W912QR23R0028_Specs_Vol2B-0000.pdf

Solicitation For SAFB Child Development Center Scott

AFB, IL

P2: 502189

Design-Build

Specifications Vol. 2B of 2 Corrected Final Design

30 June 2023

W912QR23R00028

ARIMS: 200A

Disposition: Maintain for 15yrs after construction

W912QR23R0028_Specs_Vol2B-0000

Child Development Center Scott Air Force Base, IL

FY24, P2 502189

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

Contributors to the RFP ii

US Army Corps of Engineers Louisville District

DISCIPLINE

Project Manager

PE/A

Civil Engineer Checker

Hydraulic Engineer Checker

Geotechnical Engineer Checker

Structural Engineer Checker

Architect Checker

Mechanical Engineer Checker

Electrical Engineer Checker

CONTRIBUTER

Sean Hoben Jennifer Schenkenfelder

Brennen Gregory Allen Combs

Cliff Carter Isaiah Weilbaker

Matt Scholl Jeremy Hudson

Yohannes Assefa David Smith

Jeff Stark Jennifer Schenkenfelder

Brandon Martin Michael Callan

Mackenzie Lawrence Beau Gaddie

502189 CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, IL

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 80 00.00 06 04/21 SPECIAL PROVISIONS

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 03 00.00 06 DESIGN SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AFTER

AWARD

01 11 00 08/11 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 11 01 01/19 STATEMENT OF WORK CIVIL SITE

01 11 02 07/20 STATEMENT OF WORK ARCHITECTURE

01 11 03 08/16 STATEMENT OF WORK INTERIOR DESIGN

01 11 04 12/20 STATEMENT OF WORK STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

01 11 05 08/14 STATEMENT OF WORK HVAC & PLUMBING

01 11 06 10/19 STATEMENT OF WORK FOR ELECTRICAL AND

COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

01 11 07 08/14 STATEMENT OF WORK LIFE SAFETY/FIRE

PROTECTION

01 11 08 08/14 STATEMENT OF WORK FOR

SUSTAINABILITY/ENERGY EFFICIENCY

01 32 01.00 06 07/18 PROJECT SCHEDULE

01 33 00 08/18, CHG 4: 02/21 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 33 29.00 06 11/17 SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING

01 35 26.00 06 GOVERNMENT SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

01 42 00 08/10 APPLICABLE CRITERIA

01 45 00.15 10 11/16 RESIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTOR

MODE (RMS CM)

01 45 04.10 06 CONTRACTOR QUALITY CONTROL

01 46 00.00 06 04/20 TOTAL BUILDING COMMISSIONING

01 50 00 11/20 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND

CONTROLS

01 57 19.00 06 04/20 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS AND

PERMITS

01 74 19 02/19 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND

DISPOSAL

01 78 23 08/15 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

-- End of Project Table of Contents --

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

CORRECTED FINAL RFP

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

DIAGRAMMATIC DRAWINGS

INTERIOR COLOR SCHEMES

FIRE PROTECTION

CRITERIA DOCUMENTS

CONTROL POINT NAMING CONVENTIONS

SITE CHARACTERIZATION REPORT

APPENDICIES

VOLUME 2:

VOLUME 1:

Appendix D – Laboratory Testing Lab Procedures

Summary of Laboratory Results Grain Size Distribution Results

Atterberg Limits Results Unconfined Compression Test Results Moisture-Density Relationship Results California Bearing Ratio Test Results Water Soluble Sulfates and Chlorides

Organic Content Results pH Testing Results

Soil Resistivity Results Compressive Strength (Rock Core)

LABORATORY PROCEDURES

Soil Classification: Soil classifications provide a general guide to the engineering properties of various soil types and enable the engineer to apply past experience to current situations.

In the explorations, samples obtained during drilling operations are examined in the field and the contractor’s laboratory and visually classified by an engineer. The soils are classified according to consistency (based on number of blows from standard penetration tests), color and texture. These classification descriptions are included on the boring records.

The classification system discussed above is primarily qualitative. A detailed soil classification requires two laboratory tests: grain size tests and plasticity tests. Using these test results, the soil can be classified according to the AASHTO or Unified Classification Systems (ASTM D2487). Each of these classification systems and the in-place physical soil properties provide an index for estimating the soil's behavior. The soil classification and physical properties determined are presented in this report.

Soil Classification Tests

Atterberg Limits: Portions of the samples are taken for Atterberg limits testing to determine the plasticity characteristics of the soil. The plasticity index (PI) is the range of moisture content over which the soil deforms as a plastic material. It is bracketed by the liquid limit (LL) and the plastic limit (PL). The liquid limit is the moisture content at which the soil becomes sufficiently "wet" to flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The plastic limit is the lowest moisture content at which the soil is sufficiently plastic to be manually rolled into tiny threads.

The liquid limit and plastic limit are determined in accordance with ASTM D4318.

Grain Size Tests: Grain size tests are performed to determine the soil classification and the grain size distribution. The soil samples are prepared for testing according to ASTM D421 (dry preparation) or ASTM D2217 (wet preparation). The grain size distribution of soils coarser than a No. 200 sieve (0.074 mm opening) is determined by passing the samples through a standard set of nested sieves. Materials passing the No. 200 sieve are suspended in water and the grain size distribution calculated from the measured settlement rate. These hydrometer tests are conducted in accordance with ASTM D422.

Percent Finer Than 200 Sieve: Selected samples of soils are washed through a No. 200 sieve to determine the percentage of material less than 0.075 mm in diameter.

Moisture Content: The moisture content is determined according to ASTM D2216. A test specimen is dried in an oven at a temperature of 110±5 degrees Celsius to a constant mass. The loss of mass due to drying is considered to be water. The water content is ratio of the mass of water divided by the mass of the dry specimen, expressed as a percentage.

Organic Content: The organic content is determined according to ASTM D2974. The moisture content is first determined by drying portions of the sample at 110±5 degrees

Celsius. The ash content is then determined by igniting the oven-dried sample from the moisture content determination in a muffle furnace at 440±40 degrees Celsius (Test Method C). The substance remaining after ignition is the ash. The organic content is expressed as a percentage by subtracting the percent ash from one hundred.

Physical Soil Properties: The in-place physical properties are described by the specific gravity, wet unit weight, moisture content, dry unit weight, void ratio, and percent saturation of the soil. The specific gravity and moisture content are determined according to ASTM D854 and D2216, respectively. The wet unit weight is found by obtaining a known volume of the soil and dividing the wet sample weight by the known volume. The dry unit weight, void ratio and percent saturation are calculated values.

Undisturbed Sample Preparation: In the laboratory, each undisturbed sample is cut into sections. Each section is weighed and portions of the soil removed for moisture and specific gravity determinations. From these data, the soil void ratio and weight per cubic foot are computed.

Strength Tests

Unconfined Compression Tests: The unconfined compression test is an unconsolidated-undrained triaxial shear test with no lateral confining pressure. This test is used to determine the shear strength of clayey soils. An unconfined compression test is performed according to ASTM D2166 on a single section of an undisturbed sample extruded from a sampling tube. The sample is trimmed to a length-to-diameter ratio of about 2 and placed in the testing device. Incrementally increasing vertical loads are applied until the sample fails. Test results are provided in the form of a stress-strain curve.

California Bearing Ratio: The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is a punching shear test which provides data that is a semi-empirical index to the strength and deflection characteristics of the soil, and has been widely correlated with pavement performance to establish criteria for selecting pavement thicknesses. The test is performed on a 6-inch diameter, 5-inch thick disk of compacted soil that is confined in a steel cylinder. The sample is first compacted in accordance with Method B or D of ASTM D698 or D1557. The samples may be tested unsoaked or in a soaked condition. For the soaked test, the sample is inundated under a confining pressure to approximate the weight of future pavement, in order to evaluate the potential swell characteristics of the soil.

The test is performed by forcing a piston approximately 2 inches in diameter into the soil sample at the rate of 0.05 inch per minute to a depth of 0.5 inch to determine the resistance to penetration. The CBR is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the actual load required to penetrate the soil to a 0.1 inch depth compared to the load it takes to penetrate a standard crushed stone to the same depth.

Compaction Tests

Compaction Tests: Compaction tests are run on representative soil samples to determine the dry density obtained by a uniform compactive effort at varying moisture contents. The results of the test are used to determine the compaction characteristics of the soil. Proper field compaction is necessary to decrease future settlements, increase the shear strength of the soil, and decrease the permeability of the soil.

Corrosion Potential

Corrosivity Tests: Corrosivity series tests are run on selected soil samples to determine:

pH, resistivity, sulfate content, and chloride content. The following test procedures were used to perform these tests:

pH: ASTM D4972 Resistivity: ASTM G187 Sulfate Content: ASTM C1580 Chloride Content: AASHTO T291

Soil pH: The test method covers the measurement of the pH of soil that will pass the No.

10 sieve. A slurry is made by thoroughly mixing distilled water with the soil. The pH determines the degree of acidity or alkalinity in soil materials suspended in water and a calcium chloride solution. Measurements in both liquids are necessary to fully define the soil’s pH. This variable is useful in determining the solubility of soil minerals, the mobility of ions in the soil, and assessing the viability of the soil-plant environment. The pH is determined using one of two methods. For one method, the pH is measured using a potentiometer having a pH sensitive electrode system. This is the preferred method. In the other method, the pH is measured using pH sensitive paper.

The pH of the soil is a unitless number derived from the hydrogen ion content and is compared to a pH of 7. A pH of less than 7 is acid, and greater than 7 is basic. A pH of 7 is neutral.

Laboratory Soil Resistivity Tests: The resistivity of the surrounding soil environment is a factor in the corrosion of underground structures. High resistivity soils generally are not as corrosive as low resistivity soils. The resistivity of the soil is one of many factors that influence the service life of a buried structure. Soil resistivity may affect the material selection and the location of a structure.

The resistivity is measured with a two-electrode soil box in either a saturated condition or an as-received moisture condition. The soil is placed in layers and compacted as densely as possible by hand. The two-electrode soil box method is predicated on measuring the resistance between two electrodes located on opposing faces of a soil box containing a soil sample. That resistance is then converted to resistivity based on the soil box factor.

Water-Soluble Sulfate in Soil: The test method determines the water-soluble sulfate in soils. This test method can be used to determine if soils could have an adverse reaction with hydraulic cement concrete. A sample of soil is crushed to pass a 600 mm sieve and then mixed with deionized water. After being stirred on a magnetic stirrer for a period of time, the soil-water solution is filtered under suction through two medium texture filter papers. The extracted material is then diluted again and mixed with barium chloride crystals. This solution is then placed in a photometer where the turbidity is determined.

The soluble sulfate is then determined from a calibration curve.

Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content in Soil: This method covers the dry preparation of soil and soil-aggregate samples, as received from the field, for use in determining the chloride content. The aggregations of soil particles are broken up in the pulverizing apparatus in such a way as to avoid reducing the natural size of the individual particles. The soil is then separated into fractions using one of three methods, all of which involve sieving the material over a specified sieve size and then grounding the sieved material with a pulverizing apparatus until the aggregation of soil particles is separated into individual grains. The test method is based on the Mohr procedure for determining chloride ion with silver nitrate.

Consolidation Tests

Consolidation Tests: Consolidation tests are conducted on representative soil samples to determine the change in height of the sample with increasing load. The results of these tests are used to estimate the settlement and time rate of settlement of structures constructed on similar soils. A consolidation test is performed according to ASTM D2435 on a single section of an undisturbed sample extruded from a sample tube. The sample is trimmed into a disc 2.5 inches in diameter and 0.75 inch thick. The disc is confined in a stainless steel ring and sandwiched between porous plates. It is then subjected to incrementally increasing vertical loads, and the resulting deformations are measured with a micrometer dial gauge. Void ratio are then calculated from these deformation readings.

The test results are typically provided in tabular form or in the form of plots of void ratio versus applied stress (e-log p curves).

B-1 0.0 11.6

B-1 1.5 31 19 12 21.3

B-1 3.0 42 22 20 9 98 CL 28.3

B-1 5.0 28.6

B-1 6.5 28.0

B-1 9.0 25.4

B-2 0.0 37 21 16 14.8

B-2 1.5 12.7

B-2 3.0 15.5

B-2 6.5 35 23 12 25 61 CL 26.7

B-2 9.0 28.1

B-2 14.0 25.3

B-2 19.0 23.1

B-3 0.0 40 25 15 15.2

B-3 1.5 12.7

B-3 3.0 34 22 12 25 73 CL 23.7

B-3 6.5 26.4

B-3 9.0 27.3

B-3 14.0 26.6

B-4 0.0 14.4

B-4 1.5 32 20 12 13.8

B-4 3.0 45 21 24 19 97 CL 26.3

B-4 6.5 28.7

B-4 9.0 26.2

B-4 14.0 25.4

P-5 0.0 15.7

P-5 0.1 32 20 12 26.3

P-5 1.5 35 19 16 21.1

P-5 4.0 24.6

P-5 6.5 28.5

P-6 0.0 13.8

P-6 0.1 37 22 15 17.9

P-6 1.5 38 22 16 18.0

P-6 4.0 26.6

P-6 6.5 24.6

Liquid Limit

Satur-ation

Void Ratio

Class-ification

Water Content

Dry Density

(pcf) DepthBorehole

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

Maximum Size (mm)

%<#200 Sieve

CLIENT USACE

PROJECT NUMBER 219-206

PROJECT NAME Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC

PROJECT LOCATION Scott AFB, Illinois

LA

B

S U

M M

A R

Y

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/2

/2

9:

