Attmt_-_TTL_Geotech_Report_ADAL_Sim__7-26-18.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION

ADAL FLIGHT SIMULATOR BUILDING

OHIO AIR NATIONAL GUARD

SWANTON, OHIO

FOR

FSB

5801 BROADWAY EXTENSION, SUITE 500

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73118

SUBMITTED

JULY 26, 2018

TTL PROJECT NO. 1693001

TTL ASSOCIATES, INC.

1915 NORTH 12

TH

STREET

TOLEDO, OHIO 43604

(419) 324-2222

(419) 321-6257 FAX

FSB July 2018

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Investigative Procedures

3.0 Proposed Construction

4.0 General Site and Subsurface Conditions

4.1 General Site Conditions

4.2 General Soil Conditions

4.3 Groundwater Conditions

5.0 Design Recommendations

5.1 Shallow Building Foundations

5.2 Subgrades

5.2.1 Existing Subgrade

5.2.2 Modified Subgrade

5.3 Floor Slabs

5.4 Flexible (Asphalt) Pavement

5.5 Rigid (Concrete) Pavement

5.6 Groundwater Control and Drainage

5.7 Excavations and Slopes

6.0 Construction Recommendations

6.1 Site and Subgrade Preparation

6.2 Fill

6.3 Foundation Excavations

7.0 Qualification of Recommendations

PLATES

Plate 1.0 Site Location Map

Plate 2.0 Test Boring Location Plan

FIGURES

Logs of Test Borings

Legend Key

Tabulation of Test Data

Grain Size Distribution

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This geotechnical subsurface investigation report has been prepared for the proposed building addition for an ADAL Flight Simulator to be constructed at the Ohio Air National Guard (ANG) facility in Swanton, Ohio. The general site location is shown on the Site Location Map

(Plate 1.0).

This report summarizes our understanding of the proposed construction, describes the investigative and testing procedures, presents the findings, discusses our evaluations and conclusions, and provides our design and construction recommendations for foundations, floor slabs, and pavements.

This study was performed in accordance with TTL Proposal No. 1693001, dated April 19, 2018, and was authorized by Mr. Fred Niggemeyer, AIA, LEED AP on June 8, 2018 with a Standard

Form of Agreement between Architect and Consultant.

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions and laboratory data relative to the design and construction of foundations, building slabs, and pavements at the referenced site. To accomplish this, TTL performed four test borings, field and laboratory soil testing, a geotechnical engineering evaluation of the test results, and review of a geotechnical study report for the existing building onto which the addition is being constructed (report prepared by H. C. Nutting Company, dated March 28, 2002 for W.O.# 60278.009).

This report includes:

A description of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the borings.

Design recommendations for building foundations, floor slabs, and pavements related to the proposed development.

Recommendations concerning soil- and groundwater-related construction procedures such as site preparation, earthwork, foundation and pavement construction, and related field testing.

This investigation did not include an environmental assessment of the surface or subsurface materials at this site.

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 2

2.0 INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES

This subsurface investigation included four test borings, designated as Borings B-1 through

B-4, drilled by TTL on June 28, 2018. Borings B-1 and B-2 were located in the proposed building addition area. Borings B-3 and B-4 were located in the proposed pavement areas. The borings were located in the field by TTL based on a site plan provided by FSB. The proposed development, as well as the approximate locations of the borings, are shown on the Test Boring

Location Plan (Plate 2.0).

The test borings were performed in general accordance with geotechnical investigative procedures outlined in ASTM Standards D 1452 and D 5434. The borings performed during this investigation were drilled with a truck-mounted drilling rig utilizing 3¼-inch inside diameter hollow-stem augers. Borings B-1 and B-2 were terminated at a depth of 25 feet below existing grade. Borings B-3 and B-4 were terminated at a depth of 5 feet.

During auger advancement, soil samples were collected at 2½-foot intervals to a depth of 10 feet, and at 5-foot intervals thereafter to boring termination. Split-spoon (SS) samples were obtained by the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Method (ASTM D 1586), which consists of driving a

2-inch outside diameter split-barrel sampler into the soil with a 140-pound weight falling freely through a distance of 30 inches. The sampler was driven in three successive 6-inch increments with the number of blows per increment being recorded. The sum of the number of blows required to advance the sampler the second and third 6-inch increments is termed the Standard

Penetration Resistance (N-value) and is presented on the Logs of Test Borings which are attached to this report. The samples were sealed in jars and transported to our laboratory for further classification and testing.

Soil conditions encountered in the test borings are presented in the Logs of Test Borings, along with information related to sample data, SPT results, water conditions observed in the borings, and laboratory test data. It should be noted that these logs have been prepared on the basis of laboratory classification and testing as well as field logs of the encountered soils.

All samples of the subsoils were visually or manually classified using the Unified Soil

Classification System (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488). All samples were also tested in the laboratory for moisture content (ASTM D 2216). A dry density determination and unconfined compressive strength test (ASTM D 2166) were performed on a selected intact cohesive sample.

