Geotechnical Engineering Report Foundation Admin...GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED...

Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Buildings – Harmony Foundation Campus

1600 Fish Hatchery Road

Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado

June 17, 2013

Terracon Project No. 22135011

Prepared for:

Harmony Foundation, Inc. 1600 Fish Hatchery Road

Estes Park, Colorado 80517

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 1242 Bramwood Place

Longmont, Colorado 80501

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... i

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 1 2.0

Project Description ................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Site Location and Description ................................................................................... 2 2.2

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 3 3.0 Typical Profile ........................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Groundwater ............................................................................................................. 4 3.2

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ....................................... 5 4.0 Geotechnical Considerations ................................................................................... 5 4.1

Low Strength Soils ..................................................................................... 5 4.1.1 Shallow Water............................................................................................ 6 4.1.2 Excavation Difficulties ................................................................................ 6 4.1.3 Structural Recommendations .................................................................... 6 4.1.4

Earthwork ................................................................................................................. 7 4.2 Site Preparation ......................................................................................... 7 4.2.1 Fill Material Types ...................................................................................... 8 4.2.2 Compaction Requirements ........................................................................ 8 4.2.3 Slopes ........................................................................................................ 9 4.2.4 Excavation and Utility Trench Construction ............................................... 9 4.2.5 Grading and Drainage .............................................................................. 10 4.2.6 Construction Considerations ..................................................................... 11 4.2.7

Spread Footing Foundations .................................................................................. 12 4.3 Foundation Design Recommendations .................................................... 12 4.3.1 Foundation Construction Considerations ................................................. 13 4.3.2

Seismic Considerations .......................................................................................... 15 4.4 Floor Slabs ............................................................................................................. 15 4.5

Floor Slab Design Recommendations ..................................................... 15 4.5.1 Floor Slab Construction Considerations .................................................. 16 4.5.2

Pavements ............................................................................................................. 16 4.6 Subgrade Preparation.............................................................................. 16 4.6.1 Design Considerations............................................................................. 17 4.6.2 Estimates of Minimum Pavement Thickness ........................................... 18 4.6.3 Pavement Drainage ................................................................................. 19 4.6.4 Pavement Performance and Maintenance .............................................. 20 4.6.5

Additional Design and Construction Considerations .............................................. 21 4.7 Soluble Sulfate Test Results (Concrete) .................................................. 21 4.7.1 Exterior Slabs .......................................................................................... 21 4.7.2

GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 22 5.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Field Exploration Description Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Plan Exhibits A-3 to A-10 Boring Logs

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Exhibit B-2 to B-10 Swell-Consolidation Test Curves Exhibit B-11 Grain Size Distribution/Soil Classification Curves

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Exhibit C-1 General Notes Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 1242 Bramwood Place, Ste. 2 Longmont, Colorado 80501

P [303] 776 3921 F [303] 776 4041 terracon.com

June 17, 2013 Harmony Foundation, Inc. 1600 Fish Hatchery Road Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Attn: Mr. Gail Campbell, Director of Facilities P: [970] 577 3156 E: [email protected] RE: Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Buildings – Harmony Foundation Campus 1600 Fish Hatchery Road

Estes Park, Colorado Terracon Project Number: 22135011 Dear Mr. Campbell: Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal number P22130039 dated May 16, 2013. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations, floor slabs and pavements 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.

Eric S. Willis, P.E. Thomas J. Nevin, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Project Engineer Copies to: Addressee (1 via email)

27741 6/17/2013

Geotechnical Engineering Report Harmony Foundation Campus ■ Estes Park, Colorado June 17, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 22135011

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A geotechnical engineering exploration has been performed for three (3) new buildings and associated site paving to be constructed at 1600 Fish Hatchery Road in Estes Park, Colorado. Eight (8) borings, designated TB-1 through TB-8, were performed to depths of about 5 to 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program, the site appears suitable for the proposed construction from a geotechnical point of view. The following geotechnical considerations were identified: The proposed buildings may be supported on shallow spread footings bearing on the

native sands, or on newly placed engineered fill. Very loose silty sands, such as those found in Boring 5, may be encountered in foundation excavations and these conditions will likely require some corrective work prior to forming and/or pouring footings. Recommendations for corrective work below footings are included in the Foundations section of this report.

Very loose/soft sands and clays were encountered in Boring 8 drilled in the area of the eastern parking lot. Shallow water is also present in this area. These conditions indicate that soft/unstable soils and weak subgrade conditions should be expected in this area and ground improvement/stabilization will likely be needed to provide a stable platform for pavement construction.

Cobbles and possible boulders are locally present within the sand and gravel stratum on this site. These conditions can complicate and increase difficulty of excavation and additional effort may be necessary to extract boulder sized materials, particularly in deeper narrow excavations such as utility trenches. Consideration should be given to obtaining a unit price for difficult excavation in the contract documents for the project.

On-site native soils, exclusive of topsoil and organic material, typically appear suitable for use as general engineered fill on the site provided they are placed and compacted as outlined in this report.

We anticipate non-expansive sands or engineered fill comprised of the on-site sand soils

will support the floor slab. Consequently, we believe conventional slab-on-grade construction can be used for the interior floors provided some minor movement can be tolerated.

Close monitoring of the construction operations and implementing drainage

recommendations discussed herein will be important in achieving the intended foundation,


Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

slab and pavement performance. We therefore recommend that Terracon be retained to monitor this portion of the work.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED BUILDINGS – HARMONY FOUNDATION CAMPUS

1600 FISH HATCHERY ROAD ESTES PARK, COLORADO

Terracon Project No. 22135011 June 17, 2013

INTRODUCTION 1.0 A geotechnical engineering report has been completed for three (3) new buildings and associated site paving to be constructed at 1600 Fish Hatchery Road in Estes Park, Colorado. Eight (8) borings, designated TB-1 through TB-8, were performed to depths of about 5 to 20 feet below the existing ground surface within the proposed building and pavement areas. Boring Logs along with a Boring Location Plan are included in Appendix A of this report. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

subsurface soil and bedrock conditions groundwater conditions

floor slab design and construction pavements

earthwork site drainage considerations foundation design and construction

The recommendations contained in this report are based on the results of field and laboratory testing, engineering analyses, experience with similar soil conditions and structures, and our understanding of the proposed project.

PROJECT INFORMATION 2.0

Project Description 2.1

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Site layout See Appendix A, Exhibit A-2, Boring Location Plan

Buildings

The project will include design and construction of three (3) separate single-story, slab-on-grade buildings. Individual building footprints are expected to range from about 3,500 to 10,000 square feet.

Building construction Wood frame construction supported on reinforced concrete foundation systems.


Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Maximum loads Columns: 30 to 50 kips (assumed) Walls: 2 to 3 klf (assumed) Slabs: 125 psf max (assumed)

Finished floor elevation Expected to range from elevation 7989 to 7991 feet

Infrastructure Construction and paving of two (2) parking lots to include a total of 45 spaces and associated drive lanes. Installation of underground utilities within about 5 feet of finished grades.

Grading

Final grading plans were not available for review at the time of this report. However, based on existing site grades and planned finished floor elevations, cuts and fills within the building areas are expected to be on the order of about 1 to 3 feet. Cuts and/or fills within planned pavement areas are anticipated to be minor.

Cut and fill slopes 3H:1V (Horizontal to Vertical) max

Below grade areas/retaining walls Below grade/basement construction is not planned for the proposed buildings and we are not aware of any significant earth retaining structures for this project.

If project information varies from those outlined above or if location of construction changes, we should be contacted immediately to confirm and/or modify our recommendations accordingly.

Site Location and Description 2.2

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Location The project site is located at 1600 Fish Hatchery Road in Estes Park, Colorado and the proposed construction area encompasses roughly 2 acres.

