Report of Geotechnical Study

Transcription

1 Report of Geotechnical Study Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, Maryland F&R Project No. 75V0084 Prepared For: 901 Dulaney Valley Road, Suite 801 Towson, MD Prepared By: Froehling & Robertson, Inc York Road, Suites C-D Cockeysville, Maryland October 20, 2017 Corporate HQ: 3015 Dumbarton Road Richmond, Virginia T F VIRGINIA NORTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA MARYLAND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A Minority-Owned Business

2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICES PROJECT INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EXPLORATION PROCEDURES SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION INFILTRATION TESTING LABORATORY TESTING REGIONAL GEOLOGY & SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS REGIONAL GEOLOGY SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General Surficial Materials Fill Material Coastal Plain Soils SUBSURFACE WATER LABORATORY TEST RESULTS...8 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION ELEMENTS SUPPORTING ON EXISTING FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT INFILTRATION PRACTICES CONCRETE SLAB AND SIDEWALK CONSIDERATIONS PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS SITE PREPARATION STRUCTURAL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION SURFACE/ GROUNDWATER CONTROL TEMPORARY EXCAVATION RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUATION OF SERVICES LIMITATIONS Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page - ii -

4 APPENDIX I Site Location Plan Boring Location Plan APPENDICES APPENDIX II Key to Soil Classification Unified Soil Classification Chart Boring Logs USDA Textural Triangles APPENDIX III GBA Document Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page - ii -

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Executive Summary is provided as a brief overview of our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the project and is not intended to replace more detailed information contained elsewhere in this report. As an overview, this summary inherently omits details that could be very important to the proper application of the provided geotechnical design recommendations. This report should be read in its entirety prior to implementation into design and construction. The subsurface exploration program was performed between the dates of August 13, 2017, and October 3, 2017, and consisted of thirteen test borings designated B-1 through B-8, and SWM-1 through SWM-5. Borings were drilled to the planned termination depths of 10 feet or 15 feet. Below the existing ground surface, the borings generally encountered surficial asphalt materials or organic soils, fill materials, and coastal plain soils. We note that existing fill materials were present well below the anticipated foundation bearing levels for the proposed fuel center support structures. Considering the nature of the proposed structures and the anticipated loads, we envision that the proposed structures can be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on approved existing fill materials, provided that the risks regarding construction on existing fill materials are understood and accepted. We recommend that foundations be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure not to exceed 1,500 pounds per square feet (psf). The field infiltration test rates at SWM-1, SWM-2, and SWM-3, and the overall average infiltration rate shown above does not meet or exceed the minimum acceptable rate for infiltration. Based on the foregoing, infiltration practices are not considered feasible at the locations and elevations tested. We note that only the infiltration rates recorded at SWM-4 and SWM-5 exceeded the minimum infiltration rate of 0.52 inches per hour; however, it should also be understood that the infiltration testing is believed to have been performed in existing fill materials. The following Seismic Site Class Definition was established per Section of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). Based on our experience in this area and the data from our testing and subsurface exploration, a Site Classification D should be used for further evaluations relative to earthquake load design regarding the water storage tank. Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page - 1 -

6 1.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation was to explore the subsurface conditions in the areas of the proposed Baltimore Sun facility improvements, to conduct infiltration testing for the proposed stormwater management practices and provide geotechnical engineering design and construction recommendations that can be used during the design and construction of the proposed improvements. F&R s scope of services included the following: Coordination utility clearance with Miss Utility, and coordination with a private utility locator for utility clearance; Review and summarize readily available geologic and subsurface information relative to the project site; Completion of thirteen (13) standard penetration test borings up to the predetermined depths, ranging from 10 feet to 15 feet, for foundation considerations; Completion of five (5) standard infiltration tests at a depths ranging from 2 feet to 5.5 feet below existing grades for stormwater management considerations; Preparation of typed Boring Logs; Perform laboratory testing consisting of 19 Natural Moisture Content, 5 USDA classification tests, 3 USCS classification tests, 3 standard Proctors, and 3 CBR s; Performing a geotechnical engineering evaluation of the subsurface conditions with regard to their suitability for the proposed construction; Provided recommendations for slab on grade and flexible pavement design and construction; Provided a seismic site class definition. The seismic site class definition was assigned based on the test boring Standard Penetration Test data and correlations provided in the 2012 IBC; Evaluate the findings of the infiltration test relative to suitable stormwater management practices; Provided recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of fill materials required to achieve building pad or site subgrades, including an assessment of the suitability of the on-site soil for re-use as structural fill, and recommendations regarding rock excavation; Preparation of this geotechnical report by professional engineers. Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page - 2 -

7 Our scope of services did not include survey services, quantity estimates, remedial designs, preparation of plans or specifications, evaluation or monitoring for environmental contaminants, slope stability analyses, stormwater management design, evaluations of earthquake motions, the identification and evaluation of wetlands, or any other scope element not specifically listed above. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Description The site is located on the grounds of the existing Baltimore Sun facility at 300 E. Cromwell Street in Baltimore, Maryland, as shown on the Site Location Plan included in Appendix I of this report. The project site currently consists of the northern and western portion of the facility grounds which are primarily grass covered lawns and asphalt paved drive lanes and parking areas. The site sits close to sea level as it is located in close proximity to the open waters of Winans Cove. Topographically, the site is generally level with grades sloping very slightly from El 20 in the north down to El 12 in the southwest. A drainage swale runs the perimeter of the Baltimore Sun facility property which was observed to have standing water during F&R s site visits. 2.2 Proposed Construction Our understanding of the project was developed on the basis of telephone and correspondence with you, which included the document entitled Baltimore-Sun Revised SWM Facilities.pdf dated September 25, We understand that the purpose of the site reorganization is to consolidate the Baltimore Sun s operations for the initial phases of the Master Plan for Port Covington. This will include the construction of new drive lanes and parking areas around the facility located at 300 East Cromwell Street. Additional site improvements will include the construction of up to five new storm water management facilities that are planned to implement infiltration practices and a new fueling station consisting of a canopy structure. Based on our review of the provided grading plan, relatively minor cuts and fills of up to 5 feet are anticipated. Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page - 3 -