T :\G

E O

T E

C H

S U

P P

O R

T \U

S A

C E

\U S

A C

E G

E O

T E

C H

ID

IQ

L O

U

IS

V

IL

LE

S E

C O

N D

\T

A S

K O

R D

E R

N O

. 2

S C

O T

T A

F B

C H

IL

D

D E

V E

LO

P

M E

N T

C E

N T

E R

S

C O

T T

A F

B , I

LL

IN

O

IS

\L A

B \S

C O

T T

C D

C L

A B

.G P

J W912QR23R0028_Specs_Vol2B-0000 h2edtmrs Text Box Bulk h2edtmrs Text Box Bulk

0.0010.010.1110100

PI Cc

CuLL PL

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

COBBLES

GRAVEL

SAND

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

coarse fine

LEAN CLAY(CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)

Classification

D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel

0.021

0.049

0.038

0.018

62.7

26.4

50.7

62.9

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4 coarse

SILT OR CLAY

finemedium

3.0

6.5

3.0

3.0

%Sand %Silt %Clay

0.003

0.004

0.011

0.003

0.0

1.0

2.1

0.2

1.8

37.8

25.3

2.9

35.5

34.8

21.9

34.0

BOREHOLE DEPTH

BOREHOLE DEPTH

3 100

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

24 16 30

1 2006 10 501/2

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

1403 4 20 406 601.5 8 143/4 3/8

3.0

6.5

3.0

3.0

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

CLIENT USACE

PROJECT NUMBER 219-206

PROJECT NAME Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC

PROJECT LOCATION Scott AFB, Illinois

G R

A

IN

S

IZ

E

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/2

/2

9:

T :\G

E O

T E

C H

S U

P P

O R

T \U

S A

C E

\U S

A C

E G

E O

T E

C H

ID

IQ

L O

U

IS

V

IL

LE

S E

C O

N D

\T

A S

K O

R D

E R

N O

. 2

S C

O T

T A

F B

C H

IL

D

D E

V E

LO

P

M E

N T

C E

N T

E R

S

C O

T T

A F

B , I

LL

IN

O

IS

\L A

B \S

C O

T T

C D

C L

A B

.G P

J

Unconfined Compression Test

ASTM D2166

Project Number:

Project:

Sampling Date:

Sample Number:

Client Name:

Remarks:

Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC 219-206

8/17/2022

ST-1

USACE

3-5 ftSample Depth:

Scott AFB, IllinoisLocation:

Boring Number: B-1

Received Date: 8/17/2022

Unconfined Compression Test - Results

Report Created: 8/25/2022 1

Project Name: Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC Project Number: 219-206 Test Date: 8/17/2022 Checked By: ___________________ Date: _____________

Before Test

Strain Rate (in/min)

Test Data

Undrained Shear Strength (psf) Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf)

Height (in) Diameter (in)

Void Ratio:

Saturation (%):

Dry Density (pcf)

Moisture Content (%):

Specimen Number 87654321

Strain at Failure (%):

28.3

95.1 99.8 0.759

2.8300 5.7460

3188.36 1594.18

0.1

12.62

USACE

ST-1

8/17/2022 219-206 Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC

Remarks:

Client Name:

Sample Number:

Sampling Date:

Project:

Project Number:

Liquid Limit: 4222Plastic Limit:2.629384Specific Gravity:

UDType:

2.03Height To Diameter Ratio:

Soil Classification: CL

Location: Scott AFB, Illinois

Sample Depth: 3-5 ft

Specimen 1 Failure Sketch

Specimen 2 Failure Sketch

Specimen 3 Failure Sketch

Specimen 4 Failure Sketch

Specimen 5 Failure Sketch

Specimen 6 Failure Sketch

Specimen 7 Failure Sketch

Specimen 8 Failure Sketch

122.0Wet Density (pcf)

0.9Strain Limit @ 15% (in)

1.74Strain Rate (%/min):

0Failure Angle (°):

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Boring Number: B-1

Unconfined Compression Test - Results

Report Created: 8/25/2022 2

Project Name: Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC Project Number: 219-206 Test Date: 8/17/2022 Date: _____________Checked By: ___________________

Index

Elapsed Time

(hh:mm:ss) Load (Lbf)

Displacement (in)

Corrected Load (Lbf)

Corrected Displacement

(in)

Axial Strain

Stress (psf)

Compressive Stress (psf)

Cross Sectional

Area (in²)

0 00:00:00 -3.390358 0.0004 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0.00 0.000.000 1 00:00:14 34.10567 0.0254 37.5 0.0250 0.4 858.39 854.656.318 2 00:00:29 47.04438 0.0504 50.4 0.0500 0.9 1,154.60 1,144.546.345 3 00:00:45 58.00811 0.0754 61.4 0.0750 1.3 1,405.59 1,387.246.373 4 00:01:00 67.36555 0.1004 70.8 0.1000 1.7 1,619.80 1,591.616.402 5 00:01:16 75.96268 0.1254 79.4 0.1250 2.2 1,816.62 1,777.096.430 6 00:01:31 83.35435 0.1504 86.7 0.1500 2.6 1,985.83 1,933.986.459 7 00:01:45 89.99963 0.1754 93.4 0.1750 3.0 2,137.96 2,072.846.488 8 00:02:01 96.24818 0.2004 99.6 0.2000 3.5 2,281.01 2,201.606.517 9 00:02:15 101.6147 0.2254 105.0 0.2250 3.9 2,403.86 2,309.736.547 10 00:02:30 106.7239 0.2504 110.1 0.2500 4.4 2,520.83 2,411.156.576 11 00:02:45 111.5218 0.2754 114.9 0.2750 4.8 2,630.67 2,504.766.606 12 00:03:00 116.0088 0.3004 119.4 0.3000 5.2 2,733.39 2,590.666.637 13 00:03:16 120.3807 0.3254 123.8 0.3250 5.7 2,833.47 2,673.206.667 14 00:03:31 124.2535 0.3504 127.6 0.3500 6.1 2,922.13 2,744.136.698 15 00:03:46 127.8148 0.3754 131.2 0.3750 6.5 3,003.66 2,807.636.729 16 00:04:00 131.2155 0.4004 134.6 0.4000 7.0 3,081.51 2,866.996.761 17 00:04:15 134.3436 0.4254 137.7 0.4250 7.4 3,153.12 2,919.896.793 18 00:04:30 137.037 0.4504 140.4 0.4500 7.8 3,214.78 2,963.016.825 19 00:04:45 139.8959 0.4754 143.3 0.4750 8.3 3,280.23 3,009.066.857 20 00:05:00 142.3262 0.5004 145.7 0.5000 8.7 3,335.87 3,045.586.890 21 00:05:16 144.7567 0.5254 148.1 0.5250 9.1 3,391.51 3,081.636.923 22 00:05:31 146.8807 0.5504 150.3 0.5500 9.6 3,440.13 3,110.846.956 23 00:05:46 148.7267 0.5754 152.1 0.5750 10.0 3,482.39 3,133.916.990 24 00:06:01 150.4925 0.6004 153.9 0.6000 10.4 3,522.82 3,154.957.024 25 00:06:15 152.1986 0.6254 155.6 0.6250 10.9 3,561.87 3,174.437.058 26 00:06:30 153.5411 0.6504 156.9 0.6500 11.3 3,592.61 3,186.207.093 27 00:06:45 154.9361 0.6754 158.3 0.6750 11.7 3,624.54 3,198.747.127 28 00:07:00 155.7681 0.7004 159.2 0.7000 12.2 3,643.59 3,199.717.163 29 00:07:16 155.9931 0.7254 159.4 0.7250 12.6 3,648.74 3,188.367.198 30 00:07:31 155.7681 0.7504 159.2 0.7500 13.1 3,643.59 3,167.997.235 31 00:07:46 155.1434 0.7754 158.5 0.7750 13.5 3,629.29 3,139.777.271 32 00:08:00 153.6316 0.8004 157.0 0.8000 13.9 3,594.68 3,094.197.308 33 00:08:15 151.1639 0.8254 154.6 0.8250 14.4 3,538.19 3,030.177.345

