Geotechnical Engineering Report

Transcription

1 REPORT C OVER PAGE Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio March 16, 2018 Terracon Project No. N Prepared for: Champlin Architecture Cincinnati, Ohio Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Cincinnati, Ohio

2 REPORT C OVER L ETTER TO SIGN March 16, 2018 Champlin Architecture 720 East Pete Rose Way Cincinnati, Ohio Attn: Re: Mr. Jay Derenthal, AIA, LEED AP - Principal P: (513) E: jay.derenthal@thinkchamplin.com Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations 600 Longworth Street Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio Terracon Project No. N Dear Mr. Derenthal: We have completed the Geotechnical Engineering services for the Building 600 Renovations project. This study was performed in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. PN dated February 19, 2018, and per your verbal authorization on February 20, 2018 and our signed agreement on March 5, This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning design and construction of foundations for the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us. Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc. Jeffrey D. Dunlap, P.E. Senior Engineer Ron S. Lech, P.E. Principal Department Manager Terracon Consultants, Inc. 611 Lunken Park Dr. Cincinnati, Ohio P (513) F (513) terracon.com

3 REPORT T OPICS REPORT TOPICS REPORT SUMMARY... i INTRODUCTION... 1 SITE CONDITIONS... 1 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION... 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION... 4 GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW... 4 EARTHWORK... 5 HELICAL FOUNDATIONS... 7 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS... 8 FLOOR SLABS... 9 GENERAL COMMENTS... 9 ATTACHMENTS EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS EXPLORATION RESULTS (Boring Logs and Laboratory Data) SUPPORTING INFORMATION (General Notes and Unified Soil Classification System) Responsive Resourceful Reliable

4 Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio REPORT SUMMARY Topic Overview Statement 1 Project Description Geotechnical Characterization Earthwork Deep Foundations Floor slab General Comments Proposed structural modifications will be made to facilitate interior renovations to the facility. New structural columns will be supported on new footings that may include deep foundations (piles). The floor in the parking garage will be cut to install the new foundations. Max. Column loads: 100 kips, Max. Floor loads: 100 psf Little excavation other than foundation construction Floor slabs will need to be repaired around foundation excavations Existing fill up to 11 feet deep Compressible alluvial soils were encountered to depths up to 22 feet below exterior building grades or to about 10 feet below existing parking garage finished floor elevation Medium dense to very dense granular outwash soils encountered to the boring termination depths Groundwater was encountered between 9 and 14 feet below existing garage finished floor elevation. Cut existing floor slab and excavate to proposed bottom of pile cap elevation Deep foundations consisting of helical piles are recommended Allowable compressive load = 45 kips per pile for 10-inch, 12-inch, 14-inch threehelix pile bearing at least 17 feet below the finished floor elevation Allowable uplift load = 30 kips per pile Low overhead equipment required Repair existing floor slab at proposed foundation locations This section contains important information about the limitations of this geotechnical engineering report. 1. This summary is for convenience only. It should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. Responsive Resourceful Reliable i

5 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations 600 Longworth Street Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio Terracon Project No. N March 16, 2018 This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed GDRTA Building 600 Renovations project located at 600 Longworth Street in Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: Subsurface soil conditions Foundation design and construction Groundwater conditions Floor slab design and construction Site preparation and earthwork Seismic site classification per IBC The geotechnical engineering scope of services for this project included the advancement of three test borings to depths ranging from approximately 35 to 40 feet below existing site grades. Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs and as separate graphs in the Exploration Results section of this report. SITE CONDITIONS The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps. Item Parcel Information Existing Conditions Description The project is located at 600 Longworth Street in Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio. Approximate Latitude/Longitude , (See Site Location Plan) Two level parking garage with street-level access. Upper level supports bus traffic. Lower level supports automobile traffic. Sidewalks consist of cement concrete. Maintained lawn area on north side of building. Office building/space extends off of northwest corner of garage. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 1