Existing improvements/Existing site features

The site is currently a vacant parcel of land. Existing buildings are located to the south, east and west of the project area. Existing asphalt paved access drive lanes and parking lots are situated to the south and east of the proposed buildings. In addition, numerous buried utilities were noted in the project area, including water lines, sewer lines and telecommunications. We understand at least some of these utilities will be abandoned and relocated as part of this project.

Current ground cover Moderate to dense growth of grass and some weeds. A number of pine trees scattered across the project area.



ITEM DESCRIPTION

Existing topography

The ground surface is relatively uniform and level with an overall slope downward to the east. A maximum difference in elevation of roughly 6 to 8 feet was estimated across the location of our test borings. Surface slopes in the project area are estimated to be on the order of about 1 to 2½ percent.

Water features

Prominent water features were observed on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. These include an existing pond located to the east of the proposed buildings and Fall River which is located about 300 to 500 feet to the north of the property. Water was noted in both of these features at the time of our field exploration

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.0

Typical Profile 3.1 Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Approximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum (feet)

Material Encountered Consistency or

Relative Density/ Hardness

General Engineering Properties

About 6 to 8 inches

Vegetative soil layer; sandy soil with vegetation and root

penetration N/A N/A

About 2½ to 7 feet

Silty sand, fine to medium grained, slightly clayey to

clayey in places

Very loose to medium dense

Non-expansive, low compressibility (settlement potential) under light loads,

low to moderate load bearing capacity

About 5 feet in Boring 8

Sandy silty clay; contains organics and wood

fragments Very soft

Non-expansive, moderate to high compressibility

(settlement potential) low load bearing capacity

Extended to bottom of borings

Sand with gravel, varying amounts of silt, clayey in places, contains cobbles

and possible boulders

Typically medium dense to very dense

Non-expansive, low compressibility, moderate to

comparatively high load bearing capacity



Subsurface conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs in Appendix A of this report. The samples tested for this study have the following physical and/or engineering properties:

Boring

No.

Depth (ft.)

Fines

Content (%)

Liquid Limit (%)

PlasticityIndex (%)

Expansion/Consolidation (%/Surcharge Load psf)

Unconfined Compressive

Strength (psf)

TB-1 3 -0.1/250 TB-1 6 -0.1/500

TB-2 6 23 16 1

TB-2 9 -0.2/500

TB-2 14 5 NP NP TB-3 2 -0.3/250

TB-3 4 0.0/500

TB-4 4 27 NP NP TB-4 9 0.0/500

TB-5 6 0.0/500

TB-6 2 0.0/250

TB-7 2 19 16 NP TB-8 2 45 34 8 -0.1/250

Groundwater 3.2 The boreholes were observed while drilling and after completion for the presence and level of groundwater. In addition, delayed water levels were also obtained in most of the borings. The water levels observed in the boreholes are noted on the attached boring logs, and are summarized below:

Boring Number Depth to groundwater

immediately after drilling, ft.

Depth to groundwater 2 days after drilling, ft.

TB-1 Not encountered 18½ (Dry cave-in)

TB-2 9½ 9½ (Wet cave-in)

TB-3 11½ 11

TB-4 10 10

TB-5 17½ 13½

TB-6 Not encountered Backfilled after drilling



Boring Number Depth to groundwater

immediately after drilling, ft.

Depth to groundwater 2 days after drilling, ft.

TB-7 Not encountered Backfilled after drilling

TB-8 3 2

These observations represent short-term groundwater conditions at the time of and shortly after the field exploration, and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations. Groundwater levels can and should be expected to fluctuate with varying seasonal and weather conditions, irrigation demands on or adjacent to the site and with fluctuations in nearby water features. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the future may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. Fluctuations in groundwater levels can best be determined by implementation of a groundwater monitoring plan. Such a plan would include installation of groundwater monitoring wells, and periodic measurement of groundwater levels over a sufficient period of time. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4.0

Geotechnical Considerations 4.1 Based on geotechnical conditions encountered in our test borings, the site appears suitable for the proposed construction from a geotechnical point of view. We have identified several geotechnical conditions that could impact design, construction and performance of the buildings, pavements and other site improvements. These include very loose sands/very soft clays and shallow groundwater at some locations on the site. Other geotechnical considerations that could impact construction are the presence of cobbles and possible boulders within the sand and gravel stratum. These conditions will require particular attention in the design and during construction and are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

Low Strength Soils 4.1.1Very loose sands, such as those found in Boring 5, and very soft clay soils as those found in Boring 8 should be anticipated at some locations on the site. Where these conditions are encountered below foundations, some corrective work should be anticipated prior to forming and/or pouring footings. Corrective work could involve removal and re-compaction/replacement, in-place soil densification with a vibratory plate compactor or deepening footing excavations to suitable bearing materials.



Very loose/soft sands and clays were encountered in Boring 8 drilled in the area of the eastern parking lot. Shallow water is also present in this area. These conditions indicate that soft ground and weak subgrade conditions should be expected in this area and ground improvement/stabilization will likely be needed to provide a stable platform for pavement construction. Consequently, Terracon recommends a contingency be provided in the construction budget to stabilize and correct weak/unstable subgrades.

Shallow Water 4.1.2Shallow water (about 2 feet below the existing ground surface) was encountered in Boring 8 drilled in the area of the eastern parking lot and may be encountered at other locations on the site. We believe groundwater levels in this area are related, in part, to the existing pond located to the south of the parking lot. Ideally, groundwater levels should be maintained at least 3 feet below pavements to enhance subgrade performance and pavement life. If this separation cannot be achieved, consideration should be given to installing pavement subdrains. Subgrade and groundwater conditions in this area should be further evaluated prior to pavement construction. In general, site grading should be planned and designed to avoid cuts where shallow water is known to exist, and also in areas where such grading would create shallow water conditions.

Excavation Difficulties 4.1.3Cobbles and possible boulders are locally present within the sand and gravel stratum on this site. These conditions can complicate and increase difficulty of excavation and additional effort may be necessary to extract boulder sized materials, particularly in deeper narrow excavations such as utility trenches. Consideration should be given to obtaining a unit price for difficult excavation in the contract documents for the project.

Structural Recommendations 4.1.4Considering the size and type of construction planned and the subsurface conditions encountered in our test borings, we believe the proposed buildings can be supported on shallow spread footings bearing on the native sands or approved engineered fill. However, zones or areas of very loose sands, such as those found in Boring 5, may be encountered in foundation excavations and these conditions will likely require some corrective work prior to forming and/or pouring footings. Swell-consolidation tests and physical properties indicate the soils on the site are essentially non-expansive when wetted. Based on this data and on our experience in the area we judge the soils on this site to fall within the “Low” slab performance risk category as defined by CAGE (Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers). Consequently, we believe slabs-on-grade



can be supported on the site soils or properly compacted engineered fill provided some minor movement can be tolerated. Grades must provide effective drainage away from the buildings and other site improvements during and after construction. It is the owner’s responsibility to monitor and maintain surface drainage. Water permitted to pond next to buildings, pavements or other site improvements can result in greater soil movements than anticipated. These greater movements can result in poor performance of foundations, on-grade slabs and other site improvements. Estimated movements and intended performance are based on effective drainage for the life of the development. Recommendations for the design and construction of foundations, floor slabs, pavements and other earth-connected phases of the project are outlined in the following sections.

