather conditions. The construction cost during the winter and wet weather conditions will be higher by the purchase of granular soil from the sand and gravel pits.

Puddling or jetting of the backfill material, including the utility trenches, should not be allowed as a compaction method. Silty or clayey soils encountered above foundation depth will often soften, and the bearing capacity may be reduced if water ponds in the excavation.

Lean concrete that is placed below the bottom of foundation should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 1,500 pounds per square inch (psi).

4.4 Foundation Excavations

During the foundation excavations, the subsurface conditions should be verified. Changes in subsurface conditions other than what are shown on the boring logs warrant additional subsurface investigation before the foundations are constructed.

The foundation excavations should be observed to ensure that the loose, soft, or otherwise undesirable materials are removed and that the foundations will be supported directly on an acceptable surface. At the time of this observation, it may be necessary to use a hand penetration device in the base of the foundation excavation to ensure that the soils immediately below the foundation base are satisfactorily prepared to support the foundations. Please note that such shallow observations do not replace an adequate deep-boring program and structural fill compaction QA/QC records. The overall performance of the foundations is governed by the soils below the bottom of the footing foundation.

If pockets of soft, loose, or otherwise unsuitable materials are encountered in the footing excavations and it is inconvenient to lower the footings, the proposed footing elevations may be reestablished by backfilling after the undesirable materials have been removed.

The excavation under each footing should extend to suitable soils, and the base of the excavation should extend one lateral foot for every foot of excavation below the bottom of the footing foundation as shown in Figure 3 in Section III. The entire excavation should then be refilled with well-compacted, engineered fill. Special care should be taken to remove the sloughed, loose, or soft materials near the base of the excavation slopes.

Extra care should also be taken to tie-in the compacted fill with the excavation slopes, with benches as necessary, to ensure that no pockets of loose or soft materials are left along the excavation slopes below the foundation bearing level. The contractor should maintain temporary cut slopes in accordance with the current OSHA regulations governing trenching and slope stability.

Soils exposed at the bases of satisfactory foundation excavations should be protected against any detrimental change in condition such as from construction disturbances, rain, and freezing. Surface runoff should be drained away from the excavation and not allowed to pond. If possible, foundation concrete should be placed the same day the excavation

Report No. 201083-0721-118 -8-is made. If this is not practical, the foundation excavations should be adequately protected. Also, for this reason, proper drainage should be maintained after construction.

It must be emphasized that all excavations must conform to all state, federal, and local regulations relative to slope geometry.

4.5 Construction Dewatering

Groundwater was encountered in in the one boring at a depth of 7.5 feet below the existing grade as outlined in Table 3-1. Any groundwater and surface water infiltration encountered in the excavations should be lowered to the bottom of the excavation in silt and clay soils and should be lowered to at least three feet below the bottom of the maximum excavation in the sand and gravel layers using sumps and pumps. Sumps can consist of perforated pipes or drums installed vertically in the relatively permeable granular soils and surrounded with free-draining sand and gravel. The perforations of the pipe should be covered with a layer of filter fabric to keep silt and fine sand from pumping through the sumps. Care must be exercised when pumping from sumps that extend into silts or other granular soils since general deterioration of the bearing soils and a localized

“quick” condition could result. The groundwater should be kept at a level below the fill operation during the placement and compaction of the backfill materials during the construction of the foundations.

The amount and type of dewatering required during construction will depend on the weather and groundwater levels at the time of construction, and the effectiveness of the contractor’s techniques in preventing surface runoff from entering open excavations.

Typically, groundwater levels are highest during winter and spring, and lower in summer and early fall.

4.6 Drainage

Adequate drainage should be provided at the site to minimize any increase in moisture content of the foundation soils during and after construction. The exterior grade including all pavements or parking areas should be sloped away from the new foundations to keep water from ponding.

5.0 CLOSURE

5.1 Basis Of Recommendations

The evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data obtained during the exploration, our understanding of the project and our experience with similar sites and subsurface conditions. Data used during this exploration included, but were not necessarily limited to:

• One exploratory borings performed during this study.

• Observations of the project site by our staff.