Unconfined compressive strengths for the remaining intact cohesive samples were estimated

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 3 using a hand penetrometer. To determine soil classification and index properties, particle size analyses (ASTM D 422) were performed on representative samples from Borings B-1 (SS-2) and

B-3 (SS-2). The results of these tests are presented on the Logs of Test Borings, Tabulation of

Test Data sheets, and Grain Size Distribution sheet attached to this report.

Experience indicates that the actual subsoil conditions at a site could vary from those generalized on the basis of test borings made at specific locations, especially at previously developed sites such as this site. Therefore, it is essential that a geotechnical engineer be retained to provide soil engineering services during the site preparation, excavation, and foundation phases of the proposed project. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 4

3.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

We understand the project will consist of the construction of a building addition to be utilized for an ADAL Flight Simulator at the Ohio Air National Guard (ANG) facility in Swanton, Ohio.

The proposed addition is assumed to be a single-story, slab-on-grade structure. Maximum foundation loads are assumed to be light to moderate in magnitude. Maximum column loads are assumed to be 50 kips, and maximum wall loads are assumed to be 4,000 pounds per lineal foot (plf).

Final design grades are assumed to approximate existing grades at the time of our investigation.

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 5

4.0 GENERAL SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 General Site Conditions

The site is located in the northeastern portion of the Ohio Air National Guard (ANG) facility in

Swanton, Ohio. The site is located south of a pond, and west of a solar array. The project site is located within the Maumee Lake Plains physiographic region of Ohio, specifically within the

Maumee Sand Plains section. This area is characterized as a lacustrine (lake-bed) plain mantled by sands that include low dunes, inter-dunal pans, beach ridges and other sand deposits associated with historic glacial lakeshores. Due to the adaptation of oak trees to the sandy soil profile, this physiographic section is referred to as the Oak Openings area.

The surface materials encountered at Borings B-1 and B-2 consisted of topsoil on the order of

9 inches and 8 inches in thickness, respectively. The surface materials encountered in Boring B-4 consisted of approximately 3 inches of topsoil. Distinct surface cover was not observed at the location of Boring B-3.

4.2 General Soil Conditions

Based on the results of our field and laboratory tests, the subsurface profile at the site consisted of granular soils underlain by cohesive soils.

At the surface in Boring B-3 and underlying the surface materials in the remaining borings, loose to medium dense granular soils were encountered to depths of 17 feet below existing grade in

Boring B-1, 22 feet in Boring B-2, and to boring termination at a depth of 5 feet in the remaining borings. These granular soils consisted of poorly graded sand with trace silt (SP) or silty sand

(SM). SPT N-values generally ranged from 5 to 29 blows per foot (bpf). Moisture contents for soil samples obtained above the water table generally ranged from 4 to 18 percent, while moisture contents for soil samples obtained below the water table generally ranged from 18 to

27 percent.

Underlying the granular soils in Boring B-1, a zone of soft lean clay (CL) with sand was encountered to a depth of 22 feet. An SPT N-value of 4 bpf, an unconfined compressive strength of approximately 370 pounds per square foot (psf), and a moisture content of 36 percent were determined for the recovered sample.

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 6

Underlying the granular soils in Boring B-2 and the zone of soft clay in Boring B-1, stiff to very stiff sandy silt (ML) was encountered to boring termination at a depth of 25 feet. SPT N-values of 21 bpf and 24 bpf were determined for these cohesive soils. Unconfined compressive strengths were on the order of 3,000 to 3,500 psf. Moisture contents ranged from 23 to 26 percent.

Additional descriptions of the stratigraphy encountered in the borings are presented on the Logs of Test Borings.

4.3 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was initially encountered during drilling at a depth of 8 feet below existing grade in

Borings B-1 and B-2. Groundwater was observed upon completion of drilling in Borings B-1 and

B-2 at depths of 14½ feet and 14 feet, respectively. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling or observed upon completion of drilling in Borings B-3 and B-4, which were both terminated at a depth of 5 feet. It should be noted that each test boring was drilled and backfilled within the same day. However, based on the relatively pervious granular soils encountered in the borings, and the consistency of the groundwater observations, it is likely that these conditions are representative of the ambient groundwater levels at the time of our investigation. Instrumentation was not installed to monitor long-term groundwater levels.

Based on the soil characteristics and groundwater conditions encountered in the borings, it is our opinion that the “normal” groundwater level will generally be encountered at depths on the order of 8 feet below existing grade. However, it should be noted that groundwater elevations can fluctuate with seasonal and climatic influences. Therefore, the groundwater conditions may vary at different times of the year from those encountered during this investigation.

Our review of the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Web Soil Survey indicates that the soils in the area of the proposed development are mapped as Ottokee fine sand, Oakville fine sand, and Granby loamy fine sand. Published data for these soils indicates that seasonal high groundwater levels can range from the ground surface to 3 feet below ground surface. Seasonal high groundwater levels are most likely to occur during the period from November to June.

However, these extremes of seasonally elevated groundwater levels are less likely to occur at sites where grading, storm sewers, and drainage ditches are incorporated into the site development.

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 7

5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The following conclusions and recommendations are based on our understanding of the proposed construction and on the data obtained during the field investigation. If the project information or location as outlined is incorrect or should change significantly, a review of these recommendations should be made by TTL. These recommendations are subject to the satisfactory completion of the recommended site and subgrade preparation and fill placement operations described in Section 6.0, “Construction Recommendations”.

5.1 Shallow Building Foundations

Based on the results of the field and laboratory testing for the borings performed for this investigation, the soils encountered at the anticipated foundation bearing depth (3½ feet for protection from frost penetration) are expected to consist of predominantly loose to medium dense native granular soils. While these granular soils are considered generally suitable for support of shallow excavation foundations, any loose soil zones will require densification to provide adequate bearing and reduce the risk of excessive settlement.

If the excavated subgrade reveals loose soils at footing bearing elevation, in-place modification must be performed using a backhoe-mounted vibratory compactor (hoe-pac) or similar equipment to achieve a consistent bearing stratum. However, if seasonally high groundwater levels are present during excavation, excessive vibratory compaction may be detrimental to the footing subgrade, and compaction by “static” methods or removal and replacement with new engineered fill would be required. Temporary lowering of elevated water levels using one or more wellpoints will also help in modifying the granular soils in place, particularly if there are localized deeper footings for pits or other substructure foundations.

Caution should be exercised in footing excavations in close proximity to existing building foundations to avoid “over-compaction” and unintended densification of bearing strata that could induce settlement in adjacent footings.

Suitable compaction/bearing of foundation soils can be verified as:

Exhibiting a compacted (in-situ) dry density of at least 100 percent of the maximum dry density determined by Standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) laboratory compaction, A dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) reading of at least 8 blows per increment (average over three increments), or

Other methods to demonstrate an equivalent SPT N-value of 10 bpf or greater.

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 8

If granular soils cannot be modified in-place, or if other unsuitable foundation soils are encountered, over-excavation should extend through these materials to suitable bearing soils, with cautions as noted in the following paragraph. The base of the over-excavation should be widened one foot for every foot of depth below the proposed bearing elevation, with the excavation centered along the footing. The over-excavated areas should be backfilled with dense-graded aggregate, placed in controlled lifts, and compacted to not less than 100 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor). Alternatively, the over-excavated areas could be backfilled with lean concrete having a minimum compressive strength of 1,500 pounds per square inch (psi) or other flowable controlled-density fill having a minimum compressive strength of 300 psi. If foundations will be placed at the base of the over-excavation or the lean concrete fill option will be utilized, widening the footing over-excavation will not be required. If the controlled-density fill option is utilized, the footing over-excavation shall be widened as discussed above.

It should be noted that over-excavation may be restricted where footings for the new building addition are located in close proximity to the existing building. New excavation should not be extended to depths that undermine adjacent footings, including allowance for excavation lay back in granular soils as discussed in Section 5.7. Depending on the nature of the encountered bearing soils, it may be more practical to widen the new footing based on a reduced bearing pressure. Alternately, excavation support and/or temporary underpinning of existing footings may be needed if particularly problematic soils are encountered that require removal and replacement.

Following the satisfactory completion of the site preparation and footing excavation inspections outlined in Section 6.0 of this report, the proposed structure may be supported on a conventional shallow spread foundation system consisting of wall (strip) and/or column (square) footings.

Shallow foundations may be designed utilizing a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for strip and square footings. In using a net allowable soil pressure, the weight of the footings, backfill over the footings or floor slabs need not be included in the structural loads for dimensioning footings. The bearing materials should be field-verified as being native granular soils that have been properly modified in-place to achieve compactness/density as described above, or properly placed and compacted new engineered fill.

We strongly recommend that the bearing surface at the bottom of all footing excavations be inspected during construction by a TTL geotechnical engineer or qualified representative.

Inspection should be performed to verify that the exposed soil conditions at the bearing elevations are consistent with the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings and have

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 9 been suitably modified in place. Additionally, the presence of our engineer will help facilitate the timely remediation of unsuitable soil conditions. If the results of DCP or other strength tests indicate the exposed soil conditions are not suitable for the design bearing pressure, it may be necessary to increase the footing size to accommodate the lower bearing strengths or to over-excavate and backfill with engineered fill or flowable fill.

All exterior footings and footings in unheated areas should be constructed at a minimum frost penetration depth of 3½ feet below finished exterior grades. Interior footings may bear at a convenient depth below the floor slab, provided they are supported on compacted native soils as described above, or properly placed and compacted new engineered fill. Wall (strip) footings should be at least 18 inches wide and column (square) footings should be at least 30 inches square, regardless of sizing based on design loads and the allowable bearing pressure. It should be noted that use of trench footings (i.e., placement of foundation concrete without forming) is not expected to be feasible due to the granular nature of the bearing soils, along with the potential need for in-place densification. Forming of footings, and subsequent backfilling around

CMU or poured foundation walls, should be anticipated.

Utilizing the above bearing pressure and proper foundation inspection techniques, the total settlement associated with the structure should not exceed ¾ inch and differential settlement within the addition should not exceed ½ inch. Because of the sandy nature of the bearing strata, most of the settlement will occur during construction as the building loads are transferred to the foundations, and post-construction settlement is expected to be less than the total settlement indicated above.

5.2 Subgrades

5.2.1 Existing Subgrade

The subgrades that would result upon the satisfactory completion of the site preparation as described in Section 6.0 of this report are considered generally suitable for support of the proposed pavements and floor slabs. Based on field and laboratory data developed during this investigation, the subgrade soils consist of native granular soils. Laboratory analyses performed on representative samples of the near-surface soils, as well as visual descriptions of the upper soil profile, indicate that the granular subgrade soils may be generally classified as Group A-3 or

A-3a in accordance with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) system of soil classification. The granular soils are considered good to fair as subgrade materials.

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 10

At the time of this investigation, moisture contents in the upper 2½ to 3 feet of the granular subgrade soils ranged from approximately 4 to 12 percent. The moisture contents for the near surface subgrade soils are estimated to vary from slightly below to slightly above the expected optimum moisture contents for these soils. Moisture contents in the subgrade soils from 3½ to

5 feet generally ranged from 7 to 18 feet. The moisture contents for the slightly deeper subgrade soils are estimated to vary from near to significantly above the expected optimum moisture contents for these soils. It should be noted that seasonal high groundwater conditions may occur within a few feet of the ground surface. Depending on seasonal conditions at the time of construction, some remedial action may be required to adjust the moisture contents of the existing materials and achieve proper compaction of the subgrade. However, significant subgrade remediation is not anticipated unless construction occurs during a particularly wet seasonal period with elevated groundwater conditions.

5.2.2 Modified Subgrade

If soils are dry of optimum, water should be uniformly mixed into the subgrade. If soils are wet of optimum, lowering the moisture content by scarification and aeration (discing and exposure to sun and wind) may be required. However, this may not be feasible if construction occurs during wet seasonal conditions. Very moist to wet soils will “pump” under the operation of heavy equipment, resulting in deep rutting and perhaps rendering the operation of grading and paving equipment difficult or impossible.

Therefore, other methods of subgrade modification may be required in areas of high moisture content. Modification may be achieved by undercutting and replacement with granular subbase

(possibly in combination with a geotextile separation layer or geogrid reinforcement), mixing stone into the subgrade, or treating the subgrade with cement. The method of subgrade modification should be determined at the time of construction (See Section 6.1, “Construction

Recommendations - Site and Subgrade Preparation”).

5.3 Floor Slabs

It is recommended that all floor slabs be “floating”, that is, fully ground supported and not structurally connected to walls or foundations. This is to reduce the possibility of cracking and displacement of the floor slabs because of differential movements between the slab and the foundation. Such movements could be detrimental to slabs that are rigidly connected to the foundations. There may be certain areas where it will be difficult or impractical to make the slab

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 11 floating. In such areas, it may be necessary to increase the slab thickness and reinforcement to prevent the foundation from cracking the slab and settling independently.

For properly prepared subgrade soils, a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 165 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for floor slab design. It is recommended that the floor slab be supported on a minimum 6-inch layer of relatively clean, well-graded granular material, such as sand and gravel or crushed stone. This is to help distribute concentrated loads and provide more uniform subgrade support beneath the slab.

5.4 Flexible (Asphalt) Pavement

Based on the results of the gradation analysis, as well as visual classification of the recovered samples, we recommend a subgrade CBR value of 7 percent for the Group A-3, A-3a, or better soils. This CBR value is based on subgrade compacted to at least 100 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor) or verified as stable through proof rolling.

It should be noted that we are not privy to the design traffic loads or intended design life. The subgrade support recommendations indicated herein should be reviewed by the site engineer in conjunction with the design traffic criteria to determine the required pavement sections. In any case, we recommend that light-duty pavement cross-sections consist of at least 3 inches of asphalt underlain by 6 inches of aggregate base for even the lightest-duty pavements based on our experience regarding environmental exposure and reasonable serviceability. For the same reason, we recommend heavy-duty pavement cross-sections (at a minimum, for any heavy equipment or truck drive lanes) consist of at least 4 inches of asphalt underlain by 8 inches of aggregate base.

All paving operations should conform to Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) specifications. The pavement and subgrade preparation procedures outlined in this report should result in a reasonably workable and satisfactory pavement. It should be recognized, however, that all flexible pavements need repairs or overlays from time to time as a result of progressive yielding under repeated traffic loads for a prolonged period of time, as well as exposure to weather conditions.

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 12

5.5 Rigid (Concrete) Pavement

For properly prepared subgrade soils, a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 165 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for rigid pavement design. The use of a concrete pavement is recommended in all areas that experience repeated starting and stopping traffic or heavy point loads. Such areas may include site exit and entrance aprons, dumpster pad areas (including where the truck parks while servicing the container), truck docks, and areas of sustained heavy point loads. Concrete pavements should be supported on at least 6 inches of clean granular material to reduce pumping at the joints. The pavement section should be supported on a subgrade compacted to not less than 100 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D

698 (Standard Proctor) or verified as stable through proof-rolling. All paving operations should conform to ODOT specifications.

5.6 Groundwater Control and Drainage

As indicated previously, groundwater was initially encountered during drilling at a depth of

8 feet below existing grade in Borings B-1 and B-2. Groundwater was observed upon completion of drilling in Borings B-1 and B-2 at depths of 14½ feet and 14 feet, respectively. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling or observed upon completion of drilling in Borings B-3 and

B-4, which were both terminated at a depth of 5 feet. Based on the soil characteristics and groundwater conditions encountered in the borings, it is our opinion that the “normal” groundwater level will generally be encountered at depths on the order of 8 feet below existing grade. However, seasonal high groundwater may occur at shallower depths.

It is our experience that adequate control of groundwater seepage or surface water run-off into shallow excavations should be achievable by minor dewatering systems, such as pumping from prepared sumps. If excavations deeper than 8 feet are required (e.g., site utilities, etc.), or if seasonally elevated groundwater conditions are prevalent at the time of construction, it may be necessary to augment sump-and-pump operations with one or more wellpoints to facilitate construction dewatering. In the event excessive seepage is encountered during construction, TTL should be notified to evaluate whether other dewatering methods are required.

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 13

5.7 Excavations and Slopes

The sides of temporary excavations for building foundations, utility installations, and other construction should be adequately sloped to provide stable sides and safe working conditions.

Otherwise, the excavation must be properly braced against lateral movements. In any case, applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety standards must be followed.

The soils encountered in the test borings within the anticipated depths of excavations may be classified as OSHA Type C soils (granular soils). For temporary excavations in Type C soils, side slopes must be no steeper than 1½ horizontal to 1 vertical (1½H:1V). Flatter slopes may be required if lower strength soils or adverse seepage conditions are encountered during construction.

For permanent excavations and slopes, we recommend that grades be no steeper than 3H:1V without a more extensive geotechnical evaluation of the proposed construction plans and site conditions.

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 14

6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Site and Subgrade Preparation

Prior to proceeding with construction operations, all topsoil, root mat, vegetation, and other deleterious non-soil materials should be removed from the proposed construction areas. Suitable topsoil may be stockpiled for later use in landscape areas. The actual amount of required stripping should be determined in the field by a geotechnical engineer or qualified representative.

Upon completion of the stripping and clearing, the areas intended to support new fill, floor slabs, foundations, and pavements should be carefully inspected by a geotechnical engineer. For the granular subgrade soils, proof-rolling/compaction should be performed utilizing a smooth-drum roller, using vibratory or “static” operation as discussed below. The roller should make a minimum of two passes in each of two perpendicular directions covering the proposed development area, with additional passes as necessary to achieve required compaction and/or subgrade stabilization.

The purpose of the proof-rolling operations is to locate any soft, loose, weak, or excessively wet soils present at the time of construction. Additionally, the purpose of vibratory compaction for the “clean” granular soils is to densify zones of loose materials that are encountered in the upper portion of the soil profile, thereby providing more uniform subgrade support. We recommend a roller with a minimum dead weight on the drums of 8 tons, vibrating at 30 Hz or greater, and traveling at speeds not exceeding approximately 4 feet per second (about 3 miles per hour).

These operational criteria should provide sufficient dynamic compaction energy to alleviate loose soil conditions within the zone of influence for subgrade support. If seasonal high groundwater levels are present at the time of construction, vibratory compaction may be detrimental to the prepared subgrade. Therefore, compaction by additional passes of the roller under

“static” operation would be required. Additionally, operation of the smooth-drum roller should be performed under “static” mode within 10 feet of existing structures.

Any unsuitable materials observed during the inspection and proof-rolling operations should be undercut and replaced with compacted fill or stabilized in place utilizing conventional remedial measures such as discing, aeration, and recompaction. Once the site has been proof rolled, inspected, and stabilized, the proof-rolled or inspected subgrades should not be exposed to wet conditions.

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 15

The results of the inspection and proof-rolling operations will be partially dependent on construction operations, the moisture content of the soil, and the weather conditions prevalent at the time. If pumping or rutting is encountered and difficulty is experienced in the operation of construction equipment, TTL should be notified in order to determine which method of subgrade modification may be best suited for the conditions encountered. Should such conditions be experienced, we may recommend that a small test area be used to determine the necessary depth of undercutting and stone replacement or other remedial action necessary to achieve a stable subgrade condition.