Earthwork 4.2

Site Preparation 4.2.1The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fills on the project. Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the project. Site preparation should commence with removal of existing vegetation, topsoil and any loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable material from the proposed construction areas. Asphalt and concrete pavements or flatwork should be removed at this time as well. Stripped materials consisting of vegetation and organic materials should be wasted from the site, or used to re-vegetate landscaped areas or exposed slopes after completion of grading operations. Although evidence of fills or underground facilities, other than buried utilities, was not observed during the site reconnaissance, such features could be encountered during construction. If unexpected fills or underground facilities are encountered, such features should be removed and the excavation thoroughly cleaned. Terracon should observe the excavation prior to backfill placement and/or construction. Exposed surfaces should be free of mounds and depressions that could prevent uniform compaction. Following completion of stripping and rough grading but prior to placement of new fill, the exposed ground should be scarified, moisture conditioned as needed and re-compacted. The subgrade should then be proof-rolled to help delineate weak or disturbed areas at or near



the ground surface. Unsuitable areas should be improved by moisture adjustment and compaction or by undercutting and placement of suitable compacted fill. Existing underground utilities were observed in the area of the proposed construction. To provide predictable support, we recommend existing utility pipes and associated backfills within the construction area be removed as part of site preparation. The resulting trenches should be backfilled with on-site or imported soils approved by Terracon.

Fill Material Types 4.2.2Clean on-site sand soils or low volume change import materials approved by Terracon may be used as fill/backfill material on the site. In general, imported materials meeting the properties outlined below should be acceptable for use on the site. However, imported soils should be evaluated and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to delivery to the site.

Gradation Percent Finer by Weight

(ASTM C136)

4-inch 100

3-inch 70 to 100

No. 4 Sieve 50 to 100

No. 200 Sieve 30 (max)

Liquid Limit (LL) NP

Plasticity Index (PI) NP

Compaction Requirements 4.2.3

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Fill Lift Thickness 9 to 12-inches or less in loose thickness

Compaction Requirements1

Below Footings 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698)

All other Locations 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698)

Moisture Content On-Site or Import Sands2 Within the range of 3 percent below to 2 percent above optimum moisture content at the time of placement as determined by the standard Proctor test

1. Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment and procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift. A construction disc or other suitable processing equipment will be needed to aid in achieving uniform moisture content throughout the fill.

2. The contractor should expect some moisture adjustment of the site soils or import materials will be needed prior to or during compaction operations.



Slopes 4.2.4For new slopes in compacted fill or cut areas where saturation of the slopes will not occur, we suggest slopes of 3:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), or less to reduce erosion and maintenance problems. Some local raveling and/or surface sloughing should be anticipated on slopes constructed at this angle until vegetation is re-established. If saturated or steeper slopes and/or slopes over about 10 feet in height are anticipated, or if structures or other surcharge loads will be located within a distance of the slope height from the crest of the slope, the slopes should be evaluated for stability on an individual basis. The face of all slopes should be compacted to the minimum specification for fill embankments. Alternately, fill slopes can be over-built and trimmed to compacted soil. Slopes should be revegetated as soon as possible to reduce the potential for erosion problems. Seeded slopes should be protected with erosion mats until the vegetation is established. Surface drainage should be designed to direct water away from slope faces and to prevent ponding adjacent to the crest or toe of the slope.

Excavation and Utility Trench Construction 4.2.5Shallow excavations into the on-site soils will likely encounter very loose to medium dense silty sands, while deeper excavations will typically encounter medium dense to dense sands with varying amounts of silt, clay and gravel. Cobbles and possible boulders may be locally present within the sand and gravel stratum as well. It is anticipated that shallow excavations can be accomplished with appropriate sized earthmoving equipment or excavators on most of the site. However, some additional effort may be necessary to extract boulder sized materials, particularly in deeper narrow excavations such as utility trenches. Consideration should be given to obtaining a unit price for difficult excavation in the contract documents for the project. Groundwater was encountered in Borings 2 through 5 at depths ranging from about 9½ to 11½ feet below the existing ground surface. However, groundwater was encountered in Boring 8 drilled in the area of the east parking lot at a depth of about 2 feet below existing grade. Where water is penetrated in excavations, some method of temporary dewatering will be needed for proper construction. Dewatering should continue through the excavation, construction and backfilling operations to ensure proper construction. Where excavations penetrate the groundwater for only a shallow depth, it will probably be possible to dewater by sloping the excavation to isolated sumps and pumps. Where excavations penetrate the groundwater for a significant depth, more extensive dewatering methods may be needed for effective dewatering and groundwater control. Trench excavations should be made with sufficient working space to permit construction including backfill placement and compaction. Trench backfill should consist of the on-site soil or approved imported materials. The pipe backfill should be compacted as outlined in section 4.2.3 Compaction Requirements. It is strongly recommended that a representative of the



geotechnical engineer provide full-time observation and compaction testing of trench backfill within building and pavement areas. Underground piping within or near the proposed structure should be designed and constructed so deviations in alignment do not result in breakage or distress. Utility knockouts in grade beams should be oversized to accommodate differential movements. The individual contractor(s) is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations in order to maintain stability of excavation sides and bottom as well as any adjacent structures and foundations. Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. As a safety measure, it is recommended that vehicles and soil piles be kept to a minimum lateral distance from the crest of the slope equal to no less than the slope height. Exposed slope faces should be protected against the elements. The soils to be penetrated by the proposed excavations may vary significantly across the site. The preliminary soil classifications are based solely on the materials encountered in widely spaced exploratory test borings. The contractor should verify that similar conditions exist throughout the proposed area of excavation. If different subsurface conditions are encountered at the time of construction, the actual conditions should be evaluated to determine any excavation modifications necessary to maintain safe conditions.

Grading and Drainage 4.2.6Proper drainage and surface water management is important to the performance of foundations, floor slabs, pavements and other site improvements. The following recommendations are considered good practice for any site and should be implemented where applicable and/or to the extent possible. Grades must be adjusted to provide positive drainage away from the building and other site improvements during construction and maintained throughout the life of the proposed facility. Maintenance of surface drainage is imperative subsequent to construction and becomes the responsibility of the owner. Infiltration of water into utility or foundation excavations must be prevented during construction. Landscaped irrigation adjacent to the foundation system should be minimized or eliminated. The importance of proper irrigation practices cannot be over emphasized. Irrigation should be limited to the minimum amount needed to maintain vegetation; application of more water will increase likelihood of slab and foundation movements. Exposed ground should be sloped at about 5 percent grade for at least 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the building, where practical. Between structures or other site improvements which



are less than 20 feet apart, the slope should be at least 10 percent to the swale used to convey water out of these areas. The ground surface should be sloped in such a manner that water will not pond between or adjacent to structures and other site improvements. Drainage swales, open area drains and/or sidewalk chases may also be needed to facilitate drainage. Backfill against foundations, exterior walls and in utility and sprinkler line trenches should be well compacted and free of construction debris to reduce moisture infiltration. Some settlement of wall backfill should be expected even if properly compacted. Areas where backfill has settled should be repaired and re-graded immediately to maintain proper slope away from the foundation. After building construction and prior to project completion, we recommend that verification of final grading be performed to document that positive drainage, as outlined in this section, has been achieved. Water permitted to pond near or adjacent to the perimeter of the structure (either during or post-construction) can result in higher soil movements than those discussed in this report. As a result, estimations of potential movement described in this report cannot be relied upon if positive drainage is not obtained and maintained, and water is allowed to infiltrate the fill and/or subgrade. Flatwork will be subject to post construction movement. Maximum grades practical should be used for flatwork to prevent areas where water can pond. Where flatwork abuts the structure, care should be taken that joints are properly sealed and maintained to prevent the infiltration of surface water. Planters located adjacent to the structure should be self-contained. Sprinkler mains and spray heads should not be installed or allowed to discharge within 5 feet of foundation walls. Roof drains should discharge on pavements or be extended away from the structure well beyond the limits of the backfill zone through the use of splash blocks or downspout extensions. Generally speaking, downspouts should not be buried and extended below grade, as these systems can be difficult to monitor and maintain.