• Previous geotechnical soil studies; Bowser-Morner, Inc. Report No. 159261-0912-

199 dated September 7, 2012; Bowser-Morner Report No. 177510-0217-039

Report No. 201083-0721-118 -9-dated February 24, 2017; Bowser-Morner Report No. 177766-0317-047 dated

March 3, 2017; Bowser-Morner Report No. 182668-0218-035 dated February 20, 2018; Bowser-Morner Report No. 189585-0519-096 dated May 28, 2019; and

Bowser-Morner Report No. 193759-0220-027 dated February 17, 2020.

• The results of the laboratory soil tests.

• The site plan provided by LJB Inc.

• Communications with Mr. Kyle Wright and Mr. Pete Battaglia of LJB Inc.

• Published soil or geologic data of this area.

In the event that changes in the project characteristics are planned, or if additional information or differences from the conditions anticipated in this report become apparent, Bowser-Morner, Inc. should be notified so that the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report can be reviewed and, if necessary, modified or verified in writing.

5.2 Limitations And Additional Services

The subsurface conditions discussed in this report and those shown on the boring logs represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the boring data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments. Although individual test borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at the boring locations on the dates shown, they are not necessarily indicative of subsurface conditions at other locations or at other times.

Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that conditions between borings will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions. As variations in the soil profile are encountered, additional subsurface sampling and testing may be necessary to provide data required to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. Consequently, after submission of this report, it is recommended that Bowser-Morner, Inc. be authorized to perform additional services to work with the designer(s) to minimize errors and omissions regarding the interpretation and implementation of this report.

Before construction begins, we recommend that Bowser-Morner, Inc.:

• Work with the designers to implement the recommended geotechnical design parameters into plans and specifications.

• Consult with the design team regarding interpretation of this report.

• Establish criteria for the construction observation and testing for the soil conditions encountered at this site.

• Review final plans and specifications pertaining to geotechnical aspects of design.

Report No. 201083-0721-118 -10-

During construction, we recommend that Bowser-Morner, Inc.:

• Observe the construction, particularly the site preparation, fill placement, and foundation excavation.

• Perform in-place density testing of all compacted fill.

• Perform materials testing of soil and other materials as required.

• Consult with the design team to make design changes in the event that differing subsurface conditions are encountered.

If Bowser-Morner, Inc. is not retained for these services, we shall assume no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations.

5.3 Warranty

Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.

The scope of this study did not include an environmental assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on, within or beyond the site studied. Any statements in the report or on the boring logs regarding odors, staining of soils or other unusual items or conditions observed are strictly for the information of our client.

To evaluate the site for possible environmental liabilities, we recommend an environmental assessment, consisting of a detailed site reconnaissance, a record review, and report of findings. Additional subsurface drilling and sampling, including groundwater sampling, may be required. Bowser-Morner, Inc. can provide this service and would be pleased to provide a cost proposal to perform such a study, if requested.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of LJB Inc. for specific application to the pipe supports on G Street in WPAFB, Ohio (see Figure 1 in Section III of this report).

Specific design and construction recommendations have been provided in the various sections of the report. The report shall therefore, be used in its entirety. This report is not a bidding document and shall not be used for that purpose. Anyone reviewing this report must interpret and draw their own conclusions regarding specific construction techniques and methods chosen. Bowser-Morner, Inc. is not responsible for the independent conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on the field exploration and laboratory test data presented in this report.

Section II

Specifications clearing/grading Rev 10/08

CLEARING AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

I. GENERAL CONDITIONS

The contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, and equipment, and perform all work and services necessary to complete in a satisfactory manner the site preparation, excavation, filling, compaction and grading as shown on the plans and as described therein.

This work shall consist of all clearing and grading, removal of existing structures unless otherwise stated, preparation of the land to be filled, filling of the land, spreading and compaction of the fill, and all subsidiary work necessary to complete the grading of the cut and fill areas to conform with the lines, grades, slopes, and specifications.

This work is to be accomplished under the constant and continuous supervision of the Owner or his designated representative.

In these specifications the terms "approved" and "as directed" shall refer to directions to the Contractor from the Owner or his designated representative.

II. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Prior to bidding the work, the Contractor shall examine, investigate and inspect the construction site as to the nature and location of the work, and the general and local conditions at the construction site, including, without limitation, the character of surface or subsurface conditions and obstacles to be encountered on and around the construction site; and shall make such additional investigation as he may deem necessary for the planning and proper execution of the work. Borings and/or soil investigations shall have been made. Results of these borings and studies will be made available by the Owner to the Contractor upon his request, but the Owner is not responsible for any interpretations or conclusions with respect thereto made by the Contractor on the basis of such information, and the Owner further has no responsibility for the accuracy of the borings and the soil investigations.