Unconfined Compression Test - Data

Unconfined Compression Test - Specimen 1 ASTM D2166 LIMS Specimen Code: [TO COME FROM LIMS]

Report Created: 8/25/2022 4

Date: _____________Checked By: ___________________Test Date: 8/17/2022 Project Name: Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC Project Number: 219-206 Technician: SM

Time

(hh:mm:ss) Load (Lbf)

Displacement (in)

Corrected Load (Lbf)

Corrected Displacement

(in)

Axial Strain

Stress (psf)

Compressive Stress (psf)

Cross Sectional

Area (in²)

34 00:08:29 147.3115 0.8504 150.7 0.8500 14.8 3,450.00 2,939.637.382 35 00:08:45 141.9254 0.8754 145.3 0.8750 15.2 3,326.69 2,820.107.420 36 00:08:47 140.5647 0.8804 144.0 0.8800 15.3 3,295.54 2,790.817.428

Unconfined Compression Test - Data

Unconfined Compression Test - Specimen 1 ASTM D2166 LIMS Specimen Code: [TO COME FROM LIMS]

Report Created: 8/25/2022 5

Date: _____________Checked By: ___________________Test Date: 8/17/2022 Project Name: Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC Project Number: 219-206

Project Number:

Project:

Sampling Date:

Sample Number:

Client Name:

Remarks:

Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC 219-206

8/17/2022

ST-1

USACE

3-5 ftSample Depth:

Scott AFB, IllinoisLocation:

Boring Number: B-4

Received Date: 8/17/2022

Unconfined Compression Test - Results

Report Created: 8/25/2022 1

Project Name: Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC Project Number: 219-206 Test Date: 8/17/2022 Checked By: ___________________ Date: _____________

Before Test

Strain Rate (in/min)

Test Data

Undrained Shear Strength (psf) Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf)

Height (in) Diameter (in)

Void Ratio:

Saturation (%):

Dry Density (pcf)

Moisture Content (%):

Specimen Number 87654321

Strain at Failure (%):

26.3

98.2 99.9 0.704

2.8150 5.7270

3894.52 1947.26

0.1

11.35

USACE

ST-1

8/17/2022 219-206 Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC

Remarks:

Client Name:

Sample Number:

Sampling Date:

Project:

Project Number:

Liquid Limit: 4521Plastic Limit:2.581198Specific Gravity:

UDType:

2.03Height To Diameter Ratio:

Soil Classification: CL

Location: Scott AFB, Illinois

Sample Depth: 3-5 ft

Specimen 1 Failure Sketch

Specimen 2 Failure Sketch

Specimen 3 Failure Sketch

Specimen 4 Failure Sketch

Specimen 5 Failure Sketch

Specimen 6 Failure Sketch

Specimen 7 Failure Sketch

Specimen 8 Failure Sketch

123.9Wet Density (pcf)

0.9Strain Limit @ 15% (in)

1.75Strain Rate (%/min):

0Failure Angle (°):

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Boring Number: B-4

Unconfined Compression Test - Results

Report Created: 8/25/2022 2

Project Name: Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC Project Number: 219-206 Test Date: 8/17/2022 Date: _____________Checked By: ___________________

Time

(hh:mm:ss) Load (Lbf)

Displacement (in)

Corrected Load (Lbf)

Corrected Displacement

(in)

Axial Strain

Stress (psf)

Compressive Stress (psf)

Cross Sectional

Area (in²)

0 00:00:00 -5.819295 -0.0001 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0.00 0.000.000 1 00:00:14 37.06873 0.0249 42.9 0.0250 0.4 992.32 987.986.251 2 00:00:29 61.28459 0.0499 67.1 0.0500 0.9 1,552.61 1,539.056.279 3 00:00:45 80.4942 0.0749 86.3 0.0750 1.3 1,997.08 1,970.916.306 4 00:01:00 96.26367 0.0999 102.1 0.1000 1.7 2,361.94 2,320.706.334 5 00:01:15 108.4703 0.1249 114.3 0.1250 2.2 2,644.37 2,586.656.363 6 00:01:31 118.3142 0.1499 124.1 0.1500 2.6 2,872.14 2,796.906.391 7 00:01:46 126.5478 0.1749 132.4 0.1750 3.1 3,062.64 2,969.056.420 8 00:02:01 133.0039 0.1999 138.8 0.2000 3.5 3,212.02 3,099.836.449 9 00:02:15 138.8492 0.2249 144.7 0.2250 3.9 3,347.26 3,215.746.478 10 00:02:30 143.8555 0.2499 149.7 0.2500 4.4 3,463.10 3,311.916.508 11 00:02:45 148.6138 0.2749 154.4 0.2750 4.8 3,573.19 3,401.606.538 12 00:03:00 152.9705 0.2999 158.8 0.3000 5.2 3,673.99 3,481.526.568 13 00:03:16 156.7854 0.3249 162.6 0.3250 5.7 3,762.26 3,548.756.598 14 00:03:31 160.498 0.3499 166.3 0.3500 6.1 3,848.16 3,612.976.629 15 00:03:46 163.9077 0.3749 169.7 0.3750 6.5 3,927.05 3,669.896.660 16 00:04:00 166.713 0.3999 172.5 0.4000 7.0 3,991.96 3,713.136.691 17 00:04:15 169.4589 0.4249 175.3 0.4250 7.4 4,055.49 3,754.536.723 18 00:04:30 172.1268 0.4499 177.9 0.4500 7.9 4,117.22 3,793.706.754 19 00:04:45 174.5455 0.4749 180.4 0.4750 8.3 4,173.19 3,827.046.787 20 00:05:01 176.7777 0.4999 182.6 0.5000 8.7 4,224.83 3,855.976.819 21 00:05:16 178.8214 0.5249 184.6 0.5250 9.2 4,272.12 3,880.476.852 22 00:05:31 180.6318 0.5499 186.5 0.5500 9.6 4,314.01 3,899.706.885 23 00:05:47 182.2296 0.5749 188.0 0.5750 10.0 4,350.98 3,914.126.918 24 00:06:01 183.2906 0.5999 189.1 0.6000 10.5 4,375.52 3,917.096.952 25 00:06:15 183.9547 0.6249 189.8 0.6250 10.9 4,390.89 3,911.696.986 26 00:06:30 184.0521 0.6499 189.9 0.6500 11.3 4,393.14 3,894.527.020 27 00:06:45 183.3457 0.6749 189.2 0.6750 11.8 4,376.80 3,860.937.055 28 00:07:01 181.1879 0.6999 187.0 0.7000 12.2 4,326.87 3,797.997.090 29 00:07:16 175.9317 0.7249 181.8 0.7250 12.7 4,205.26 3,672.887.126 30 00:07:31 165.2432 0.7499 171.1 0.7500 13.1 3,957.95 3,439.607.162 31 00:07:39 158.0608 0.7628 163.9 0.7629 13.3 3,791.77 3,286.687.180

Unconfined Compression Test - Data

Unconfined Compression Test - Specimen 1 ASTM D2166 LIMS Specimen Code: [TO COME FROM LIMS]

Report Created: 8/25/2022 4

Date: _____________Checked By: ___________________Test Date: 8/17/2022 Project Name: Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC Project Number: 219-206

0 20 40 60 80 100

B-1

B-1

B-2

B-2

B-3

B-3

B-4

B-4

P-5

P-5

P-6

P-6

ML

CL

MH

CH

CL-ML

P L A S T I C I T Y

I N D E X

LIQUID LIMIT

Fines Classification

LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)

LL PL PI

ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS

1.5

3.0

0.0

6.5

0.0

3.0

1.5

3.0

0.1

1.5

0.1

1.5

BOREHOLE DEPTH

CLIENT USACE

PROJECT NUMBER 219-206

PROJECT NAME Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC

PROJECT LOCATION Scott AFB, Illinois

A T

T E

R B

E R

G L

IM

IT

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/2

/2

9:

T :\G

E O

T E

C H

S U

P P

O R

T \U

S A

C E

\U S

A C

E G

E O

T E

C H

ID

IQ

L O

U

IS

V

IL

LE

S E

C O

N D

\T

A S

K O

R D

E R

N O

. 2

S C

O T

T A

F B

C H

IL

D

D E

V E

LO

P

M E

N T

C E

N T

E R

S

C O

T T

A F

B , I

LL

IN

O

IS

\L A

B \S

C O

T T

C D

C L

A B

.G P

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP

Optimum Water Content

Maximum Dry Density PCF

LL PL PI

TEST RESULTS

Test Method

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y pc f

WATER CONTENT, %

ATTERBERG LIMITS

Curves of 100% Saturation for Specific Gravity Equal to:

2.80

2.70

2.60

Source of Material

Description of Material

115.6

13.6

P-6 0.1

LEAN CLAY(CL)

ASTM D1557 Method A

CLIENT USACE

PROJECT NUMBER 219-206

PROJECT NAME Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC

PROJECT LOCATION Scott AFB, Illinois

C O

M P

A C

T

IO

N

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/2

/2

3:

T :\G

E O

T E

C H

S U

P P

O R

T \U

S A

C E

\U S

A C

E G

E O

T E

C H

ID

IQ

L O

U

IS

V

IL

LE

S E

C O

N D

\T

A S

K O

R D

E R

N O

. 2

S C

O T

T A

F B

C H

IL

D

D E

V E

LO

P

M E

N T

C E

N T

E R

S

C O

T T

A F

B , I

LL

IN

O

IS

\L A

B \S

C O

T T

C D

C L

A B

.G P

CBR Test Results

ASTM (D1883) / AASHTO (T193)

Location: P-6 Sample Depth: 0.1 ft

USACE

Bulk 1

219-206 Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC

Remarks:

Client Name:

Sample Number:

Sampling Date:

Project:

Project Number:

CBR Results Results 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

CBR @ 0.10 (in) CBR @ 0.20 (in)

6.5 3.8 11.6

Project Information

6.6 3.4

9.3

CBR/LBR Test - Results

8/25/2022 1:59:06 PM 1

Project Name: Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC Project Number: 219-206

Tested By: ___________________ Date: _____________Checked By: ___________________Date: _____________

CBR Test

ASTM (D1883) / AASHTO (T193)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Specimen NumberBefore Soaking

Surcharge Weight (lb) Number of Blows Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%) Mold ID Mold Diameter (in) Mold Weight (lb) Sample Height (in) Mold Volume (in³) Moisture Content (%) Weight of Mold + Soil (lb) Weight of Soil (g) Dry Density (pcf) Wet Density (pcf)

87654321After Soaking Soaked Sample Height (in) Soaked Time (Hr) Swell (%) Moisture Content (%) Weight of Mold + Soil (lb) Weight After Soaking (g) Dry Density (pcf) Wet Density (pcf)

12.34

115.6

6.000 15.94 4.584

129.61 13.6 25.99

117.9 133.9

4.680 96.000

2.1 17.3 26.24

4669.3 115.5 135.5

13.6

4556.8

2.72Specific Gravity 37Liquid Limit 22Plastic Limit

2.72 2.72 37 37 22 22

12.56 12.61 22 12

115.6 115.6

13.6 13.6

TA 7

6.000 6.000

16.32 15.95

4.584 4.584

129.61 129.61

13.6 13.6

25.70 24.70

4254.7 3971.7

110.1 102.8

125.1 116.7

4.720 4.727

96.000 96.000

3.0 3.1

20.4 23.8

26.18 25.40

4471.5 4286.4

106.9 99.6

128.7 123.3

CBR/LBR Test - Results

8/25/2022 1:59:06 PM 2

Date: _____________ Checked By: ___________________ Date: _____________Tested By: ___________________

Project Name: Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC Project Number: 219-206

Corrected

CBR

CBR

Stress On Piston (psi)

Corrected Penetration

(in)

Corrected Load (Lbf)

Displacement (in)

Load (Lbf)

Elapsed Time

(hh:mm:ss)Index 0.00.000.000.00.00022.100:00:000 0.00.0240.0372.80.025274.900:00:301 0.00.0490.05147.50.0502149.600:01:022 0.00.0710.08213.50.0752215.700:01:333 9.39.3930.10279.20.1002281.300:02:054 0.00.01140.13341.80.1252343.900:02:375 0.00.01350.15403.60.1502405.700:03:076 0.00.01540.18462.90.1752465.000:03:377

11.611.61740.20522.90.2002525.000:04:088 0.00.01920.23576.40.2252578.500:04:399 0.00.02090.25628.50.2502630.600:05:1010 0.00.02260.28677.70.2752679.800:05:4211

12.712.72420.30726.20.3002728.300:06:1412 0.00.02570.33770.10.3252772.200:06:4513 0.00.02710.35812.80.3502814.900:07:1614 0.00.02850.38854.40.3752856.500:07:4715

13.013.02990.40898.10.4002900.200:08:1716 0.00.03140.43942.10.4252944.200:08:4917 0.00.03280.45984.70.4502986.800:09:2218 0.00.03420.481,026.10.47521,028.200:09:5419