Construction Considerations 4.2.7The near surface soils found on most of this site are anticipated to be relatively stable at their in-place moisture content. However, these soils can lose strength when elevated in moisture content. In addition, overall stability of the subgrade can be affected by precipitation, excessive compaction water, repetitive construction traffic, or other factors. Consequently, subgrade “pumping” and unstable conditions could develop during earthwork operations. We anticipate these conditions (if encountered) could be corrected by scarifying, drying and recompaction. Very loose/soft sands and clays were encountered in Boring 8 drilled in the area of the eastern parking lot. Shallow water is also present in this area. These conditions indicate that soft ground



and weak subgrade conditions should be expected in this area and ground improvement/stabilization will likely be needed to provide a stable platform for pavement construction. Considering the subsurface conditions in this area, we recommend stabilization by over-excavating the poor subgrade soils and placing a geogrid mat at the bottom of the excavated area. Select granular fill should then be placed on the geogrid to bring the area back to construction grades. The subgrade should be evaluated by a Terracon representative upon completion of filling operations. Care should be taken to maintain the subgrade moisture content prior to construction of foundations, floor slabs and pavements. If the subgrade should become desiccated, the affected material should be removed or these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted. Likewise, completed subgrades that have become saturated, frozen, disturbed or altered by construction activity should be restored to the condition recommended in this report.

Spread Footing Foundations 4.3 Considering the size and type of construction planned and the subsurface conditions encountered in our test borings, we believe the proposed buildings can be supported on shallow spread footings bearing on the native sand soils or approved engineered fill. However, zones or areas of very loose sands, such as those found in Boring 5, may be encountered in foundation excavations and these conditions will likely require some corrective work prior to forming and/or pouring footings. Design recommendations for spread footings are presented in the following paragraphs .

Foundation Design Recommendations 4.3.1

Description Spread Footing Design Parameter

Bearing material Firm, undisturbed natural sands or properly

compacted engineered fill of similar composition

Maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure 1, 2 2,000 psf

Minimum dimensions Column Wall Footing

24 inches 16 inches

Minimum embedment below finished grade for frost protection 2

36 inches 36 inches

Estimated post-construction movement 3 1 inch or less 1 inch or less

Ultimate passive pressure 4 350 psf/ft

Ultimate Coefficient of sliding friction 4 0.35

1. The allowable soil bearing pressure applies to dead loads plus design live load conditions and is the maximum pressure that should be transmitted to the bearing soils in excess of the minimum



surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. Assumes very loose sands or other unsuitable bearing conditions will be removed and replaced with engineered fill.

2. For perimeter footings and footings beneath unheated areas. Interior column pads in heated areas should bear at least 18 inches below the adjacent grade (or the top of the floor slab) for confinement of the bearing materials and to develop the recommended bearing pressure.

3. Additional foundation movements could occur if actual loads exceed the assumed loading and surface water infiltrates the foundation soils; therefore, proper drainage away from the foundation system should be provided in the final design, during construction and maintained throughout the life of the structure.

4. The sides of the excavation for spread footings must be nearly vertical and the concrete should be placed neat against these vertical faces or backfill must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density for the passive earth pressure value to be valid. Passive resistance in the upper 3 feet of the soil profile should be neglected. If passive resistance is used to resist lateral loads, the base friction should be reduced to 0.25.

Thickened slab sections could be considered to support interior load-bearing partitions, provided that: Slabs are supported on tested and approved engineered fill, Loads do not exceed 900 plf, Thickened sections have a minimum width of 12 inches, and Thickness and reinforcement are consistent with structural requirements. Footings should be proportioned to reduce differential foundation movement. Proportioning on the basis of relative constant dead-load pressure can provide a means to reduce differential movement between adjacent footings. Footings, foundations, and masonry walls (if any) should be reinforced as necessary to reduce the potential for distress caused by differential foundation movement. The use of joints at openings or other discontinuities in masonry walls is recommended.

Foundation Construction Considerations 4.3.2Some disturbance and loosening of the granular foundation bearing soils should be expected during excavation operations. Where soils are loosened during excavation or in the forming process for the footings, they should be removed down to firm ground or densified in place with a vibratory plate compactor. Very loose sands, such as those found in Boring 5, or other unsuitable bearing conditions may be encountered in foundation excavations and these conditions will likely require some corrective work prior to forming and/or pouring footings. Where these conditions are encountered in footing excavations, the excavation could be extended deeper to suitable soils



and the footing could bear directly on these materials at the lower level or on lean concrete backfill placed in the excavations. As an alternative, the footings could also bear on properly compacted granular backfill extending down to the suitable soils. Over-excavation for compacted structural fill placement below footings should extend laterally beyond all edges of the footings at least 8 inches per foot of over-excavation depth below footing base elevation. The over-excavation should then be backfilled up to the footing base elevation with approved fill placed in lifts of 9 to 12 inches or less in loose thickness (6 inches or less if using hand-guided compaction equipment) and compacted to at least 95 percent of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698). The over-excavation and backfill procedure is described in the following figure.

The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil prior to concrete placement. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Should the soils at bearing level become excessively dry, disturbed or saturated, or frozen, the affected soil should be removed prior to placing foundation concrete. The completed foundation excavation should be observed by a representative of Terracon well in advance of forming footings to confirm satisfactory bearing materials are present and subsurface conditions are consistent with those encountered in our borings. If the soil conditions encountered differ significantly from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations will be required.



Seismic Considerations 4.4

Code Used Site Classification

2009 International Building Code (IBC) 1 D

1. In general accordance with the 2009 International Building Code, Table 1613.5.2. IBC Site Class is based on the average characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile.

Floor Slabs 4.5 Swell-consolidation tests and physical properties indicate the soils on the site are essentially non-expansive when wetted. Based on this data and on our experience, we believe slabs-on-grade can be supported on native sand soils or engineered fill tested and approved by our office. The owner should recognize floor slabs constructed on the site soils or engineered fill could experience some minor differential movement and/or cracking under normal loads, should the underlying soils become wetted or due to the effects of concrete shrinkage.

Floor Slab Design Recommendations 4.5.1

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Floor slab support 12-inch zone of moisture conditioned and compacted on-site soil or engineered fill

Modulus of subgrade reaction

For point or limited area loading conditions, 150 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for floors supported on compacted subgrade consisting of the on-site sands. 175 psi/in for point or limited area loading for floors supported on at least 4 inches of select imported granular fill

Underslab layer/load distribution and capillary break

For average loading, we suggest a minimum 4-inch layer of clean-graded gravel or aggregate base course. For heavy loading, reevaluation of base thickness may be needed. Slab reinforcement and thickness should be designed by a qualified engineer based on actual loads imposed and on intended slab use

Additional floor slab design and construction recommendations are as follows: Positive separations and/or isolation joints should be provided between slabs and

foundations, columns or utility lines to allow vertical movement.



Control joints should be provided in slabs to control the location and extent of cracking in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI). For additional recommendations refer to the ACI Design Manual.

The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade that

will be 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.

Other design and construction considerations, as outlined in the ACI Design Manual, Section 302.1R are recommended.

Floor Slab Construction Considerations 4.5.2Interior trench backfill placed beneath slabs should be compacted in accordance with recommended specifications outlined in section 4.2 Earthwork. Floor slabs should not be constructed on frozen subgrade. We recommend the area underlying the floor slab be rough graded and then thoroughly proof rolled prior to final grading and placement of base material. Particular attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by removing and replacing the affected material with properly compacted fill. Floor slab subgrade areas should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report shortly before placement of the base or concrete.