8 3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES 3.1 Subsurface Exploration The subsurface exploration program was performed between the dates of August 13, 2017, and October 3, 2017, and consisted of thirteen test borings designated B-1 through B-8, and SWM-1 through SWM-5. Borings were drilled to the planned termination depths of 10 feet or 15 feet. The locations of the borings are shown on the attached Boring Location Plan (Drawing No. 2). The planned boring locations were determined and staked in the field by F&R by measuring from existing site features such as building corners, edges of pavement, etc. Surface elevations at the boring locations were estimated from the topography indicated on the provided site plans. In consideration of the methods used in their determination, the test boring locations shown on the attached boring location plan should be considered approximate. The test borings were performed in accordance with generally accepted drilling practice using a truck-mounted CME-55 rotary drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer. Hollow-stem augers were advanced to pre-determined depths, the center plug was removed, and representative soil samples were recovered with a standard split-spoon sampler (1 3/8 in. ID, 2 in. OD) in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, the Standard Penetration Test. The split-spoon sampler was driven into the soil by freely dropping a weight of 140 pounds from a height of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the split-spoon sampler three consecutive 6-inch increments is recorded, and the blows of the last two increments are summed to obtain the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value). The N-value provides a general indication of in-situ soil conditions and has been correlated with certain engineering properties of soils. The test borings were advanced through the soil overburden by soil drilling procedures until the planned termination depth. Subsurface water level readings were taken in all of the borings immediately upon completion of the drilling process, upon removal of the augers, and again after 24 hours at some locations. Upon completion of drilling, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings (soil) and capped with asphalt cold patch, as necessry. Periodic observation of the boreholes should be performed to monitor subsidence at the ground surface, as the borehole backfill could settle over time. Representative portions of the split-spoon soil samples obtained throughout the exploration program were placed in glass jars and transported to our laboratory. In the laboratory, the soil samples were evaluated by a member of our engineering staff in general accordance with techniques outlined in the visual-manual identification procedure (ASTM D 2488). The soil descriptions and classifications discussed in this report and shown on the attached Boring Logs are Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page - 4 -

9 based on visual observation and should be considered approximate. A copy of the boring logs are provided and classification procedures are further explained in Appendix II. Split-spoon soil samples recovered on this project will be stored at F&R s office for a period of 60 days. After 60 days, the samples will be discarded unless prior notification is provided to us in writing. 3.2 Infiltration Testing Infiltration testing was conducted adjacent to boring locations SWM-1 through SWM-5, at depths ranging from 2 feet to 5.5 feet below existing grades. Infiltration testing was performed in general compliance with the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) Stormwater Design Manual. The cased boreholes were soaked with water to a depth of 2 feet for 24 hours. After this presoaking period water was added as necessary to the cased borehole to re-establish a depth of 2 feet. Water level readings were taken every 30 minutes for 4 hours, and the infiltration rate is reported as the average rate of water drop over the period of the test (inches per hour). 3.3 Laboratory Testing Representative soil samples were subjected to Water Content (ASTM D 2216), #200 Sieve Wash (ASTM D 1140), Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318), Hydrometer Analysis (ASTM D 422), standard Proctor (ASTM D698) and CBR (ASTM D1883) to substantiate the visual classifications and assist with the estimation of the soils pertinent engineering properties. The results are shown in Section 4.4. Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page - 5 -

10 4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY & SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Regional Geology Information obtained from the Geologic Map of Maryland (1968) indicates that this area is underlain by Lowland Deposits of the Pleistocene Epoch, which is composed of gravel, sand, silt and clay soils. These coastal plain deposits are typically medium-to coarse-grained sand and gravel; cobbles and boulders near the base; commonly contains reworked Eocene glauconite; varicolored silts and clays, brown to dark gray lignitic Silty Clay. 4.2 Subsurface Conditions General The subsurface conditions discussed in the following paragraphs and those shown on the attached Boring Logs represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the boring data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments. The transitions between different soil strata are usually less distinct than those shown on the boring logs. Sometimes the relatively small sample obtained in the field is insufficient to definitively describe the origin of the subsurface material. In these cases, we qualify our origin descriptions with possible before the word describing the material s origin (i.e. possible alluvium, etc.). Although individual soil test borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at the boring locations on the dates shown, they are not necessarily indicative of subsurface conditions at other locations or at other times. Data from the specific soil test borings are shown on the attached Boring Logs in Appendix II. Below the existing ground surface, the borings generally encountered surficial materials, fill, and coastal plain soils. These materials are generally discussed in the following paragraphs Surficial Materials Surficial organic soils were encountered in each of the borings, except B-3 and B-8, and extended to depths of 2 to 3 inches. Surficial organic soil is typically a dark-colored soil material containing roots, fibrous matter, and/or other organic components, and is generally unsuitable for engineering purposes. F&R has not performed any laboratory testing to determine the organic content or other horticultural properties of the observed surficial organic soil materials. Therefore, the term surficial organic soil is not intended to indicate a suitability for landscaping and/or other purposes. The surficial organic soil depths provided in this report are based on driller observations and should be considered approximate. We note that the transition from surficial organic soil to underlying materials may be gradual, and therefore the observation and measurement of surficial organic soil depths is subjective. Actual surficial organic soil depths should be expected to vary. Borings B-3 and B-8 encountered approximately 6 inches of surficial asphalt pavement underlain by 6 inches of subbase gravel. Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page - 6 -

11 4.2.3 Fill Material Soils considered to be Fill Material were encountered underlying the surficial materials described above in each of the soil borings, to depths ranging from 2.5 feet to 13.5 feet. Fill may be any material that has been transported and deposited by man. Possible fill materials, not clearly distinguishable from possible coastal plain soils, were encountered at depths of 8.5 feet to 13.5 feet in borings B-4 and B-5, 2.5 feet to 8.5 feet in boring SWM-5, and 8.5 feet to the boring termination depth of 15 feet in boring SWM-1. Fill materials were described sandy SILT (ML), lean CLAY (CL), and fat CLAY (CH), with varying amounts of sand and gravel, clayey SAND (SC), silty SAND (SM), clayey GRAVEL (GC), and silty GRAVEL (GM). Many specimens of the sampled fill appeared to contain a varying amounts of fine black material that was described as likely cinders. The sampled fill materials were brown, light brown, dark brown, reddish brown, tan, black, and gray, in color, with a moisture content visually characterized as moist to wet. The Standard Penetration Test values (N-Values) in the fill ranged from 4 bpf to 100+ bpf Coastal Plain Soils Alluvial deposited soils of the coastal plain were found to underlie the fill material described above, and were present until the boring termination depth; expect for as mentioned above in SWM-1. These naturally occurring deposits were found to consist of sandy Lean CLAY (CL), with varying amounts of sand, clayey SAND (SC), silty SAND (SM), and poorly graded SAND (SP) soils. Coastal plain materials were dark brown, light brown, brown, gray and black in color, with moisture contents visually characterized as very moist to saturated. SPT values in the coastal plain soils ranged from 2 bpf to 13 bpf. 4.3 Subsurface Water The test borings were monitored during and after drilling operations to obtain short-term subsurface water information, and again after a 24 hour interval in borings B-5, B-6, B-7, and SWM-1 through SWM-5. Subsurface water was encountered at depths ranging from 2.5 feet to 9.5 feet below existing site grades. It should be noted that the location of the subsurface water table could vary by several feet because of seasonal fluctuations in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, local topography, and other factors not immediately apparent at the time of this exploration. Normally, the highest subsurface water levels occur in the late winter and spring and lowest levels occur in the late summer and fall. Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page - 7 -