If conditions other than those indicated are discovered by the Contractor, the Owner should be notified immediately. The material which the Contractor believes to be a changed condition should not be disturbed so that the Owner can investigate the condition.

III. SITE PREPARATION

Within the specified areas, all trees, brush, stumps, logs, tree roots, and structures scheduled for demolition shall be removed and disposed of.

All cut and fill areas shall be properly stripped. Topsoil will be removed to its full depth and stockpiled for use in finish grading. Any rubbish, organic and other objectionable soils, and other deleterious material, shall be disposed of off the site, or as directed by the Owner or his designated representative if on site disposal is provided. In no case shall such objectionable material be allowed in or under the fill unless specifically authorized in writing.

Prior to the addition of fill, the original ground shall be compacted to job specifications as outlined below. Special notice shall be given to the proposed fill area at this time. If wet spots, spongy conditions, or ground water seepage is found, corrective measures must be taken before the placement of fill.

IV. FORMATION OF FILL AREAS

Fills shall be formed of satisfactory materials placed in successive horizontal layers of not more than eight (8) inches in loose depth for the full width of the cross section.

The depth of lift may be increased if the Contractor can demonstrate the ability to compact a larger lift. If compaction is accomplished using hand-tamping equipment, lifts will be limited to 4-inch lose lifts.

All material entering the fill shall be free of organic matter such as leaves, grass, roots, and other objectionable material.

The operations on earth work shall be suspended at any time when satisfactory results cannot be obtained because of rain, freezing weather, or other unsatisfactory conditions. The Contractor shall keep the work areas graded to provide the drainage at all times.

The fill material shall be of the proper moisture content before compaction efforts are started. Wetting or drying of the material and manipulation to secure a uniform moisture content throughout the layer shall be required. Should the material be too wet to permit proper compaction or rolling, all work on all portions of the embankment thus affected shall be delayed until the material has dried to the required moisture content. The moisture content of the fill material should be no more than two (2) percentage points higher or lower than optimum unless otherwise authorized. Sprinkling shall be done with equipment that will satisfactorily distribute the water over the disced area.

Compaction operations shall be continued until the fill is compacted to not less than 90% above foundation elevation and 95% below foundation elevation, of the maximum density as determined in accordance with the latest ASTM D-1557 (Modified). Any areas inaccessible to a roller shall be consolidated and compacted by mechanical tampers. The equipment shall be operated in such a manner that hardpan, cemented gravel, clay or other chunky soil material will be broken up into small particles and become incorporated with the other material in the layer.

In the construction of filled areas, starting layers shall be placed in the deepest portion of the fill, and as placement progresses, additional layers shall be constructed in horizontal planes. If directed, original slopes shall be continuously, vertically benched to provide horizontal fill planes. The size of the benches shall be formed so that the base of the bench is horizontal and the back of the bench is vertical. As many benches as are necessary to bring the site to final grade shall be constructed. Filling operations shall begin on the lowest bench, with the fill being placed in horizontal eight (8) inch loose lifts unless otherwise authorized. The filling shall progress in this manner until the entire first bench has been filled, before any fill is placed on the succeeding benches. Proper drainage shall be maintained at all times during benching and filling of the benches, to insure that all water is drained away from the fill area.

When rock and other embankment material are excavated at approximately the same time, the rock shall be incorporated into the outer portion of the areas. Stones or fragmentary rock larger than four (4) inches in their greatest dimensions will not be allowed in the fill unless specifically authorized in writing. Rock fill shall be brought up in layers as specified or as directed, and every effort shall be exerted to fill the voids with the finer material to form a dense, compact mass. Rock or boulders shall be disposed of as deleterious material per Item III.

Frozen material shall not be placed in the fill nor shall the fill be placed upon frozen material.

The Contractor shall be responsible for the stability of all fills made under the contract, and shall replace any portion, which in the opinion of the Owner or his designated representative, has become displaced due to carelessness or negligence on the part of the Contractor. Fill damaged by inclement weather shall be repaired at the Contractor's expense.