6.2 Fill

Material for engineered fill or backfill required to achieve design grades may consist of any non-organic soils having a maximum dry density as determined by the Standard Proctor (ASTM D

698) of 90 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) or greater. On-site soils may be used as engineered fill materials provided that they are free of organic matter, debris, excessive moisture, and rock or stone fragments larger than 3 inches in diameter. Depending on seasonal conditions, the on-site granular soils may require addition of water to achieve satisfactory compaction. Conversely, wet seasonal conditions may require scarification and aeration of the soils, although the predominantly granular nature of the on-site materials should generally be favorable for drying.

Fill should be placed in uniform layers no more than 8 inches thick (loose measure) and adequately keyed into stripped and scarified soils. All fill within the building and pavement areas should be compacted to not less than 100 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by

ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor).

The upper soil profile at the site consists of granular soils. For granular subgrade soils and granular engineered fill materials, a smooth-drum roller should be utilized for compaction, using vibratory or “static” operation as discussed in Section 6.1.

Scarified subgrade soils and all fill material should be within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content to facilitate compaction. Furthermore, fill material should not be frozen or placed on a frozen base. It is recommended that all earthwork and site preparation activities be conducted under adequate specifications and properly monitored in the field by a qualified geotechnical testing firm.

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 16

6.3 Foundation Excavations

As mentioned in Section 5.1, we strongly recommend that the bearing surface at the bottom of all footing excavations be inspected during construction by a TTL geotechnical engineer or qualified representative. Inspection should be performed to verify that the exposed soil conditions at the bearing elevations are consistent with the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings, footing subgrades have been suitably modified in-place, and engineer fill has been properly placed and compacted such that it is capable of supporting the design bearing pressure.

We recommend that the foundation excavations be concreted as soon as practical after they are excavated and that water not be allowed to pond in any excavation. If it is necessary to leave the bearing surface open for any extended period of time, we recommend that a thin mat of lean concrete be placed over the bottom of the excavation to reduce damage to the surface from weather or construction. Foundation concrete should not be placed on frozen or saturated subgrade.

Additional foundation excavation recommendations are provided in Section 5.1.

TTL Project No. 1693001 Page 17

7.0 QUALIFICATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Our evaluation of foundation, floor slab, and pavement design and construction conditions has been based on our understanding of the site and project information, and the data obtained during our field investigation. The general subsurface conditions were based on interpretation of the subsurface data obtained at specific boring locations. Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface investigation, there is the possibility that conditions between borings will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions. This is especially true for previously developed sites. Therefore, experienced geotechnical engineers should observe earthwork and foundation construction to confirm that the conditions anticipated in design are noted. Otherwise, TTL assumes no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations.

The design recommendations in this report have been developed on the basis of the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions. If project criteria or locations change, a qualified geotechnical engineer should be permitted to determine whether the recommendations must be modified. The findings of such a review will be presented in a supplemental report.

The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until the course of construction. If such variations are encountered, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report after on-site observations of the conditions.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings derived, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied. TTL is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on this data.

6-7-7 (14)

2-5-7 (12)

7-14-15 (29)

1-3-4 (7)

5-11-15 (26)

2-2-2 (4)

5-9-15 (24)

NP

NP

NP

NP

NP

0.19

1.75

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

TOPSOIL - 9 Inches 0.8'

Moist Medium Dense Brown SILTY SAND w/Trace Gravel and Organics (SM)

3.0' Moist Medum Dense Dark Brown SILTY SAND (SM)

(w/Trace Organics in SS-2 Sample)

@6': Brown

8.0' Wet Loose Gray POORLY GRADED SAND w/Trace Silt (SP) (Free Water Noted)

12.0' Wet Medium Dense Gray SILTY SAND (SM) (Free Water Noted)

17.0' Moist Soft Gray LEAN CLAY w/Sand (CL)

22.0' Moist Stiff to Very Stiff Gray SANDY SILT (ML)

25.0' Bottom of hole at 25.0 feet.

NOTES

LOGGED BY KKC

AT TIME OF DRILLING 8.0 ft

AT END OF DRILLING 14.5 ft

0hrs AFTER DRILLING Backfilled w/Cuttings and Bentonite Chips

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY CPI

GROUND ELEVATIONRIG NO. 844DRILLING CONTRACTOR TTL Associates TB JP

DRILLING METHOD 3-1/4 in. HSA

DATE STARTED 6/28/18 COMPLETED 6/28/18

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

D E

P T

H (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

U N

C O

N F

. C O

M P

S

T R ts f)

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

SPT N VALUE

20 40 60 80

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

20 40 60 80

PL LLMC

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING NUMBER B-1

CLIENT FSB

PROJECT NUMBER 1693001

PROJECT NAME Proposed ADAL Flight Simulator

PROJECT LOCATION Ohio ANG, Swanton, OH

T T

L_ G

E O

T E

C H

_S T

A N

D A

R D

.G P

J G

IN

T

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/2

6/

TTL Associates, Inc.

1915 N 12th Street Toledo, Ohio 43624 Telephone: 419-324-2222 Fax: 419-241-1808

2-3-2 (5)

0-2-7 (9)

5-7-9 (16)

4-4-12 (16)

10-24-24 (48)

3-1-4 (5)

3-7-14 (21)

NP

NP

NP

NP

NP

NP

1.50

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

TOPSOIL - 8 Inches 0.7'

Moist Loose Brown POORLY GRADED SAND w/Trace Silt and Organics (SP)

6.0' Moist Medium Dense Brown POORLY GRADED SAND w/Trace Silt (SP)

@8': Wet, Gray (Free Water Noted)

13.5' Moist Medium Dense to Dense Gray POORLY GRADED SAND w/Trace Silt (SP)

[Driller noted that sand heave into HSA may have resulted in higth SPT blows for this sample]

17.0' Moist Loose Gray SILTY SAND (SM)

22.0' Moist Stiff to Very Stiff Gray SANDY SILT (ML)

25.0' Bottom of hole at 25.0 feet.

NOTES

LOGGED BY KKC

AT TIME OF DRILLING 8.0 ft

AT END OF DRILLING 14.0 ft

0hrs AFTER DRILLING Backfilled w/Cuttings and Bentonite Chips

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY CPI

GROUND ELEVATIONRIG NO. 844DRILLING CONTRACTOR TTL Associates TB JP

DRILLING METHOD 3-1/4 in. HSA

DATE STARTED 6/28/18 COMPLETED 6/28/18

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

D E

P T

H (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

U N

C O

N F

. C O

M P

S

T R ts f)

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

SPT N VALUE

20 40 60 80

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

20 40 60 80

PL LLMC

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING NUMBER B-2

CLIENT FSB

PROJECT NUMBER 1693001

PROJECT NAME Proposed ADAL Flight Simulator

PROJECT LOCATION Ohio ANG, Swanton, OH

T T

L_ G

E O

T E

C H

_S T

A N

D A

R D

.G P

J G

IN

T

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/2

6/

TTL Associates, Inc.

1915 N 12th Street Toledo, Ohio 43624 Telephone: 419-324-2222 Fax: 419-241-1808

2-3-4 (7)

3-4-5 (9)

NP

NP

SS

SS

Moist Loose Brown POORLY GRADED SAND w/Trace Clay and Silt (SP)

5.0' Bottom of hole at 5.0 feet.

NOTES

LOGGED BY KKC

AT TIME OF DRILLING None

AT END OF DRILLING None

0hrs AFTER DRILLING Backfilled w/Cuttings and Bentonite Chips

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY CPI

GROUND ELEVATIONRIG NO. 844DRILLING CONTRACTOR TTL Associates TB JP

DRILLING METHOD 3-1/4 in. HSA

DATE STARTED 6/28/18 COMPLETED 6/28/18

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

D E

P T

H (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

U N

C O

N F

. C O

M P

S

T R ts f)

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

SPT N VALUE

20 40 60 80

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

20 40 60 80

PL LLMC

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING NUMBER B-3

CLIENT FSB

PROJECT NUMBER 1693001

PROJECT NAME Proposed ADAL Flight Simulator

PROJECT LOCATION Ohio ANG, Swanton, OH

T T

L_ G

E O

T E

C H

_S T

A N

D A

R D

.G P

J G

IN

T

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/2

6/

TTL Associates, Inc.

1915 N 12th Street Toledo, Ohio 43624 Telephone: 419-324-2222 Fax: 419-241-1808

3-6-6 (12)

2-2-4 (6)

NP

NP

SS

SS

TOPSOIL - 3 Inches 0.3'

Moist Medium Dense Dark Brown SILTY SAND w/Trace Gravel and Organics (SM)

3.0' Moist Loose Brown POORLY GRADED SAND w/Trace Silt (SP)

5.0' Bottom of hole at 5.0 feet.

NOTES

LOGGED BY KKC

AT TIME OF DRILLING None

AT END OF DRILLING None

0hrs AFTER DRILLING Backfilled w/Cuttings and Bentonite Chips

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY CPI

GROUND ELEVATIONRIG NO. 844DRILLING CONTRACTOR TTL Associates TB JP

DRILLING METHOD 3-1/4 in. HSA

DATE STARTED 6/28/18 COMPLETED 6/28/18

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

D E

P T

H (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

U N

C O

N F

. C O

M P

S

T R ts f)

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

SPT N VALUE

20 40 60 80

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

20 40 60 80

PL LLMC

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING NUMBER B-4

CLIENT FSB

PROJECT NUMBER 1693001

PROJECT NAME Proposed ADAL Flight Simulator

PROJECT LOCATION Ohio ANG, Swanton, OH

T T

L_ G

E O

T E

C H

_S T

A N

D A

R D

.G P

J G

IN

T

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/2

6/

TTL Associates, Inc.

1915 N 12th Street Toledo, Ohio 43624 Telephone: 419-324-2222 Fax: 419-241-1808

1693001 leg ADAL Flight Simulator Swanton OH

Notes:

1. Exploratory borings were drilled on June 28, 2018 using 3¼-inch inside diameter hollow-stem augers.

2. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and recommendations in the report and should not be interpreted separate from the report.

3. Boring locations were established in the field by TTL Associates, Inc. based on a proposed site plan provided by FSB.

4. Unconfined Compressive Strength (tsf):

NP = Non-Plastic

PROJECT: Proposed ADAL Flight Simulator, Ohio ANG, Swanton, Ohio TTL Associates, Inc. PROJECT NO: 1693001

TABULATION OF TEST DATA

B o ri n g

N u m b er

S am p le

N u m p le

I n te rv al

D ep th

(F ee t) ta n d ar d

P en et ra ti o n

(B lo w s

F at u ra l M o is tu re

C n te n t o f ry

W ei g h

In -P la ce

D en si ty

(P u n d s b ic

F o

U co n fi ed m p re ss iv e

S tr en g u n q u ar e F o

Particle Size

Distribution (%)

Atterberg

Limits (%)

U n if ie d

S il ss if ic at io

G ra v el ar se S an

M iu m

S in e S t

C y

L iq u id

L im it

P st ic

L st ic it y I n ex

*Unconfined compressive strength derived from a calibrated hand penetrometer

1693001 tbl Proposed ADAL Flight Simulator Ohio ANG Swanton Ohio Sheet 1 of 2

B-1 SS-1 1.0-2.5 14 11.0

SS-2 3.5-5.0 12 15.2 0 0 5 81 12 2 NON-PLASTIC SM

SS-3 6.0-7.5 29 16.1

SS-4 8.5-10.0 7 23.2

SS-5 13.5-15.0 26 26.6

SS-6 18.5-20.0 4 35.6 92.3 370

SS-7 23.5-25.0 24 25.7 *3,500

B-2 SS-1 1.0-2.5 5 7.2

SS-2 3.5-5.0 9 8.9

SS-3 6.0-7.5 16 17.2

SS-4 8.5-10.0 16 24.3

SS-5 13.5-15.0 48 17.7

SS-6 18.5-20.0 5 23.1

SS-7 23.5-25.0 21 22.9 *3,000

PROJECT: Proposed ADAL Flight Simulator, Ohio ANG, Swanton, Ohio TTL Associates, Inc. PROJECT NO: 1693001

TABULATION OF TEST DATA

B o ri n g

N u m le m p le

I n te rv al ep

(F ee ta n d ar d

P en et ra ti

(B lo w s at u ra l M o is tu re n te n t o f

W ei g h

In -P ce

D en si ty u n b ic

F o

U co n fi m p re ss iv e

S tr en g u n q u ar e F o

Particle Size

Distribution (%)

Atterberg

Limits (%)

U n if ie d

S ss if ic at io

G ra v el ar se S

M iu m

S in e S t

C y

L iq u id

L st ic

L st ic it y I n ex

*Unconfined compressive strength derived from a calibrated hand penetrometer

1693001 tbl Proposed ADAL Flight Simulator Ohio ANG Swanton Ohio Sheet 2 of 2

B-3 SS-1 1.0-2.5 7 4.4

SS-2 3.5-5.0 9 17.5 0 0 10 86 2 2 NON-PLASTIC SP

B-4 SS-1 1.0-2.5 12 11.6

SS-2 3.5-5.0 6 7.3

0.0010.010.1110100

PI Cc

NP

NP

NP

NP

CuLL PL

NP

NP

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

COBBLES

GRAVEL

3.5 3.5

4.9 1.9

4.75

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

SAND

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

coarse fine

3.5 3.5

SILTY SAND (SM)

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)

Specimen Identification

Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel 0.255 0.294

11.9 1.5

B-1 B-3 coarse

SILT OR CLAY

finemedium

%Sand %Silt %Clay 0.166 0.202

0.052 0.158

0.0 0.0

85.7 96.1

2.4 2.4

3 100

B-1 B-3

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

2.1 0.9

USCS Classification

CLIENT FSB

PROJECT NUMBER 1693001

PROJECT NAME Proposed ADAL Flight Simulator

PROJECT LOCATION Ohio ANG, Swanton, OH

G R

A

IN

S

IZ

E

.G

P J

G

IN

T U

S L

A B

.G D

T

/2 6/

TTL Associates, Inc.

1915 N 12th Street Toledo, Ohio 43624 Telephone: 419-324-2222 Fax: 419-241-1808

Blank Page