6 Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio Item Existing Topography Geology Description Based on provided existing plans, grades across the site range from about Elevation 737 to 727 feet on the exterior of the building. Exterior grades are as steep as 2H:1V near the underground parking garage entrance and nearly level in other areas. The finished floor elevation of the existing parking garage is Elevation feet. Our experience near the vicinity of the proposed development and geologic maps indicates subsurface conditions consist of variable depth existing fill soils underlain by granular alluvial soils and then granular outwash soils. Data on the Ohio Department of Transportation TIMS website indicates there is a previously existing buried canal along the west side of the existing building. GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION Subsurface Profile We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions based upon our review of the data and our understanding of the geologic setting and planned construction. The following table provides our geotechnical characterization. The geotechnical characterization forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation of site preparation and foundation options. As noted in General Comments, the characterization is based upon widely spaced exploration points across the site, and variations are likely. Stratum Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Description Consistency/Density Surface 0.1 to 0.3 Topsoil 1 to 3 inches N/A Surface Concrete sidewalk and granular base 1 8 to to Fill Lean clay with sand, sandy lean clay or silty sand with gravel, trace concrete, brick and wood fragments, occasional cobbles, dark brown Sandy lean clay, trace sand and silt partings, trace shells, dark brown, gray or brown with gray Silty sand, fine to medium grained, grayish-brown N/A N/A Medium stiff to stiff Loose Responsive Resourceful Reliable 2

7 Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio Stratum Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Description Consistency/Density 4 Undetermined: Borings terminated within this stratum at depths of approximately 35 to 40 feet 4 Gravel with sand and silt, medium to coarse grained, trace cobbles, brownish-gray to brown with gray Medium dense to very dense 1. Concrete and granular base materials only encountered at Boring B We have not reviewed any records to indicate that this fill was placed in a controlled manner. 3. Stratum 3 was only encountered in Boring B Archive Borings from adjacent US35 Project on the ODOT TIMS website indicate that Stratum 4 extends to depths up to 60 feet below existing grades. Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs shown in the Exploration Results section and are attached to this report. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in existing fill and native soil types; in situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Groundwater Conditions The boreholes were observed while drilling and after completion for the presence and level of groundwater. The water levels observed in the boreholes can be found on the boring logs in Exploration Results, and are summarized below. Boring Number Approximate Depth to Groundwater while Drilling (feet) 1 Approximate Depth to Groundwater after Drilling (feet) 1 B-1 23 Borehole caved dry at 21 B B-3 18 Borehole caved dry at Below ground surface Eventhough not encountered in the recent borings, it has been our experience that it is common to encountered perched groundwater within existing fill soils and at the existing fill and natural soil interface. Perched water could be encountered at shallower depths than the groundwater depths reported in the table above. It is anticipated that the groundwater levels at the site would be heavily influenced by the nearby Great Miami River. Per published data at the downtown Dayton gage, the pool elevation of the Great Miami River on the morning of March 5, 2018 was about Elevation 728 feet. The Responsive Resourceful Reliable 3

8 Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio groundwater elevations encountered within the borings ranged from about Elevation to feet, which was about 10 to 15 feet lower than the pool elevation of the nearby Great Miami River at the time of drilling. Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Our initial understanding of the project was provided in our proposal and was discussed in the project planning stage. A period of collaboration has transpired since the project was initiated, and our final understanding of the project conditions is as follows: Item Information Provided Project Description Maximum Loads (provided by Schaefer) Estimated Start of Construction Description Proposed first floor storage and fitness room plans provided by Champlin. Existing foundation and structural drawings and structural loads provided by Schaefer, Inc. Proposed structural modifications will be made to facilitate interior renovations to the facility. New structural columns will be supported on new footings that may include deep foundations (piles). The floor in the parking garage will be cut to install the new foundations. Columns: 100 kips Slabs: 100 pounds per square foot (psf) Summer 2018 GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW Based on a review of the test boring logs, the subsurface profile, and our experience with the subsurface conditions in the general area, it is our opinion that the existing fill and alluvium soils (medium stiff to stiff cohesive soils and loose sand) are not considered suitable bearing materials for the proposed column foundations. The existing fill and alluvium are considered compressible and would result in total settlement of footings of over 1.5 to 2 inches. Due to the varying depth of the compressible soils and the presence of an existing garage floor slab, any partial undercut and replacement option with new structural fill would result in large areas of the garage floor being removed and result in a large portion of the garage being unusable during construction and would likely undermine existing building foundations. As a result, steel helix piles (helical piles) are recommended for support of the proposed columns and can be used to provide additional Responsive Resourceful Reliable 4

9 Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio capacity to existing column foundations. recommendations for foundation design. The following paragraphs provide geotechnical Construction of the new foundations will require saw cutting areas from the existing garage floor slab. This will require placing structural backfill in the new foundation areas and repairing the existing floor slab. Excavation and backfill placement recommendations are provided in the Earthwork section. The Floor Slabs section addresses slab-on-grade support of the repaired floor slab areas in the garage. The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations. EARTHWORK The following sections provide recommendations for use in the preparation of specifications for the work. Recommendations include critical quality criteria as necessary to render the site in the state considered in our geotechnical engineering evaluation for foundation construction and floor slab replacement. Earthwork will include saw-cutting the existing floor slab at the proposed new foundation locations and adjacent to existing foundation locations that will require additional capacity. Once the saw cut floor slab is removed, the soil will need to be excavated to the design bottom of pile cap elevation. The excavations for the foundations may need to consider the OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, Excavations guidelines and its appendices, and in accordance with any applicable local, and/or state regulations. It is anticipated that the soil beneath the existing garage floor slab can be excavated with conventional excavating equipment. Based on the conditions encountered in the borings, it is anticipated that the new pile cap excavations will extend into the natural alluvial sandy lean clay or lean clay with sand materials. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the information provided herein be interpreted to mean Terracon is assuming responsibility for construction site safety, or the contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied nor inferred. Fill Material Types Backfill required to re-establish design subgrade in the repaired floor slab areas should be classified as structural backfill. Structural backfill is material used below, or within 10 feet of structures, such as the floor slab. It has been our experience that granular backfill typically is best suited for structural backfill within confined areas, such as the proposed foundation excavations. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 5

10 Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio Controlled density fill (CDF) could also be considered to backfill the foundation excavations. Earthen materials used for structural backfill should meet the following material property requirements: Soil Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Parameters (for Structural Backfill) Low Plasticity Cohesive High Plasticity CL, CL-ML ML, SM, SC Not recommended due to difficulty compacting these materials in confined areas using lightweight compaction equipment Cohesive 2 CH, MH Not encountered on site and not recommended Granular On-Site, Existing Fill Soils GW, GP, GM, GC, SW, SP, SM, SC CL and SM with debris Less than 10% Passing #200 sieve Not recommended due to difficulty compacting these materials in confined areas using lightweight compaction equipment 1. Structural backfill should consist of approved materials free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for evaluation prior to use on this site. 2. CH or MH soils should not be used due to potential for volume changes upon changes in moisture content. Fill Compaction Requirements Structural and general fill should meet the following compaction requirements. Item Maximum Lift Thickness Minimum Compaction Requirements 1, 2 Water Content Range 1 Structural Backfill 8 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelled compaction equipment is used (not anticipated for this project) 4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor) is used 98% of max. below floor slabs Granular: -3% to +3% of optimum 1. Maximum density and optimum water content as determined by the standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698). 2. If the granular material is a coarse sand or gravel, or of a uniform size, or has a low fines content, compaction comparison to relative density may be more appropriate. In this case, granular materials should be compacted to at least 70% relative density (ASTM D 4253 and D 4254). Construction Observation and Testing Each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked as necessary until approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts. Each lift of fill should be tested for density and water content. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 6

11 Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio In the foundation areas, the installation of each helical pile should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Each pile should observed for the correct pile type, auger configuration, bearing depth and elevation, and that adequate torque was achieved during installation. In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction, the continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the project provides the continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer s evaluation of subsurface conditions, including assessing variations and associated design changes. HELICAL PILE FOUNDATIONS Helical piles consist of steel shafts and steel helices welded along the shaft. Each helical pile has about one to four helix plates resembling one pitch of a screw thread and acting like an auger driving or screwing the pile into ground. These piles can be installed to a specified torque and design load. The steel is generally hot dipped galvanized to increase product life of the pile against corrosion. The standard lead section of a typical helical pile varies between 5 and 10 ft. The lead section with helical plates is always installed first. Extensions sections (either plain or helixed) can be added to provide a variety of installed foundation lengths. The extension sections should be installed immediately after the lead section. The standard extension section lengths vary between 3 ½ to 10 ft. The standard helix plates diameters vary between 6 in. and 14 in. A typical lead section will have helix plates of variable diameters with the nominal spacing between two helices equivalent to three times the diameter of the helix with greater diameter. Based on the provided foundation loads, one helical pile configurations were analyzed. The configuration consists of a three helix pile have diameters of 10 inches, 12 inches and 14 inches, from bottom to top, respectively. Table 1 outlines the recommended allowable helical pile capacities and the minimum bearing elevation at each test boring location. We recommend that at least three helical piles be used to support each new column foundation. Please note that more helical piles may be required based on the structural load (axial and lateral). The helical pile manufacturer should be consulted concerning the required torque for the anticipated loads. The torque should then be monitored during construction to confirm the allowable vertical capacities of the helical piles. Careful foundation inspection by experienced geotechnical personnel is recommended. Soil design parameters are provided below in the table for the design of helical pile foundations. The values presented for allowable axial compression and uplift include a factor of safety. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 7

12 Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio Minimum Bearing Depth below FF Elevation 1 (ft.) Helical Pile Configuration and diameters Allowable Helical Pile Capacity 2 (kips) Allowable Helical Pile Uplift Capacity 2 (kips) inch, 1-12 inch and 1-14 inch FFE=727.3 feet 2. Factor of Safety of 2 has been applied Estimated settlement of the helical pile foundations should be about ½ inch or less. Considering the granular nature of the bearing soils, any settlement should occur quickly as the load is applied. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure. The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE Description Value 2012 International Building Code Site Classification D 2 Site Latitude Site Longitude S DS Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period g S D1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period g 1. Seismic site classification in general accordance with the 2012 International Building Code, which refers to ASCE The 2012 International Building Code (IBC) uses a site profile extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. Borings at this site were extended to a maximum depth of 40 feet. The site properties below the boring depth to 100 feet were estimated based on our experience and knowledge of geologic conditions of the general area. Additional deeper borings or geophysical testing may be performed to confirm the conditions below the current boring depth. 3. These values were obtained using online seismic design maps and tools provided by the USGS ( Based on the SPT N-values of the granular soils encountered in the borings, the liquefaction potential of the foundation soils is considered low. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 8

13 Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio FLOOR SLABS It is anticipated that the subgrade beneath the repaired floor slab areas will consist of compacted granular backfill or CDF. Floor Slab Design Parameters Item Floor Slab Support 1 Estimated Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 2 Aggregate base course / Capillary break 3 Description Compacted granular badkfill soils as recommended in the Earthwork section 125 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for point loads 4 inches of free-draining granular material 1. Based on soil conditions encountered in the borings and the anticipated construction methods. 2. Modulus of subgrade reaction is an estimated value based upon our experience with the subgrade condition, the requirements noted in Earthwork, and the floor slab support as noted in this table. It is provided for point loads. For large area loads the modulus of subgrade reaction would be lower. 3. Free-draining granular material should have less than 7 percent fines (material passing the #200 sieve). Other design considerations such as cold temperatures and condensation development could warrant more extensive design provisions. The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade covered with wood, tile, carpet, or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder. GENERAL COMMENTS As the project progresses, we address assumptions by incorporating information provided by the design team, if any. Revised project information that reflects actual conditions important to our services is reflected in the final report. The design team should collaborate with Terracon to confirm these assumptions and to prepare the final design plans and specifications. This facilitates the incorporation of our opinions related to implementation of our geotechnical recommendations. Any information conveyed prior to the final report is for informational purposes only and should not be considered or used for decision-making purposes. Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural variations will occur between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in the final report, to Responsive Resourceful Reliable 9

14 Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations. Our scope of services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third party beneficiaries intended. Any third party access to services or correspondence is solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client. Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client, and is not intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing. Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing. Responsive Resourceful Reliable 10

15 ATT ACHM ENTS ATTACHMENTS

16 Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURESFIELD EXPLORATION Boring Number Approximate Boring Depth (feet) Location B-1 and B-3 35 See Exploration Plan B-2 40 See Exploration Plan Boring Layout and Elevations: We used survey grade GPS equipment to locate the borings with an estimated vertical and horizontal accuracy of +/-1 feet. During drilling operations on March 5, 2018, due to existing underground utilities, the drill crew had to relocate Boring B-2 approximately 10 feet north of the staked location and Boring B-3 approximately 6 feet south of the staked location. Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the soil borings with a track-mounted drill rig using hollow stem augers. Four samples were obtained in the upper 10 feet of each boring and at intervals of 5 feet thereafter. Soil sampling was performed using split-barrel sampling procedures. In the split barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch outer diameter split barrel sampling spoon was driven into the ground by a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration was recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value. The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths. The samples were placed in appropriate containers, taken to our soil laboratory for testing, and classified by a geotechnical engineer. In addition, we observed and recorded groundwater levels during drilling and sampling. Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of standard drilling operations including sampling depths, penetration distances, and other relevant sampling information. Field logs included visual classifications of materials encountered during drilling, and our interpretation of subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs were prepared from the field logs and represent the geotechnical engineer's interpretation, and include modifications based on observations and laboratory tests. We backfilled the borings with auger cuttings after completion. Sidewalk areas were patched with Sakrete. A 24-inch Sakrete plug was placed at the surface of each boring. Our services did not include repair of the site beyond backfilling our boreholes, placing a Sakrete plug and cold patching existing sidewalk areas. Excess auger cuttings were dispersed in the general vicinity of the borehole. Because backfill material often settles below the surface after a period, we recommend boreholes be checked periodically and backfilled, if necessary. Responsive Resourceful Reliable

17 Geotechnical Engineering Report GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio Laboratory Testing The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned various laboratory tests to better understand the engineering properties of various soil strata. Results of the tests are reported on the boring logs or as plots in the Attachments to this report. Procedural standards noted below are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, local practices and professional judgement required method variations. Standards noted below include reference to other related standards. ASTM D2216 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass ASTM D4318 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils Our laboratory testing program included examination of soil samples by an engineer. Based on the material s texture and plasticity, we described and classified soil samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Responsive Resourceful Reliable

18 SIT E LOC ATION AND EXPLOR AT ION PL AN S SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

19 SITE LOCATION GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, OH SITE DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

20 EXPLORATION PLAN GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, OH DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

