Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBRINKMAN HEADQUARTERS - PDP/FDP - FDP130050 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTGEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT BRINKMAN PARTNERS – PROPOSED HEADQUARTERS FACILITY N/W/C of PRECISION DRIVE and LADY MOON DRIVE HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1132100 Prepared for: Brinkman Partners 3003 East Harmony Road, Suite 300 Fort Collins, Colorado 80528 Attn: Ms. Tina Hippeli (tina.hippeli@brinkmanpartners.com) Prepared by: Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC 4396 Greenfield Drive Windsor, Colorado 80550 4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550 (970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 www.earth-engineering.com EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC December 11, 2013 Brinkman Partners 3003 East Harmony Road, Suite 300 Fort Collins, Colorado 80528 Attn: Ms. Tina Hippeli (tina.hippeli@brinkmanpartners.com) Re: Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Brinkman Partners - Proposed Headquarters Facility Northwest Corner of Precision Drive and Lady Moon Drive Harmony Technology Park Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1132100 Ms. Hippeli: Enclosed, herewith, are the results of the geotechnical subsurface exploration for the proposed 2- story, slab-on-grade, Brinkman Partners headquarters/office building and associated on-site pavement improvement project planned for construction on the vacant lot situated at the northwest corner of Precision Drive and Lady Moon Drive within the Harmony Technology Park Development property, in Fort Collins, Colorado. This study was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated October 24, 2013. In summary, the in-place subgrade soils in the new building/pavement areas consisted of medium stiff to stiff cohesive lean clay with sand and/or sandy lean clay subsoils with near surface moderately expansive zones. We recommend reworking the top 2 feet of the relatively dry and stiff subgrade materials in the floor and pavement areas to reduce the potential for post-construction heaving/movement of the overlying improvements with expansion of in-place subgrade soils. We believe the building could be supported on a conventional spread footing foundation system bearing on the underlying native medium stiff to stiff lean clay subsoils. An overexcavation and replacement concept below the footings could be completed to remove the in-place cohesive material and replace with a granular imported structural fill material, which would reduce the potential for unacceptable post-construction movement and increase bearing capacity; additional recommendations are provided within the text of this report. Fly ash stabilization of the pavement subgrades should be expected. GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT BRINKMAN PARTNERS – PROPOSED HEADQUARTERS FACILITY N/W/C of PRECISION DRIVE and LADY MOON DRIVE HARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1132100 December 11, 2013 INTRODUCTION The subsurface exploration for the proposed Brinkman Partners headquarters building and associated pavement areas planned for construction on the vacant lot situated at the northwest corner of Lady Moon Drive and Precision Drive within the Harmony Technology Park development property in Fort Collins, Colorado, has been completed. As a part of this exploration, seven (7) soil borings were completed within the proposed development, (i.e., building footprint and pavement areas), to obtain information on existing subsurface conditions. Five (5) borings were completed within the proposed building footprint and two (2) borings were completed within the proposed pavement areas. The borings were extended to depths of approximately 10 to 35-feet below present site grades. Individual boring logs and a site diagram indicating the approximate boring locations are provided with this report. We understand this project consists of a proposed approximately 15,300 ± square foot 2-story office building having slab-on-grade construction. We anticipate maximum wall and column loads for the steel framed structure with interior concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall construction stair core and elevator shaft elements, will be on the order of 1 to 4 klf and 50 to 250 kips, respectively. If final design loading conditions vary significantly, we should be consulted to re-evaluate the foundation design recommendations as presented herein. Floor loads are expected to be light to moderate. Adjacent to the building footprint will be associated exterior concrete flatwork/site improvements along with pavement areas to accommodate the anticipated traffic flow and parking. Pavement traffic is expected to include predominately automobiles in most areas and heavier truck traffic in limited areas. Minor grade changes are expected to develop final site grades. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, analyze and evaluate the test data, and provide geotechnical recommendations concerning design and construction of the foundations and support of floor slabs and pavements. Those recommendations are based, in part, on discussions with the project owner and/or project design team. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 2 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES The boring locations were determined and established in the field by a representative of Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC (EEC) by pacing and estimating angles from identifiable site features. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to make the field measurements. Photographs of the site, taken at the time of drilling, are also provided with this report. The borings were performed using a truck mounted, CME-55 drill rig equipped with a hydraulic head employed in drilling and sampling operations. The boreholes were advanced using 4-inch nominal diameter continuous flight augers. Samples of the subsurface materials encountered were obtained using split-barrel and California barrel sampling techniques in general accordance with ASTM Specifications D-586 and D3550, respectively. In the split-barrel and California barrel sampling procedures, standard sampling spoons are driven into the ground by means of a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the samplers is recorded and is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless materials and, to a lesser degree of accuracy, the consistency of cohesive soils and hardness of weathered bedrock. Relatively undisturbed samples are obtained in the California sampler. All samples obtained in the field were sealed and returned to the laboratory for further examination, classification, and testing. Laboratory moisture content tests were performed on each of the recovered samples. In addition, the unconfined strength of appropriate samples was estimated using a calibrated hand penetrometer. Washed sieve analysis and Atterberg limits tests were completed on selected samples to evaluate the quantity and plasticity of the fines in the subgrade soils. Swell/consolidation tests were completed on selected samples to evaluate the tendency of the soil to change volume with variation in moisture content and load. Results of the outlined tests are indicated on the attached boring logs and summary sheets. As a part of the testing program, all samples were examined in the laboratory and classified in accordance with the attached General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System based on the Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 3 texture and plasticity of the soil. The estimated group symbol for the Unified Soil Classification System is indicated on the boring logs. A brief description of the Unified Soil Classification System is included with this report. Classification of the bedrock was based on visual and tactual observation of disturbed samples and auger cuttings. Coring and/or petrographic analysis may reveal other rock types. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed Brinkman Partners Headquarters building will be located north of Precision Drive and west of Lady Moon Drive within the Harmony Technology Park development. The site is a vacant, undeveloped lot with sparse vegetation and is relatively flat exhibiting positive surface drainage to the east with approximately 2 to 5-feet of relief across the site. Evidence of prior building construction was not observed on the referenced property by EEC personnel, however; development for portions of the site infrastructure within the Harmony Technology Park has been completed. An EEC field engineer was on site during drilling to evaluate the subsurface conditions encountered and supervise the drilling activities. Field logs prepared by EEC site personnel were based on visual and tactual observation of disturbed samples and auger cuttings. The final boring logs included with this report may contain modifications to the field logs based on the results of laboratory testing and evaluation. Based on the results of the field borings and laboratory evaluation, subsurface conditions can be generalized as follows. In summary, the subsurface materials encountered at the test boring locations included apparent native, undisturbed overburden soils classified as lean clay with sand and sandy lean clay, which extended to the depths explored within the shallower pavement related borings, or to the underlying bedrock stratum below within the deeper foundation related borings. Claystone/siltstone bedrock with intermittent sandstone lenses was encountered in borings B-2 and B-4 at approximate depths of 24 to 25 feet below existing site grades and extended to the depth explored, approximately 30 to 35- feet. The upper cohesive soils varied from medium stiff to very stiff in consistency and exhibited low to moderate swell potential and low to moderate bearing capacity characteristics. Swell potentials for these soils are illustrated on the enclosed swell-consolidation curves presented in the Appendix of this report. The lower portion of the cohesive zone encroaching into groundwater level, exhibited Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 4 low swell potential with an increase in moisture content as evident on the enclosed boring logs and swell-consolidation curves presented in the Appendix of this report. The claystone/siltstone with intermittent sandstone lenses was moderately hard to hard with increased depths with moderate to high bearing characteristics. The stratification boundaries indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate locations of changes in soil and rock types. In-situ, the transition of materials may be gradual and indistinct. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Observations were made while drilling and after completion of the borings to detect the presence and depth to hydrostatic groundwater. At the time of drilling, groundwater was encountered in each of the building area borings, (i.e., B-1 through B-6), at approximate depths of 15 to 18 feet below existing site grades. No free water was observed at the time of drilling in the pavement area borings to maximum depths of exploration, approximately 10-feet. Groundwater depths are shown on the top right hand portion of the enclosed boring logs. The borings were backfilled upon completion of the drilling operations; therefore subsequent measurements were not obtained. Fluctuations in groundwater levels can occur over time depending on variations in hydrologic conditions, volume of water in the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch, a tributary/drainage mechanism for the Fossil Creek Reservoir located along the eastern boundary of the overall Harmony Technology Plaza Property, and other conditions not apparent at the time of this report. Longer term monitoring of water levels in cased wells, which are sealed from the influence of surface water would be required to more accurately evaluate fluctuations in groundwater levels at the site. We have typically noted deepest groundwater levels in late winter and shallowest groundwater levels in mid to late summer. Zones of perched and/or trapped water can be encountered at times throughout the year in more permeable zones in the subgrade soils and perched water is commonly observed in subgrade soils immediately above lower permeability bedrock. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 5 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Swell – Consolidation Test Results The swell-consolidation test is performed to evaluate the swell or collapse potential of soils to help determine foundation, floor slab and pavement design criteria. In this test, relatively undisturbed samples obtained directly from the California sampler are placed in a laboratory apparatus and inundated with water under a predetermined load. The swell-index is the resulting amount of swell or collapse after the inundation period expressed as a percent of the sample’s preload/initial thickness. After the inundation period, additional incremental loads are applied to evaluate the swell pressure and/or consolidation. For this assessment, we conducted eight (8) swell-consolidation tests on relatively undisturbed soil samples obtained at various intervals/depths on the site. The swell index values for the in-situ soil samples analyzed revealed low to moderate swell characteristics as indicated on the attached swell test summaries. The (+) test results indicate the soil materials swell potential characteristics while the (-) test results indicate the soils materials collapse/consolidation potential characteristics when inundated with water. The (+) swell-index results were primarily of near surface samples inundated and pre-loaded at 150 psf, which revealed results of (+) 2.0% to (+) 6.8%. The swell-index values for samples inundated and preloaded at 500 psf revealed swells of 0.5 to 3.3%. The following table summarizes the swell-consolidation laboratory test results for samples obtained during our field explorations for the subject site. Boring No. Depth, ft. Material Type Swell Consolidation Test Results In-Situ Moisture Content, % Dry Density, PCF Inundation Pressure, psf Swell Index, % (+/-) B-1 4′ Lean Clay with Sand (CL) 20.0 109.6 500 (+) 3.3 B-2 4′ Lean Clay with Sand (CL) 13.7 105.8 500 (+) 0.5 B-2 14′ Lean Clay with Sand (CL) 20.2 114.4 1000 (-) 0.1 B-3 4′ Lean Clay with Sand (CL) 22.4 99.4 500 (+) 1.2 B-4 2′ Lean Clay with Sand (CL) 11.8 112.9 150 (+) 4.7 B-4 9′ Clayey Sand / Sandy Lean Clay 10.4 120.5 500 (+) 2.4 B-5 2′ Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 8.1 115.8 150 (+) 6.8 B-6 2′ Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 22.4 101.2 150 (+) 2.0 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 6 Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers (CAGE) uses the following information to provide uniformity in terminology between geotechnical engineers to provide a relative correlation of slab performance risk to measured swell. “The representative percent swell values are not necessarily measured values; rather, they are a judgment of the swell of the soil and/or bedrock profile likely to influence slab performance.” Geotechnical engineers use this information to also evaluate the swell potential risks for foundation performance based on the risk categories. Recommended Representative Swell Potential Descriptions and Corresponding Slab Performance Risk Categories Slab Performance Risk Category Representative Percent Swell (500 psf Surcharge) Representative Percent Swell (1000 psf Surcharge) Low 0 to < 3 0 < 2 Moderate 3 to < 5 2 to < 4 High 5 to < 8 4 to < 6 Very High > 8 > 6 Based on the laboratory test results, the in-situ samples analyzed for this project were within the low to moderate range. The higher swell-index values were of relatively undisturbed subgrade samples which appeared to be relatively dry, medium stiff to stiff in-situ. In our opinion, these subsoils when over- excavated, moisture conditioned and properly placed and compacted as engineered/controlled fill material would most likely reveal low swell potential results. Site Preparation Grading plans were not provided to us prior to preparation of this subsurface exploration report. Based on our observation of the existing grades, it appears that small cut/fill operations will likely be required to achieve final grades. Close evaluation should be completed of the near surface materials across the site for possible fill or disturbed native soils. All existing topsoil/vegetation should be removed from the site improvement areas. In addition, we recommend the top 2 feet of subgrade below existing grade or below final grade, whichever results in the deeper over-excavation and replacement approach, be reworked as a part of the subgrade preparation process to reduce the potential for the in-place moderate swell potential subsoils causing post-construction heaving/movement of the overlying floor slabs or pavements sections. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 7 After removal of all topsoil/vegetation within the planned development areas, as well as removal of any unacceptable or unsuitable subsoils and prior to fill placement and/or site improvements, the exposed soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 9 inches, adjusted in moisture content to within +/- 2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D698. Fill soils required for developing the building, pavement and site subgrades, after the initial zone has been moisture conditioned/stabilized, should consist of approved, low-volume-change materials, which are free from organic matter and debris. Based on the testing completed, it appears the on-site apparent cohesive type fill materials could be used as general site fill provided adequate moisture treatment and compaction procedures are followed. Those procedures would include placement in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjustment in moisture content to +/- 2% of optimum moisture content for cohesive type soils, and compaction to at least 95% of the materials maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D698, the standard Proctor procedure. If the site’s existing cohesive subsoils are used as approved fill material, care will be needed to maintain the recommended moisture content prior to and during construction of overlying improvements. Care will be needed after preparation of the subgrades to avoid disturbing the subgrade materials. Positive drainage should be developed away from site structures and pavements to avoid wetting of subgrade materials. Subgrade materials becoming wet subsequent to construction of the site improvements can result in unacceptable performance. Foundation Systems Based on the soils observed at the test boring locations, we believe the building could be supported on conventional footing foundations bearing on approved, medium stiff to stiff native cohesive subgrade soils and/or on a zone of approved placed and compacted imported structural fill material. For design of footing foundations bearing on approved medium stiff to stiff native subsoils we recommend using a net allowable total load soil bearing pressure not to exceed 2000 psf. The net bearing pressure refers to the pressure at foundation bearing level in excess of the minimum Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 8 surrounding overburden pressure. In addition if footings are placed on approved in-placed native subsoils, all footings should be designed to maintain a minimum dead load pressure of 500 psf. Consideration could also be given to placing the foundation system on a zone of approved imported structural fill material utilizing a higher bearing capacity, which would also reduce the potential for post-construction movement. For this approach, we recommend footings be supported on a minimum zone of 2-feet of properly placed and compacted imported granular structural fill. The overexcavation below the footings should extend to depths of at least 2-feet below foundation bearing elevation and should extend laterally in all directions beyond the edges of the footings at least 8 inches for each 12 inches of overexcavation depth below the footing bearing. The structural fill should meet CDOT Class 7 criteria or be a similar granular fill soils with sufficient fines to prevent ponding of water within the fill. The fill soils should be placed in maximum 9-inch thick loose lifts and compacted to at least 98% of the materials standard Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density of a workable moisture content. For design of footing foundations bearing on the zone of approved structural fill material as described herein, we recommend using a net allowable total load soil bearing pressure not to exceed 2500 psf. The net bearing pressure refers to the pressure at foundation bearing level in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure. A minimum dead load pressure would not be required in the constructed fills. All foundations should bear on uniform type subsoils, (i.e., the entire foundation system should bear on either the native subsoils and/or a zone of imported structural fill material as described herein) to reduce the potential for differential movement of dissimilar soils types. Close evaluation of the foundation bearing strata materials will be necessary during the construction phase. Exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas should be located a minimum of 30 inches below adjacent exterior grade to provide frost protection. We recommend formed continuous footings have a minimum width of 16 inches and isolated column foundations have a minimum width of 30 inches. Trenched and/or grade beam foundations should not be used in the near surface cohesive soils. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 9 Care should be taken during construction to see that the footing foundations are supported on suitable strength approved native subgrade soils. If unacceptable materials are encountered at the time of construction, it may be necessary to extend the footings to suitable strength soils or overexcavated unacceptable materials and replace those soils with approved fill materials. Those conditions can best be evaluated in open excavations at the time of construction. No unusual problems are anticipated in completing the excavation required for construction of the footing foundations. Care should be taken during construction to avoid disturbing the foundation bearing materials. Materials which are loosened or disturbed by the construction activities or materials which become dry and desiccated or wet and softened should be removed and replaced prior to placement of foundation concrete. We anticipate settlement of the footing foundations designed and constructed as outlined above would be less than 1-inch. Support of the footings on subgrade soils with low to moderate heave potential leaves some rick of post construction heaving of foundations. Overexcavation and backfill procedures could be considered to further reduce the risk of post construction movement of the foundations. Floor Slab Design and Construction All existing vegetation and/or topsoil should be removed from beneath the new floor slabs. Additionally, the floor slab areas should be undercut to allow for at least 2 feet of reworked subgrades below the floor slabs. Soft or loose in-place soils and any wet and softened or dry and desiccated soils should be removed as encountered. Close evaluation of the existing on-site material within the building floor slab areas will be required during the construction phase. A proof roll should be performed to evaluate the integrity and/or stability of the material prior to floor slab preparation. After stripping, completing all cuts and removal of any unacceptable materials and prior to placement of any new fill, the in-place soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 9 inches, adjusted in moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D-698, the standard Proctor procedure. The moisture Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 10 content of the scarified materials should be adjusted to be within the range of 2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture at the time of compaction. Fill materials required to develop the floor slab subgrade should consist of approved, low-volume change materials which are free from organic matter and debris. We recommend the fill materials contain sufficient fines to prevent ponding of water in the subgrade subsequent to construction. The on-site clay materials are acceptable for use in the floor slab subgrade areas. Fill materials beneath the floor slabs should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted in moisture content as recommended for the scarified materials and compacted to at least 95% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density. After preparation of the subgrades, care should be taken to avoid disturbing the subgrade materials. Materials which are loosened or disturbed by the construction activities will require removal and replacement or reworking in place prior to placement of the overlying floor slabs. Positive drainage should be developed away from the proposed building addition to avoid wetting the subgrade or bearing materials. Subgrade or bearing materials allowed to become wetted subsequent to construction can result in unacceptable performance of the improvements. Seismic Conditions The site soil conditions consist of approximately 20 to 25-feet of overburden soils overlying moderately hard bedrock. For those site conditions, the 2006 International Building Code indicates a Seismic Site Classification of D. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 11 Lateral Earth Pressures For any portion of the new building or site improvements being constructed below grade, those portions will be subject to lateral earth pressures. Passive lateral earth pressures may help resist the driving forces for site retaining walls or other similar site structures. Active lateral earth pressures could be used for design of structures where some movement of the structure is anticipated, such as retaining walls. The total deflection of structures for design with active earth pressure is estimated to be on the order of one half of one percent of the height of the down slope side of the structure. We recommend at-rest pressures be used for design of structures where rotation of the walls is restrained. Passive pressures and friction between the footing and bearing soils could be used for design of resistance to movement of retaining walls. Coefficient values for backfill with anticipated types of soils for calculation of active, at rest and passive earth pressures are provided in the table below. Equivalent fluid pressure is equal to the coefficient times the appropriate soil unit weight. Those coefficient values are based on horizontal backfill with backfill soils consisting of essentially on-site cohesive subsoils or approved imported granular materials with friction angles of 25 and 35 degrees respectively. For the at-rest and active earth pressures, slopes down and away from the structure would result in reduced driving forces with slopes up and away from the structures resulting in greater forces on the walls. The passive resistance would be reduced with slopes away from the wall. The top 30-inches of soil on the passive resistance side of walls could be used as a surcharge load; however, should not be used as a part of the passive resistance value. Frictional resistance is equal to the tangent of the friction angle times the normal force. Soil Type On-Site Low Plasticity Cohesive Imported Medium Dense Granular Wet Unit Weight 115 135 Saturated Unit Weight 135 140 Friction Angle () – (assumed) 25° 35° Active Pressure Coefficient 0.40 0.27 At-rest Pressure Coefficient 0.58 0.43 Passive Pressure Coefficient 2.46 3.70 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 12 Surcharge loads or point loads placed in the backfill can also create additional loads on below grade walls. Those situations should be designed on an individual basis. The outlined values do not include factors of safety nor allowances for hydrostatic loads and are based on assumed friction angles, which should be verified after potential material sources have been identified. Care should be taken to develop appropriate drainage systems behind below grade walls to eliminate potential for hydrostatic loads developing on the walls. Those systems would likely include perimeter drain systems extending to sump areas or free outfall where reverse flow cannot occur into the system. Where necessary, appropriate hydrostatic load values should be used for design. Pavements We expect the site pavements will include areas designated primarily for automobile traffic usage and possibly heavy duty/truck traffic and/or main drive lanes. For design purposes we are using an assumed equivalent daily load axle (EDLA) rating of 10 to be used in the new automobile parking area and 20 for the heavy duty/min drive lanes. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site we recommend the on-site parking area be designed using an R-value of 10. Due to the moderately expansive characteristics of the overburden/apparent fill material zone, we recommend over-excavating a minimum of two (2) feet of the overburden/existing fill subsoils and replacement of these soils as moisture conditioned/engineered fill material beneath pavement areas. Due to the potential pumping conditions, which could develop in a moisture treatment process of on- site cohesive soils, if needed after a proof roll observation is performed; we would suggest in conjunction with the over-excavation process, for subgrade stabilization purposes, incorporating at least 12 percent by weight, Class C fly ash, into the upper 12 inches of subgrade. An alternate would be to over-excavate and/or “cut to grade” to accommodate a minimum of 12-inch layer of non- expansive granular soils to be placed and compacted beneath the pavement section. Proofrolling and recompacting the subgrade is recommended immediately prior to placement of the aggregate road base section if a fly ash treatment is not provided. Soft or weak areas delineated by the proofrolling operations should be undercut or stabilized in-place to achieve the appropriate subgrade support. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 13 If the fly ash alternative stabilization approach is selected, EEC recommends incorporating 12% (by weight) Class C fly ash, into the upper 12-inches of subgrade. Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement materials underlain by crushed aggregate base course (ABC) materials with or without a fly ash treated subgrade, and non-reinforced concrete pavement are feasible alternatives for the proposed on-site paved sections. Pavement design methods are intended to provide structural sections with adequate thickness over a particular subgrade such that wheel loads are reduced to a level the subgrade can support. The support characteristics of the subgrade for pavement design do not account for shrink/swell movements of an expansive clay subgrade or consolidation of a wetted subgrade. Thus, the pavement may be adequate from a structural standpoint, yet still experience cracking and deformation due to shrink/swell related movement of the subgrade. It is, therefore, important to minimize moisture changes in the subgrade to reduce shrink/swell movements. The pavement sections could be constructed directly on the approved on-site subgrade soils. Those soils also have low remolded subgrade strength. The subgrades should be thoroughly evaluated and proofrolled prior to pavement construction. The HMA pavement materials should be grading S (75) with PG 58-28 oil. The ABC materials should be CDOT Class 5 or Class 6 materials. Composite HMA underlain by ABC pavements may show rutting and distress in truck or bus loading and turning areas. Concrete pavements should be considered in those areas. Portland cement concrete should be an exterior pavement mix with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi and should be air entrained. Recommended pavement sections are provided in the following table. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 14 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTIONS Automobile Parking Heavy Duty/Main Drive Lanes 18-kip EDLA 18-kip ESAL Reliability Resilient Modulus – Based on an R-Value = 10 PSI Loss (Initial = 4.5, and Terminal = 2.0) 10 73,000 75% 3562 2.5 20 146,000 75 3562 2.5 Design Structure Number 2.60 2.89 Composite: Alternative A Hot Mix Asphalt - (0.44 strength coefficient) Aggregate Base Course - (0.11 strength coefficient) Design Structure Number 4-1/2" 6" (2.64) 5” 7” (2.97) Composite: Alternative B Hot Mix Asphalt - (0.44 strength coefficient) Aggregate Base Course - (0.11 strength coefficient) (1) Fly Ash Treated Subgrade (0.05 strength coefficient) Design Structure Number 3-1/2" 6" 12" (2.80) 4” 6” 12” (3.02) PCC (Non-reinforced) – placed on a stable subgrade 5-1/2" 6” (1) If fly ash is utilized for the on-site pavement areas for stabilization purposes, it is recommended that at least the upper 12-inches of the prepared subgrade be treated with approximately 12% fly ash (by weight) of Class C fly ash. The recommended pavement sections are minimums and periodic maintenance should be expected. 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 in general accordance with ACI recommendations. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where necessary for load transfer. Since the cohesive soils on the site have some shrink/swell potential, pavements could crack in the future primarily because of the volume change of the soils when subjected to an increase in moisture content to the subgrade. The cracking, while not desirable, does not necessarily constitute structural Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 15 The collection and diversion of surface drainage away from paved areas is critical to the satisfactory performance of the pavement. Drainage design should provide for the removal of water from paved areas in order to reduce the potential for wetting of the subgrade soils. Long-term pavement performance will be dependent upon several factors, including maintaining subgrade moisture levels and providing for preventive maintenance. The following recommendations should be considered the minimum:  The subgrade and the pavement surface should be adequately sloped to promote proper surface drainage.  Install pavement drainage surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting (e.g. garden centers, wash racks)  Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately,  Seal all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to minimize or prevent moisture migration to subgrade soils;  Placing compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter; and,  Placing curb, gutter, and/or sidewalk directly on approved proof rolled subgrade soils with the use of base course materials. 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. Site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. However as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, or rainfall. As a result, the pavement subgrade may not be suitable for pavement construction and Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 16 corrective action will be required. The subgrade should be carefully evaluated at the time of pavement construction for signs of disturbance, rutting, or excessive drying. If disturbance has occurred, pavement subgrade areas should be reworked, moisture conditioned, and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to paving. Please note that if during or after placement of the stabilization or initial lift of pavement, the area is observed to be yielding under vehicle traffic or construction equipment, it is recommended that EEC be contacted for additional alternative methods of stabilization, or a change in the pavement section. Other Considerations Positive drainage should be developed away from the structure and pavement areas with a minimum slope of 1-inch per foot for the first 10-feet away from the improvements in landscape areas. Care should be taken in planning of landscaping adjacent to the building and parking and drive areas to avoid features which would pond water adjacent to the pavement, foundations or stemwalls. Placement of plants which require irrigation systems or could result in fluctuations of the moisture content of the subgrade material should be avoided adjacent to site improvements. Lawn watering systems should not be placed within 5 feet of the perimeter of the building and parking areas. Spray heads should be designed not to spray water on or immediately adjacent to the structure or site pavements. Roof drains should be designed to discharge at least 5 feet away from the structure and away from the pavement areas. Excavations into the on-site soils may encounter a variety of conditions. Excavations into the on- site clays and underlying bedrock formation can be expected to stand on relatively steep temporary slopes during construction. The individual contractor(s) should be made responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Brinkman Partners – Harmony Technology Park EEC Project No. 1132100 December 11, 2013 Page 17 GENERAL COMMENTS The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the indicated locations and from any other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect any variations, which may occur between borings or across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. It is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained to review the plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. It is further recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained for testing and observations during earthwork and foundation construction phases to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Brinkman Partners for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranty, express or implied, is made. In the event that any 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 the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing by the geotechnical engineer. DRILLING AND EXPLORATION DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SS: Split Spoon - 13/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted PS: Piston Sample ST: Thin-Walled Tube - 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted WS: Wash Sample R: Ring Barrel Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D. unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger FT: Fish Tail Bit HA: Hand Auger RB: Rock Bit DB: Diamond Bit = 4", N, B BS: Bulk Sample AS: Auger Sample PM: Pressure Meter HS: Hollow Stem Auger WB: Wash Bore Standard "N" Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D. split spoon, except where noted. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL : Water Level WS : While Sampling WCI: Wet Cave in WD : While Drilling DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal AB : After Boring ACR: After Casting Removal Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of ground water. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of ground water levels is not possible with only short term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification system and the ASTM Designations D-2488. Coarse Grained Soils have move than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as : clays, if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse grained soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their consistency. Example: Lean clay with sand, trace gravel, stiff (CL); silty sand, trace gravel, medium dense (SM). CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS Unconfined Compressive Strength, Qu, psf Consistency < 500 Very Soft 500 - 1,000 Soft 1,001 - 2,000 Medium 2,001 - 4,000 Stiff 4,001 - 8,000 Very Stiff 8,001 - 16,000 Very Hard RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS: N-Blows/ft Relative Density 0-3 Very Loose 4-9 Loose 10-29 Medium Dense 30-49 Dense 50-80 Very Dense 80 + Extremely Dense PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF BEDROCK DEGREE OF WEATHERING: Slight Slight decomposition of parent material on joints. May be color change. Moderate Some decomposition and color change throughout. High Rock highly decomposed, may be extremely broken. HARDNESS AND DEGREE OF CEMENTATION: BRINKMAN PARTNERS HEADQUARTERS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1132100 DECEMBER 2013 DATE: RIG TYPE: CME-55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF _ _ VEGETATION AND TOPSOIL 1 _ _ LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) 2 brown, calcareous _ _ stiff to very stiff 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 12 7000 20.0 109.6 36 18 76.4 5000 PSF 3.3% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 moist _ _ SS 10 10 9000+ 16.7 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 brown, gray, rust _ _ CS 15 13 9000+ 20.9 102.0 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 traces of gravel with depth _ _ SS 20 8 4000 20.1 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC A-LIMITS SWELL DATE: RIG TYPE: CME-55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF _ _ VEGETATION AND TOPSOIL 1 _ _ LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) 2 brown, light brown _ _ stiff to very stiff 3 dry with traces of gravel _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 12 9000+ 13.7 105.8 1200 PSF 0.5% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 with gray, rust, calcareous deposits _ _ SS 10 11 8000 17.7 moist _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ % @ 1000 PSF CS 15 16 7000 20.2 114.4 32 18 75.7 <500 PSF NONE _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ SS 20 19 -- 15.9 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE - HIGHLY WEATHERED CS 25 15 5000 23.7 103.1 Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC A-LIMITS SWELL DATE: RIG TYPE: CME-55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 26 _ _ CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE 27 brown, gray, rust _ _ moderately hard to hard 28 _ _ 29 _ _ SS 30 50/11" 9000+ 23.9 _ _ 31 _ _ 32 _ _ 33 _ _ 34 _ _ SS 35 50/10" 9000+ 19.8 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 35' 36 _ _ 37 _ _ 38 _ _ 39 _ _ 40 _ _ 41 _ _ 42 _ _ 43 _ _ 44 _ _ 45 _ _ 46 _ _ 47 _ _ 48 _ _ 49 _ _ 50 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants A-LIMITS SWELL SURFACE ELEV N/A DATE: RIG TYPE: CME-55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF _ _ VEGETATION AND TOPSOIL 1 _ _ LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) 2 brown, calcareous _ _ stiff to medium stiff 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 12 9000+ 22.4 99.4 1300 PSF 1.2% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 traces of lite gravel with depth _ _ moist SS 10 4 7000 16.0 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 brown, gray, rust _ _ CS 15 14 6000 20.9 109.2 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ traces of gravel with depth SS 20 11 3000 28.2 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC A-LIMITS SWELL DATE: RIG TYPE: CME-55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 150 PSF _ _ VEGETATION AND TOPSOIL 1 _ _ LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) 2 brown, calcareous _ _ stiff to very stiff CS 3 15 9000 11.8 112.9 2600 PSF 4.7% dry _ _ 4 _ _ SS 5 15 9000+ 8.5 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 CLAYEY SAND (SC) _ _ % @ 500 PSF brown, calcareous CS 10 13 6000 10.4 120.5 2600 PSF 2.4% stiff to very stiff _ _ moist 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 brown, tan, gray _ _ SS 15 13 7000 14.2 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 brown, gray, rust _ _ CS 20 8 9000 25.5 99.9 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 traces of gravel with depth _ _ SS 25 10 9000+ 22.4 Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC A-LIMITS SWELL DATE: RIG TYPE: CME-55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 26 _ _ CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE 27 brown, gray, rust _ _ moderately hard to hard 28 _ _ 29 _ _ 30 50/12 9000+ 18.5 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 27' _ _ 31 _ _ 32 _ _ 33 _ _ 34 _ _ 35 _ _ 36 _ _ 37 _ _ 38 _ _ 39 _ _ 40 _ _ 41 _ _ 42 _ _ 43 _ _ 44 _ _ 45 _ _ 46 _ _ 47 _ _ 48 _ _ 49 _ _ 50 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants A-LIMITS SWELL SURFACE ELEV N/A DATE: RIG TYPE: CME-55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 150 PSF _ _ VEGETATION AND TOPSOIL 1 _ _ SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 2 brown, calcareous _ _ stiff to very stiff CS 3 21 9000+ 8.1 115.8 3900 PSF 6.8% dry _ _ 4 _ _ SS 5 15 9000+ 8.0 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ moist CS 10 16 9000+ 17.1 114.4 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ SS 15 12 8000 20.8 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 brown, gray, rust _ _ SS 20 9 2000 26.6 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC A-LIMITS SWELL DATE: RIG TYPE: CME-55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 150 PSF _ _ VEGETATION AND TOPSOIL 1 _ _ SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 2 brown, calcareous _ _ stiff to very stiff CS 3 13 8000 22.4 101.2 41 24 64.9 600 PSF 2.0% _ _ 4 _ _ SS 5 7 8000 15.0 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ sand seam at tip SS 10 5 4000 17.9 moist _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 10.5' 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ 15 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC A-LIMITS SWELL DATE: RIG TYPE: CME-55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF _ _ VEGETATION AND TOPSOIL 1 _ _ SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 2 brown, calcareous _ _ stiff to very stiff CS 3 7 7000 23.2 102.9 _ _ 4 _ _ SS 5 12 8000 21.4 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 brown, tan _ _ moist SS 10 9 9000 14.6 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ 15 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC A-LIMITS SWELL SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS % Swell @ 500: Project: Project #: Date: Brinkman Partners Headquarters Harmony Tech. Park - Fort Collins, CO 1132100 December 2013 Beginning Moisture: 20.0% Dry Density: 109.6 psf Ending Moisture: 16.0% Swell Pressure: 5000 psf 3.3% Sample Location: Boring 1, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: 36 Plasticity Index: 18 % Passing #200: 76.4% Material Description: Brown, Calcareous Sandy Lean Clay (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Water Added Consolidation Swell SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS % Swell @ 500: Project: Project #: Date: Brinkman Partners Headquarters Harmony Tech. Park - Fort Collins, CO 1132100 December 2013 Beginning Moisture: 13.7% Dry Density: 105.8 psf Ending Moisture: 21.6% Swell Pressure: 1000 psf 0.5% Sample Location: Boring 2, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - Material Description: Brown, Calcareous Lean Clay with Sand (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Water Added Consolidation Swell SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS % Swell @ 1000: Project: Project #: Date: Brinkman Partners Headquarters Harmony Tech. Park - Fort Collins, CO 1132100 December 2013 Beginning Moisture: 20.2% Dry Density: 114.4 psf Ending Moisture: 20.9% Swell Pressure: < 500 psf None Sample Location: Boring 2, Sample 3, Depth 14' Liquid Limit: 32 Plasticity Index: 18 % Passing #200: 75.7% Material Description: Brown, Calcareous Sandy Lean Clay (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Water Added Consolidation Swell SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS % Swell @ 500: Project: Project #: Date: Brinkman Partners Headquarters Harmony Tech. Park - Fort Collins, CO 1132100 December 2013 Beginning Moisture: 22.4% Dry Density: 99.4 psf Ending Moisture: 21.2% Swell Pressure: 1300 psf 1.2% Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - Material Description: Brown, Calcareous Lean Clay with Sand (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Water Added Consolidation Swell SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS % Swell @ 150: Project: Project #: Date: Brinkman Partners Headquarters Harmony Tech. Park - Fort Collins, CO 1132100 December 2013 Beginning Moisture: 11.8% Dry Density: 112.9 psf Ending Moisture: 21.3% Swell Pressure: 2600 psf 4.7% Sample Location: Boring 4, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - Material Description: Brown, Calcareous Lean Clay with Sand (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Water Added Consolidation Swell SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS % Swell @ 500: Project: Project #: Date: Brinkman Partners Headquarters Harmony Tech. Park - Fort Collins, CO 1132100 December 2013 Beginning Moisture: 10.4% Dry Density: 120.5 psf Ending Moisture: 17.6% Swell Pressure: 2600 psf 2.4% Sample Location: Boring 4, Sample 3, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: 32 Plasticity Index: 18 % Passing #200: 49.0% Material Description: Clayey Sand (SC) / Sandy Lean Clay (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Water Added Consolidation Swell SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS % Swell @ 150: Project: Project #: Date: Brinkman Partners Headquarters Harmony Tech. Park - Fort Collins, CO 1132100 December 2013 Beginning Moisture: 8.1% Dry Density: 115.8 psf Ending Moisture: 18.4% Swell Pressure: 3900 psf 6.8% Sample Location: Boring 5, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - Material Description: Brown, Calcareous Sandy Lean Clay (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Water Added Consolidation Swell SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS % Swell @ 150: Project: Project #: Date: Brinkman Partners Headquarters Harmony Tech. Park - Fort Collins, CO 1132100 December 2013 Beginning Moisture: 22.4% Dry Density: 101.2 psf Ending Moisture: 20.8% Swell Pressure: 600 psf 2.0% Sample Location: Boring 6, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: 41 Plasticity Index: 24 % Passing #200: 64.9% Material Description: Brown, Calcareous Sandy Lean Clay (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Water Added Consolidation Swell SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 12/6/2013 AFTER DRILLING N/A WHILE DRILLING None SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH LOG OF BORING B-7 START DATE 12/6/2013 BRINKMAN PARTNERS HEADQUARTERS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1132100 DECEMBER 2013 SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 12/6/2013 AFTER DRILLING N/A WHILE DRILLING None SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH LOG OF BORING B-6 START DATE 12/6/2013 BRINKMAN PARTNERS HEADQUARTERS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1132100 DECEMBER 2013 SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 12/6/2013 AFTER DRILLING N/A WHILE DRILLING 18' SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH LOG OF BORING B-5 START DATE 12/6/2013 BRINKMAN PARTNERS HEADQUARTERS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1132100 DECEMBER 2013 AFTER DRILLING N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 12/6/2013 SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH WHILE DRILLING 15' PROJECT NO: 1132100 START DATE 12/6/2013 LOG OF BORING B-4 SS DECEMBER 2013 BRINKMAN PARTNERS HEADQUARTERS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 12/6/2013 AFTER DRILLING N/A 12/6/2013 WHILE DRILLING 15' SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH LOG OF BORING B-4 START DATE BRINKMAN PARTNERS HEADQUARTERS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1132100 DECEMBER 2013 SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 12/6/2013 AFTER DRILLING N/A WHILE DRILLING 16.5' SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH LOG OF BORING B-3 START DATE 12/6/2013 BRINKMAN PARTNERS HEADQUARTERS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1132100 DECEMBER 2013 AFTER DRILLING N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 12/6/2013 SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 12/6/2013 WHILE DRILLING 16' LOG OF BORING B-2 DECEMBER 2013 BRINKMAN PARTNERS HEADQUARTERS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1132100 SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 12/6/2013 AFTER DRILLING N/A WHILE DRILLING 16' SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH LOG OF BORING B-2 START DATE 12/6/2013 BRINKMAN PARTNERS HEADQUARTERS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1132100 DECEMBER 2013 SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 12/6/2013 AFTER DRILLING N/A WHILE DRILLING 15' SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH LOG OF BORING B-1 START DATE 12/6/2013 BRINKMAN PARTNERS HEADQUARTERS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1132100 DECEMBER 2013 Limestone and Dolomite: Hard Difficult to scratch with knife. Moderately Can be scratched easily with knife. Hard Cannot be scratched with fingernail. Soft Can be scratched with fingernail. Shale, Siltstone and Claystone: Hard Can be scratched easily with knife, cannot be scratched with fingernail. Moderately Can be scratched with fingernail. Hard Soft Can be easily dented but not molded with fingers. Sandstone and Conglomerate: Well Capable of scratching a knife blade. Cemented Cemented Can be scratched with knife. Poorly Can be broken apart easily with fingers. Cemented failure of the pavement. Stabilization of the subgrades will reduce the potential for cracking of the pavements.