13.713.73550.501,065.40.50011,067.600:10:2520

[CBR/LBR] Test - Data

CBR Test - Specimen 1

ASTM (D1883) / AASHTO (T193)

8/25/2022 1:59:07 PM 6

Project Name: Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC Project Number: 219-206

Date: _____________ Checked By: ___________________ Date: _____________Tested By: ___________________

CBR

Stress On Piston (psi)

Corrected Penetration

(in)

Corrected Load (Lbf)

Displacement (in)

Load (Lbf)

Elapsed Time

(hh:mm:ss)Index 0.00.000.000.00.00021.300:00:000 0.00.0220.0367.40.025268.700:00:301 0.00.0390.05117.60.0502118.900:01:012 0.00.0530.08159.60.0752160.900:01:323 6.56.5650.10196.50.1002197.800:02:034 0.00.0760.13228.30.1252229.600:02:355 0.00.0850.15254.30.1502255.600:03:066 0.00.0920.18275.60.1752276.900:03:367 6.66.6990.20296.00.2002297.400:04:088 0.00.01040.23313.00.2252314.300:04:379 0.00.01100.25330.30.2502331.600:05:0710 0.00.01160.28346.90.2752348.200:05:3711 6.46.41210.30363.40.3002364.700:06:0812 0.00.01270.33380.40.3252381.700:06:3813 0.00.01320.35397.50.3502398.800:07:0814 0.00.01370.38410.00.3752411.300:07:3915 6.26.21420.40425.70.4002427.000:08:0916 0.00.01470.43441.60.4252442.900:08:3817 0.00.01530.45457.80.4502459.100:09:0818 0.00.01580.48474.00.4752475.300:09:3919 6.36.31630.50490.30.5001491.600:10:1020

[CBR/LBR] Test - Data

CBR Test - Specimen 2

ASTM (D1883) / AASHTO (T193)

8/25/2022 1:59:07 PM 7

Project Name: Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC Project Number: 219-206

Date: _____________ Checked By: ___________________ Date: _____________Tested By: ___________________

CBR

Stress On Piston (psi)

Corrected Penetration

(in)

Corrected Load (Lbf)

Displacement (in)

Load (Lbf)

Elapsed Time

(hh:mm:ss)Index 0.00.000.000.00.00021.700:00:000 0.00.0170.0350.90.025252.600:00:301 0.00.0260.0577.30.050279.000:01:012 0.00.0330.0898.00.075299.800:01:323 3.83.8380.10113.60.1002115.300:02:034 0.00.0420.13125.80.1252127.500:02:345 0.00.0460.15136.50.1502138.200:03:046 0.00.0490.18145.80.1752147.500:03:347 3.43.4510.20153.80.2002155.500:04:058 0.00.0540.23161.20.2252162.900:04:349 0.00.0570.25169.50.2502171.200:05:0410 0.00.0590.28178.20.2752179.900:05:3511 3.33.3620.30186.10.3002187.800:06:0612 0.00.0640.33193.40.3252195.100:06:3613 0.00.0670.35200.70.3502202.400:07:0614 0.00.0690.38208.30.3752210.000:07:3615 3.13.1720.40215.90.4002217.600:08:0716 0.00.0740.43223.10.4252224.800:08:3617 0.00.0770.45230.60.4502232.300:09:0718 0.00.0790.48237.60.4752239.400:09:3819 3.13.1820.50244.80.5000246.500:10:0920

[CBR/LBR] Test - Data

CBR Test - Specimen 3

ASTM (D1883) / AASHTO (T193)

8/25/2022 1:59:07 PM 8

Project Name: Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC Project Number: 219-206

Date: _____________ Checked By: ___________________ Date: _____________Tested By: ___________________

Depth (feet) Wt. Dry Sample +

Tare (g)

Wt. Sample After Test +

Tare (g)

Tare Wt.

(g)

Organic Content (%)

Bulk (0.0-5.0) 49.88 49.2 20.89 2.3 Bulk (0.0-5.0) 49.02 47.38 18.65 5.4

Depth (feet) pH Bulk (0.0-5.0) 7.7

Depth (feet) Resistivity (KΩ-cm)

Bulk (0.0-5.0) 1.47P-5

P-5

Soil Resistivity Results

P-6

P-5 Boring

Task Order No. 22 - Scott AFB Child Development Center Organic Content Results pH Testing Results

Boring

Boring

544 Braddock Avenue • East Pittsburgh, PA 15112 • Phone (412) 823-7600 • Fax (412) 823-8999 • www.geotechnics.net

CHLORIDE ION CONTENT IN SOILS

AASHTO T 291 - 94 (2018) (Method B )

Client: American Engineers, Inc. Boring No.: P-5 Client Reference: Scott AFB Child Development Center Depth (ft): 0.0-5.0' Project No.: 2022-454-003 Sample No.: Bulk 1 Lab ID: 2022-454-003-001 Description: Brown Soil

( - # 10 Sieve material )

CHLORIDE STANDARD: CALIBRATION CURVE

STANDARD MILLIVOLTS

(mV)

10.0 mg/L 149.3

100.0 mg/L 89.6

1000.0 mg/L 30.1

MEASUREMENT OF CHLORIDES

Sample Weight (g): 100.0 CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION Water added to Sample (ml): 100.0 (mg/L) (mg/kg) Size of Sample Aliquot (ml): 25.0

Sample Reading (mV): 116.4 35.60 35.60

Notes: 1) Samples and standards were buffered by the addition of an equal volume of the 0.2 M KNO3 solution (1:1 volume).

2) Samples were dried for a minimum of 12 hours at 110 +/- 5 oC.

Notes:

Tested By JAM Date 9/1/22 Checked By BRB Date 9/2/22 page 1 of 1 DCN: CT-S63A DATE: 6/2/14 REVISION: 1 y = -25.88ln(x) + 208.87 R² = 1

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

10.0 100.0 1000.0 m V mg/L

Chloride Standard - Calibration Curve

544 Braddock Avenue • East Pittsburgh, PA 15112 • Phone (412) 823-7600 • Fax (412) 823-8999 • www.geotechnics.net

Water-Soluble Sulfate Ion Content in Soil

AASHTO T 290-95 (2020)

Client: American Engineers, Inc. Boring No.: P-5 Client Reference: Scott AFB Child Development Center Depth (ft): 0.0-5.0' Project No.: 2022-454-003 Sample No.: Bulk 1 Lab ID: 2022-454-003-001 Soil Description: Brown Soil

0.0 4.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Underrange Underrange 6 22 47 68 129 179 241

(Sample contains 5.0 mL NaCl solution and 0.3 g BaCl2 .2H2O)

Sample Weight (g): 100.0 Sample Moisture Content Water added to Sample (mL): 300.0 Tare Number: 870 Size of Sample Aliquot (mL): 50.0 Weight of Tare & Wet Sample (g): 240.91

Sample Reading (FAU): 12 Weight of Tare & Dry Sample (g): 237.67 Weight of Tare (g): 109.35

Sample Diluted: No Weight of Water (g): 3.24 Weight of Dry Sample (g): 128.32

Moisture Content (%): 2.52 Sulfate Solution Added (ml): 0

Sample Sulfate Ion Concentration: 16.31 mg/L SO4 (ppm) Sample Sulfate Ion Content: 48.9 mg/Kg SO4 (not corrected for moisture) Sample Sulfate Ion Content: 50.2 mg/Kg SO4 (corrected for moisture)

Tested by: JAM Date: 9/1/22 Checked by: BRB Date: 9/2/2022 page 1 of 1 DCN: CT-S87 DATE: 3/5/2020 REVISION: 1

Sulfate Standard - Calibration Curve Spectrophotometer Readings

Sulfate Ion Concentrations (mg/L)

Spectrophotometer Readings (FAU)

Measurement of Barium Chloride Turbidity y = 2.5815x - 30.101 R² = 0.9899

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

F A

U mg/L SO4 (ppm)

AASHTO T 290-95 Calibration Curve

Project: Task Order No. 22 Scott AFB CDC Date: 8/25/2022 Type of Core: Rock

B-1 58.4 1.95 5.71 660.2 2190 734 2.9 147.56 730

Boring ID

Testing performed per ASTM D7012-14

Load (lbs)Weight (g) Initial Height

(in)Diameter (in)Depth (ft)

Corrected Strength

(psi)Density (pcf)L/D RatioStrength (psi)

Appendix E – Geophysical Survey Report

Geophysical Survey Report

HAGER-RICHTER

GEOSCIENCE, INC.

©2022 Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc.

SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, ILLINOIS

Contract No. W912QR20D0003

Prepared for:

American Engineers, Inc.

65 Aberdeen Drive Glasgow, Kentucky 42141

Prepared by:

Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc.

8 Industrial Way - D10 Salem, New Hampshire 03079

File 22J53 July 2022

GEOPHYSICS FOR THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY

SALEM, NEW HAMPSHIRE

Tel: 603.893.9944

FORDS, NEW JERSEY

Tel: 732.661.0555

SALEM, NEW HAMPSHIRE • FORDS, NEW JERSEY

www.hager-richter.com

July 28, 2022 File 22J53

Dennis Mitchell, P.E.

Director of Geotechnical Services American Engineers, Inc.

65 Aberdeen Drive Glasgow, Kentucky 42141

Tel: 270-651-7220 Fax: 270-590-5390

Email: DMitchell@aei.cc

RE: Surface Geophysical Survey

Scott AFB, Illinois Contract No. W912QR20D0003

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

In this report, we summarize the results of a geophysical survey conducted by Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. (H-R) in support of the Proposed Child Development Center Joint at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois for American Engineers, Inc. (AEI) and the Louisville District US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE-LRL). The scope of the survey and the area of interest were specified by AEI and USACE-LRL.

INTRODUCTION

The site is the proposed location of a new Child Development Center at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.

The site is a group of playing fields located at southeast of the intersection of Paul Revere Drive and Patriots Drive. The general location of the site is shown in Figure 1. The area of interest for the geophysical survey is approximately 8-acres in size and consists of playing fields with some fencing.

According to information provided by AEI, a geophysical investigation was required to support the design and construction of the facility. The purpose of the geophysical investigation was to determine the locations of subsurface anomalies such as those caused by changes in geologic conditions, old building foundations, and below-grade structures, as well as existing and abandoned utilities. The field work was performed in general accordance with Engineer Manual (EM) 385-1-1, Safety and Health Requirements.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the geophysical survey was to detect, and if detected, to locate buried waste material (both metallic and non-metallic), uncontrolled fill, changes in shallow subsurface conditions, old building foundations, and abandoned or existing utilities in accessible exterior portions of the specified area of interest at the site.

mailto:DMitchell@aei.cc

Surface Geophysical Survey

Scott AFB, Illinois Contract No. W912QR20D0003 File 22J53 Page 3

THE SURVEY

Jeffrey Reid, P.G., and Timothy Williams of Hager-Richter conducted the geophysical survey on June 10-12, 2022. The project was coordinated with Mr. Dennis Mitchell, P.E. of AEI.

The geophysical survey was conducted using the methods specified by AEI and the USACE:

time domain electromagnetic induction (EM61) and frequency domain electromagnetic induction terrain conductivity (EM38).

EM61 data were acquired at approximately 8-inch intervals along lines spaced 5 feet apart across the accessible portions of the area of interest. The EM61 survey detects areas of buried metal to a depth of about 10 feet.

EM38 data were acquired at approximately 1-foot intervals along lines spaced 5 feet apart across the accessible portions the areas of interest. The EM38 data were acquired in the vertical dipole mode with the instrument’s boom parallel to the survey lines. The EM38 survey detects areas of anomalous apparent terrain conductivity as well as areas of buried metal to a depth of about 5 feet.

Hager-Richter established a local survey grid for the acquisition of the geophysical data. The survey grid and other site features were georeferenced using a Trimble Geo7X CM GPS system utilizing a Zephyr-2 external antenna. The results of the survey were presented relative to the UTM Zone 16N WGS84 in US Survey Feet.

EQUIPMENT

EM61. The time domain electromagnetic induction survey was conducted using a Geonics EM61-MK2A time domain electromagnetic induction metal detector. The EM61-MK2A instrument was designed specifically for detecting buried metal objects such as USTs, drums, and utilities. An air-cored transmitter coil generates a pulsed primary magnetic field in the earth, thereby inducing eddy currents in nearby metal objects. The eddy current produces a secondary magnetic field that is sensed by two receiver coils, one coincident with the transmitter and one positioned 40 cm above the main coil. By measuring the secondary magnetic field after the current in the ground has dissipated but before the current in metal objects has dissipated, the instrument responds only to the secondary magnetic field produced by metal objects. Four channels of secondary response are measured in mV and are recorded on a digital data logger.

The system is generally operated by pushing the coils configured as a wagon with an odometer mounted on the axle to trigger the data logger automatically at approximately 8-inch intervals.

The EM61 survey was conducted in substantial accordance with ASTM D 6820.

EM38. The electromagnetic induction terrain conductivity survey was conducted using a Geonics Model EM38-MK2 terrain conductivity meter. This unit is an induction type instrument and provides measurement of both the quadrature-phase and in-phase components of terrain conductivity without ground electrodes or contact. The quadrature-phase data, also known as

Scott AFB, Illinois Contract No. W912QR20D0003 File 22J53 Page 4 apparent conductivity data, are useful for detecting the presence of anomalously conductive ground, which might be caused by the presence of objects with properties unlike those of the natural materials on site, such as fill. The in-phase component data, on the other hand, are only used to interpret the presence of metal objects. The data for both components are recorded on a digital data logger. The EM38 is calibrated to read ground conductivity directly in millisiemens per meter with a resolution of 2% of full scale and an accuracy of 1 mmho/meter. The nominal depth of earth sampled by the EM38 in the vertical dipole mode is about 5 feet. The EM38 survey was conducted in substantial accordance with ASTM D 6639.

LIMITATIONS OF THE METHODS

HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCIENCE, INC. MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT

ALL TARGETS OF INTEREST WERE DETECTED IN THIS SURVEY.

HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCIENCE, INC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR

DETECTING TARGETS THAT CANNOT BE DETECTED BY THE

METHODS EMPLOYED OR BECAUSE OF SITE CONDITIONS.

EM61. The EM61 cannot detect non-metallic objects. The data from all EM surveys are adversely affected by surface metal, and subsurface information is eliminated at and near the surface metal. The EM61 has a depth sensitivity limited to about 10 feet.

Detection and identification should be clearly differentiated. Detection is the recognition of the presence of a metal object, and the electromagnetic method is excellent for such purposes.

Identification, on the other hand, is determination of the nature of the causative body (i.e., what is the body -- a cache of drums, UST, automobile, white goods, etc.?). Although the EM data cannot be used to identify all buried metal objects, they provide excellent guides to the identification of some objects. For example, buried metal utilities produce anomalies with lengths many times their widths.

EM38. All electromagnetic geophysical methods are affected by the presence of power lines and surface metal objects (steel sided buildings, dumpsters, vehicles, railroad tracks, reinforced concrete, etc.). Where such are present, the effects of materials in the subsurface may be masked, and firm conclusions about subsurface conditions cannot be made.

The detection of any target, whether an object or change in geological conditions, is predicated in the assumption of a marked contrast in electrical conductivity. The EM38 instrument response varies with the orientation of the dipoles. In the horizontal dipole mode, the instrument is more sensitive to near-surface conductive layers than it is in the vertical dipole mode.

Scott AFB, Illinois Contract No. W912QR20D0003 File 22J53 Page 5

RESULTS

The geophysical survey was conducted using the methods specified by AEI and the USACE:

time domain electromagnetic induction (EM61) and frequency domain electromagnetic induction terrain conductivity (EM38). Figure 2 is a color contour plot of the EM61 data, Figure 3 is a color contour plot of EM38 apparent conductivity, Figure 4 is a color contour plot of EM38 in-phase component data, and the integrated interpretation of the EM61 and EM38 data is provided in Figure 5.

The EM61 data were acquired at approximately 8-inch intervals along survey lines spaced 5 feet apart across the accessible portions of the areas of interest. The results of the EM61 survey are shown in color contour form in Figure 2. Interpretation of EM61 data is based upon the relative response of the instrument in millivolts to local conditions. The instrument is not calibrated to provide an absolute measure of a particular property, such as the conductivity of the soil or the strength of the earth’s magnetic field. Subsurface metal objects produce sharply defined positive anomalies (red and yellow colors) when the EM61 is positioned directly over them. Acquiring data at short intervals along closely spaced lines, as was done at the subject site, provides high spatial resolution of the location and footprint of the targets. Thus, buried metal is recognized in contour plots of EM61 data by positive anomalies with spatial dimensions roughly corresponding to the dimensions of the buried metal.

The EM38 data were acquired at approximately 1-foot intervals along the same survey lines as the EM61 (spaced 5 feet apart) across the accessible portions of the areas of interest. The results of the EM38 survey are shown in color contour form for the apparent conductivity and in-phase components in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. As discussed above, the EM38 measures the quadrature-phase and in-phase components of terrain conductivity. The quadrature-phase data, also known as apparent conductivity data, are useful for detecting the presence of anomalously conductive ground, which might be caused by the presence of objects with properties unlike those of the natural materials on site, such as fill. The in-phase component data is only sensitive to the presence of busied metal

As indicated above, the EM61 has a depth sensitivity limited to about 10 feet and the EM38 has a depth sensitivity of about 5 feet. Many of the high amplitude EM anomalies evident in Figures 2-4 are associated with surface features such as signposts, hydrants, manholes, catch basins, fences, and concrete sidewalks. We note that the presence or absence of subsurface metal objects in such areas cannot be determined based on the EM data alone due to the anomaly caused by the surface metal objects.

Several low- to high-amplitude linear EM anomalies not attributable to surface metal objects are present. We infer that such anomalies are caused by subsurface utilities and their locations are shown in Figure 5 as bold black dashed lines. We note that non-metallic utilities or metallic utilities at a depth of greater than 10 feet could be present at such locations and would not have been detected by the EM surveys. One area of possible buried metal was identified by the

Scott AFB, Illinois Contract No. W912QR20D0003 File 22J53 Page 6 geophysical survey. The area is shown as a red crosshatched area in Figure 5. Several small, buried metal objects were also detected and are shown as red circled Xs in Figure 5.

Background apparent conductivity values vary from approximately 35-50 mS/m (blue to green) in areas unaffected by surface metal, buried utilities, or buried metal. The EM apparent conductivity is slightly higher in areas north and south of the pave parking area in the western portion of the Site and in the ball fields in the southern portion of the site. Different fill may be present at such locations.

CONCLUSIONS

Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. (H-R) in support of the Proposed Child Development Center at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois for American Engineers, Inc. (AEI) and the Louisville District US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE-LRL) in June 2022, we conclude that:

• The subsurface at the Site contains several unidentified possible utilities.

• one area of possible buried metal and several possible buried metal objects/structures were detected.

• Very shallow geology (less than 5 feet deep) does not appear to vary significantly in areas where the data are not adversely affected by subsurface utilities.

LIMITATIONS ON USE OF THIS REPORT

This letter report was prepared for the exclusive use of AEI and the US Army Corps of Engineers (collectively Client). No other party shall be entitled to rely on this Report, or any information, documents, records, data, interpretations, advice, or opinions given to Client by Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. (H-R) in the performance of its work. The Report relates solely to the specific project for which H-R has been retained and shall not be used or relied upon by Client or any third party for any variation or extension of this project, any other project, or any other purpose without the express written permission of H-R. Any unpermitted use by Client or any third party shall be at Client's or such third party's own risk and without any liability to H-R.

H-R has used reasonable care, skill, competence, and judgment in the performance of' its services for this project consistent with professional standards for those providing similar services at the same time, in the same locale, and under like circumstances. Unless otherwise stated, the work performed by H-R should be understood to be exploratory and interpretational in character and any results, findings or recommendations contained in this Report or resulting from the work proposed may include decisions which are judgmental in nature and not necessarily based solely on pure science or engineering. It should be noted that our conclusions might be modified if subsurface conditions were better delineated with additional subsurface exploration

Scott AFB, Illinois Contract No. W912QR20D0003 File 22J53 Page 7 including, but not limited to, test pits, soil borings with collection of soil and water samples, and laboratory testing.

Except as expressly provided in this limitations section, H-R makes no other representation or warranty of any kind whatsoever, oral or written, expressed or implied; and all implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, are hereby disclaimed. If you have any questions or comments on this letter report, please contact us at your convenience. It has been a pleasure to work with AEI and the USACE on this project.