Pavements 4.6

Subgrade Preparation 4.6.1On most project sites, site grading is accomplished relatively early in the construction phase. Fills are placed and compacted in a uniform manner. However, as construction proceeds, excavations are made into these areas, rainfall, snowmelt and surface water saturates some areas, heavy traffic from concrete trucks and other delivery vehicles disturbs the subgrade and many surface irregularities are filled in with loose soils to improve trafficability on a temporary basis. As a result, the pavement subgrades, prepared early in the project, should be carefully evaluated as the time for pavement construction approaches. The near surface soils found on most of this site are anticipated to be relatively stable at their in-place moisture content. However, these soils can lose strength when elevated in moisture



content. In addition, overall stability of the subgrade can be affected by precipitation, excessive compaction water, repetitive construction traffic, or other factors. Consequently, subgrade “pumping” and unstable conditions could develop during earthwork operations. We anticipate these conditions (if encountered) could be corrected by scarifying, drying and recompaction. Very loose/soft sands and clays were encountered in Boring 8 drilled in the area of the eastern parking lot. Shallow water is also present in this area. These conditions indicate that soft ground and weak subgrade conditions should be expected in this area and ground improvement/stabilization will likely be needed to provide a stable platform for pavement construction. Considering the subsurface conditions in this area, we recommend stabilization by over-excavating at least 3 feet of the poor subgrade soils and placing a geogrid mat at the bottom of the excavated area. Select granular fill should then be placed on the geogrid to bring the area back to construction grades. The geogrid should consist of Tensar® TriAx TX130S geogrid (or equivalent). Select granular fill should consist of CDOT Class 4 aggregate base course or other approved well graded granular materials. We recommend the moisture content and density of the top 12 inches of the subgrade be evaluated and the pavement subgrades be proof-rolled shortly before actual paving operations. Areas not in compliance with the required ranges of moisture or density should be moisture conditioned and re-compacted. Particular attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by removing and replacing the materials with properly compacted fills.

Design Considerations 4.6.2Based on our boring data and anticipated grading, we expect moisture conditioned and compacted silty sands will typically be present at subgrade elevation. Results of gradation and plasticity tests indicate the subgrade materials classify as A-2-4 soils according to the AASHTO classification system. The AASHTO group index of these soils was determined to be 0. The subgrade materials have a "SM" classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) methods. Considering the type of development, we anticipate traffic loads at the site will be produced primarily by automobile and pick-up trucks, light delivery trucks and occasional trash removal trucks and emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks. In addition, we reviewed the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the Harmony Foundation, Inc. Development prepared by Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. (CES), dated December 2012. The following table summarizes the traffic information used for this project.



Traffic Area Traffic Type and Volume

Parking Lots and Drive Lanes

Estimated current ADT of approximately 180 vehicles per day (from CES report).

Projected ADT for the proposed development in the range of 240 to 315 vehicles per day (from CES report).

Traffic loads to consist primarily of cars/pick-ups, light delivery trucks and occasional garbage trucks and emergency vehicles.

Based on the traffic type and estimated volume, we used total 18-kip equivalent single-axle loads (ESAL’s) of 35,000 for the parking lots and associated drive lanes. A performance period of 20 years was used to develop the total traffic used in thickness design. Traffic type and volume estimates and/or design ESAL values used to determine pavement thickness for this project should be reviewed and approved by the owner and design team prior to commencement of paving operations. If heavier trucks or more frequent truck traffic will be present at the facility, this office should be provided with the information and allowed to review the pavement sections and provide supplemental recommendations if needed. The required total thickness for the pavement structure is dependent primarily upon the foundation soil or subgrade and upon traffic loading conditions. Soil classification test results indicate the subgrade soils at the site typically offer fair to good pavement support. In addition, a rigid pavement thickness was completed for the project. Rigid pavement thickness is based on an evaluation of the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of the soils (k-value), the Modulus of Rupture of the concrete, and other factors. The k-value of the subgrade soil was estimated by correlation to the laboratory test results and was adjusted to take into consideration variations in subgrade materials and changing support throughout the year.

Estimates of Minimum Pavement Thickness 4.6.3

Typical Pavement Section Thickness (inches)

Traffic Area Alternative

Asphalt Concrete Surface Course 1

Aggregate Base

Course 2

Portland Cement

Concrete 3

Total Thickness

Parking Lots and Associated Drive Lanes

AC + ABC 3 6 -- 9

AC 5 -- -- 5

PCC -- -- 5 5

Trash Container Pad 4 PCC -- -- 6 6 1. Material meeting CDOT Grading SG, S or SX specification (or similar) is recommended for asphalt

concrete (AC). Asphalt should be placed in maximum 3-inch lifts (4-inch max for SG) and



compacted to a minimum of 95% Hveem density (ASTM D1560, D1561) or to a density of 92 to 96 percent of the maximum theoretical density, determined in general accordance with ASTM D2041 (Colorado Procedure 51).

2. CDOT Class 5 or 6 aggregate base course (ABC) specifications. ABC should be placed in maximum 6-inch lifts and compacted to at least 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698).

3. Modulus of rupture of 600 psi minimum. This is roughly equivalent to a 28-day compressive strength of at least 4,200 psi. 4-inch maximum slump and 5 to 7 percent entrained air, 6-sack min. mix. PCC pavements are recommended for trash container pads and in any other areas subjected to heavy wheel loads and/or turning traffic.

4. The trash container pad should be large enough to support the container and the tipping axle of the collection truck.

Longitudinal and transverse joints should be provided as needed in concrete pavements for expansion/contraction and isolation. The location and extent of joints should be based upon the final pavement geometry. Sawed joints should be cut within 24-hours of concrete placement. Joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where necessary for load transfer. The pavement sections presented are based, in part, on design parameters selected by Terracon based on experience with similar projects and soils conditions. Design parameters such as performance period, truck traffic type and frequency and other factors may vary with specific project requirements. Variation of these parameters may change the thickness of the pavement sections presented. Terracon is prepared to discuss the details of these parameters and their effects on pavement design and reevaluate pavement design as appropriate. Thickness recommendations for parking areas are based on car traffic only. As part of the layout design of the facility we recommend the designer use signs and preventive structures to restrict heavy truck traffic from entering these areas.

Pavement Drainage 4.6.4Shallow water (about 2 feet below the existing ground surface) was encountered in Boring 8 drilled in the area of the eastern parking lot. Pavement performance in this area could be improved by raising the parking lot with fill to increase the depth to water. Ideally, groundwater levels should be maintained at least 3 feet below pavements to enhance subgrade performance and pavement life. If this separation cannot be achieved, consideration should be given to installing pavement subdrains. We are available to discuss this with you and provide additional recommendations if needed. Subgrade and groundwater conditions in this area should be further evaluated prior to pavement construction. Pavements should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water. Water allowed to pond on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to premature



pavement deterioration. Collection and diversion of surface drainage away from paved areas is critical to satisfactory performance of pavements. Openings in pavement, such as landscape islands, are sources for water infiltration into surrounding pavements. Water collects in the islands and migrates into the surrounding subgrade soils thereby degrading support of the pavement. This is especially applicable for islands with raised concrete curbs, irrigated foliage, and low permeability near-surface soils. The civil design for pavements with these conditions should consider features to restrict or to collect and discharge excess water from the islands. Examples of features are edge drains connected to the storm water collection system or other suitable outlet and impermeable barriers preventing lateral migration of water such as a cutoff wall installed to a depth below the pavement structure.

Pavement Performance and Maintenance 4.6.5Our experience indicates longitudinal cracking is common for asphalt pavements. The cracking normally occurs parallel to the interface between asphalt and concrete features such as curbs, gutters or drain pans and/or several feet in from pavement edges. The mechanism for this cracking is not fully understood, but seems to be most prevalent for expansive and/or cohesive subgrade soils. Distress of this type is likely to occur even if the subgrade has been properly prepared and the asphalt has been compacted properly. Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing preventive maintenance, the civil engineer and other members of the design team should consider the following recommendations in the design and layout of pavements: Site grading at a minimum 2 percent grade onto or away from the pavements; Install pavement drainage surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting; Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately; Use low water-demand plantings and drip irrigation for landscaped areas Seal all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture migration to

subgrade soils; Compaction of utility trenches for landscaped areas to the same criteria as the pavement

subgrade Place compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter;

and, Place curb, gutter and/or sidewalk directly on subgrade soils rather than base course

materials. The pavement sections provided in this report represent minimum recommended thicknesses and, as such, periodic maintenance should be anticipated. Therefore preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program.