V. SLOPE RATIO AND STORM WATER RUN-OFF

Slopes shall not be greater than 2 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) in both cut and fill, and storm water shall not be drained over the slopes.

VI. GRADING

The Contractor shall furnish, operate, and maintain such equipment as is necessary to construct uniform layers, and control smoothness of grade for maximum compaction and drainage.

VII. COMPACTING

The compaction equipment shall be approved equipment of such design, weight, and quantity to obtain the required density in accordance with these specifications.

VIII. TESTING AND INSPECTION SERVICES

Testing and inspection services will be provided by the Owner.

IX. SPECIAL CONDITIONS

Section III

Boring Log Terminology, Boring Logs, Laboratory Data, And Prints

BORING LOG TERMINOLOGY

Stratum Depth:

Distance in feet and/or inches below ground surface.

Stratum Elevation:

Elevation in feet below ground surface elevation.

Description of Materials:

Major types of soil material existing at boring location. Soil classification based on one of the following systems: Unified Soil Classification System., Ohio State Highway Classification System, Highway Research Board Classification System, Federal Aviation Authority Classification System, Visual Classification.

Sample No.:

Sample numbers are designated consecutively, increasing with depth for each boring.

Sample Type:

“A” Split spoon, 2” O.D., 1-3/8” I.D., 18” in length.

“B” Rock Core

“C” Shelby Tube 3” O.D. except where noted

“D” Soil Probe

“E” Auger Cuttings

“F” Sonic

Sample Depth:

Depth below top of ground at which appropriate sample was taken.

Blows per 6” on Sampler:

The number of blows required to drive a 2” O.D., 1-3/8” I.D., split spoon sampler, using a 140 pound hammer with a 30-inch free fall, is recorded for 6” drive increments. (Example:

3/8/9).

“N” Blows/Ft.:

Standard penetration resistance. This value is based on the total number of blows required for the last 12” of penetration. (Example: 3/8/9: N = 8 + 9 = 17)

Water Observations:

Depth of water recorded in test boring is measured from top of ground to top of water level. Initial depth indicates water level during boring, completion depth indicates water level immediately after boring, and depth after “X” number hours indicates water level after letting water rise or fall over a time period. Water observations in pervious soil are considered reliable ground water levels for that date. Water observations in impervious soils can not be considered accurate ground water measurements for that date unless records are made over several days’ time. Factors such as weather, soil porosity, etc., will cause the ground water level to fluctuate for both pervious and impervious soils.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Color:

When the color of the soil is uniform throughout, the color recorded will be such as brown, gray, or black and may be modified by adjectives such as light and dark. If the soil’s predominant color is shaded by a secondary color, the secondary color precedes the primary color, such as: gray-brown, yellow-brown. If two major and distinct colors are swirled throughout the soil, the colors will be modified by the term mottled, such as:

mottled brown and gray.

Particle Size Visual Soil Components Boulders Larger than 8” Major Component: Minor Component Term Cobbles 8” to 3” Gravel Trace 1-10% Gravel – Coarse 3” to 3/4” Sand Some 11-35%

– Fine 2 mm. To 3/4” Silt And 36-50% Sand – Coarse 2 mm. – 0.6 mm. Clay (Pencil lead size)

– Medium 0.6 mm. – 0.2mm. Moisture Content Table sugar and salt size) Term Relative Moisture

– Fine 0.2 mm. – 0.06 mm. Dry Powdery (Powdered sugar and Damp Moisture content human hair size) below plastic limit Silt 0.06 mm. – 0.002 mm. Moist Moisture content Clay 0.002 and smaller above plastic limit (Particle size of both but below liquid Silt and Clay not visible limit To naked eye Wet Moisture content Above liquid limit

Condition of Soil Relative to Compactness Granular Material

Condition of Soil Relative to Consistency Cohesive Material

Very Loose 5 blows/ft. or less Very Soft 3 blows/ft. or less Loose 6 to 10 blows/ft. Soft 4 to 5 blows/ft.

Medium Dense 11 to 30 blows/ft. Medium Stiff 6 to 10 blows/ft.

Dense 30 to 50 blows/ft. Stiff 11 to 15 blows/ft.

Very Dense 51 blows/ft. or more Very stiff 16 to 30 blows/ft.

Hard 31 blows/ft. or more

UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

MAJOR DIVISIONS

GRAPH

SYMBOL

LETTER

SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS

COARSE

GRAINED

SOILS

MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN

NO. 200 SIEVE

SIZE

GRAVEL AND

GRAVELLY SOILS

CLEAN

GRAVELS

(LITTLE OR NO

FINES)

GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND

GP POORLY GRADED GRAVEL

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND

MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION

RETAINED ON

NO. 4 SIEVE

GRAVELS WITH

FINES

APPRECIABLE

AMT. OF FINES)

GM SILTY GRAVEL

SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND

GC CLAYEY GRAVEL

CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND

SAND AND

SANDY SOILS

CLEAN SAND

(LITTLE OR NO

FINES)

SW WELL-GRADED SAND

WELL-GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL

SP POORLY GRADED SAND

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL

MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION

PASSING NO. 4

SIEVE

SANDS WITH

FINES

(APPRECIABLE

AMT. OF FINES)

SM SILTY SAND

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL

SC CLAYEY SAND

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL

FINE GRAINED

SOILS

MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

SMALLER THAN

NO. 200 SIEVE

SIZE

SILT AND

CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT

LESS THAN 50

ML SILT, SILT WITH SAND, SANDY SILT

GRAVELLY SILT, GRAVELLY SILT WITH SAND

CL LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, SANDY LEAN CLAY

GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY WITH SAND

OL

ORGANIC CLAY, SANDY ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT, SANDY ORGANIC SILT WITH

GRAVEL

SILT AND

CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT

GREATER

THAN 50

MH ELASTIC SILT WITH SAND, SANDY ELASTIC SILT

GRAVELLY ELASTIC SILT WITH SAND

CH FAT CLAY WITH SAND, SANDY FAT CLAY

GRAVELLY FAT CLAY WITH SAND

OH

ORGANIC CLAY WITH SAND, SANDY

ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT, SANDY

ORGANIC SILT

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH

HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS

and fine-grained fraction of coarse-

ML OL

C L

O L

For classification of fine-grained soils

CL-ML

10 16 20 30

P L A S T

IC

IT

Y I N D E X P I) then PI=0.9 (LL-8)

Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7, Equation of "U" - line then PI=0.73 (LL-20)

Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5, Equation of "A" - line grained soils.

"A " L

IN

E

C H

O H

OR

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

40 50 60 80 90 100

ORMH OH

O R

O R

"U " L

IN

E

Flow Chart for Visually Identifying Soils Based on ASTM D-2488

Group Name

≤5% fines Well-graded GW <15% sand Well-graded gravel ≥15% sand Well-graded gravel with sand

Poorly graded GP <15% sand Poorly graded gravel ≥15% sand Poorly graded gravel with sand

Well-graded fines=ML or MH GW-GM <15% sand Well-graded gravel with silt GRAVEL ≥15% sand Well-graded gravel with silt and sand

% gravel > 10% fines fines=CL or CH GW-GC <15% sand Well-graded gravel with clay % sand ≥15% sand Well-graded gravel with clay and sand Poorly graded fines=ML or MH GP-GM <15% sand Poorly graded gravel with silt ≥15% sand Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand fines=CL or CH GP-GC <15% sand Poorly graded gravel with clay ≥15% sand Poorly graded gravel with clay and sand

≥15% fines fines=ML or MH GM <15% sand Silty gravel ≥15% sand Silty gravel with sand fines=CL or CH GC <15% sand Clayey gravel ≥15% sand Clayey gravel with sand

≤5% fines Well-graded SW <15% gravel Well-graded sand ≥15% gravel Well-graded sand with gravel

Poorly graded SP <15% gravel Poorly graded sand ≥15% gravel Poorly graded sand with gravel fines=ML or MH SW-SM <15% gravel Well-graded sand with silt SAND Well-graded ≥15% gravel Well-graded sand with silt and gravel % sand ≥ 10% fines fines=CL or CH SW-SC <15% gravel Well-graded sand with clay % gravel ≥15% gravel Well-graded sand with clay and gravel fines=ML or MH SP-SM <15% gravel Poorly graded sand with silt Poorly graded ≥15% gravel Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel fines=CL or CH SP-SC <15% gravel Poorly graded sand with clay ≥15% gravel Poorly graded sand with clay and gravel fines=ML or MH SM <15% gravel Silty sand ≥15% gravel Silty sand with gravel ≥15% fines fines=CL or CH SC <15% gravel Clayey sand ≥15% gravel Clayey sand with gravel

Flow Chart for Visually Identifying Soils Based on ASTM D-2488

Group Name

<30% plus No. 200 <15% plus No. 200 Lean clay 15-25% plus No. 200 % sand ≥% gravel Lean clay with sand CL % sand <% gravel Lean clay with gravel ≥30% plus No. 200 % sand ≥% gravel <15% sand Sandy lean clay ≥15% sand Sandy lean clay with gravel % sand <% gravel <15% sand Gravelly lean clay ≥15% sand Gravelly lean clay with sand

<30% plus No. 200 <15% plus No. 200 Silt 15-25% plus No. 200 % sand ≥% gravel Silt with sand ML % sand <% gravel Silt with gravel ≥30% plus No. 200 % sand ≥% gravel <15% sand Sandy silt ≥15% sand Sandy silt with gravel % sand <% gravel <15% sand Gravelly silt ≥15% sand Gravelly silt with sand

<30% plus No. 200 <15% plus No. 200 Fat clay 15-25% plus No. 200 % sand ≥% gravel Fat clay with sand CH % sand <% gravel Fat clay with gravel ≥30% plus No. 200 % sand ≥% gravel <15% sand Sandy fat clay ≥15% sand Sandy fat clay with gravel % sand <% gravel <15% sand Gravelly fat clay ≥15% sand Gravelly fat clay with sand

<30% plus No. 200 <15% plus No. 200 Elastic silt 15-25% plus No. 200 % sand ≥% gravel Elastic silt with sand MH % sand <% gravel Elastic silt with gravel ≥30% plus No. 200 % sand ≥% gravel <15% sand Sandy elastic silt ≥15% sand Sandy elastic silt with gravel % sand <% gravel <15% sand Gravelly elastic silt ≥15% sand Gravelly elastic silt with sand

STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (ASTM D1586)

The purpose of this test is to determine the relative consistency of the soils in a boring, or from boring over the site. This method consists of making a hole in the ground and driving a 2-inch O.D.

split spoon sampler into the soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The sampler is driven 18 inches and the number of blows recorded for each 6 inches of penetration.

Values of standard penetration (N) are determined in blows per foot, summarizing the flows required for the last two 6-inche increments of penetration.

Example : 2-6-8; N = 14

THIN-WALLED SAMPLER (ASTM D1587)

The purpose of the thin-walled sampler is to recover a relatively undisturbed soil sample for laboratory tests. The sampler is a thin-walled seamless tube with a 3-inch outside diameter, which is hydraulically pressed into the ground, at a constant rate. The ends are then sealed to prevent soil moisture loss, and the tube is returned to the laboratory for tests.

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION OR TRIAXIAL TESTS (ASTM D 2166)

The unconfined compression test and the triaxial tests are performed to determine the shearing strength of the soil, to use in establishing its safe bearing capacity. In order to perform the unconfined compression test, it is necessary that the soil exhibit sufficient cohesion to stand in an unsupported cylinder.

These tests are normally performed on samples which are 6.0 inches in height and 2.85 inches in diameter. In the triaxial test, various lateral stresses can be applied to more closely simulate the actual field conditions. There are several different types of triaxial tests. These are, however, normally performed on constant strain apparatus with a deformation rate of 0.05 inches per minute.

CONSOLIDATION TEST (ASTM D 2435)

The purpose of this test is to determine the compressibility of the soil. This test is performed on a sample of soil which is 2.5 inches in diameter and 1.0 inch in height, and has been trimmed from relatively “undisturbed” samples. The test is performed with a lever system or an air activated piston for applying load. The loads are applied in increments and allowed to remain on the sample for a period of 24 hours. The consolidation of the sample under each individual load is measured and a curve of void ratio vs. Pressure is obtained. From the information obtained in this manner and the column loads of the structure, it is possible to calculate the settlement of each individual building column. This information, together with the shearing strength of the soil, is used to determine the safe bearing capacity for a particular structure.

REVISED TO ASTM D4318

ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D423 AND D424)

These tests determine the liquid and plastic limits of soils having a predominant percentage of fine particle (silt and clay) sizes.