12 4.4 Laboratory Test Results As discussed in Section 3.2, laboratory testing was performed on a representative soil samples collected during our subsurface exploration. The results from the laboratory testing are included in the following table. Natural Liquid Maximum Sample % Passing Optimum Water Limit/ USCS Dry No. 200 moisture* Content Plasticity Class. Density* (Feet) Sieve (%) (%) Index (pcf) B Boring No. B Non-Plastic 54.5 ML Soaked CBR (%) B / CL B B B B B / SC B B B B B B B B / SC SWM / CL SWM Non-plastic 13.5 SM SWM Non-plastic 21.0 SM SWM Non-plastic 31.4 SM SWM / CL *as per the standard Proctor method B (ASTM 698) Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page - 8 -

13 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General The following evaluations and recommendations are based on our observations at the site, interpretation of the field data obtained during this exploration and our experience with similar subsurface conditions and projects. Soil penetration data has been used to estimate an allowable bearing pressure and associated settlement using established correlations. Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations may vary from those encountered. If the structure locations, loadings, or elevations are changed, we should be notified and requested to confirm and, if necessary, re-evaluate our recommendations. Determination of an appropriate foundation system for a given structure is dependent on the proposed structural loads, soil conditions, and construction constraints such as proximity to other structures, etc. The subsurface exploration aids the geotechnical engineer in determining the soil stratum appropriate for structural support. This determination includes considerations with regard to both allowable bearing capacity and compressibility of the soil strata. In addition, since the method of construction greatly affects the soils intended for structural support, consideration must be given to the implementation of suitable methods of site preparation, fill compaction, and other aspects of construction, where applicable. 5.2 Design Recommendations for Foundation Elements We note that existing fill materials were present well below the anticipated foundation bearing levels for the proposed fuel center support structures. Based on F&R s soil boring data and site observation it appears that the existing fill materials may have been placed in a controlled method; however, records of compaction testing were not provided. We note that that the fill materials encountered in the borings generally did not include excessive amounts of organics or deleterious debris; however, the composition of the sampled fill varied significantly and the presence of cinders was common. Considering the nature of the proposed structures and the anticipated loads, we envision that the proposed structures can be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on approved existing fill materials, provided that the risks regarding construction on existing fill materials are understood and accepted. We recommend that foundations be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure not to exceed 1,500 pounds per square feet (psf). Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page - 9 -

14 To reduce the possibility of localized shear failures, column and strip footings should be a minimum of 3 feet and 2 feet wide, respectively. We recommend that all exterior footings be placed a minimum of 2.5 feet below finished exterior grades, which should also be adequate to protect exterior footings against the effects of frost. 5.3 Supporting on Existing Fill In order to eliminate the risks associated with structural support on existing fill materials, the existing materials could be completely removed and replaced with new controlled structural fill, or deep foundation support could be considered. However, considering the site conditions, we anticipate that neither complete removal of the fill nor deep foundations will be cost effective for this project. Furthermore, based on the boring data, and given the relatively light load of the anticipated structures, it appears that light structural support on the existing fill materials may be possible provided that the recommended engineering evaluations (as described in Section 6.3 of this report) are performed and the owner is willing to accept some risk. The risks associated with structural support on the existing fills in the short term include additional support related cost (i.e. undercutting, stabilization, etc.) should unforeseen conditions be encountered during construction. Long-term risk (i.e. excessive settlement) can be reduced by requesting an F&R engineer to perform the recommended subgrade evaluations during construction. 5.4 Foundation Settlement Based on the boring data, proposed grading, and assumed structural information, we estimate that foundation settlements will be less than 1 inch with differential settlement of up to one-half the estimated total settlement. The magnitude of differential settlements will be influenced by the variation in excavation requirements across the foundation footprint, the distribution of loads, and the variability of underlying soils. Our settlement analysis was performed on the basis of the assumed structural loading and provided grading information discussed above. Actual settlements experienced by the structure and the time required for these soils to settle will be influenced by undetected variations in subsurface conditions, final grading plans, and the quality of fill placement and foundation construction. 5.5 Infiltration Practices According to the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual requirements, infiltration is only permissible where infiltration rates exceed 0.52 inches per hour, and groundwater or an impermeable layer is not located within 2 to 4 feet of the planned bottom of the facility. The infiltration rate can be determined from field testing and estimated empirically from USDA soil classification. Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page

15 Infiltration testing was conducted at locations offset approximately 10 to 20 feet from corresponding boring locations at the depths of between 2 and 5.5 feet below existing grades. Inititial infiltration testing was scheduled to be performed at 8 feet below existing grades at all locations; however, field adjustment were made due to the 24 hour water readings recorded in the corresponding soil test boring. The results of the infiltration testing, along with the USDA soil classification and the empirical infiltration rate, are included in the table below: Infiltration Test Results Corresponding Boring No. 24 Hour Subsurface Water Test Below Grade Approx. Test Elevation Infiltration Test Result (inches/hr) Site Average Rate (inches/hr) USDA Soil Class. Empirical Rate (inches/hr) SWM-1 5.5ft 3.5ft Loam 0.52 SWM-2 3ft 2ft loamy Sand 2.41 SWM-3 3.5ft 2ft sandy Loam 1.02 SWM-4 7.5ft 5.5ft sandy Loam 1.02 SWM-5 6ft 4ft silty clay Loam The field infiltration test rates at SWM-1, SWM-2, and SWM-3, and the overall average infiltration rate shown above does not meet or exceed the minimum acceptable rate for infiltration. Based on the foregoing, infiltration practices are not considered feasible at the locations and elevations tested. We note that only the infiltration rates recorded at SWM-4 and SWM-5 exceeded the minimum infiltration rate of 0.52 inches per hour; however, it should also be understood that the infiltration testing is believed to have been performed in existing fill materials. Furthermore, we note that the field infiltration rates vary slightly from the empirical rates established by USDA based on soil classifications. It is our opinion that the field test provides a more accurate representation of the soils infiltration capacity. However, we note that seasonal weather conditions may also influence the rates recorded in the field. Additionally, we note that subsurface water levels were found to be relatively shallow and low permeability clayey soils (i.e. CL, CH, and SC) were commonly encountered in the test borings. 5.6 Concrete Slab and Sidewalk Considerations Concrete slabs and sidewalks may be designed as a slab-on-grade supported by newly placed controlled fill, and/or approved existing fill. Any loose/soft or otherwise unsuitable materials encountered should be remediated by either additional undercuts, with grades restored with properly compacted acceptable fill materials, or stabilized through other methods as judged necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Considering the extent and varying nature of the onsite fills, some partial undercutting of the existing fill materials should be expected to stabilize the subgrades for slab support. For planning purposes we recommend that the slab subgrades be Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page

16 undercut at least 12 inches below planned subgrade levels, followed by placement of a woven geotextile such as Mirafi HP 270 and compacted with a well-graded gravel material such as CR-6 or RC-6. Additional recommendations regarding undercutting for slab support are provided in Section 6.1 of this report. We recommend that all slab-on-grades and sidewalks be underlain by 6-inches of wellcompacted granular materials, which should conform to an open graded aggregate (such as No. 57 Stone). This granular material provides a capillary break between the subgrade and slab-ongrade; while also providing a uniform bearing surface. A vapor retarder should be used beneath ground floor slabs that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coatings, and/or if other moisture-sensitive equipment or materials will be in contact with the floor. However, the use of vapor retarders may result in excessive curling of concrete slabs and sidewalks during curing. We refer the concrete slab and sidewalk designer to ACI 302.1R-96, Sections and 11.11, for further discussion on vapor retarders, curling, and the means to minimize concrete shrinkage and curling. Proper jointing of the ground concrete slab and sidewalk is also essential to minimize cracking. ACI suggests that unreinforced, plain concrete slabs may be jointed at spacings of 24 to 36 times the slab thickness, up to a maximum spacing of 18 feet. Slab construction should incorporate isolation joints along bearing walls and around column locations to allow minor movements to occur without damage. Utility or other construction excavations in the prepared slab subgrade should be backfilled to a controlled fill criteria to provide uniform floor support. Structural analyses and design of floor slab foundation may require the use of a vertical modulus of subgrade reaction (k). Based on published correlations, we estimate that a design modulus of subgrade reaction (k) = 100 pci is appropriate for floor slab design calculations, provided that the recommended 4-inch subbase is utilized. Note that this modulus value should not be confused with the k value which was provided for the preliminary design of mat foundations in Section 5.4 of this report. 5.7 Pavement Construction We understand that asphaltic concrete pavement is planned for new at grade parking lots and driveways on the site. We anticipate that the parking areas will service primarily automobile traffic, while the driveways will have delivery truck, trailers, and trash truck traffic, along with automobile traffic. Therefore, two pavement sections have been designed based on different loading conditions: standard-duty traffic (automobile traffic only) and heavy-duty traffic (tractor trailer traffic). Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page

17 We expect that the proposed pavement areas are also underlain by existing fill materials but we do not anticipate the need for complete removal and replacement of the existing fill materials. However, the same settlement risks as described above in Section 5.2, also apply to pavement support on existing fill. For pavement support, we recommend evaluating pavement subgrades as described in Section 6.1, Site Preparation, of this report. CBR testing was completed on three (3) bulk samples taken from borings B-1, B-4, and B-8, at a depths of 0 to 10 feet below the existing ground surface. The samples were classified as a lean CLAY (CL), and clayey SAND (SC) according to the USCS and provided soaked CBR values of 1.9, 6.1, and 5.2 at 0.1 inches penetration, respectively. For design, to account for some variability of the on-site soils, we have chosen to use a CBR value of 3. The CBR value of the actual subgrade materials used should be verified prior to the construction of any pavements. The following design values were used for our analysis: Standard duty traffic loading 10,000 equivalent single axle loads (ESAL) Heavy duty traffic loading 500,000 ESAL Design life 20 years Reliability 85 % Variance 0.45 Initial serviceability 4.2 Terminal serviceability 2.0 Our flexible pavement design analysis was based on methodology from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide of Design of Pavement Structures, We have also considered rigid pavements for the heavy duty areas, based on the guidelines presented in ACI 330R-08. Based on the assumptions and methodologies presented above, we recommend the following pavement sections: PAVEMENT SECTION HEAVY STANDARD LAYER VDOT SPECIFICATION (SUPERPAVE) THICKNESS (INCHES) THICKNESS (INCHES) Surface Course Asphalt Concrete (SM-9.5A) Intermediate Asphalt Concrete (IM-19) Course Subbase Course Type I Crushed Aggregate (No. 21A or No. 21B) Our pavement recommendations are based on pavements being supported on soils similar to the soils we tested. Fill materials underlying pavements should be placed in accordance with the controlled fill and pavement subgrade recommendations contained in this report. In addition, Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page

18 all pavement subgrades should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer prior to basestone placement. If excessive subgrade movement is observed, appropriate improvements such as undercutting and/or in-place stabilization will be required at that time. For planning purposes, if unstable subgrades are encountered, extensive undercuts are not anticipated to be feasible due to the general soft nature of the coastal plain soils, the variation in fill materials, and the relatively high subsurface water levels. Therefore, we recommend that the contractor be prepared to overlay pavement subgrades with a reinforcing Geogrid such as a Tensar TriAx, for full 360 degree radial stiffness, before the placement the subbase stone layer. It is recommended that the approaches, loading and unloading areas, main turnaround areas and other areas subjected to excessive starting and stopping motion (such as the dumpster area), be supported with concrete pavement. For pavements restricted to light duty traffic and where excessive starting and stopping motions are anticipated, we recommend the pavement be constructed of 4 inch thick concrete. For pavements subject to heavy duty traffic with excessive starting and stopping motions, we recommend that the pavement be constructed of 6 inch thick concrete. The pavement sections provided above have been developed for conventional post construction traffic conditions. Since the supportive qualities of these pavement sections for their respective uses are reliant upon full construction of the subbase, base, and surface courses, partial construction of either of these sections to facilitate construction traffic may result in subgrade and pavement failures, due to the inadequate supportive qualities of an incomplete pavement section and the heavy concentrated loads associated with construction traffic. Excessively heavy, repetitive construction and/or permanent traffic loads, heavy static loads, and (especially) poor drainage conditions could cause failures. Specific problem areas, should they occur subsequent to construction, will have to be remedied on a case by case basis. 5.8 Seismic Considerations The following Seismic Site Class Definition was established per Section of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) and Chapter 20 of ASCE 7. Our scope of services did not include a seismic conditions survey to determine site-specific shear wave velocity information. This method requires averaging N-values over the top 100 feet of the subsurface profile. Based on our experience in this area and the data from our testing and subsurface exploration and in general accordance with Section of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) and Chapter 20 of ASCE 7, a Site Classification D should be used for further evaluations relative to earthquake load design. Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page

19 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Site Preparation Before proceeding with construction, existing structures, utilities, asphalt, concrete and crushed stone, and other deleterious non-soil materials (if any) should be stripped or removed from the proposed construction area. Attention should be given to these areas to ensure all unsuitable material is removed prior to continuing with construction. During the site preparation operations, positive surface drainage should be maintained to prevent the accumulation of water. Existing underground utilities should be re-routed to locations a minimum of 10 feet outside of any proposed structures or abandoned in place with flowable fill. After stripping, areas intended to support new fill, pavements, and foundations should be carefully evaluated by a geotechnical engineer. At that time, the engineer may require proofrolling of the subgrade with a 20- to 30-ton loaded truck or other pneumatic-tired vehicle of similar size and weight. Proofrolling should be performed during a time of good weather and not while the site is wet, frozen, or severely desiccated. The purpose of the proofrolling is to locate soft, weak, or excessively wet soils present at the time of construction. The existing fill materials may generally be left in place for support of the pavement areas and structures, provided that they are stable during proofrolling and do not contain excessive amounts of debris or organics. Any unsuitable materials observed during the evaluation and proofrolling operations should be undercut and replaced with compacted fill and/or stabilized in-place. The proofrolling observation is an opportunity for the geotechnical engineer to locate inconsistencies intermediate of our boring locations and evaluate the stability of the existing subgrade materials. Any unsuitable materials observed during the evaluation and proofrolling operations should be undercut and replaced with compacted or flowable fill, or stabilized in-place. We anticipate the existing fill materials at the project site, like those encountered in the test borings, will be suitable for support of the proposed lightly loaded support building. However, we note that the in-situ condition of undocumented fills can vary significantly over relatively short horizontal distances; therefore, it is imperative that the subgrade materials be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer as recommended in Section 5.3 of this report. The possible need for, and extent of, undercutting and/or in-place stabilization required can best be determined by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. Once the site has been properly prepared, at-grade construction may proceed. Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page

20 6.2 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction Fill materials placed within building/structure footprints should be classified as silty SAND (SM) or more granular soil, as defined by the Unified Soil Classification System. Fill materials for paved areas may consist of the non-organic, and uncontaminated, on-site soils, or an off-site borrow having a classification of SC or more granular. Fill materials should have a maximum liquid limit (LL) of 45 and plasticity index (PI) less than 20. Other materials may be suitable for use as controlled fill material and should be individually evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. Controlled fill should be free of boulders, organic matter, debris, or other deleterious materials and should have a maximum particle size no greater than 3 inches. In addition, we recommend a minimum standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density of approximately 95 pounds per cubic feet for fill materials. Due to the varying nature of the onsite existing fill soils, we expect that some controlled granular off-site borrow soils will be needed for the backfilling of any necessary undercuts made within building pads and/or structure footprints. However, based on our visual classifications and the laboratory testing, we anticipate that the on-site soils should serve satisfactorily as fill in paved areas provided that the moisture contents can be maintained within acceptable limits. The onsite soils are considered moisture sensitive and may be difficult to work with when they are wet of the optimum moisture content. The laboratory test results indicate that the moisture content of some of the soil samples were well above their anticipated optimum moisture content, therefore, some wetting or drying of the on-site soils should be anticipated. Predicated on the boring and laboratory results, and the recommendations provided above, the best time for construction of the structural fills and compacted subgrades would be during the warmer, drier months of the year, such as from late April through early October. During this time frame, on-site soils that are wet of optimum can usually be dried to near optimum levels with relatively little effort. If grading is performed during the colder, wetter months of the year, such as late October through early April, and suitable dry materials are not available on site, then offsite drier borrow sources will likely be necessary. Fill materials should be placed in horizontal lifts with a maximum loose lift thickness of 8 inches. New fill should be adequately keyed into stripped and scarified subgrade soils. The fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material s maximum dry density as determined by the standard Proctor method (ASTM D 698). In confined areas, portable compaction equipment and thin lifts of 3 to 4 inches may be required to achieve specified degrees of compaction. Each lift of the fill should be tested in order to confirm that the recommended degree of compaction is Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page

21 attained. Excessively wet or dry soils should not be used as fill materials without proper drying or wetting. We recommend a moisture content range of plus or minus 3 percentage points of the material s optimum moisture content. We recommend that the contractor have equipment on site during earthwork for both drying and wetting of fill soils. Where construction traffic or weather has disturbed the subgrade, the upper 8 inches of soils intended for structural support should be scarified and re-compacted. Field density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed on each lift of fill. 6.3 Foundation Construction All foundation subgrades should be observed, evaluated, and verified for the design bearing pressure by the geotechnical engineer after excavation and prior to reinforcement steel placement. It should be understood that the consistency of uncontrolled existing fill can vary within relatively short horizontal and vertical distances due to the heterogeneous nature their initial placement. If low consistency soils are encountered during foundation construction, localized undercutting and/or in-place stabilization of foundation subgrades will be required. The actual need for, and extent of, undercutting should be based on field observations made by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. Excavations for footings should be made in such a way as to provide bearing surfaces that are firm and free of loose, soft, wet, or otherwise disturbed soils. Foundation concrete should not be placed on frozen or saturated subgrades. If such materials are allowed to remain below foundations, settlements will increase. Foundation excavations should be concreted as soon as practical after they are excavated. If an excavation is left open for an extended period, a thin mat of lean concrete should be placed over the bottom to minimize damage to the bearing surface from weather or construction activities. Water should not be allowed to pond in any excavation. Therefore, footings bearing on the clay soils should be completed the day they are excavated or the bottom of the footing excavation should be covered with a mud mat to prevent moisture change of the clay soils. 6.4 Surface/ Groundwater Control Subsurface water for the purposes of this report is defined as water encountered below the existing ground surface. Based on the subsurface water readings obtained during our exploration program, we do anticipate that subsurface water will likely be encountered during the anticipated earthwork or shallow foundation excavations, and the contractor should be prepared to dewater. Fluctuations in subsurface water levels and soil moisture can be anticipated with changes in precipitation, runoff, and season. Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page

22 An important aspect to consider during development of this site is surface water control. During the construction, we recommend that steps be taken to enhance surface flow away from any excavations and promote rapid clearing of rainfall and runoff water following rain events. It should be incumbent on the contractor to maintain favorable site drainage during construction to reduce deterioration of otherwise stable subgrades. As mentioned in the site description, standing water was observed within the drainage swale running the perimeter of the Baltimore Sun property. 6.5 Temporary Excavation Recommendations Mass excavations and other excavations required for construction of this project must be performed in accordance with the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines (29 CFR 1926, Subpart P, Excavations) or other applicable jurisdictional codes for permissible temporary side-slope ratios and/or shoring requirements. The OSHA guidelines require daily inspections of excavations, adjacent areas and protective systems by a competent person for evidence of situations that could result in caveins, indications of failure of a protective system, or other hazardous conditions. All excavated soils, equipment, building supplies, etc., should be placed away from the edges of the excavation at a distance equaling or exceeding the depth of the excavation. F&R cautions that the actual excavation slopes will need to be evaluated frequently each day by the competent person and flatter slopes or the use of shoring may be required to maintain a safe excavation depending upon excavation specific circumstances. The contractor is responsible for providing the competent person and all aspects of site excavation safety. F&R can evaluate specific excavation slope situations if we are informed and requested by the owner, designer or contractor s competent person. Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page

23 7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES In regards to the continuing work at the site, we recommend that we be given the opportunity to review the foundation plan, grading plan, and project specifications when construction documents approach completion. This review evaluates whether the recommendations and comments provided herein have been understood and properly implemented. We also recommend that Froehling & Robertson, Inc. be retained for professional and construction materials testing services during construction of the project. Our continued involvement on the project helps provide continuity for proper implementation of the recommendations discussed herein. The Geotechnical Engineer of Record should be retained to monitor and test earthwork activities, and subgrade preparations for foundations, excavations and floor slabs. It should be noted that the actual soil conditions at the various subgrade levels and footing bearing grades will vary across this site and thus the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative during construction will serve to validate the subsurface conditions and recommendations presented in this report. We recommend that F&R be employed to monitor the earthwork and foundation construction, and to report that the recommendations contained in this report are completed in a satisfactory manner. Our involvement on the project will aid in the proper implementation of the recommendations discussed herein. The following is a recommended scope of services: Review of project plans and construction specifications to verify that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented; Observe and perform testing during earthwork to document that subsurface conditions encountered during construction are consistent with those anticipated in this report; Observe subgrade preparation, undercutting of soft/loose unsuitable soils, and fill placement; Observe all foundation excavations and footing bearing grades for compliance with the geotechnical recommendations. Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page

24 8.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of or their agent, for specific application to the Baltimore Sun Consolidation project in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Our evaluations and recommendations are based on design information furnished to us; the data obtained from the previously described subsurface exploration program, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. The evaluations and recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface conditions which could exist intermediate of the boring locations or in unexplored areas of the site. Should such variations become apparent during construction, it will be necessary to re-evaluate our recommendations based upon on-site observations of the conditions. There are important limitations to this and all geotechnical studies. Some of these limitations are discussed in the information prepared by GBA, which is included in Appendix III. We ask that you please review this GBA information. Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that conditions between borings will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions. Therefore, experienced geotechnical engineers should evaluate earthwork, pavement, and foundation construction to verify that the conditions anticipated in design actually exist. Otherwise, we assume no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations. In the event that changes are made in the design or location of the proposed structure, the recommendations presented in the report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by our firm and conclusions of this report modified and/or verified in writing. If this report is copied or transmitted to a third party, it must be copied or transmitted in its entirety, including text, attachments, and enclosures. Interpretations based on only a part of this report may not be valid. Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017 Page

25 APPENDIX I Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017

26 SITE FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. Engineering Stability Since York Road, Suites C-D Cockeysville, Maryland T I F Site Location Plan Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation F&R Project No. 75V0084 Date: Oct., 2017 Scale: No Scale Drawing No.: 1

27 B-4 B-5 FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC Engineering Stability Since 1881 Client: York Road, Suites C-D, Cockeysville MD, T F Boring Location Plan Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation F&R Project No.: 75V0084 SWM-3 SWM-2 B-6 B-7 B-8 SWM-1 SWM-4 B-2 SWM-5 B-1 B-3 Date: October, 2017 Scale: 1 = 150 Drawing No. 2

28 APPENDIX II Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017

29 Particle Size and Proportion KEY TO BORING LOG SOIL CLASSIFICATION Verbal descriptions are assigned to each soil sample or stratum based on estimates of the particle size of each component of the soil and the percentage of each component of the soil. Particle Size Proportion Descriptive Terms Descriptive Terms Soil Component Particle Size Component Term Percentage Boulder > 12 inch Major Uppercase Letters >50% Cobble 3 12 inch (e.g., SAND, CLAY) Gravel-Coarse ¾ - 3 inch -Fine #4 ¾ inch Secondary Adjective 20%-50% Sand-Coarse #10 - #4 (e.g. sandy, clayey) -Medium #40 - #10 -Fine #200 - #40 Minor Some 15%-25% Silt (non-cohesive) < #200 Little 5%-15% Clay (cohesive) < #200 Trace 0%-5% Notes: 1. Particle size is designated by U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 2. Because of the small size of the split spoon sampler relative to the size of gravel, the true percentage of gravel may not be accurately estimated. Density or Consistency The standard penetration resistance values (N-values are used to describe the density of coarse-grained soils (GRAVEL, SAND) or the consistency of fine-grained soils (SILT, CLAY). Sandy silts of very low plasticity may be assigned a density instead of a consistency. DENSITY CONSISTENCY Term N-Value Term N-Value Very Loose Loose Medium-Dense Dense Very Dense > 50 Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard >30 Notes: 1. The N-value is the number of blows of a 140 lb. hammer freely falling 30 inches required to drive a standard splitspoon sampler (2.0 in. O.D., 1-3/8 in. I.D.) 12 inches into the soil after properly seating the sampler 6 inches. 2. When encountered, gravel may increase the N-value of the standard penetration test and may not accurately represent the in-situ density or consistency of the soil sampled.

30 Highly organic soils Fine-grained soils (More than half material is smaller than No. 200 sieve Silts and clays (Liquid limit greater than 50) Plasticity Index, PI Silts and clays (Liquid limit less than 50) Coarse-grained soils (More than half of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size) Sands (More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than No.4 sieve size) Sands with fines (Appreciable amount of fines) Gravels (More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve size) Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain-size curve. Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No. 200 Sieve), coarse-grained soils are classified as follows: Less than 5 per cent More than 12 per cent 5 to 12 per cent Clean sands (little or no fines) Gravels with fines (Appreciable amount of fines) Clean gravels (little or no fines) GW, GP, SW, SP GM, GC, SM, SC Borderline cases requiring dual symbols UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487) Major Divisions Group Symbols Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines C u=d 60/D 10 greater than 4; C c=(d 30) 2 /(D 10x D 60) between 1 and 3 GP Poorly graded gravels, gravelsand mixtures, little or no fines Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW GM GC Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Atterberg limits below A line or PI less than 4 Atterberg limits below A line or PI greater than 7 Above A line with PI between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines C u=d 60/D 10 greater than 6; C c=(d 30) 2 /(D 10x D 60) between 1 and 3 SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW SM SC Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Atterberg limits above A line or PI less than 4 Atterberg limits above A line or PI greater than 7 Above A line with PI between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands, or clayey silts with slight plasticity 60 Plasticity Chart CL OL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity CH MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts "A" line MH & OH CH OH Pt Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Peat and other highly organic soils 10 0 CL CL-ML ML & OL Liquid Limit, LL

31 R F r o e h l in g & R o b e r t s o n, I n c. BORING LOG Boring: B-1 (1 of 1) Project No: 75V0084 Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation City/State: Baltimore, MD Elevation Description of Materials (Classification) Surficial Organic Soil Brown, Gray, and Black, Moist, Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Some Gravel, Fine Cinders Brown, Gray, and Black, Very Moist, Loose, Clayey SAND (SC), Some Gravel, Fine Cinders Light Brown and Light Gray, Very Moist to Wet, Medium Stiff to Soft, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Boring Terminated at 10 Feet Elevation: 15 ± Total : 10.0' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan * Sample Blows Sample (feet) N-Value (blows/ft) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 10/3/17 Driller: W. Rodas Remarks Subsurface water was not encountered during drilling or upon removal of augers BORING_LOG 75V0087.GPJ F&R.GDT 10/20/17 *Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

32 R F r o e h l in g & R o b e r t s o n, I n c. BORING LOG Boring: B-2 (1 of 1) Project No: 75V0084 Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation City/State: Baltimore, MD Elevation Description of Materials (Classification) Surficial Organic Soil Light Brown, Moist, Very Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Trace Gravel Brown, Reddish Brown, and Black, Very Moist, Very Dense, Silty GRAVEL (GM), Some Sand, Fine Cinders Brown, Tan, and Black, Very Moist, Medium Dense, Clayey GRAVEL (GC), Some Sand, Shell Fragments, Fine Cinders Brown, Very Moist, Medium Stiff, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Boring Terminated at 10 Feet Elevation: 19 ± Total : 10.0' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan * Sample Blows Sample (feet) N-Value (blows/ft) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 10/3/17 Driller: W. Rodas Remarks Subsurface water was not encountered during drilling or upon removal of augers BORING_LOG 75V0087.GPJ F&R.GDT 10/20/17 *Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

33 R F r o e h l in g & R o b e r t s o n, I n c. BORING LOG Boring: B-3 (1 of 1) Project No: 75V0084 Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation City/State: Baltimore, MD Elevation Description of Materials (Classification) 6 inches of Asphalt underlain by 6 inches of Subbase Gravel Brown, Tan, and Black, Moist, Medium Dense, Silty GRAVEL (GM), Some Sand, Fine Cinders Tan and Black, Moist, Medium Dense, Clayey GRAVEL (GC), Some Sand, Fine Cinders Brown, Tan, and Black, Very Moist, Loose, Clayey SAND (SC), Little Gravel, Fine Cinders Light Brown, Wet, Soft Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Boring Terminated at 10 Feet Elevation: 18 ± Total : 10.0' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan * Sample Blows Sample (feet) N-Value (blows/ft) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 9/13/17 Driller: W. Rodas Remarks Subsurface water was not encountered during drilling or upon removal of augers BORING_LOG 75V0087.GPJ F&R.GDT 10/20/17 *Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

34 R F r o e h l in g & R o b e r t s o n, I n c. BORING LOG Boring: B-4 (1 of 1) Project No: 75V0084 Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation City/State: Baltimore, MD Elevation Description of Materials (Classification) Surficial Organic Soil Brown and Reddish Brown, Moist, Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Some Gravel Tan and Brown, Moist, Medium Dense, Clayey SAND (SC), Trace Gravel Reddish Brown and Gray, Very Moist, Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Some Gravel Brown and Gray, Moist, Very Dense, Silty GRAVEL (GM), Some Sand POSSIBLE Elevation: 19 ± Total : 1' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan * Sample Blows /2 Sample (feet) N-Value (blows/ft) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 10/3/17 Driller: W. Rodas Remarks Subsurface water was recorded at a depth of 9.5ft upon removal of augers Gray, Wet, Soft, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Boring Terminated at 15 Feet BORING_LOG 75V0087.GPJ F&R.GDT 10/20/17 *Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

35 R F r o e h l in g & R o b e r t s o n, I n c. BORING LOG Boring: B-5 (1 of 1) Project No: 75V0084 Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation City/State: Baltimore, MD Elevation Description of Materials (Classification) Surficial Organic Soil Brown, Reddish Brown, and Black, Moist, Medium Dense to Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Some Gravel, Little Cinders Brown and Black, Moist, Very Dense, Silty SAND (SM) and Cinders Elevation: 18 ± Total : 1' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan * Sample Blows Sample (feet) N-Value (blows/ft) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 10/2/17 Driller: W. Rodas Remarks Subsurface water was recorded at a depth of 8.5ft upon removal of augers. After 24 hours the subsurface water level was recorded at 7ft Dark Brown and Gray, Wet, Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Some Gravel POSSIBLE Dark Brown and Black, Saturated, Loose, Poorly Graded SAND (SP) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Boring Terminated at 15 Feet BORING_LOG 75V0087.GPJ F&R.GDT 10/20/17 *Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

36 R F r o e h l in g & R o b e r t s o n, I n c. BORING LOG Boring: B-6 (1 of 1) Project No: 75V0084 Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation City/State: Baltimore, MD Elevation Description of Materials (Classification) Surficial Organic Soil Brown and Black, Moist, Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Trace Gravel, Trace Cinders Brown, Very Moist, Medium Dense, Fine Silty SAND (SM) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Dark Brown, Wet, Soft, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Elevation: 18 ± Total : 10.0' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan * Sample Blows Sample (feet) N-Value (blows/ft) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 10/2/17 Driller: W. Rodas Remarks Subsurface water was recorded at a depth of 6.5ft upon removal of augers. After 24 hours the subsurface water level was recorded at 2.5ft Dark Gray, Wet, Loose, Poorly Graded SAND (SP) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Boring Terminated at 10 Feet BORING_LOG 75V0087.GPJ F&R.GDT 10/20/17 *Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

37 R F r o e h l in g & R o b e r t s o n, I n c. BORING LOG Boring: B-7 (1 of 1) Project No: 75V0084 Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation City/State: Baltimore, MD Elevation Description of Materials (Classification) Surficial Organic Soil Brown and Black, Moist, Stiff, Sandy SILT (ML), Trace Gravel, Some Cinders Dark Brown and Black, Moist, Soft, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), Trace Cinders Dark Gray, Very Moist, Loose, Poorly Graded SAND (SP) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Dark Brown, Very Moist, Soft, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Boring Terminated at 10 Feet Elevation: 17 ± Total : 10.0' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan * Sample Blows Sample (feet) N-Value (blows/ft) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 10/2/17 Driller: W. Rodas Remarks Subsurface water was not encountered during drilling or upon removal of augers. After 24 hours the subsurface water level was recorded at 6ft. BORING_LOG 75V0087.GPJ F&R.GDT 10/20/17 *Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

38 R F r o e h l in g & R o b e r t s o n, I n c. BORING LOG Boring: B-8 (1 of 1) Project No: 75V0084 Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation City/State: Baltimore, MD Elevation Description of Materials (Classification) 6 inches of Asphalt underlain by 6 inches of Subbase Gravel Reddish Brown, Moist, Stiff, Gravelly Fat CLAY (CH) Light Brown, Very Moist, Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Some Gravel Dark Brown, Very Moist to Wet, Very Soft to Soft, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Boring Terminated at 10 Feet Elevation: 20 ± Total : 10.0' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan * Sample Blows Sample (feet) N-Value (blows/ft) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 10/2/17 Driller: W. Rodas Remarks Subsurface water was not encountered during drilling or upon removal of augers BORING_LOG 75V0087.GPJ F&R.GDT 10/20/17 *Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

39 R F r o e h l in g & R o b e r t s o n, I n c. BORING LOG Boring: SWM-1 (1 of 1) Project No: 75V0084 Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation City/State: Baltimore, MD Elevation Description of Materials (Classification) Surficial Organic Soil Brown and Black, Moist, Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Some Gravel, Some Cinders Dark Brown and Black, Very Moist, Stiff, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) Brown, Wet, Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM) Elevation: 17 ± Total : 1' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan * Sample Blows Sample (feet) N-Value (blows/ft) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 10/2/17 Driller: W. Rodas Remarks Subsurface water was recorded at a depth of 11.5ft upon removal of augers. After 24 hours the subsurface water level was recorded at 5.5ft Dark Brown, Dark Gray, and Black, Very Moist, Stiff to Medium Stiff, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) POSSIBLE Field infiltration testing was performed at a depth of 3.5ft and recorded an infiltration rate of 0.24 inches/hour Boring Terminated at 15 Feet BORING_LOG 75V0087.GPJ F&R.GDT 10/20/17 *Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

40 R F r o e h l in g & R o b e r t s o n, I n c. BORING LOG Boring: SWM-2 (1 of 1) Project No: 75V0084 Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation City/State: Baltimore, MD Elevation Description of Materials (Classification) Surficial Organic Soil Brown and Black, Moist, Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Trace Gravel, Trace Cinders Light Brown, Very Moist to Wet, Medium Dense, Fine Silty SAND (SM) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Dark Brown, Wet, Medium Stiff to Soft, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Elevation: 19 ± Total : 1' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan * Sample Blows Sample (feet) N-Value (blows/ft) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 10/2/17 Driller: W. Rodas Remarks Subsurface water was recorded at a depth of 4.5ft upon removal of augers. After 24 hours the subsurface water level was recorded at 3ft Field infiltration testing was performed at a depth of 2ft and recorded an infiltration rate of 0.36 inches/hour Dark Brown, Wet, Loose, Clayey SAND (SC) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS BORING_LOG 75V0087.GPJ F&R.GDT 10/20/17 *Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

41 R F r o e h l in g & R o b e r t s o n, I n c. BORING LOG Boring: SWM-3 (1 of 1) Project No: 75V0084 Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation City/State: Baltimore, MD Elevation Description of Materials (Classification) Surficial Organic Soil Brown and Gray, Moist, Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Some Gravel Brown, Very Moist, Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM) Brown and Black, Very Moist, Loose, Clayey SAND (SC), Some Cinders Brown and Dark Brown, Wet to Saturated, Loose to Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Elevation: 19 ± Total : 1' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan * Sample Blows Sample (feet) N-Value (blows/ft) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 10/2/17 Driller: W. Rodas Remarks Subsurface water was recorded at a depth of 10.5ft upon removal of augers. After 24 hours the subsurface water level was recorded at 3.5ft. Field infiltration testing was performed at a depth of 2ft and recorded an infiltration rate of 0.48 inches/hour Boring Terminated at 15 Feet BORING_LOG 75V0087.GPJ F&R.GDT 10/20/17 *Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

42 R F r o e h l in g & R o b e r t s o n, I n c. BORING LOG Boring: SWM-4 (1 of 1) Project No: 75V0084 Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation City/State: Baltimore, MD Elevation Description of Materials (Classification) Surficial Organic Soil Brown, Reddish Brown, and Black, Moist, Dense to Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Some Gravel Tan, Very Moist, Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Some Gravel Elevation: 19 ± Total : 1' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan * Sample Blows Sample (feet) N-Value (blows/ft) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 10/2/17 Driller: W. Rodas Remarks Subsurface water was recorded at a depth of 8ft upon removal of augers. After 24 hours the subsurface water level was recorded at 7.5ft Brown and Black, Very Moist, Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Some Cinders Field infiltration testing was performed at a depth of 5.5ft and recorded an infiltration rate of 0.6 inches/hour Dark Gray, Wet, Soft, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Boring Terminated at 15 Feet BORING_LOG 75V0087.GPJ F&R.GDT 10/20/17 *Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

43 R F r o e h l in g & R o b e r t s o n, I n c. BORING LOG Boring: SWM-5 (1 of 1) Project No: 75V0084 Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation City/State: Baltimore, MD Elevation Description of Materials (Classification) Surficial Organic Soil Brown and Gray, Moist, Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Some Gravel Dark Gray, Very Moist to Wet, Soft, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) POSSIBLE Elevation: 15 ± Total : 1' Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan * Sample Blows Sample (feet) N-Value (blows/ft) Drilling Method: HSA Hammer Type: Automatic Date Drilled: 10/2/17 Driller: W. Rodas Remarks Subsurface water was recorded at a depth of 7.5ft upon removal of augers. After 24 hours the subsurface water level was recorded at 6ft Brown, Saturated, Loose, Silty SAND (SM) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Field infiltration testing was performed at a depth of 4ft and recorded an infiltration rate of 0.6 inches/hour Dark Gray, Very Moist, Soft, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) COASTAL PLAIN SOILS Boring Terminated at 15 Feet BORING_LOG 75V0087.GPJ F&R.GDT 10/20/17 *Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

44 Sample Natural Boring No. % Sand %Silt % Clay USDA Classification Moisture SWM ft LOAM FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. Engineering Stability Since York Road, Suites C-D Cockeysville, Maryland T I F USDA Textural Triangle Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation F&R Project No. 75V0084 Date: Oct., 2017

45 Sample Natural Boring No. % Sand %Silt % Clay USDA Classification Moisture SWM ft Loamy SAND FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. Engineering Stability Since York Road, Suites C-D Cockeysville, Maryland T I F USDA Textural Triangle Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation F&R Project No. 75V0084 Date: Oct., 2017

46 Sample Natural Boring No. % Sand %Silt % Clay USDA Classification Moisture SWM ft Sandy LOAM FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. Engineering Stability Since York Road, Suites C-D Cockeysville, Maryland T I F USDA Textural Triangle Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation F&R Project No. 75V0084 Date: Oct., 2017

47 Sample Natural Boring No. % Sand %Silt % Clay USDA Classification Moisture SWM ft Sandy LOAM FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. Engineering Stability Since York Road, Suites C-D Cockeysville, Maryland T I F USDA Textural Triangle Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation F&R Project No. 75V0084 Date: Oct., 2017

48 Sample Natural Boring No. % Sand %Silt % Clay USDA Classification Moisture SWM ft Silty Clay LOAM FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. Engineering Stability Since York Road, Suites C-D Cockeysville, Maryland T I F USDA Textural Triangle Client: Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation F&R Project No. 75V0084 Date: Oct., 2017

49 APPENDIX III Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, MD F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017

50

51