21 EXPLOR AT ION RESULTS EXPLORATION RESULTS

22 PROJECT: GDRTA Building 600 Renovations BORING LOG NO. B-1 Champlin Architecture CLIENT: CIncinnati, OH Page 1 of 1 SITE: GRAPHIC LOG 600 Longworth Street Dayton, OH LOCATION See Exploration Plan Latitude: Longitude: Approximate Surface Elev: (Ft.) +/- DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.) 0.3 TOPSOIL (3 inches) 736+/- FILL - LEAN CLAY TO LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), trace gravel, rock and brick fragments, cobbles, dark brown DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE RECOVERY (%) 72 FIELD TEST RESULTS N=13 LABORATORY HP (tsf) 1.25 (HP) WATER CONTENT (%) 14 ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL N GDRTA BUILDING 60.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 3/16/ SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace sand partings, gray, medium stiff 19.0 WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GW-GM), medium to coarse grained, grayish brown, medium dense --Dense to very dense below 23.5 feet 35.0 Boring Terminated at 35 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Advancement Method: Hollow Stem Auger Abandonment Method: Boring backfilled with auger cuttings with Sakrete cap upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Water observed at 23' during drilling Caved dry at 21' / / /- See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any). See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Measured using Leica Zeno GPS 611 Lunken Park Dr Cincinnati, OH Hammer Type: Automatic Notes: N= N= N= N= N= N= N= N=42 Starting running mud at 23.5' Boring Started: Drill Rig: CME55X Project No.: N (HP) 1.25 (HP) 0.75 (HP) 1.0 (HP) Boring Completed: Driller: K Hayslip

23 PROJECT: GDRTA Building 600 Renovations BORING LOG NO. B-2 Champlin Architecture CLIENT: CIncinnati, OH Page 1 of 1 THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL N GDRTA BUILDING 60.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 3/16/18 SITE: GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION See Exploration Plan Latitude: Longitude: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown trace gray, medium stiff 17.0 SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium grained, grayish brown, loose 22.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace silt and sand partings, dark brown, stiff WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GW-GM), trace cobbles, brown with gray, dense to very dense, --sand is medium to coarse grained --medium dense below 38.5 feet 40.0 Boring Terminated at 40 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Advancement Method: Hollow Stem Auger 600 Longworth Street Dayton, OH Abandonment Method: Boring backfilled with auger cuttings with Sakrete cap upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Water observed at 22' during drilling Water observed at 19' upon completion Approximate Surface Elev: (Ft.) +/- DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.) 0.1 TOPSOIL (1 inches) /- FILL - SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), trace concrete, brick and wood fragments, trace sandy lean clay to sandy silt seams, fine to medium grained, dark brown / / / / /- See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any). See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Measured using Leica Zeno GPS 611 Lunken Park Dr Cincinnati, OH DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Hammer Type: Automatic Notes: SAMPLE TYPE RECOVERY (%) FIELD TEST RESULTS N= N= N= N= N= N=4 50/2" N= N= N=25 Started running mud at 28.5' Offset 10 feet North Boring Started: Drill Rig: CME55X Project No.: N LABORATORY HP (tsf) 1.25 (HP) 0.75 (HP) WATER CONTENT (%) Driller: K Hayslip ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI Boring Completed:

24 PROJECT: GDRTA Building 600 Renovations BORING LOG NO. B-3 Champlin Architecture CLIENT: CIncinnati, OH Page 1 of 1 THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL N GDRTA BUILDING 60.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 3/16/18 SITE: GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION See Exploration Plan Latitude: Longitude: DEPTH 0.2 CONCRETE (3 inches) 0.3 GRAVEL BASE (1 inches) FILL - SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace gravel and concrete fragments, trace sandy silt seams, dark brown SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace shells, brown trace gray, medium stiff WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW), medium grained, brownish gray, medium dense --dense to very dense with trace cobbles below 22 feet --petroleum odor noted at 23.5 feet 35.0 Boring Terminated at 35 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Advancement Method: Hollow Stem Auger 600 Longworth Street Dayton, OH Abandonment Method: Boring backfilled with auger cuttings with Sakrete cap upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Water observed at 18' during drilling Caved dry at 14' Approximate Surface Elev: (Ft.) +/- ELEVATION (Ft.) / /- 725+/ /- 698+/- See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any). See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Measured using Leica Zeno GPS 611 Lunken Park Dr Cincinnati, OH DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Hammer Type: Automatic Notes: SAMPLE TYPE RECOVERY (%) FIELD TEST RESULTS N= N= N= N= N= N= N= N= N=44 Started running mud at 23.5' Has petroleum odor at ' Offset 6 feet South Boring Started: Drill Rig: CME55X Project No.: N LABORATORY HP (tsf) 1.0 (HP) 0.5 (HP) 0.75 (HP) 1.0 (HP) WATER CONTENT (%) Driller: K Hayslip ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI NP Boring Completed:

25 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D422 / ASTM C136 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS / /4 3/ HYDROMETER LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GRAIN SIZE: USCS-2 N GDRTA BUILDING 60.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 3/16/18 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SITE: 600 Longworth Street Dayton, OH 10 PROJECT: GDRTA Building 600 Renovations 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Boring ID Depth USCS Classification WC (%) LL PL PI Cc Cu B WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND GW Boring ID Depth D 100 D 60 D 30 D 10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Fines %Clay B-1 COBBLES coarse GRAVEL fine coarse medium SAND Lunken Park Dr Cincinnati, OH fine SILT OR CLAY PROJECT NUMBER: N CLIENT: Champlin Architecture CIncinnati, OH 0.001

26 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D422 / ASTM C136 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS / /4 3/ HYDROMETER LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GRAIN SIZE: USCS-2 N GDRTA BUILDING 60.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 3/16/18 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SITE: 600 Longworth Street Dayton, OH 10 PROJECT: GDRTA Building 600 Renovations 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Boring ID Depth USCS Classification WC (%) LL PL PI Cc Cu B SILTY SAND SM Boring ID Depth D 100 D 60 D 30 D 10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Fines %Clay B-2 COBBLES coarse GRAVEL fine coarse medium SAND Lunken Park Dr Cincinnati, OH fine SILT OR CLAY PROJECT NUMBER: N CLIENT: Champlin Architecture CIncinnati, OH 0.001

27 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D422 / ASTM C136 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS / /4 3/ HYDROMETER LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GRAIN SIZE: USCS-2 N GDRTA BUILDING 60.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 3/16/18 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SITE: 600 Longworth Street Dayton, OH 10 PROJECT: GDRTA Building 600 Renovations 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Boring ID Depth USCS Classification WC (%) LL PL PI Cc Cu B WELL-GRADED GRAVEL with SAND (GW) NP NP NP Boring ID Depth D 100 D 60 D 30 D 10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Fines %Clay B-3 COBBLES coarse GRAVEL 37.5 fine coarse medium SAND 611 Lunken Park Dr Cincinnati, OH fine SILT OR CLAY PROJECT NUMBER: N CLIENT: Champlin Architecture CIncinnati, OH

28 SUPPORT ING INFORM AT ION SUPPORTING INFORMATION

29 UNIFIED SOIL C LASSIFIC ATION SYSTEM UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GDRTA Building 600 Renovations Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Coarse-Grained Soils: More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Fine-Grained Soils: 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve Gravels: More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Sands: 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Silts and Clays: Liquid limit less than 50 Silts and Clays: Liquid limit 50 or more Clean Gravels: Less than 5% fines C Gravels with Fines: More than 12% fines C Clean Sands: Less than 5% fines D Sands with Fines: More than 12% fines D Inorganic: Organic: Inorganic: Soil Classification Group Group Name Symbol B Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I PI 7 and plots on or above A CL Lean clay K, L, M line PI J 4 or plots below A line J ML Silt K, L, M Liquid limit - oven dried Liquid limit - not dried 0.75 OL Organic clay K, L, M, N Organic silt K, L, M, O PI plots on or above A line CH Fat clay K, L, M PI plots below A line MH Elastic Silt K, L, M Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay K, L, M, P Organic: 0.75 OH Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, Q Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add with cobbles or boulders, or both to group name. C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay E Cu = D 60/D 10 Cc = D (D ) 2 x D F If soil contains 15% sand, add with sand to group name. G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM. 60 H If fines are organic, add with organic fines to group name. I If soil contains 15% gravel, add with gravel to group name. J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add with sand or with gravel, whichever is predominant. L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add sandy to group name. M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add gravelly to group name. N PI 4 and plots on or above A line. O PI 4 or plots below A line. P PI plots on or above A line. Q PI plots below A line.