Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASCENT STUDIO CLIMBING & FITNESS - MAJOR AMENDMENT - MJA140003 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - GEOTECHNICAL (SOILS) REPORTGeotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym 2121 and 2127 South Timberline Road Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Terracon Project No. 20145015 Prepared for: Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Fort Collins, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION .............................................................................................2 2.1 Project Description ...............................................................................................2 2.2 Site Location and Description...............................................................................3 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................3 3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile ...................................................................................3 3.2 Laboratory Testing ...............................................................................................4 3.3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................4 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ......................................4 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations ...............................................................................4 4.1.1 Existing, Undocumented Fill .....................................................................5 4.1.2 Groundwater .............................................................................................5 4.1.3 Expansive Soils and Bedrock ...................................................................5 4.2 Earthwork.............................................................................................................5 4.2.1 Site Preparation ........................................................................................6 4.2.2 Excavation ................................................................................................6 4.2.3 Subgrade Preparation ...............................................................................7 4.2.4 Fill Materials and Placement ......................................................................7 4.2.5 Compaction Requirements ........................................................................8 4.2.6 Utility Trench Backfill ................................................................................8 4.2.7 Grading and Drainage ...............................................................................9 4.2.8 Exterior Slab Design and Construction ...................................................10 4.2.9 Corrosion Protection ...............................................................................10 4.3 Foundations .......................................................................................................10 4.3.1 Spread Footings - Design Recommendations .........................................11 4.3.2 Spread Footings - Construction Considerations ......................................12 4.3.3 Basement Construction Considerations ..................................................12 4.4 Seismic Considerations......................................................................................13 4.5 Floor Systems ....................................................................................................13 4.5.1 Floor System - Design Recommendations ..............................................13 4.5.2 Floor Systems - Construction Considerations .........................................14 4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures .....................................................................................15 4.7 Pavements .........................................................................................................16 4.7.1 Pavements – Subgrade Preparation .......................................................16 4.7.2 Pavements – Design Recommendations ................................................16 4.7.3 Pavements – Construction Considerations .............................................19 4.7.4 Pavements – Maintenance .....................................................................19 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ...............................................................................................19 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Appendix A – FIELD EXPLORATION Exhibit A-1 Site Location Map Exhibit A-2 Exploration Plan Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description Exhibits A-4 to A-8 Boring Logs Appendix B – LABORATORY TESTING Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Description Exhibit B-2 Atterberg Limits Test Results Exhibit B-3 Grain-size Distribution Test Results Exhibits B-4 to B-8 Swell-consolidation Test Results Exhibit B-9 Physical Properties of Soil Exhibit B-10 Corrosion Test Results Appendix C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Exhibit C-1 General Notes Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System Exhibit C-3 Description of Rock Properties Exhibit C-4 Laboratory Test Significance and Purpose Exhibits C-5 and C-6 Report Terminology Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A geotechnical investigation has been performed for the proposed Ascent Studio Climbing gym to be constructed at 2121 and 2127 South Timberline Road on Lots 12 and 13 of the Timberline Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. Five (5) borings, presented as Exhibits A-4 through A-8 and designated as Boring No. 1 through Boring No. 5, were performed to depths of approximately 10½ to 35 feet below existing site grades. This report specifically addresses the recommendations for the proposed climbing gym facility and associated pavements. Borings performed in these areas are for informational purposes and will be utilized by others. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site can be developed for the proposed project. However, the following geotechnical considerations were identified and will need to be considered: „ Existing, undocumented fill was encountered in the borings performed on this site to depths ranging from about 1 to 3 feet below existing site grades. We understand there is a basement planned for the proposed climbing gym facility. We anticipate the foundations for the proposed building will be constructed below the existing fill materials and the existing fill materials will not impact foundation or basement floor performance. The existing fill soils should be removed and recompacted beneath proposed pavements and exterior flatwork. „ The proposed building may be supported on shallow spread footing foundations bearing on the native soil or on newly placed engineered fill. „ A slab-on-grade floor system is recommended for the proposed building. „ The amount of movement of foundations, floor slabs, pavements, etc. will be related to the wetting of underlying supporting soils. Therefore, it is imperative the recommendations discussed in the 4.2.7 Grading and Drainage section of this report be followed to reduce potential movement. „ The 2012 International Building Code, Table 1613.5.2 IBC seismic site classification for this site is D. „ Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in achieving the design subgrade support. 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 Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Ascent Studio Climbing Gym 2121 and 2127 South Timberline Road Fort Collins, Colorado Terracon Project No. 20145015 May 7, 2014 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed Ascent Studio Climbing gym to be located at 2121 and 2127 South Timberline Road on Lots 12 and 13 of the Timberline Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: „ subsurface soil and bedrock conditions „ foundation design and construction „ groundwater conditions „ floor slab design and construction „ grading and drainage „ pavement construction „ lateral earth pressures „ earthwork „ seismic considerations Our geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included the initial site visit, the advancement of five (5) test borings to depths ranging from approximately 10 to 35 feet below existing site grades, laboratory testing for soil engineering properties and engineering analyses to provide foundation, floor system and pavement design and construction recommendations. Logs of the borings along with a Exploration Plan (Exhibit A-2) are included in Appendix A. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil and bedrock samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included in Appendix B. Previously, Terracon prepared a Geotechnical Engineering Report (Project No. 20075111; report dated December 20, 2007) for the Stor N Lock project located west of this project site. Data from this previous study was considered during preparation of this report. Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 2 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Project Description Item Description Site layout Refer to the Boring Location Plan (Exhibit A-2 in Appendix A) Proposed construction We understand the proposed construction will consist of a new climbing and fitness facility, utilities, and paved parking areas and access drives. Building construction A basement is planned below the building and will likely extend approximately 12 feet below existing site grades. A comparatively tall space within the facility (approximately 46 feet from basement to roof ridge) is planned for the climbing wall area. The southern portion of the proposed building will have three levels, including the basement, main level and mezzanine. Masonry veneer is planned up to about 5 feet above the first level finish floor. Maximum loads Columns: 100 kips (assumed) Walls: 2 to 4 klf (assumed) Slabs: 100 to 150 psf max (assumed) Grading in building area We anticipate minor cuts and fills on the order of 5 feet or less will be required outside of the basement area to achieve desired grades. Below-grade areas A full-depth basement is planned below the building and will extend approximately 12 feet below existing site grades. Traffic loading At the time this report was prepared traffic loading information was no available. We have assumed traffic loading for our pavement thickness analysis. If traffic data becomes available we should be notified to review the data and modify the pavement thickness if required. Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 3 2.2 Site Location and Description Item Description Location The project site is located at 2121 and 2127 South Timberline Road Lots on 12 and 13 of the Timberline Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. Existing site features During our site visits, we observed previously constructed parking lot islands to the east of the proposed building site and a sidewalk to the west. Surrounding developments The site is bordered to the north, south, and east by vacant lots. The west side of the site is bordered by Joseph Allen Drive and a Stor N’ Lock storage facility. Current ground cover The ground is covered with native grasses and weeds. Existing topography The site is relatively flat with raised areas of previously placed fill near the southern and western portions of the site. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile Specific conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs included in Appendix A. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows: Material Description Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum (feet) Consistency/Density/Hardness Fill materials consisting of lean clay, sand, and gravel About 1 to 3 feet below existing site grades. -- Lean clay with varying amounts of sand About 20 to 25 feet below existing site grades. Medium stiff to very stiff Silty sand About 28 feet below existing site grades in Boring No. 1 only. Dense Poorly-graded sand About 26 to 28 feet below existing site grades in Boring Nos. 2 and 3 only. Dense Well-graded sand with gravel About 29½ to 33 feet below existing site grades. Dense to very dense Claystone/siltstone bedrock To the maximum depth of exploration of about 35 feet. Very hard Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 4 3.2 Laboratory Testing Representative soil samples were selected for swell-consolidation testing and exhibited no movement to 0.7 percent swell when wetted. Samples of site soils and bedrock selected for plasticity testing exhibited medium plasticity with liquid limits ranging from 31 to 38 and plasticity indices ranging from 11 to 26. Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. 3.3 Groundwater 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 some borings. The water levels observed in the boreholes are noted on the attached boring logs, and are summarized below: Boring Number Depth to groundwater while drilling, ft. Depth to groundwater 5 days after drilling, ft. Elevation of groundwater 5 days after drilling, ft. 1 25 23.8 73.1 2 23 22.3 72.6 3 25 23.8 73.3 4 Not encountered -- -- 5 Not encountered -- -- These observations represent groundwater conditions at the time of the field exploration, and may not be indicative of other times or at other locations. Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate with varying seasonal and weather conditions, and other factors. Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations Based on subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, the site appears suitable for the proposed construction from a geotechnical point of view provided certain precautions and design and construction recommendations described in this report are followed. We have identified geotechnical conditions that could impact design and construction of the proposed structure, pavements, and other site improvements. Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 5 4.1.1 Existing, Undocumented Fill As previously noted, existing undocumented fill was encountered to depths up to about 3 feet in the borings drilled at the site. We do not possess any information regarding whether the fill was placed under the observation of a geotechnical engineer. However, we do not believe the existing fill will impact the construction of the foundations for the climbing facility. The climbing facility foundations will extend below the existing fill materials. Support of floor slabs, and pavements on or above existing fill soils is discussed in this report. However, even with the recommended construction testing services, there is an inherent risk for the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely removing the existing fill, but can be reduced by performing additional testing and evaluation. 4.1.2 Groundwater As previously stated, groundwater was measured at depths ranging from about 22.3 to 23.8 feet below existing site grades. We understand a full-depth basement will be constructed approximately 12 feet below existing site grades. The depth of groundwater measured in our borings completed at this site indicate groundwater will not likely impact the proposed construction. 4.1.3 Expansive Soils and Bedrock Laboratory testing indicates the native clay soils exhibited slight compression or low expansive potential at the samples in-situ moisture content. However, it is our opinion these materials will exhibit a higher expansive potential if the clays and claystone undergo a significant loss of moisture. This report provides recommendations to help mitigate the effects of soil shrinkage and expansion. However, even if these procedures are followed, some movement and cracking in the structure, pavements, and flatwork should be anticipated. The severity of cracking and other damage such as uneven floor slabs will probably increase if any modification of the site results in excessive wetting or drying of the expansive clays and/or claystone bedrock. Eliminating the risk of movement and distress is generally not feasible, but it may be possible to further reduce the risk of movement if significantly more expensive measures are used during construction. It is imperative the recommendations described in section 4.2.7 Grading and Drainage of this report be followed to reduce movement. 4.2 Earthwork The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fills on the project. All earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon on a full-time basis. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation of over-excavation operations, testing of engineered fills, subgrade Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 6 preparation, subgrade stabilization, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the project. 4.2.1 Site Preparation Prior to placing any fill, strip and remove existing vegetation, the recommended depth of undocumented existing fill, and any other deleterious materials from the proposed construction areas. The existing fill materials extend to approximate depths of 1 to 3 feet below the existing ground surface. Stripped organic materials should be wasted from the site or used to re-vegetate landscaped areas after completion of grading operations. Prior to the placement of fills, the site should be graded to create a relatively level surface to receive fill, and to provide for a relatively uniform thickness of fill beneath the proposed improvements. 4.2.2 Excavation It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. The soils to be excavated can vary significantly across the site as their 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. Although evidence of underground facilities such as septic tanks, vaults, basements, and 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 prior to backfill placement and/or construction. Any over-excavation that extends below the bottom of foundation elevation should extend laterally beyond all edges of the footings at least 8 inches per foot of over-excavation depth below the footing base elevation. The over-excavation should be backfilled to the footing base elevation in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. Depending upon depth of excavation and seasonal conditions, surface water infiltration and/or groundwater may be encountered in excavations on the site. It is anticipated that pumping from sumps may be utilized to control water within excavations. Well points may be required for significant groundwater flow, or where excavations penetrate groundwater to a significant depth. The subgrade soil conditions should be evaluated during the excavation process and the stability of the soils determined at that time by the contractors’ Competent Person. Slope inclinations flatter than the OSHA maximum values may have to be used. The individual contractor(s) should be made responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 7 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. As a safety measure, it is recommended that all vehicles and soil piles be kept a minimum lateral distance from the crest of the slope equal to the slope height. The exposed slope face should be protected against the elements 4.2.3 Subgrade Preparation After the existing fill and other deleterious materials have been removed from the construction areas, the top 10 inches of the exposed ground surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM D698 before any new fill, foundation, or pavement is placed. If pockets of soft, loose, or otherwise unsuitable materials are encountered at the bottom of the footing excavations and it is inconvenient to lower the footings, the proposed footing elevations may be reestablished by over-excavating the unsuitable soils and backfilling with compacted engineered fill or lean concrete. The stability of the subgrade may be affected by precipitation, repetitive construction traffic or other factors. If unstable conditions develop, workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. Alternatively, over-excavation of wet zones and replacement with granular materials may be used, or crushed gravel and/or rock can be tracked or “crowded” into the unstable surface soil until a stable working surface is attained. Use of lime, fly ash, cement or geotextiles could also be considered as a stabilization technique. Lightweight excavation equipment may also be used to reduce subgrade pumping. 4.2.4 Fill Materials and Placement The on-site soils or approved granular and low plasticity cohesive imported materials may be used as fill material. The soil removed from this site that is free of organic or objectionable materials, as defined by a field technician who is qualified in soil material identification and compaction procedures, can be re-used as fill. It should be noted that on-site soils may require reworking to adjust the moisture content to meet the compaction criteria. Imported soils (if required) should meet the following material property requirements: Gradation Percent finer by weight (ASTM C136) 4” 100 3” 70-100 No. 4 Sieve 50-100 No. 200 Sieve 10-50 Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 8 Soil Properties Value Liquid Limit 30 (max.) Plastic Limit 15 (max.) Maximum Expansive Potential (%) Non-expansive1 1. Measured on a sample compacted to approximately 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM D698 at optimum moisture content. The sample is confined under a 100 psf surcharge and submerged. 4.2.5 Compaction Requirements 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. Item Description Fill lift thickness 9 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self- propelled compaction equipment is used 4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor) is used Minimum compaction requirements 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM D698 Moisture content cohesive soil (clay) -1 to +3 % of the optimum moisture content Moisture content cohesionless soil (sand) -3 to +2 % of the optimum moisture content 1. We recommend engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved. 2. Specifically, moisture levels should be maintained low enough to allow for satisfactory compaction to be achieved without the fill material pumping when proofrolled. 3. Moisture conditioned clay materials should not be allowed to dry out. A loss of moisture within these materials could result in an increase in the material’s expansive potential. Subsequent wetting of these materials could result in undesirable movement. 4.2.6 Utility Trench Backfill All trench excavations should be made with sufficient working space to permit construction including backfill placement and compaction. All underground piping within or near the proposed building should be designed with flexible couplings, so minor deviations in alignment do not result in breakage or distress. Utility knockouts in foundation walls should be oversized to accommodate differential movements. It is imperative that utility trenches be properly backfilled with relatively clean materials. If utility trenches are backfilled with relatively clean granular material, they should be capped with at least 18 inches of Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 9 cohesive fill in non-pavement areas to reduce the infiltration and conveyance of surface water through the trench backfill. Utility trenches are a common source of water infiltration and migration. All utility trenches that penetrate beneath the building should be effectively sealed to restrict water intrusion and flow through the trenches that could migrate below the building. We recommend constructing an effective clay “trench plug” that extends at least 5 feet out from the face of the building exterior. The plug material should consist of clay compacted at a water content at or above the soil’s optimum water content. The clay fill should be placed to completely surround the utility line and be compacted in accordance with recommendations in this report. It is strongly recommended that a representative of Terracon provide full-time observation and compaction testing of trench backfill within building and pavement areas. 4.2.7 Grading and Drainage All grades must be adjusted to provide effective drainage away from the proposed building and pavements during construction and maintained throughout the life of the proposed project. Infiltration of water into foundation excavations must be prevented during construction. Landscape irrigation adjacent to foundations should be minimized or eliminated. Water permitted to pond near or adjacent to the perimeter of the building (either during or post- construction) can result in significantly higher soil movements than those discussed in this report. As a result, any 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. Exposed ground (if any) should be sloped at a minimum of 10 percent grade for at least 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed building, where possible. The use of swales, chases and/or area drains may be required to facilitate drainage in unpaved areas around the perimeter of the building. Backfill against footings and exterior walls should be properly compacted and free of all construction debris to reduce the possibility of moisture infiltration. After construction of the proposed building and prior to project completion, we recommend verification of final grading be performed to document positive drainage, as described above, has been achieved. Flatwork and pavements will be subject to post-construction movement. Maximum grades practical should be used for paving and flatwork to prevent areas where water can pond. In addition, allowances in final grades should take into consideration post-construction movement of flatwork, particularly if such movement would be critical. Where paving or flatwork abuts the building, care should be taken that joints are properly sealed and maintained to prevent the infiltration of surface water. Planters located adjacent to the building should preferably be self-contained. Sprinkler mains and spray heads should be located a minimum of 5 feet away from the building line(s). Low- volume, drip style landscaped irrigation should not be used near the building. Roof drains Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 10 should discharge on to pavements or be extended away from the building a minimum of 10 feet through the use of splash blocks or downspout extensions. A preferred alternative is to have the roof drains discharge by solid pipe to storm sewers or to a detention pond or other appropriate outfall. 4.2.8 Exterior Slab Design and Construction Exterior slabs on-grade, exterior architectural features, and utilities founded on, or in backfill or the site soils will likely experience some movement due to the volume change of the material. Potential movement could be reduced by: „ Minimizing moisture increases in the backfill; „ Controlling moisture-density during placement of the backfill; „ Using designs which allow vertical movement between the exterior features and adjoining structural elements; and „ Placing control joints on relatively close centers. 4.2.9 Corrosion Protection Results of water-soluble sulfate testing indicate that ASTM Type I portland cement should be specified for all project concrete on and below grade. Foundation concrete should be designed for low sulfate exposure in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4. 4.3 Foundations The proposed building can be supported by a shallow, spread footing foundation system. Design recommendations for foundations for the proposed building and related structural elements are presented in the following paragraphs. Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 11 4.3.1 Spread Footings - Design Recommendations Description Value Bearing material Properly prepared on-site soil or new, properly placed engineered fill. Maximum allowable bearing pressure 1 On-site sandy lean clay: 2,000 psf At least 12 inches of imported granular fill: 2,500 psf Lateral earth pressure coefficients 2 On-site sandy lean clay: Active, Ka = 0.41 Passive, Kp = 2.46 At-rest, Ko = 0.58 Imported granular fill: Active, Ka = 0.28 Passive, Kp = 3.69 At-rest, Ko = 0.43 Sliding coefficient 2 On-site sandy lean clay: µ = 0.37 Imported granular fill: µ = 0.56 Moist soil unit weight On-site sandy lean clay: ܵ = 120 pcf Imported granular fill: ܵ = 135 pcf Minimum embedment depth below finished grade 3 30 inches Estimated total movement 4 About 1 inch Estimated differential movement 4 About ½ to ¾ of total movement 1. The recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure assumes any unsuitable fill or soft soils, if encountered, will be over-excavated and replaced with properly compacted engineered fill. The design bearing pressure applies to a dead load plus design live load condition. The design bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering total loads that include wind or seismic conditions. 2. The lateral earth pressure coefficients and sliding coefficients are ultimate values and do not include a factor of safety. The foundation designer should include the appropriate factors of safety. 3. For frost protection and to reduce the effects of seasonal moisture variations in the subgrade soils. The minimum embedment depth is for perimeter footings beneath unheated areas and is relative to lowest adjacent finished grade, typically exterior grade. 4. The estimated movements presented above are based on the assumption that the maximum footing size is 4 feet for column footings and 1.5 feet for continuous footings. Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 12 Footings should be proportioned to reduce differential foundation movement. As discussed, total movement resulting from the assumed structural loads is estimated to be on the order of about 1 inch. Additional foundation movements could occur if water from any source infiltrates the foundation soils; therefore, proper drainage should be provided in the final design and during construction and throughout the life of the structure. Failure to maintain the proper drainage as recommended in the 4.2.7 Grading and Drainage section of this report will nullify the movement estimates provided above. 4.3.2 Spread Footings - Construction Considerations Spread footing construction should only be considered if the estimated foundation movement can be tolerated. Subgrade soils beneath footings should be moisture conditioned and compacted as described in the 4.2 Earthwork section of this report. The moisture content and compaction of subgrade soils should be maintained until foundation construction. Footings and foundation walls should be reinforced as necessary to reduce the potential for distress caused by differential foundation movement. Unstable subgrade conditions are anticipated as excavations approach the groundwater surface. Unstable surfaces will need to be stabilized prior to backfilling excavations and/or constructing the building foundation, floor slab and/or project pavements. The use of angular rock, recycled concrete and/or gravel pushed or “crowded” into the yielding subgrade is considered suitable means of stabilizing the subgrade. The use of geogrid materials in conjunction with gravel could also be considered and could be more cost effective. Unstable subgrade conditions should be observed by Terracon to assess the subgrade and provide suitable alternatives for stabilization. Stabilized areas should be proof-rolled prior to continuing construction to assess the stability of the subgrade. Foundation excavations should be observed by Terracon. If the soil conditions encountered differ significantly from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations will be required. 4.3.3 Basement Construction Considerations Groundwater was encountered on the site at depths of 22.3 to 23.8 feet below existing site grades. To reduce the potential for surface water to impact foundation bearing soils and enter the basement of the building, installation of a perimeter drainage system is recommended. The drainage system should be constructed around the exterior perimeter of the basement foundation, and sloped at a minimum 1/8 inch per foot to a suitable outlet, such as a sump and pump system. The drainage system should consist of a properly-sized perforated pipe, embedded in free- draining gravel, placed in a trench at least 12 inches in width. Gravel should extend at least 2 Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 13 feet above the bottom of the foundation wall. The system should be underlain with a polyethylene moisture barrier, sealed to the foundation walls, and extended at least to the edge of the backfill zone. The gravel should be covered with drainage fabric prior to placement of foundation backfill. 4.4 Seismic Considerations Code Used Site Classification 2012 International Building Code (IBC) 1 D 2 1. In general accordance with the 2012 International Building Code, Table 1613.5.2. 2. The 2012 International Building Code (IBC) requires a site soil profile determination extending a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope requested does not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. The borings completed for this project extended to a maximum depth of about 35 feet and this seismic site class definition considers that similar soil and bedrock conditions exist below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to deeper depths could be performed to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration. Alternatively, a geophysical exploration could be utilized in order to attempt to justify a more favorable seismic site class. However, we believe a higher seismic site class for this site is unlikely. 4.5 Floor Systems A slab-on-grade may be utilized for the interior floor system for the proposed building. If very little movement can be tolerated, a structurally-supported floor system, supported independent of the subgrade materials, is recommended. Subgrade soils beneath interior and exterior slabs should be scarified to a depth of at least 10 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted. The moisture content and compaction of subgrade soils should be maintained until slab construction. 4.5.1 Floor System - Design Recommendations Even when bearing on properly prepared soils, movement of the slab-on-grade floor system is possible should the subgrade soils undergo an increase in moisture content. We estimate movement of about 1 inch is possible. If the owner cannot accept the risk of slab movement, a structural floor should be used. If conventional slab-on-grade is utilized, the subgrade soils should be over-excavated and prepared as outlined in the 4.2 Earthwork section of this report. For structural design of concrete slabs-on-grade subjected to point loadings, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for floors supported on re- compacted existing soils at the site. A modulus of 200 pci may be used for floors supported on at least 1 foot of non-expansive, imported granular fill. Additional floor slab design and construction recommendations are as follows: Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 14 „ Positive separations and/or isolation joints should be provided between slabs and all foundations, columns, or utility lines to allow independent movement. „ Control joints should be saw-cut in slabs in accordance with ACI Design Manual, Section 302.1R-37 8.3.12 (tooled control joints are not recommended) to control the location and extent of cracking. „ Interior utility trench backfill placed beneath slabs should be compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in the 4.2 Earthwork section of this report. „ Floor slabs should not be constructed on frozen subgrade. „ A minimum 2-inch void space should be constructed below non-bearing partition walls placed on the floor slab. Special framing details should be provided at doorjambs and frames within partition walls to avoid potential distortion. Partition walls should be isolated from suspended ceilings. „ The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs that will be covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious floor coverings, or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer and slab contractor should refer to ACI 302 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. 4.5.2 Floor Systems - Construction Considerations Movements of slabs-on-grade using the recommendations discussed in previous sections of this report will likely be reduced and tend to be more uniform. The estimates discussed above assume that the other recommendations in this report are followed. Additional movement could occur should the subsurface soils become wetted to significant depths, which could result in potential excessive movement causing uneven floor slabs and severe cracking. This could be due to over watering of landscaping, poor drainage, improperly functioning drain systems, and/or broken utility lines. Therefore, it is imperative that the recommendations presented in this report be followed. Some differential movement of a slab-on-grade floor system is possible if the moisture content of the subgrade soils is increased. To reduce potential slab movements, the subgrade soils should be prepared as described in section 4.2 Earthwork of this report. Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 15 4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures Reinforced concrete walls with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed for earth pressures at least equal to those indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will be influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Two wall restraint conditions are shown. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of free-standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes wall movement. The "at-rest" condition assumes no wall movement. The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor of safety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls. EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS Earth Pressure Conditions Coefficient for Backfill Type Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf) Surcharge Pressure, p1 (psf) Earth Pressure, p2 (psf) Active (Ka) Import Fill - 0.28 Sandy lean Clay - 0.41 38 49 (0.28)S (0.41)S (38)H (49)H At-Rest (Ko) Import Fill - 0.43 Sandy lean Clay - 0.58 58 70 (0.43)S (0.58)S (58)H (70)H Passive (Kp) Import Fill - 3.69 Sandy lean Clay - 2.46 498 295 --- --- --- --- Applicable conditions to the above include: „ For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements of about 0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height; Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 16 „ For passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance; „ Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure; „ In-situ soil backfill weight a maximum of 120 pcf; „ Horizontal backfill, compacted between 95 and 98 percent of maximum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM D698; „ Loading from heavy compaction equipment not included; „ No hydrostatic pressures acting on wall; „ No dynamic loading; „ No safety factor included in soil parameters; and „ Ignore passive pressure in frost zone. To control hydrostatic pressure behind the wall, we recommend that a drain be installed at the foundation wall with a collection pipe leading to a reliable discharge. If this is not possible, then combined hydrostatic and lateral earth pressures should be calculated for lean clay backfill using an equivalent fluid weighing 90 and 100 pcf for active and at-rest conditions, respectively. For granular backfill, an equivalent fluid weighing 85 and 90 pcf should be used for active and at-rest, respectively. These pressures do not include the influence of surcharge, equipment or floor loading, which should be added. Heavy equipment should not operate within a distance closer than the exposed height of retaining walls to prevent lateral pressures more than those provided. 4.7 Pavements 4.7.1 Pavements – Subgrade Preparation On most project sites, the site grading is accomplished relatively early in the construction phase. Fills are typically placed and compacted in a uniform manner. However as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, or rainfall/snow melt. As a result, the pavement subgrade may not be suitable for pavement construction and corrective action will be required. The subgrade should be carefully evaluated at the time of pavement construction for signs of disturbance or instability. We recommend the pavement subgrade be thoroughly proofrolled with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck prior to final grading and paving. All pavement areas should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to paving. 4.7.2 Pavements – Design Recommendations Design of pavements for the project have been based on the procedures outlined in the 1993 Guideline for Design of Pavement Structures prepared by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). A sample of the fill materials selected for swell-consolidation testing compressed approximately 0.03 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 150 psf which is less than the maximum 2 percent criteria established for determining if swell-mitigation procedures in the pavement sections Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 17 are required per LCUASS standards. Therefore, swell-mitigation of the subgrade materials prior to pavement operations is not required. Traffic patterns and anticipated loading conditions were not available at the time that this report was prepared. However, we anticipate that the new parking areas (i.e., light-duty) will be primarily used by personal vehicles (cars and pick-up trucks). Delivery trucks and refuse disposal vehicles will be expected in the drive lanes and loading areas (i.e., medium-duty). For our pavement thicknesses design recommendations, we assumed a 18-kip equivalent single- axle load (ESAL) of 73,000 for automobile parking areas and an ESAL of 365,000 for heavy truck traffic areas. These assumed traffic design values should be verified by the civil engineer or owner prior to final design and construction. If the actual traffic values vary from the assumed values, the pavement thickness recommendations may not be applicable. When the actual traffic design information is available Terracon should be contacted so that the design recommendations can be reviewed and revised if necessary. For flexible pavement design, a terminal serviceability index of 2.0 was utilized along with an inherent reliability of 85 percent and a design life of 20 years. Using the correlated design R-value of 5, appropriate ESAL, environmental criteria and other factors, the structural numbers (SN) of the pavement sections were determined on the basis of the 1993 AASHTO design equation. In addition to the flexible pavement design analyses, a rigid pavement design analysis was completed based upon AASHTO design procedures. Rigid pavement design 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 previously outlined. The design k-value of 100 for the subgrade soil was determined by correlation to the laboratory test results. A modulus of rupture of 600 psi (working stress 450 psi) was used for pavement concrete. The rigid pavement thickness for each traffic category was determined on the basis of the AASHTO design equation. Recommended minimum pavement sections are provided in the table below. Traffic Area Alternative Recommended Pavement Thicknesses (Inches) Asphaltic Concrete Surface Aggregate Base Course Portland Cement Concrete Total Automobile parking areas (light-duty) A 3½ 6 -- 9½ B -- -- 5 5 Heavy truck traffic areas (heavy-duty) A 4 8 -- 12 B -- -- 6 6 Aggregate base course (if used on the site) should consist of a blend of sand and gravel which meets strict specifications for quality and gradation. Use of materials meeting Colorado Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 18 Department of Transportation (CDOT) Class 5 or 6 specifications is recommended for aggregate base course. Aggregate base course should be placed in lifts not exceeding 6 inches and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM D698. Asphaltic concrete should be composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler and additives (if required) and approved bituminous material. The asphalt concrete should conform to approved mix designs stating the Superpave properties, optimum asphalt content, job mix formula and recommended mixing and placing temperatures. Aggregate used in asphalt concrete should meet particular gradations. Material meeting CDOT Grading S specifications or equivalent is recommended for asphalt concrete. Mix designs should be submitted prior to construction to verify their adequacy. Asphalt material should be placed in maximum 3-inch lifts and compacted within a range of 92 to 96 percent of the theoretical maximum (Rice) density (ASTM D2041). Where rigid pavements are used, the concrete should be obtained from an approved mix design with the following minimum properties: Properties Value Compressive strength 4,000 psi Cement type Type I or II portland cement Entrained air content (%) 5 to 8 Concrete aggregate ASTM C33 and CDOT Section 703 Concrete should be deposited by truck mixers or agitators and placed a maximum of 90 minutes from the time the water is added to the mix. Longitudinal and transverse joints should be provided as needed in concrete pavements for expansion/contraction and isolation per ACI 325. The location and extent of joints should be based upon the final pavement geometry. Joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and doweled where necessary for load transfer. For areas subject to concentrated and repetitive loading conditions such as dumpster pads, truck delivery docks and ingress/egress aprons, we recommend using a portland cement concrete pavement with a thickness of at least 6 inches underlain by at least 4 inches of granular base. Prior to placement of the granular base, the areas should be thoroughly proofrolled. For dumpster pads, the concrete pavement area should be large enough to support the container and tipping axle of the refuse truck. Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing preventive maintenance, the civil engineer should consider the following recommendations in the design and layout of pavements: Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 19 „ Site grades should slope a minimum of 2 percent away from the pavements; „ The subgrade and the pavement surface have a minimum 2 percent slope to promote proper surface drainage; „ Consider appropriate edge drainage and pavement under drain systems; „ Install pavement drainage surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting; „ Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately; „ Seal all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture migration to subgrade soils; and „ Placing compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter. 4.7.3 Pavements – Construction Considerations 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 the pavements with these conditions should include 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. 4.7.4 Pavements – Maintenance Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided for an ongoing pavement management program in order to enhance future pavement performance. Preventive maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventative maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 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. Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable 20 The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, and 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 described 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 SITE LOCATION MAP Ascent Studio Climbing Gym 2121 and 2127 South Timberline Road Lots 12 and 13, Timberline Center Fort Collins, CO TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: FORT COLLINS, CO (1/1/1984). 1901 Sharp Point Dr Suite C Ft. Collins, CO 20145015 Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: BCR EDB EDB 1:24,000 5/5/14 Project No. Scale: File Name: Date: A-1 EDB Exhibit EXPLORATION PLAN Ascent Studio Climbing Gym 2121 and 2127 South Timberline Road Lots 12 and 13, Timberline Center Fort Collins, CO 1901 Sharp Point Dr Suite C Ft. Collins, CO DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES 20145015 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS BCR EDB EDB E AS SHOWN 5/5/14 Scale: A-2 Project Manager: Exhibit Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: Project No. File Name: Date: EDB Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description The locations of borings were based upon the proposed development shown on the provided site plan. The borings were located in the field by measuring from existing site features. The ground surface elevation was surveyed at each boring location referencing the temporary benchmark shown on Exhibit A-2 using an engineer’s level. The borings were drilled with a CME-75 truck-mounted rotary drill rig with solid-stem augers. During the drilling operations, lithologic logs of the borings were recorded by the field engineer. Disturbed samples were obtained at selected intervals utilizing a 2-inch outside diameter split- spoon sampler and a 3-inch outside diameter ring-barrel sampler. Disturbed bulk samples were obtained from auger cuttings. Penetration resistance values were recorded in a manner similar to the standard penetration test (SPT). This test consists of driving the sampler into the ground with a 140-pound hammer free-falling through a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the ring-barrel sampler 12 inches (18 inches for standard split-spoon samplers, final 12 inches are recorded) or the interval indicated, is recorded as a standard penetration resistance value (N-value). The blow count values are indicated on the boring logs at the respective sample depths. Ring-barrel sample blow counts are not considered N-values. A CME automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the samplers 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 the 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 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 moisture content of the soil. 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. Groundwater measurements were obtained in the borings at the time of site exploration and several days after drilling. After subsequent groundwater measurements were obtained, the borings were backfilled with auger cuttings and sand (if needed). Some settlement of the backfill may occur and should be repaired as soon as possible. 0.5 3.0 25.0 28.0 33.0 35.0 VEGETATIVE LAYER - 6 inches FILL - CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL , light brown, medium dense SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace calcareous nodules, light brown to reddish-brown, medium stiff to stiff SILTY SAND, medium grained, light brown, dense WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, pinkish-brown, dense INTERBEDDED SILSTONE/CLAYSTONE, gray to dark gray, very hard Boring Terminated at 35 Feet 21-13 2-3-3 N=6 7-8 4-4-3 N=7 8-9-11 N=20 35-23-19 N=42 36-50/6" 62 18 12 17 17 10 20 90 107 38-12-26 96.5 94 72 69 64 62 0.011 Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic LOCATION DEPTH Latitude: 40.559396° Longitude: -105.041329° GRAPHIC LOG See Exhibit A-2 THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 20145015.GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE 3-31-14.GPJ 5/7/14 2121 South Timberline Road Lots 12 and 13 Fort Collins, Colorado SITE: PROJECT: Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Page 1 of 1 Advancement Method: 4-inch solid stem augers 0.5 1.0 22.0 26.0 29.5 34.3 VEGETATIVE LAYER - 6 inches FILL - CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL , light brown LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), trace calcareous nodules, light brown to reddish-brown, stiff to very stiff POORLY GRADED SAND, trace gravel, medium grained, light brown, dense WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, pinkish-brown, dense INTERBEDDED SILSTONE/CLAYSTONE, light gray to dark gray, very hard Boring Terminated at 34.3 Feet 4-3-5 N=8 3-4-4 N=8 7-10 9-11 8-9-21 N=30 17-21-17 N=38 100/4" -0.4 78 4 10 15 15 13 23 11 99 104 31-20-11 94.5 94 73 69 65.5 60.5 0.006 Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic LOCATION DEPTH Latitude: 40.559249° Longitude: -105.041027° GRAPHIC LOG See Exhibit A-2 THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 20145015.GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE 3-31-14.GPJ 5/7/14 2121 South Timberline Road Lots 12 and 13 Fort Collins, Colorado SITE: PROJECT: Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Page 1 of 1 0.5 1.0 20.0 25.0 28.0 33.0 35.0 VEGETATIVE LAYER - 6 inches FILL - CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL , medium grained, light brown SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace gravel, light brown to reddish-brown, stiff to very stiff CLAYEY SAND, trace gravel, fine to coarse grained, reddish-brown, medium dense to dense POORLY GRADED SAND, trace gravel, coarse grained, pinkish-brown, dense WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, pinkish-brown, very dense INTERBEDDED SILSTONE/CLAYSTONE, dark gray and rust, very hard Boring Terminated at 35 Feet 6-6 3-4-4 N=8 6-9 6-6-12 N=18 31-25-21 N=46 50/6" 25-50/6" -0.3 -0.7 6 20 12 14 5 11 14 21 80 110 96.5 96 77 72 69 64 62 Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic LOCATION DEPTH Latitude: 40.559056° Longitude: -105.041326° GRAPHIC LOG See Exhibit A-2 THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 20145015.GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE 3-31-14.GPJ 5/7/14 2121 South Timberline Road Lots 12 and 13 Fort Collins, Colorado SITE: 0.5 1.0 10.5 VEGETATIVE LAYER - 6 inches FILL - CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL , medium grained, light brown SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace gravel and calcareous nodules, light brown to reddish-brown, medium stiff to very stiff Boring Terminated at 10.5 Feet 9-11 4-2-2 N=4 4-4-4 N=8 -0.03 8 11 10 118 95.5 95 85.5 Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic LOCATION DEPTH Latitude: 40.559282° Longitude: -105.040632° GRAPHIC LOG See Exhibit A-2 THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 20145015.GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE 3-31-14.GPJ 5/7/14 2121 South Timberline Road Lots 12 and 13 Fort Collins, Colorado SITE: PROJECT: Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Page 1 of 1 Advancement Method: 4-inch solid stem augers Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. 1901 Sharp Point Drive, Suite C Fort Collins, Colorado Notes: Project No.: 20145015 Drill Rig: CME-75 Boring Started: 4/9/2014 BORING LOG NO. 4 CLIENT: Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness Fort Collins, Colorado Driller: Drilling Engineers, Inc. Boring Completed: 4/9/2014 Exhibit: A-7 See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. FIELD TEST RESULTS SWELL (%) PERCENT FINES 0.5 3.0 10.5 VEGETATIVE LAYER - 6 inches FILL - CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL , medium grained, light brown to dark brown, loose SANDY LEAN CLAY, light brown to reddish-brown, stiff Boring Terminated at 10.5 Feet 7-8 7-6-5 N=11 6-4-4 N=8 20 65 7 15 102 35-18-17 97 94.5 87 Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic LOCATION DEPTH Latitude: 40.558949° Longitude: -105.040643° GRAPHIC LOG See Exhibit A-2 THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 20145015.GPJ TEMPLATE UPDATE 3-31-14.GPJ 5/7/14 2121 South Timberline Road Lots 12 and 13 Fort Collins, Colorado SITE: PROJECT: Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Page 1 of 1 Advancement Method: 4-inch solid stem augers Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. 1901 Sharp Point Drive, Suite C Fort Collins, Colorado Notes: Project No.: 20145015 Drill Rig: CME-75 Boring Started: 4/9/2014 BORING LOG NO. 5 CLIENT: Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness Fort Collins, Colorado Driller: Drilling Engineers, Inc. Boring Completed: 4/9/2014 Exhibit: A-8 See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. FIELD TEST RESULTS SWELL (%) APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Geotechnical Engineering Report Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Ŷ Fort Collins, Colorado May 7, 2014 Ŷ Terracon Project No. 20145015 Responsive Ŷ Resourceful Ŷ Reliable Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Description The soil and bedrock samples retrieved during the field exploration were returned to the laboratory for observation by the project geotechnical engineer. At that time, the field descriptions were reviewed and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil and bedrock samples. The results of these tests are presented on the boring logs and in this appendix. The test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses, and the development of foundation and earthwork recommendations. The laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with applicable locally accepted standards. Soil samples were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described in Appendix C. Rock samples were visually classified in general accordance with the description of rock properties presented in Appendix C. „ Water content „ Plasticity index „ Grain-size distribution „ Consolidation/swell „ Dry density „ Water-soluble sulfate content APPENDIX C SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Exhibit: C-1 Unconfined Compressive Strength Qu, (tsf) 0.25 to 0.50 1.00 to 2.00 > 4.00 less than 0.25 0.50 to 1.00 2.00 to 4.00 Non-plastic Low Medium High DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS Hand Penetrometer Torvane Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Photo-Ionization Detector Organic Vapor Analyzer SAMPLING WATER LEVEL FIELD TESTS (HP) (T) (DCP) (PID) (OVA) GENERAL NOTES 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 0.075mm Passing #200 sieve (0.075mm) Particle Size < 5 5 - 12 > 12 Percent of Dry Weight Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES 0 1 - 10 11 - 30 > 30 Plasticity Index Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally 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 in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES Percent of Dry Weight Major Component of Sample UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Exhibit C-2 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. DESCRIPTION OF ROCK PROPERTIES Exhibit C-3 WEATHERING Fresh Rock fresh, crystals bright, few joints may show slight staining. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline. Very slight Rock generally fresh, joints stained, some joints may show thin clay coatings, crystals in broken face show bright. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline. Slight Rock generally fresh, joints stained, and discoloration extends into rock up to 1 in. Joints may contain clay. In granitoid rocks some occasional feldspar crystals are dull and discolored. Crystalline rocks ring under hammer. Moderate Significant portions of rock show discoloration and weathering effects. In granitoid rocks, most feldspars are dull and discolored; some show clayey. Rock has dull sound under hammer and shows significant loss of strength as compared with fresh rock. Moderately severe All rock except quartz discolored or stained. In granitoid rocks, all feldspars dull and discolored and majority show kaolinization. Rock shows severe loss of strength and can be excavated with geologist’s pick. Severe All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock “fabric” clear and evident, but reduced in strength to strong soil. In granitoid rocks, all feldspars kaolinized to some extent. Some fragments of strong rock usually left. Very severe All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock “fabric” discernible, but mass effectively reduced to “soil” with only fragments of strong rock remaining. Complete Rock reduced to ”soil”. Rock “fabric” not discernible or discernible only in small, scattered locations. Quartz may be present as dikes or stringers. HARDNESS (for engineering description of rock – not to be confused with Moh’s scale for minerals) Very hard Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp pick. Breaking of hand specimens requires several hard blows of geologist’s pick. Hard Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty. Hard blow of hammer required to detach hand specimen. Moderately hard Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves to ¼ in. deep can be excavated by hard blow of point of a geologist’s pick. Hand specimens can be detached by moderate blow. Medium Can be grooved or gouged 1/16 in. deep by firm pressure on knife or pick point. Can be excavated in small chips to pieces about 1-in. maximum size by hard blows of the point of a geologist’s pick. Soft Can be gouged or grooved readily with knife or pick point. Can be excavated in chips to pieces several inches in size by moderate blows of a pick point. Small thin pieces can be broken by finger pressure. Very soft Can be carved with knife. Can be excavated readily with point of pick. Pieces 1-in. or more in thickness can be broken with finger pressure. Can be scratched readily by fingernail. Joint, Bedding, and Foliation Spacing in Rock a Spacing Joints Bedding/Foliation Less than 2 in. Very close Very thin 2 in. – 1 ft. Close Thin 1 ft. – 3 ft. Moderately close Medium 3 ft. – 10 ft. Wide Thick More than 10 ft. Very wide Very thick a. Spacing refers to the distance normal to the planes, of the described feature, which are parallel to each other or nearly so. Rock Quality Designator (RQD) a Joint Openness Descriptors RQD, as a percentage Diagnostic description Openness Descriptor Exceeding 90 Excellent No Visible Separation Tight 90 – 75 Good Less than 1/32 in. Slightly Open 75 – 50 Fair 1/32 to 1/8 in. Moderately Open 50 – 25 Poor 1/8 to 3/8 in. Open Less than 25 Very poor 3/8 in. to 0.1 ft. Moderately Wide a. RQD (given as a percentage) = length of core in pieces Greater than 0.1 ft. Wide 4 in. and longer/length of run. References: American Society of Civil Engineers. Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice - No. 56. Subsurface Investigation for Design and Construction of Foundations of Buildings. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1976. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering Geology Field Manual. Exhibit C-4 LABORATORY TEST SIGNIFICANCE AND PURPOSE Test Significance Purpose California Bearing Ratio Used to evaluate the potential strength of subgrade soil, subbase, and base course material, including recycled materials for use in road and airfield pavements. Pavement Thickness Design Consolidation Used to develop an estimate of both the rate and amount of both differential and total settlement of a structure. Foundation Design Direct Shear Used to determine the consolidated drained shear strength of soil or rock. Bearing Capacity, Foundation Design, and Slope Stability Dry Density Used to determine the in-place density of natural, inorganic, fine-grained soils. Index Property Soil Behavior Expansion Used to measure the expansive potential of fine-grained soil and to provide a basis for swell potential classification. Foundation and Slab Design Gradation Used for the quantitative determination of the distribution of particle sizes in soil. Soil Classification Liquid & Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index Used as an integral part of engineering classification systems to characterize the fine-grained fraction of soils, and to specify the fine-grained fraction of construction materials. Soil Classification Permeability Used to determine the capacity of soil or rock to conduct a liquid or gas. Groundwater Flow Analysis pH Used to determine the degree of acidity or alkalinity of a soil. Corrosion Potential Resistivity Used to indicate the relative ability of a soil medium to carry electrical currents. Corrosion Potential R-Value Used to evaluate the potential strength of subgrade soil, subbase, and base course material, including recycled materials for use in road and airfield pavements. Pavement Thickness Design Soluble Sulfate Used to determine the quantitative amount of soluble sulfates within a soil mass. Corrosion Potential Exhibit C-5 REPORT TERMINOLOGY (Based on ASTM D653) Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity The recommended maximum contact stress developed at the interface of the foundation element and the supporting material. Alluvium Soil, the constituents of which have been transported in suspension by flowing water and subsequently deposited by sedimentation. Aggregate Base Course A layer of specified material placed on a subgrade or subbase usually beneath slabs or pavements. Backfill A specified material placed and compacted in a confined area. Bedrock A natural aggregate of mineral grains connected by strong and permanent cohesive forces. Usually requires drilling, wedging, blasting or other methods of extraordinary force for excavation. Bench A horizontal surface in a sloped deposit. Caisson (Drilled Pier or Shaft) A concrete foundation element cast in a circular excavation which may have an enlarged base. Sometimes referred to as a cast-in-place pier or drilled shaft. Coefficient of Friction A constant proportionality factor relating normal stress and the corresponding shear stress at which sliding starts between the two surfaces. Colluvium Soil, the constituents of which have been deposited chiefly by gravity such as at the foot of a slope or cliff. Compaction The densification of a soil by means of mechanical manipulation Concrete Slab-on- Grade A concrete surface layer cast directly upon a base, subbase or subgrade, and typically used as a floor system. Differential Movement Unequal settlement or heave between, or within foundation elements of structure. Earth Pressure The pressure exerted by soil on any boundary such as a foundation wall. ESAL Equivalent Single Axle Load, a criteria used to convert traffic to a uniform standard, (18,000 pound axle loads). Engineered Fill Specified material placed and compacted to specified density and/or moisture conditions under observations of a representative of a geotechnical engineer. Equivalent Fluid A hypothetical fluid having a unit weight such that it will produce a pressure against a lateral support presumed to be equivalent to that produced by the actual soil. This simplified approach is valid only when deformation conditions are such that the pressure increases linearly with depth and the wall friction is neglected. Existing Fill (or Man-Made Fill) Materials deposited throughout the action of man prior to exploration of the site. Existing Grade The ground surface at the time of field exploration. Exhibit C-6 REPORT TERMINOLOGY (Based on ASTM D653) Expansive Potential The potential of a soil to expand (increase in volume) due to absorption of moisture. Finished Grade The final grade created as a part of the project. Footing A portion of the foundation of a structure that transmits loads directly to the soil. Foundation The lower part of a structure that transmits the loads to the soil or bedrock. Frost Depth The depth at which the ground becomes frozen during the winter season. Grade Beam A foundation element or wall, typically constructed of reinforced concrete, used to span between other foundation elements such as drilled piers. Groundwater Subsurface water found in the zone of saturation of soils or within fractures in bedrock. Heave Upward movement. Lithologic The characteristics which describe the composition and texture of soil and rock by observation. Native Grade The naturally occurring ground surface. Native Soil Naturally occurring on-site soil, sometimes referred to as natural soil. Optimum Moisture Content The water content at which a soil can be compacted to a maximum dry unit weight by a given compactive effort. Perched Water Groundwater, usually of limited area maintained above a normal water elevation by the presence of an intervening relatively impervious continuous stratum. Scarify To mechanically loosen soil or break down existing soil structure. Settlement Downward movement. Skin Friction (Side Shear) The frictional resistance developed between soil and an element of the structure such as a drilled pier. Soil (Earth) Sediments or other unconsolidated accumulations of solid particles produced by the physical and chemical disintegration of rocks, and which may or may not contain organic matter. Strain The change in length per unit of length in a given direction. Stress The force per unit area acting within a soil mass. Strip To remove from present location. Subbase A layer of specified material in a pavement system between the subgrade and base course. Subgrade The soil prepared and compacted to support a structure, slab or pavement system. Unconfined Compression To obtain the approximate compressive strength of soils that possess sufficient cohesion to permit testing in the unconfined state. Bearing Capacity Analysis for Foundations Water Content Used to determine the quantitative amount of water in a soil mass. Index Property Soil Behavior 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 = 10 60 2 30 D x D (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. Trace With Modifier RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Trace With Modifier DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents < 15 15 - 29 > 30 Term PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs are the levels measured in the borehole at the times indicated. Groundwater level variations will occur over time. In low permeability soils, accurate determination of groundwater levels is not possible with short term water level observations. Water Level After a Specified Period of Time Water Level After a Specified Period of Time Water Initially Encountered Modified Dames & Moore Ring Sampler Standard Penetration Test Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracy of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area. STRENGTH TERMS BEDROCK Loose Medium Dense Dense 0 - 3 4 - 9 10 - 29 30 - 50 7 - 18 19 - 58 Very Soft Soft Medium-Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Standard Penetration or N-Value Blows/Ft. 2 - 4 4 - 8 8 - 15 < 3 5 - 9 19 - 42 > 42 30 - 49 50 - 89 20 - 29 Medium Hard Very Dense RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS Descriptive Term (Density) Very Loose > 50 Ring Sampler Blows/Ft. 0 - 6 59 - 98 > 99 Descriptive Term (Consistency) Hard 0 - 1 Ring Sampler Blows/Ft. 3 - 4 10 - 18 Ring Sampler Blows/Ft. < 30 90 - 119 Standard Penetration or N-Value Blows/Ft. Descriptive Term (Consistency) Weathered Firm Very Hard CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.) Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance (50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.) Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance Standard Penetration or N-Value Blows/Ft. _ 15 - 30 > 30 > 119 < 20 30 - 49 50 - 79 >79 Hard PERCENT FINES WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI ELEVATION (Ft.) Surface Elev.: 97.6 (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) 5 10 SAMPLE TYPE WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SULFATES (%) No free water observed WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI ELEVATION (Ft.) Surface Elev.: 95.8 (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) 5 10 SAMPLE TYPE WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SULFATES (%) No free water observed WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS PROJECT: Ascent Studio Climbing Gym Page 1 of 1 Advancement Method: 4-inch solid stem augers Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. 1901 Sharp Point Drive, Suite C Fort Collins, Colorado Notes: Project No.: 20145015 Drill Rig: CME-75 Boring Started: 4/9/2014 BORING LOG NO. 3 CLIENT: Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness Fort Collins, Colorado Driller: Drilling Engineers, Inc. Boring Completed: 4/9/2014 Exhibit: A-6 See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. FIELD TEST RESULTS SWELL (%) PERCENT FINES WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI ELEVATION (Ft.) Surface Elev.: 97.1 (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SAMPLE TYPE WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SULFATES (%) While drilling 4/14/14 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Advancement Method: 4-inch solid stem augers Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. 1901 Sharp Point Drive, Suite C Fort Collins, Colorado Notes: Project No.: 20145015 Drill Rig: CME-75 Boring Started: 4/9/2014 BORING LOG NO. 2 CLIENT: Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness Fort Collins, Colorado Driller: Drilling Engineers, Inc. Boring Completed: 4/9/2014 Exhibit: A-5 See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. FIELD TEST RESULTS SWELL (%) PERCENT FINES WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI ELEVATION (Ft.) Surface Elev.: 94.9 (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) 5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLE TYPE WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SULFATES (%) While drilling 4/14/14 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. 1901 Sharp Point Drive, Suite C Fort Collins, Colorado Notes: Project No.: 20145015 Drill Rig: CME-75 Boring Started: 4/9/2014 BORING LOG NO. 1 CLIENT: Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness Fort Collins, Colorado Driller: Drilling Engineers, Inc. Boring Completed: 4/9/2014 Exhibit: A-4 See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. FIELD TEST RESULTS SWELL (%) PERCENT FINES WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL-PL-PI ELEVATION (Ft.) Surface Elev.: 96.9 (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SAMPLE TYPE WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SULFATES (%) While drilling 4/14/14 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS