Amendment_0004_-_Geotech_Report.pdf

R E P O R T

17-0648 S

January 3, 2018 Revised January 9, 2018

Explorations and Geotechnical Engineering Services

Proposed Addition to Building 247 Pease Air National Guard Base Newington, New Hampshire

Prepared For:

Burns & McDonnell Attention: Amy Clement 9400 Ward Parkway Kansas City, MO 64114

Prepared By:

S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc.

10 Centre Road Somersworth, NH 03878 T: 603-692-0088

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope and Purpose

1.2 Site and Proposed Construction

2.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING

2.1 Explorations

2.2 Field Testing

2.3 Laboratory Testing

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Soil and Bedrock

3.2 Groundwater

4.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Bedrock Acceleration and Site Response

4.2 Liquefaction Evaluation

5.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General Findings

5.2 Site and Subgrade Preparation

5.3 Excavation and Dewatering

5.4 Foundations

5.5 Foundation Drainage

5.6 Slab-On-Grade

5.7 Entrance Slabs and Sidewalks

5.8 Backfill and Compaction

5.9 Weather Considerations

5.10 Design Review and Construction Testing

6.0 CLOSURE

Appendix A Limitations Appendix B Figures Appendix C Exploration Logs & Key Appendix D Laboratory Test Results

Burns & McDonnell Attention: Amy Clement 9400 Ward Parkway Kansas City, MO 64114

Subject: Explorations and Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Addition to Building 247 Pease Air National Guard Base Newington, New Hampshire

Dear Amy:

In accordance with our Proposal, dated June 21, 2017, we have performed subsurface explorations for the subject project. This report summarizes our findings and geotechnical recommendations and its contents are subject to the limitations set forth in Appendix A.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope and Purpose

The purpose of our services was to obtain subsurface information in order to provide geotechnical recommendations for foundations and earthwork associated with the proposed building construction. Our scope of services included two test boring explorations, soils laboratory testing, a geotechnical analysis of the subsurface findings, and preparation of this report.

1.2 Site and Proposed Construction

The site is located at Building 247 at Pease Air National Guard Base in Newington, New Hampshire. The proposed building addition area will be located on the east side of Building 247 in a level grass area. Proposed construction will include a 3,000 square foot building addition having plan dimensions of 40 by 75 feet. The building is estimated by Burns & McDonnell to have column loads on the order of 40 to 60 kips and wall loads on the order of 3 to 5 k/lf. Proposed site grading is expected to be less than 2 feet in cuts and/or fills.

Existing site features are shown on the “Exploration Location Plan” included in Appendix B.

2.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING

2.1 Explorations

Two test borings (B-1 and B-2) were made at the site on December 20, 2017 by S. W.

Cole Explorations, LLC, a subsidiary of S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc. (S.W.COLE). The exploration locations were selected by Burns & McDonnell and established in the field by S.W.COLE using taped measurements from existing site features. The approximate exploration locations are shown on the “Exploration Location Plan” included in Appendix B. Logs of the explorations and a key to the notes and symbols used on the logs are included in Appendix C.

2.2 Field Testing

The test borings were drilled using hollow stem auger techniques. The soils were sampled at 2 to 5 foot intervals using a split spoon sampler and Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) techniques. SPT blow counts results are shown on the logs.

2.3 Laboratory Testing

Soil samples obtained from the explorations were returned to our laboratory for further classification and testing. Moisture content test results are noted on the logs. The results of two gradation tests are included in Appendix D.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Soil and Bedrock

The test borings performed at the site generally encountered a surficial 4 inches of grassed topsoil overlying possible fill consisting of brown gravelly sand some silt to depths ranging from 2 to 3 feet below ground surface (bgs). Below the possible fill, the test borings generally encountered medium dense to dense, light brown to gray fine to medium sand some silt to depths ranging from 26 to 30 feet bgs. Below the sand, test boring B-1 encountered glacial till deposits consisting of dense gray gravelly silty sand to a depth of

26.5 feet overlying a refusal surface (probable boulder or bedrock) at 26.5 feet bgs.

Refer to the attached logs for more detailed subsurface information.

3.2 Groundwater

Saturated soils were encountered below 15 feet in the test borings. Long term groundwater information is not available. It should be anticipated that groundwater levels will fluctuate, particularly in response to periods of snowmelt and precipitation, as well as changes in site use.

4.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Bedrock Acceleration and Site Response

Seismic site class was evaluated in accordance with the 2009 International Building Code (IBC), N-value method. Based on subsurface information from the test borings, the site soils correspond to a Site Class D.

We utilized the USGS Seismic Design tool to obtain seismic design parameters included hereafter. Based on a Site Class D and approximate site coordinates, we recommend the following seismic design parameters.

SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

Parameter Design Value

Seismic Site Class D SS 0.271 g S1 0.080 g

FA 1.583

FV 2.400

SDS 0.286 g SD1 0.129 g

4.2 Liquefaction Evaluation

The site soils generally consist of medium dense to dense, fine to medium sand some silt. Groundwater was observed at a depth of 15 feet bgs. Based on evaluation of the subsurface conditions, the information obtained at the exploration locations suggests that seismically induced liquefaction of soils is not a design consideration.

5.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General Findings

Based on the subsurface findings and our understanding of proposed construction, the site is suitable to support the proposed building addition on conventional spread footing foundations with a slab-on-grade floor. The principle geotechnical considerations include:

• The design frost depth for the Newington New Hampshire area is 4.0 feet.

Footings that will be exposed to freezing temperatures (i.e. perimeter footings) should have at least 4.0 feet of soil cover to provide frost protection.

• Perimeter footings should bear on at least 8 inches of compacted Crushed Stone overlying undisturbed native subgrade soils.

• Slab-on-grade floors should bear on at least 12 inches of compacted Structural

Fill.

• Possible fill was encountered at the test borings to depths extending between 2.0 and 3.0 feet bgs. All topsoil, uncontrolled fill, soils containing organics, and debris (where/if present) must be completely removed from beneath the proposed building addition and backfilled with properly compacted Structural Fill.

• The proposed building addition will be constructed adjacent to the existing Building

247. Care must be taken during construction to not undermine existing foundations. If excavations extend below existing foundations, the existing foundation must be supported by underpinning or similar means.

• We recommend subgrade soils be proof-compacted prior to placement of fill or concrete.

• Groundwater was observed well below anticipated excavation depth. Given the depth to ground and drainage characteristics of native soils, we do not anticipate the need for incorporating perimeter foundation drainage at the site.

5.2 Site and Subgrade Preparation

Site preparations should begin with construction of an erosion control system to protect drainage ways and areas outside the construction limits. All topsoil, uncontrolled fill, buried topsoil, and debris must be completely removed from beneath the proposed buildings. The extent of removal should extend 1 foot laterally outward from outside edge of perimeter footings for every 1-foot of excavation depth (1H:1V bearing splay).

We recommend subgrade soils be proof-compacted prior to placing fills or concrete. Proof-compaction should be performed with at least 3 to 5 passes of a vibratory plate compactor having a static weight of at least 500 pounds.

5.3 Excavation and Dewatering

Excavation work will generally encounter possible fill overlying native sand. Care must be exercised during construction to limit disturbance of the bearing soils. We recommend excavation to subgrades be made using a smooth-edge backhoe bucket to reduce disturbance of the bearing soils. Should subgrades become yielding or difficult to work, disturbed areas should be excavated and replaced with compacted Granular Borrow.

Saturated soils / groundwater were encountered well below anticipated excavation depths.

However, the contractor should anticipate the need for dewatering excavations during and following periods of precipitation. Ditching with gravity drainage, and sumping and pumping should be adequate.

Excavations must be properly shored and/or sloped in accordance with OSHA trenching regulations to prevent sloughing and caving of the sidewalls during construction. The contractor is responsible for the selection, design, and implementation of the excavation and dewatering program.

5.4 Foundations

We recommend the proposed building addition be supported on spread footings founded on at least 8 inches of compacted Crushed Stone overlying proof-compacted native sand.

For foundations bearing on properly prepared subgrades, we recommend the following geotechnical parameters for design consideration:

Geotechnical Parameters for Spread Footings and Foundation Walls Design Frost Depth (100 year AFI) 4.0 feet Net Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure (Factor of Safety = 3.0) 3.0 ksf

Ultimate Base Friction Factor1 0.35 Total Unit Weight of Backfill 125 pcf Ultimate At-Rest Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient 0.5 Ultimate Passive Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient1 3.0 Ultimate Active Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient 0.3 Internal Friction Angle of Backfill 30° Seismic Soil Site Class D (IBC 2009) Estimated Total Settlement ½-inch 1 Recommend a Factor of Safety of 2.0. Structural Engineer should determine the actual factor of safety based on the foundation and grading configurations and consider future removal of backfill impacted the passive resistance.

Based on experience in the region, the natural soils are not typically corrosive to concrete, therefore we recommend use of Type I/II cement for foundations. Type I/II is a product manufactured to meet the properties of both Type I and Type II cement.

5.5 Foundation Drainage

Given the drainage characteristics of the native soils and depth to groundwater, we do not anticipate the need for incorporating perimeter foundation drainage at the site. It is important to reduce the potential for surface water infiltration into foundation backfills. This can be achieved by surfacing foundation backfill with a relatively impermeable layer such as asphalt pavement, walkways, entrance slabs, and/or clay/loam cap. We recommend a periodic maintenance schedule be established to maintain the functionality of installed permeable layer(s).

5.6 Slab-On-Grade

On-grade floor slabs and mat slabs in heated areas may be designed using a subgrade reaction modulus of 100 pci (pounds per cubic inch) provided the slab is underlain by at least 12-inches of compacted Structural Fill placed over properly prepared subgrades.

The structural engineer or concrete consultant must design steel reinforcing and joint spacing appropriate to slab thickness and function.

We recommend a sub-slab vapor retarder particularly in areas of the building where the concrete slab will be covered with an impermeable surface treatment or floor covering that may be sensitive to moisture vapors. The vapor retarder must have a permeance that is less than the floor cover or surface treatment that is applied to the slab. The vapor retarder must have sufficient durability to withstand direct contact with the sub-slab base material and construction activity. The vapor retarder material should be placed according to the manufacturer’s recommended method, including the taping and lapping of all joints and wall connections. The architect and/or flooring consultant should select the vapor retarder products compatible with flooring and adhesive materials.

The floor slab should be appropriately cured using moisture retention methods after casting. Typical floor slab curing methods should be used for at least 7 days. The architect or flooring consultant should assign curing methods consistent with current applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI) procedures with consideration of curing method compatibility to proposed surface treatments, flooring and adhesive materials.

5.7 Entrance Slabs and Sidewalks

Entrance slabs and sidewalks adjacent to the building must be designed to reduce the effects of differential frost action between adjacent pavement, doorways, and entrances.

We recommend that non-frost susceptible Structural Fill be provided to a depth of at least 4.0 feet below the top of entrance slabs. This thickness of Structural Fill should extend the full footprint of the entrance slab and outward at least 4.0 feet, thereafter transitioning up to the bottom of the adjacent sidewalk or pavement gravels at a 3H:1V or flatter slope.

5.8 Backfill and Compaction

Although a wide range of soil materials can be used successfully, it has been our experience that granular soils with good drainage characteristics (as recommended below) provide significant advantages particularly in wet conditions and during cold weather construction. Although these materials provide advantages during wet and cold weather, freezing weather or precipitation may warrant use of alternative materials that have better drainage characteristics and are non-frost susceptible. We recommend that either filling be limited during these times or more applicable materials be used.

We recommend the following fill materials:

Structural Fill: Clean, non-frost susceptible, sand and gravel free of organics and other deleterious materials meeting the following gradation:

STRUCTURAL FILL

Sieve Size Percent Finer by Weight

4 Inch 100 3 Inch 90 to 100 ¼ Inch 25 to 90 No. 40 0 to 30

No. 200 0 to 6

Structural Fill is recommended for use as:

• Backfill for exterior sides of perimeter foundations

• Slab base materials

• Fill below entrance slabs

It is our opinion that NHDOT 209.2.1.2 Gravel Backfill meets the intention of the Structural Fill specification and is an adequate substitute.

Select Granular Borrow: Imported materials consisting of a mixture of sand, gravel and silt meeting the following gradation:

SELECT GRANULAR BORROW

Sieve Size Percent Finer by Weight

6 Inch 100 ¼ Inch 25 to 90 No. 40 0 to 50

No. 200 0 to 10

Select Granular Borrow is recommended for use as:

• Fill to raise grades in building areas

• Backfill of interior column foundations

• Backfill for interior sides of perimeter foundations

• Backfill to achieve foundation footing grade / site grade

Crushed Stone: Crushed, hard, durable rock meeting the gradation requirements for ASTM D-448, No. 57 stone. Crushed Stone is recommended for use as:

• Backfill for repair of soft or yielding areas

• 8 inch thick base beneath footings

• Basement slab-on-grade base material

• Foundation underdrain bedding

Recycled Products: Borrow products including various proportions of recycled crushed materials such as asphalt, concrete, and brick can be submitted to S.W.COLE for review and consideration for use as Select Granular Borrow or Structural Fill. Recycled products must also be tested in accordance with state environmental regulations and approved by a qualified environmental consultant.

Re-Use: The excavated soils are expected to be for the most part sands. These materials may be used as foundation backfill within the building interior and for raising site grade. The excavated soils can be re-used as long as the moisture content at the time of re-use is adequate for achieving the project compaction specifications.

Placement and Compaction: Fill should be placed in horizontal lifts and be compacted.

Lift thickness should range between 6 to 12 inches depending upon the size and type of equipment such that the desired density is achieved throughout the lift thickness with 3 to 5 passes of the compaction equipment. We recommend that fill placed below the building area be compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557 (Modified Proctor). Foundation backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D-1557. Crushed Stone should be compacted with 3 to 5 passes of a vibratory plate compactor having a static weight of at least 500 pounds.

5.9 Weather Considerations

Construction activity should be limited during wet and freezing weather and the site soils may require drying or thawing before construction activities may continue. The contractor should anticipate the need for water to temper fills in order to facilitate compaction during dry weather. If construction takes place during cold weather, subgrades, foundations and floor slabs must be protected during freezing conditions. Concrete and fill must not be placed on frozen soil; and once placed, the concrete and soil beneath the structure must be protected from freezing.

5.10 Design Review and Construction Testing

S.W.COLE should be retained to review the construction documents to determine that our earthwork, foundation and pavement recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented.

A soils and concrete testing program should be implemented during construction to observe compliance with the design concepts, plans, and specifications. S.W.COLE is available to observe earthwork activities, the preparation of foundation bearing surfaces and pavement subgrades, as well as to provide testing and IBC Special Inspection services for soils, concrete, steel, spray-applied fireproofing, structural masonry and asphalt construction materials.

Revised January 9, 2018

6.0 CLOSURE

It has been a pleasure to be of assistance to you with this phase of your project. We look forward to working with you during the construction phase of the project.

Sincerely, S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc.

Chad B. Michaud, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer

TSD:cbm

APPENDIX A

Limitations

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Burns & McDonnell for specific application to the proposed Addition to Building 247 at Pease Air National Guard Base in Newington, New Hampshire. S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc. (S.W.COLE) has endeavored to conduct our services in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

The soil profiles described in the report are intended to convey general trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and are based upon interpretation of exploration data and samples.

The analyses performed during this investigation and recommendations presented in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from subsurface explorations made at the site. Variations in subsurface conditions may occur between explorations and may not become evident until construction. If variations in subsurface conditions become evident after submission of this report, it will be necessary to evaluate their nature and to review the recommendations of this report.

Observations have been made during exploration work to assess site groundwater levels. Fluctuations in water levels will occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors.

S.W.COLE’s scope of services has not included the investigation, detection, or prevention of any Biological Pollutants at the project site or in any existing or proposed structure at the site. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and the byproducts of any such biological organisms.

Recommendations contained in this report are based substantially upon information provided by others regarding the proposed project. In the event that any changes are made in the design, nature, or location of the proposed project, S.W.COLE should review such changes as they relate to analyses associated with this report.

Recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by S.W.COLE.

APPENDIX B

Figures

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed µ

NOTE:

SITE LOCATION MAP PREPARED FROM

ESRI ArcGIS ONLINE AND DATA PARTNERS

INCLUDING USGS AND © 2007 NATIONAL

GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY.

2,000 0 2,000 4,000

Scale in Feet

Job No.Date: 17-064801/03/2018 ScaleSheet 1:240001

SITE LOCATION MAP

BURNS & MCDONNELL

PROPOSED ADDITION TO BUILDING 247PEASE AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE

NEWINGTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE

R:\

\17

-06

\G

IS\

MX

Ds

\17 -06

SL

M.

mx d, 1/3

/20

9:1 3:2

8 A M, 1:

,00 0, APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION

@A

@A

B-2

B-1

50 0 50 100

Scale in Feet

Job No.Date: 17-064801/03/2018 ScaleSheet 1"=50'2

EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN

BURNS & MCDONNELL

PROPOSED ADDITION TO BUILDING 247PEASE AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE

NEWINGTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE

LEGEND

N

TR

UE

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONA

R:\

\17

-06

\G

IS\

MX

Ds

\17 -06

EL

P.m xd, 1/ 3/2

8 9

:15 :29

AM

, 1:

0, NOTES:

1. EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN PREPARED FROM ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY FROM STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ENTITLED "NH 2010 2010 6-IN RGB," PROVIDED BY NH GRANIT.

2. THE EXPLORATION LOCATIONS WERE SELECTED BY BURNS & MCDONNELL AND WERE LOCATED IN THE FIELD BY S. W. COLE ENGINEERING, INC. BY TAPED MEASUREMENTS FROM EXISTING SITE FEATURES.

3. THIS PLAN SHOULD BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ASSOCIATED S. W. COLE ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.

4. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS ONLY TO DEPICT THE LOCATION OF THE EXPLORATIONS IN RELATION TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.

APPENDIX C

Exploration Logs and Key

1D

2D

3D

4D

5D

6D

7D

8D

24/22

24/16

24/14

24/16

24/16

24/16

24/24

15/15

2-6-13-

10-12- 14-15

3-6-7-9

9-12- 13-14

5-9-10-

10-15- 15-16

13-14- 16-25

7-16- 50/3" w =5.8 %

4" Grassed Topsoil Medium dense, brown Gravelly SAND some silt (Possible Fill) Medium dense, light brown-brown fine to medium SAND some silt trace silt

Medium dense, light brown-gray fine to medium SAND some silt

Dense, brown Silty fine SAND

Medium dense, brown fine to medium SAND some silt

Dense, gray Gravelly Silty SAND (Glacial Till) Refusal at 26.5 feet

Probable Boulder or Bedrock

0-2

2-4

5-7

7-9

10-12

15-17

20-22

25-26.3

KEY TO NOTES

AND SYMBOLS:

DRILLING CO.: S. W. Cole Explorations, LLC

HAMMER DROP (inch): 30

Drilling Information

RIG TYPE: Track Mounted Mobile Drill B-53

HAMMER TYPE: Safety

GENERAL NOTES:

DRILLER: Eric Baron

HAMMER WEIGHT (lbs): 140

R = Rock Core Sample V = Field Vane Shear

Pen. = Penetration Length Rec. = Recovery Length bpf = Blows per Foot mpf = Minute per Foot

WOR = Weight of Rods WOH = Weight of Hammer RQD = Rock Quality Designation PID = Photoionization Detector

Sv = Field Vane Shear Strength, kips/sq.ft.

qU = Unconfined Compressive Strength, kips/sq.ft.

N/A = Not Applicable

SAMPLER: Standard Split-Spoon

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

LOGGED BY: Tyler Demers

CORE BARREL: N/A

At time of Drilling At Completion of Drilling After Drilling

D = Split Spoon Sample

CASING ID/OD: N/A /N/A

Water Level

AUGER ID/OD: 2 1/4 in / 5 5/8 in

ELEVATION (FT): N/ALOCATION: See Exploration Location Plan TOTAL DEPTH (FT): 26.5

U = Thin Walled Tube Sample

HAMMER EFFICIENCY FACTOR:

WATER LEVEL DEPTHS (ft): Soils appear saturated below 15 feet

Stratification lines represent approximate boundary between soil types, transitions may be gradual. Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated.

Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due to other factors than those present at the time measurements were made.

Sample No.

Pen./ Rec.

(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

Blow Count or

RQD

Casing Pen.

(bpf)

T yp e

G ra ph ic

L og

Elev.

(ft)

Depth (ft)

H20 DepthField / Lab

Test Data

Sample Description & Classification

Depth (ft)

Remarks

PROJECT NO. 17-0648

SHEET: 1 of 1

BORING LOG

DATE START: 12/20/2017

DATE FINISH: 12/20/2017

BORING NO.: B-1

BORING NO.: B-1B

O

R

IN

G

W E

LL

7-

.G

P J

S W

C E

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/2

/1

CLIENT: Burns & McDonnell PROJECT: Proposed Addition to Building 247 LOCATION: Pease Air National Guard, Newington, New Hampshire

0.3

2.0

5.0

15.0

20.0

26.0 26.5

1D

2D

3D

4D

5D

6D

7D

8D

24/18

24/12

24/20

24/18

24/20

24/22

24/24

24/18

3-7-24-

14-13- 14-13

5-7-9-

11-13- 14-18

8-11- 13-16

11-16- 19-25

12-15- 15-18

11-21- 28-35 w =5.1 %

4" Grassed Topsoil Medium dense, brown Gravelly SAND some silt (Possible Fill)

Medium dense, light brown fine to medium SAND some silt

Medium dense, gray fine to medium SAND some silt

Medium dense, light brown-gray fine to medium SAND some silt becoming dense

Dense, brown fine to medium SAND some silt

Bottom of Exploration at 30.0 feet Running Sands (2 foot blow-in)

0-2

2-4

5-7

7-9

10-12

15-17

20-22

25-27

KEY TO NOTES

AND SYMBOLS:

DRILLING CO.: S. W. Cole Explorations, LLC

HAMMER DROP (inch): 30

Drilling Information

RIG TYPE: Track Mounted Mobile Drill B-53

HAMMER TYPE: Safety

GENERAL NOTES:

DRILLER: Eric Baron

HAMMER WEIGHT (lbs): 140

R = Rock Core Sample V = Field Vane Shear

Pen. = Penetration Length Rec. = Recovery Length bpf = Blows per Foot mpf = Minute per Foot

WOR = Weight of Rods WOH = Weight of Hammer RQD = Rock Quality Designation PID = Photoionization Detector

Sv = Field Vane Shear Strength, kips/sq.ft.

qU = Unconfined Compressive Strength, kips/sq.ft.

N/A = Not Applicable

SAMPLER: Standard Split-Spoon

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

LOGGED BY: Tyler Demers

CORE BARREL: N/A

At time of Drilling At Completion of Drilling After Drilling

D = Split Spoon Sample

CASING ID/OD: N/A /N/A

Water Level

AUGER ID/OD: 2 1/4 in / 5 5/8 in

ELEVATION (FT): N/ALOCATION: See Exploration Location Plan TOTAL DEPTH (FT): 30.0

U = Thin Walled Tube Sample

HAMMER EFFICIENCY FACTOR:

WATER LEVEL DEPTHS (ft): Soils appear saturated below 15 feet

Stratification lines represent approximate boundary between soil types, transitions may be gradual. Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated.

Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due to other factors than those present at the time measurements were made.

Sample No.

Pen./ Rec.

(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

Blow Count or

RQD

Casing Pen.

(bpf)

T yp e

G ra ph ic

L og

Elev.

(ft)

Depth (ft)

H20 DepthField / Lab

Test Data

Sample Description & Classification

Depth (ft)

Remarks

PROJECT NO. 17-0648

SHEET: 1 of 1

BORING LOG

DATE START: 12/20/2017

DATE FINISH: 12/20/2017

BORING NO.: B-2

BORING NO.: B-2B

O

R

IN

G

W E

LL

7-

.G

P J

S W

C E

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/2

/1

CLIENT: Burns & McDonnell PROJECT: Proposed Addition to Building 247 LOCATION: Pease Air National Guard, Newington, New Hampshire

0.3

3.0

7.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

KEY TO THE NOTES & SYMBOLS

Test Boring and Test Pit Explorations

All stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil types and the transition may be gradual.

Key to Symbols Used:

w - water content, percent (dry weight basis) qu - unconfined compressive strength, kips/sq. ft. - based on laboratory unconfined compressive test Sv - field vane shear strength, kips/sq. ft.

Lv - lab vane shear strength, kips/sq. ft.

qp - unconfined compressive strength, kips/sq. ft. based on pocket penetrometer test O - organic content, percent (dry weight basis) WL - liquid limit - Atterberg test WP - plastic limit - Atterberg test WOH - advance by weight of hammer WOM - advance by weight of man WOR - advance by weight of rods HYD - advance by force of hydraulic piston on drill RQD - Rock Quality Designator - an index of the quality of a rock mass. RQD is computed from recovered core samples.

γT - total soil weight γB - buoyant soil weight

Description of Proportions:

0 to 5% TRACE 5 to 12% SOME 12 to 35% "Y"

35+% AND

REFUSAL: Test Boring Explorations - Refusal depth indicates that depth at which, in the drill foreman's opinion, sufficient resistance to the advance of the casing, auger, probe rod or sampler was encountered to render further advance impossible or impracticable by the procedures and equipment being used.

REFUSAL: Test Pit Explorations - Refusal depth indicates that depth at which sufficient resistance to the advance of the backhoe bucket was encountered to render further advance impossible or impracticable by the procedures and equipment being used.

Although refusal may indicate the encountering of the bedrock surface, it may indicate the striking of large cobbles, boulders, very dense or cemented soil, or other buried natural or man-made objects or it may indicate the encountering of a harder zone after penetrating a considerable depth through a weathered or disintegrated zone of the bedrock.

F:\Miscellaneous\Word\LABFORMS\key to notes and symbols.doc

APPENDIX D

Laboratory Test Results

Project Name NEWINGTON NH - PEASE AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE BUILDING

247 ADDITION - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

Project Number 17-0648

Lab ID 16798S

Material Source B-1, 2D, 2.0'-4.0' Date Completed 1/2/2018

Tested By BRADLEY GERSCHWILER

Date Received 12/27/2017

ASTM C-117 & C-136

Client BURNS & MCDONNELL ENGINEERING CO., INC.

Report of Gradation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00100.01000.10001.000010.0000100.0000

SIEVE SIZE - mm

A M

O U

N T

P A

S S

IN

G

FINE TO MEDIUM SAND SOME SILT TRACE GRAVEL

3" 2" 1" #10 #20 #40 #100 #2001/2" 1/4"

SIEVE SIZE AMOUNT PASSING (%)STANDARD

DESIGNATION (mm/µm)

1/4" 1006.3 mm No. 4 0.6% Gravel994.75 mm

No. 10 992.00 mm No. 20 98850 um No. 40 87.5% Sand94425 um No. 60 74250 um No. 100 40150 um No. 200 11.9% Fines11.975 um

Comments: Moisture Content = 5.8% Sheet

Project Name NEWINGTON NH - PEASE AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE BUILDING

247 ADDITION - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

Project Number 17-0648

Lab ID 16799S

Material Source B-2, 3D, 5.0'-7.0' Date Completed 1/2/2018

Tested By BRADLEY GERSCHWILER

Date Received 12/27/2017

ASTM C-117 & C-136

Client BURNS & MCDONNELL ENGINEERING CO., INC.

Report of Gradation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00100.01000.10001.000010.0000100.0000

SIEVE SIZE - mm

A M

O U

N T

P A

S S

IN

G

FINE TO MEDIUM SAND SOME SILT

3" 2" 1" #10 #20 #40 #100 #2001/2" 1/4"

SIEVE SIZE AMOUNT PASSING (%)STANDARD

DESIGNATION (mm/µm)

No. 4 0% Gravel1004.75 mm No. 10 1002.00 mm No. 20 100850 um No. 40 90.6% Sand99425 um No. 60 86250 um No. 100 46150 um No. 200 9.4% Fines9.475 um

Comments: Moisture Content = 5.1% Sheet