Preventive maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventive maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. Prior to implementing any maintenance, additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of preventive maintenance. Even with periodic maintenance, some movements and related cracking may still occur and repairs may be required.

Additional Design and Construction Considerations 4.7

Soluble Sulfate Test Results (Concrete) 4.7.1Samples of the soil that will likely be in contact with structural concrete were tested for soluble sulfate concentration. The sulfate concentrations measured in the samples ranged between negligible to 0.01 percent. ACI rates the measured concentration as being a negligible risk of concrete sulfate attack. Therefore, Type I Portland cement should be suitable for concrete on and below grade. However, if there is no, or minimal cost differential, use of Type II Portland cement is recommended for additional sulfate resistance of construction concrete. Foundation concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4.

Exterior Slabs 4.7.2Sidewalks and other flatwork are normally constructed as slabs-on-grade where non-expansive soils, such as those found on this site, are present. Performance of flatwork on these materials can be erratic and these features may heave/settle to some degree and crack when the underlying soils become elevated in moisture content or due to frost heave. Exterior slabs can be affected to some degree on all sites. In addition, even properly compacted subgrade materials or foundation wall backfill may consolidate with increasing moisture content; therefore, exterior slabs could settle, resulting in cracking or vertical offsets. It is generally not feasible to eliminate the potential for movement of exterior flatwork. The potential for damage would be greatest where exterior slabs are constructed adjacent to the building or other structural elements. To reduce the potential for damage, we recommend:

Exterior slabs be supported on carefully processed and moisture conditioned fill Strict moisture-density control during placement of fill/backfills Placement of effective control joints on relatively close centers and isolation

joints between slabs and other structural elements



Provision for adequate drainage in areas adjoining the slabs Use of designs which allow vertical movement between the exterior slabs and

adjoining structural elements Structurally supporting exterior flatwork on haunches

GENERAL COMMENTS 5.0 Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, 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. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project 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. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION


Exhibit A-1

Field Exploration Description Eight (8) test borings were drilled at the site on May 28, 2013. The borings were drilled and sampled to depths of about 5 to 20 feet at the approximate locations shown on the Boring Location Plan, Exhibit A-2. Five (5) borings were drilled within or near the footprints of the proposed buildings, and three (3) borings were drilled within areas of proposed pavement construction. Borings were advanced with a CME-45 truck-mounted drilling rig, utilizing 4-inch diameter solid stem auger. The borings were located in the field by pacing or by measurements with a mechanical surveying wheel using existing survey stakes and/or existing site features as a reference. Right angles for locating the borings were estimated. Approximate ground surface elevations at the boring locations for this exploration were obtained by interpolation from contours indicated on the site plan provided. The accuracy of boring locations and elevations should only be assumed to the level implied by the methods used.

An engineering technician recorded lithologic logs of each boring during the drilling operations. At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken by means of driving a 2.5-inch O.D. California barrel sampler. Penetration resistance measurements were obtained by driving the California barrel into the subsurface materials with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The penetration resistance value is a useful index in estimating the consistency, relative density, or hardness of the materials encountered. Groundwater levels were recorded in each boring at the time of site exploration and in most of the borings 2 days after completion of drilling. After water levels were checked, the borings were backfilled with the auger cuttings. Some settlement of the backfill may occur over time and should be repaired as soon as possible. A CME automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the California barrel sampler in the borings performed on this site. A greater efficiency is typically achieved with the automatic hammer compared to the conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. Published correlations between SPT values and soil properties are based on the lower efficiency cathead and rope method. This higher efficiency affects the standard penetration resistance blow count (N) value by increasing the penetration per hammer blow over what would be obtained using the cathead and rope method. The effect of the automatic hammer’s efficiency has been considered in the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report. The standard penetration test provides a reasonable indication of the in-place density of sandy type materials, but only provides an indication of the relative stiffness of cohesive materials since the blow count in these soils may be affected by the soils moisture content. In addition, considerable care should be exercised in interpreting the N-values in gravelly soils, particularly where the size of the gravel particle exceeds the inside diameter of the sampler.

BORING LOCATION PLANHARMONY FOUNDATION, INC.

PROPOSED BUILDINGS – HARMONY FOUNDATION CAMPUS 1600 FISH HATCHERY ROAD

ESTES PARK, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADOA-2

1242 Bramwood Place Longmont, Colorado 80501

PH. (303) 776-3921 FAX. (303) 776-4041

22135011

6/7/2013

ESW

ESW

TJN

TJN

1” = 100’

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

Project No.

Approx. Scale:

File Name:

Date:

EXHIBIT

22135011 BLP

TB-1

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR

CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

0’ 50’ 100’

GRAPHIC SCALE

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING DRILLED ON MAY 28, 2013

TB-2

TB-3

TB-4

TB-6

TB-5

TB-7

TB-8

DENOTES EXISTING PINE TREE

LEGEND

EXISTINGPOND

0.5

4.0

20.0

VEGETATIVE SOIL LAYER, Silty Sand with vegetationand root penetration.SILTY SAND (SM), dark rust brown, orange brown,medium dense, fine grained, slightly clayey

SAND with GRAVEL (SM, SP), varying amounts of silt,orange brown/rust, grey, tan, medium dense to very dense,fine to coarse grained, clayey in places, contains COBBLESand possible BOULDERS

Boring Terminated at 20 Feet

-0.1/250

-0.1/500

7990.5+/-

7987+/-

7971+/-

8

8

8

4

3

31/12"

41/12"

37/12"

50/12"

50/7"

126

125

116

124

See Exhibit A-2

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 2

213

501

1.H

AR

MO

NY

FO

UN

DA

TIO

N.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2012

.GD

T 6

/14/

13

1600 Fish Hatchery Road Estes Park, ColoradoSITE:

None encountered immediately after drilling

18.5' dry cave-In when checked on 5/30/13

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

PROJECT: Proposed Buildings - HarmonyFoundation Campus

Page 1 of 1

Advancement Method:4-inch Diameter Solid Flight Auger

Abandonment Method:Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.

1242 Bramwood PlaceLongmont, Colorado

Notes:

Project No.: 22135011

Drill Rig: CME-55

Boring Started: 5/28/2013

BORING LOG NO. TB-1Harmony Foundation, Inc.CLIENT:Estes Park, CO

Driller:

Boring Completed: 5/28/2013

Exhibit: A-3

See Appendix B for description of laboratoryprocedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols andabbreviations.

SW

ELL

-CO

NS

OL

/LO

AD

, (%

/ ps

f)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

Approximate Surface Elev: 7991 (Ft.) +/- DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

0.5

3.0

20.0

VEGETATIVE SOIL LAYER, Silty Sand with vegetationand root penetration.SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, rust brown, fine grained,slightly clayey

SAND with GRAVEL (SM, SP), varying amounts of silt,brown, orange brown, rust, loose to dense, fine to coarsegrained, clayey in places, contains COBBLES and possibleBOULDERS


-0.2/500

7987.5+/-

7985+/-

7968+/-

23

5

7

10

4

8

8

37/12"

43/12"

31/12"

50/10"

13/12"

121

122

124

16-15-1

NP

See Exhibit A-2


LOCATION

DEPTH

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 2

213

501

1.H

AR

MO

NY

FO

UN

DA

TIO

N.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2012

.GD

T 6

/14/

13


9.5' immediately after drilling

9.5' wet cave-in when checked on 5/30/13



Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-55



Driller:


Exhibit: A-4



SW

ELL

-CO

NS

OL

/LO

AD

, (%

/ ps

f)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S


PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

0.5

4.5

15.0

VEGETATIVE SOIL LAYER, Silty Sand with vegetationand root penetration.SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, brown, rust, loose, fine tomedium grained

SAND with GRAVEL (SM, SP), varying amounts of silt,brown, tan, grey, rust, medium dense, fine to coarsegrained, clayey in places, contains COBBLES and possibleBOULDERS


-0.3/250

0.0/500

7990.5+/-

7986.5+/-

7976+/-

8

16

3

7

6/12"

20/6"

45/12"

38/12"

102

109

134

See Exhibit A-2


LOCATION

DEPTH

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 2

213

501

1.H

AR

MO

NY

FO

UN

DA

TIO

N.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2012

.GD

T 6

/14/

13



11' when checked on 5/30/13



Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-55



Driller:


Exhibit: A-5



SW

ELL

-CO

NS

OL

/LO

AD

, (%

/ ps

f)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S


PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

0.5

7.0

15.0

VEGETATIVE SOIL LAYER, Silty Sand with vegetationand root penetration.SILTY SAND (SM), orange brown, tan, grey, rust, loose,fine to medium grained

SAND with GRAVEL (SM, SP), varying amounts of silt,grey, orange brown, rust, medium dense to dense, fine tocoarse grained, clayey in places, contains COBBLES andpossible BOULDERS


0.0/500

7989.5+/-

7983+/-

7975+/-

27

9

12

13

6

7/12"

11/12"

43/12"

50/8"

109

110

114

NP

See Exhibit A-2


LOCATION

DEPTH

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 2

213

501

1.H

AR

MO

NY

FO

UN

DA

TIO

N.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2012

.GD

T 6

/14/

13


10' immediately after drilling




Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-55



Driller:


Exhibit: A-6



SW

ELL

-CO

NS

OL

/LO

AD

, (%

/ ps

f)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S


PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

0.5

6.5

20.0

VEGETATIVE SOIL LAYER, Silty Sand with vegetationand root penetration.SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, orange brown, rust, grey,very loose, fine grained, varies to SILTY, CLAYEY SAND

SAND with GRAVEL (SM, SP), varying amounts of silt,orange brown/rust, grey, brown, dense, fine to coarsegrained, clayey in places, contains COBBLES and possibleBOULDERS


0.0/500

7987.5+/-

7981.5+/-

7968+/-

15

15

7

7

2

4/12"

50/9"

50/12"

48/12"

50/10"

119

119

See Exhibit A-2


LOCATION

DEPTH

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 2

213

501

1.H

AR

MO

NY

FO

UN

DA

TIO

N.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2012

.GD

T 6

/14/

13



13.5' when checked on 5/30/13



Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-55



Driller:


Exhibit: A-7



SW

ELL

-CO

NS

OL

/LO

AD

, (%

/ ps

f)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S


PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

0.5

4.5

5.0

VEGETATIVE SOIL LAYER, Silty Sand with vegetationand root penetration.SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, rust/orange brown, grey,medium dense, fine grained, slightly clayey

SAND with GRAVEL (SM, SP), varying amounts of silt,rust, brown, very dense, fine to coarse grained, clayey inplaces, contains COBBLESBoring Terminated at 5 Feet

0.0/250

7986.5+/-

7982.5+/-

7982+/-

10

9

16/12"

50/4"

109

See Exhibit A-2


LOCATION

DEPTH

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 2

213

501

1.H

AR

MO

NY

FO

UN

DA

TIO

N.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2012

.GD

T 6

/14/

13



Backfilled after drilling



Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-55



Driller:


Exhibit: A-8



SW

ELL

-CO

NS

OL

/LO

AD

, (%

/ ps

f)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S


PT

H (

Ft.)

5

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

0.5

4.5

5.0

VEGETATIVE SOIL LAYER, Silty Sand with vegetationand root penetration.SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, rust/orange brown, grey,medium dense, fine to coarse grained, trace GRAVEL,varies to SILTY, CLAYEY SAND

SAND with GRAVEL (SM, SP), varying amounts of silt,rust, brown, medium dense, fine to coarse grained, slightlyclayeyBoring Terminated at 5 Feet

7985.5+/-

7981.5+/-

7981+/-

198

9

23/12"

45/12"

118

123

16-17-NP

See Exhibit A-2


LOCATION

DEPTH

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 2

213

501

1.H

AR

MO

NY

FO

UN

DA

TIO

N.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2012

.GD

T 6

/14/

13



Backfilled after drilling



Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-55



Driller:


Exhibit: A-9



SW

ELL

-CO

NS

OL

/LO

AD

, (%

/ ps

f)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S


PT

H (

Ft.)

5

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

0.5

2.5

5.0

5.5

VEGETATIVE SOIL LAYER, grass turf over sandy soilwith root penetration.SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, dark grey, black, veryloose, fine to medium grained, varies to SILTY, CLAYEYSAND, contains trace organics

SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), black, very soft, containsorganics and wood fragments

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, tan, trace GRAVELBoring Terminated at 5.5 Feet

-0.1/250

7984.5+/-

7982.5+/-

7980+/-

7979.5+/-

4534

41

1/12"

1/18"

86

68

34-26-8

See Exhibit A-2


LOCATION

DEPTH

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 2

213

501

1.H

AR

MO

NY

FO

UN

DA

TIO

N.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2012

.GD

T 6

/14/

13


3' immediately after drilling




Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-55



Driller:


Exhibit: A-10



SW

ELL

-CO

NS

OL

/LO

AD

, (%

/ ps

f)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S


PT

H (

Ft.)

5

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING


Exhibit B-1

Laboratory Testing Samples retrieved during the field exploration were returned to the laboratory for observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described in Appendix C. After sample review by the project engineer, an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Following completion of the laboratory testing, the field and visual descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary, and Logs of Borings were prepared. These logs are presented in Appendix A. Selected samples were tested for the following physical and/or engineering properties: Water Content Dry Unit Weight

Grain Size Distribution Atterberg Limits

Swell-Consolidation Potential Water Soluble Sulfate Content

Laboratory test results are indicated on the boring logs included in Appendix A and presented in depth in Appendix B. The test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses and the development of foundation, on-grade slab, pavement and earthwork recommendations. Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with applicable local standards or other accepted standards. Descriptive classifications of the soils indicated on the boring logs are in accordance with the enclosed General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System. Also shown are estimated Unified Soil Classification Symbols. A brief description of this classification system is attached to this report. Classification was by visual-manual procedures. Selected samples were further classified using the results of Atterberg limit testing. The Atterberg limit test results are also provided in Appendix B.

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

100 1,000 10,000 105

AX

IAL

ST

RA

IN,

%

PRESSURE, psf

SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST

NOTES: Water Added to Sample at 250 psf.


PROJECT NUMBER: 22135011PROJECT: Proposed Buildings -

Harmony FoundationCampus

SITE: 1600 Fish Hatchery Road Estes Park, Colorado

CLIENT: Harmony Foundation, Inc. Estes Park, CO

EXHIBIT: B-2

Specimen Identification

3.0 ft

Classification , pcf

126TB-1 8

WC, %

SILTY SAND (SM); slightly clayey

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

TC

_CO

NS

OL_

ST

RA

IN-U

SC

S-N

O A

ST

M 2

2135

011

.HA

RM

ON

Y F

OU

ND

AT

ION

.GP

J S

AM

PLE

6-1

1.G

PJ

6/1

4/1

3

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

100 1,000 10,000 105

AX

IAL

ST

RA

IN,

%

PRESSURE, psf








EXHIBIT: B-3


6.0 ft


125TB-1 8

WC, %

SILTY SAND (SM); trace gravel

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

TC

_CO

NS

OL_

ST

RA

IN-U

SC

S-N

O A

ST

M 2

2135

011

.HA

RM

ON

Y F

OU

ND

AT

ION

.GP

J S

AM

PLE

6-1

1.G

PJ

6/1

4/1

3

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

100 1,000 10,000 105

AX

IAL

ST

RA

IN,

%

PRESSURE, psf








EXHIBIT: B-4


9.0 ft


124TB-2 4

WC, %


LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

TC

_CO

NS

OL_

ST

RA

IN-U

SC

S-N

O A

ST

M 2

2135

011

.HA

RM

ON

Y F

OU

ND

AT

ION

.GP

J S

AM

PLE

6-1

1.G

PJ

6/1

4/1

3

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

100 1,000 10,000 105

AX

IAL

ST

RA

IN,

%

PRESSURE, psf








EXHIBIT: B-5


2.0 ft


102TB-3 8

WC, %

SILTY SAND (SM)

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

TC

_CO

NS

OL_

ST

RA

IN-U

SC

S-N

O A

ST

M 2

2135

011

.HA

RM

ON

Y F

OU

ND

AT

ION

.GP

J S

AM

PLE

6-1

1.G

PJ

6/1

4/1

3

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

100 1,000 10,000 105

AX

IAL

ST

RA

IN,

%

PRESSURE, psf








EXHIBIT: B-6


4.0 ft


109TB-3 16

WC, %

SILTY SAND (SM)

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

TC

_CO

NS

OL_

ST

RA

IN-U

SC

S-N

O A

ST

M 2

2135

011

.HA

RM

ON

Y F

OU

ND

AT

ION

.GP

J S

AM

PLE

6-1

1.G

PJ

6/1

4/1

3

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

100 1,000 10,000 105

AX

IAL

ST

RA

IN,

%

PRESSURE, psf








EXHIBIT: B-7


9.0 ft


114TB-4 13

WC, %


LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

TC

_CO

NS

OL_

ST

RA

IN-U

SC

S-N

O A

ST

M 2

2135

011

.HA

RM

ON

Y F

OU

ND

AT

ION

.GP

J S

AM

PLE

6-1

1.G

PJ

6/1

4/1

3

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

100 1,000 10,000 105

AX

IAL

ST

RA

IN,

%

PRESSURE, psf








EXHIBIT: B-8


6.0 ft


119TB-5 15

WC, %

SILTY SAND (SM); clayey

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

TC

_CO

NS

OL_

ST

RA

IN-U

SC

S-N

O A

ST

M 2

2135

011

.HA

RM

ON

Y F

OU

ND

AT

ION

.GP

J S

AM

PLE

6-1

1.G

PJ

6/1

4/1

3

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

100 1,000 10,000 105

AX

IAL

ST

RA

IN,

%

PRESSURE, psf








EXHIBIT: B-9


2.0 ft


109TB-6 10

WC, %

SILTY SAND (SM)

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

TC

_CO

NS

OL_

ST

RA

IN-U

SC

S-N

O A

ST

M 2

2135

011

.HA

RM

ON

Y F

OU

ND

AT

ION

.GP

J S

AM

PLE

6-1

1.G

PJ

6/1

4/1

3

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

100 1,000 10,000 105

AX

IAL

ST

RA

IN,

%

PRESSURE, psf








EXHIBIT: B-10


2.0 ft


86TB-8 34

WC, %

SILTY SAND (SM); with CLAY

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

TC

_CO

NS

OL_

ST

RA

IN-U

SC

S-N

O A

ST

M 2

2135

011

.HA

RM

ON

Y F

OU

ND

AT

ION

.GP

J S

AM

PLE

6-1

1.G

PJ

6/1

4/1

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40 501.5 2006 810

22.6

4.6

27.0

18.8

44.9

15.9

44.8

0.0

7.9

0.3

0.19

14

LL PL PI

%Clay%Silt

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

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

15

NP

NP

17

26

1

NP

NP

NP

8

0.54

D100

Cc Cu

SILT OR CLAY

4

%Sand%GravelD30 D10

TB-2

TB-2

TB-4

TB-7

TB-8

SILTY SAND with GRAVEL(SM)

POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL(SP)

SILTY SAND(SM)

SILTY SAND(SM)

SILTY SAND (SM); with CLAY

16

NP

NP

16

34

0.136

0.818

0.083

0.163

0.543

6.506

0.196

0.495

0.171

25

37.5

4.75

12.5

9.5

TB-2

TB-2

TB-4

TB-7

TB-8

34.25

6.0

14.0

4.0

2.0

2.0

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarse fine

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

USCS Classification

61.6

50.6

73.0

73.3

54.9

D60

coarse medium

6.0

14.0

4.0

2.0

2.0

Boring ID Depth

Boring ID Depth

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONASTM D422


PROJECT NUMBER: 22135011PROJECT: Proposed Buildings - Harmony

Foundation Campus



EXHIBIT: B-11

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E: U

SC

S-2

221

350

11.H

AR

MO

NY

FO

UN

DA

TIO

N.G

PJ

FE

NC

E P

RO

JEC

T 1

-8-1

3.G

PJ

6/1

4/1

3

APPENDIX C

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT

BouldersCobblesGravelSandSilt or Clay

Water levels indicated on the soil boringlogs are the levels measured in theborehole at the times indicated.Groundwater level variations will occurover time. In low permeability soils,accurate determination of groundwaterlevels is not possible with short termwater level observations.

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Medium-Stiff

Stiff

Very Stiff

Hard

UnconfinedCompressive

Strength,Qu, psf

2 - 4

0 - 1

StandardPenetration or

N-ValueBlows/Ft.

RingSamplerBlows/Ft.

20 - 29

50 - 79

>79

DescriptiveTerm

(Consistency)


N-ValueBlows/Ft.

BEDROCK

Weathered

Firm

Medium Hard

Hard

Very Hard

30 - 49

> 8,000

4 - 8

GENERAL NOTES

(HP)

(T)

(b/f)

(PID)

(OVA)

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Standard PenetrationTest (blows per foot)

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dryweight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils haveless than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, andsilts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may beadded according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are definedon the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

Plasticity Index

01 - 1011 - 30

> 30

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

Percent ofDry Weight

< 55 - 12> 12

TraceWithModifier

Water Level Aftera Specified Period of Time

GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGYRELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL

TraceWithModifier

Exhibit C-1

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

Auger

Shelby Tube

Loose

Medium Dense

Very Dense

10 - 29

4 - 9 500 to 1,000

less than 500


8 - 15

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Term

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracyof such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey wasconducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographicmaps of the area.

DescriptiveTerm

(Consistency)

2,000 to 4,000

1,000 to 2,000

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

Ring Sampler

Grab Sample

Macro Core

Rock Core

No Recovery

Particle Size

Over 12 in. (300 mm)12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mmPassing #200 sieve (0.075mm)

ST

RE

NG

TH

TE

RM

S

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)Density determined by

Standard Penetration ResistanceIncludes gravels, sands and silts.


N-ValueBlows/Ft.

Very Loose 0 - 3 Very Soft

Soft

< 20

< 1515 - 29> 30

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

Water InitiallyEncountered

Water Level After aSpecified Period of Time

Major Componentof Sample

Percent ofDry Weight

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINEDSOILS

DescriptiveTerm

(Density)


Dense

> 50

30 - 50

4,000 to 8,000

> 30

15 - 30

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing,

field visual-manual procedures or standard penetrationresistance

SA

MP

LIN

G

FIE

LD

TE

ST

S

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Non-plasticLowMediumHigh

< 30 - 5

6 - 14

15 - 46

47 - 79

_> 80

3 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 18

19 - 36

> 36

< 24

24 - 35

36 - 60

61 - 96

> 96

Split Spoon

Exhibit C-2

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group Symbol Group Name B

Coarse Grained Soils: More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels: More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels: Less than 5% fines C

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

Gravels with Fines: More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands: 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands: Less than 5% fines D

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

Sands with Fines: More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils: 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays: Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line J CL Lean clay K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays: Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay K,L,M,P

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 = D60/D10 Cc =

6010

2

30

DxD

)(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.

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.

Geotechnical Engineering Report Foundation Admin...GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED...

Documents

Transcript of Geotechnical Engineering Report Foundation Admin...GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED...