Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAFFINITY AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - PDP150010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - GEOTECHNICAL (SOILS) REPORT (3)SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT PROPOSED AFFINITY AT FORT COLLINS APARTMENTS 2600 EAST HARMONY ROAD FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1142094 Prepared for: Inland Group 1620 North Mamer Road – Building B Spokane Valley, Washington 99216 Attn: Mr. Mark Ossello (marko@inlandconstruction.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 15, 2014 Inland Group 1620 North Mamer Road, Building B Spokane, Washington 99203 Attn: Mr. Mark Ossello (marko@inlandconstruction.com) Re: Subsurface Exploration Report Proposed Affinity at Fort Collins Apartments 2600 East Harmony Road Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1142094 Mr. Ossello: Enclosed, herewith, are the results of the geotechnical subsurface exploration completed by Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC personnel for the referenced project. For this exploration, seventeen (17) soil borings were completed at “pre-determined” locations across the site to obtain information on existing subsurface conditions. This exploration was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated November 11, 2014. In summary, the in-place subgrade soils in the site improvement areas consisted of cohesive sandy lean clay / lean clay with sand, exhibiting relatively dry, very stiff to stiff, near surface moderately to highly expansive zones. We recommend reworking the top 6 feet of subgrade materials in the building(s) and flatwork areas to reduce the potential for post-construction heaving of the overlying improvements with expansion of in-place subgrade soils. The overexcavation depth could be reduced to 2 feet in the pavement areas although a greater amount of post-construction heaving would be expected with the reduced overexcavation depth. We believe the site building(s) could be supported by footing foundations bearing on the site fill materials. Fly ash stabilization of the pavement subgrades should be expected with the moisture conditioned subgrades. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT PROPOSED AFFINITY AT FORT COLLINS APARTMENTS 2600 EAST HARMONY ROAD FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1142094 December 15, 2014 INTRODUCTION The subsurface exploration for the proposed apartment building, pool building, parking garages and drive/parking pavements for the proposed Affinity at Fort Collins development in Fort Collins, Colorado, has been completed. For this exploration, seventeen (17) soil borings were completed at “pre-determined” locations across the site to obtain information on existing subsurface conditions. Borings B-1 thru B-8 were located within the proposed apartment building area and were extended to approximate depths of 15 to 30 feet below existing site grades. Borings B-9 and B-10 were extended to depths of approximately 15 to 30 feet within the proposed pool building area and borings B-11 thru B-17 were located within proposed garage and pavement areas and extended to approximate depths of 10 to 15 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 involves the development of the Affinity at Fort Collins complex North of East Harmony Road and west of Corbett Drive in Fort Collins. The complex will include a pool building, a play/pickle ball court, community garden and access/parking pavement areas and garages in addition to an approximate 56,000 sf (plan area) 3-story wood frame apartment building. Foundation loads for the apartment building are expected to be less than 4 klf for continuous wall loads and less than 150 kips for individual column loads. Floor loads will be light. We expect site flatwork will include patio areas and an indoor pool deck with low tolerance for movement. Site pavements will carry low to moderate volumes of light vehicle traffic. We expect cuts and fills less than 5 feet will be completed to develop design site grades. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the completed test borings, analyze and evaluate the test data, and provide geotechnical recommendations concerning design and construction of the building(s) foundations and support of floor slabs, flatwork, and pavements. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 2 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES The boring locations were established in the field by Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC (EEC) personnel using a hand held GPS unit with coordinates referenced from Google maps. The approximate locations of the test borings are indicated on the attached boring location diagram. The locations of the test borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to make the field measurements. The test borings were drilled 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 procedures in general accordance with ASTM Specifications D1586 and D3550, respectively. In the split barrel and California barrel sampling procedures, standard sampling spoons are advanced into the ground with a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the split barrel and California barrel samplers is recorded and is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and, to a lesser degree of accuracy, the consistency of cohesive soils and hardness of weathered bedrock. In the California barrel sampling procedure, samples of the subsurface soils are obtained in removable brass liners. All samples obtained in the field were sealed and returned to our laboratory for further examination, classification, and testing. Laboratory moisture content tests were completed on each of the recovered samples. In addition, the unconfined strength of appropriate samples was estimated using a calibrated hand penetrometer. Atterberg limits and washed sieve analysis tests were completed to evaluate the quantity and plasticity of fines in the subgrade samples. Swell/consolidation tests were completed on selected samples to evaluate the potential for the subgrade and foundation bearing materials to change volume with variation in moisture and load. Soluble sulfate tests were completed to help evaluate the potential for sulfate attack on site cast concrete. Results of the outlined tests are indicated on the attached boring logs and summary sheets. As 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 soil’s texture and plasticity. The estimated group symbol for the Unified Soil Classification System is indicated on the boring logs and a brief description of that classification system is included with Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 3 this report. Classification of the bedrock was based on visual and tactual evaluation of auger cuttings and disturbed samples. Coring and/or petrographic analysis may reveal other rock types. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed Affinity at Fort Collins development will be located on an approximate 7.22 acre parcel north of East Harmony Road and west of Corbett Drive in Fort Collins. The development property is presently open field with sparse vegetation ground cover. Ground surface in this area generally slopes toward the east and north with maximum difference in surface elevation across the site on the order of 5 feet. No evidence of prior building construction was observed in the field by EEC personnel, however, there is an approximate 6-foot stockpile of soil located at the south end of the property on the west half. Prior to use of the stockpile materials, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the material is suitable for fill/backfill. An EEC field engineer was on site during drilling to evaluate the subsurface conditions encountered and direct 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, sparse vegetation and topsoil was encountered at the surface at the boring locations. The underlying soils generally consisted of lean clay with varying amounts of sand and occasional gravel. Calcareous zones were typically observed within the cohesive soils. Occasional zones of clayey sand with gravel were observed at varying depths. The cohesive soils were underlain in a portion of the borings by weathered sandstone/siltstone/claystone bedrock at depths ranging from approximately 23 feet to 29 feet. The site borings were terminated at depths of approximately 10 to 30 feet in either cohesive subgrade soils or underlying bedrock. The near surface cohesive soil was generally relatively dry and dense, exhibiting moderate to high swell potential. The deeper soils generally showed increased moisture and generally exhibited lower swell potential. The near surface soils were generally very stiff to stiff in consistency becoming stiff to medium stiff with increased depth. The occasional clayey sand and gravel layers were generally dense to medium-dense. The underlying bedrock was generally moderately hard to hard. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 4 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 of the borings to detect the presence and depth to hydrostatic groundwater. At the time of our field exploration, groundwater was encountered at depths generally in the range of approximately 16 to 21 feet below existing site grades. Groundwater was not observed at all boring locations. The water level measurements completed at the time of our exploration are indicated in the upper right hand corner of the attached boring logs. Fluctuations in groundwater levels can occur over time depending on variations in hydrologic conditions and other conditions not apparent at the time of this report. Monitoring in cased borings, sealed from the influence of surface infiltration, would be required to more accurately evaluate groundwater levels and fluctuations in the groundwater levels over time. Zones of perched and/or trapped groundwater may occur at times in more permeable zones in the subsurface soils. The location and amount of perched water is dependent upon several factors, including hydrologic conditions, type of site development, irrigation demands on or adjacent to the site, and seasonal and weather conditions. The observations provided in this report represent groundwater conditions at the time of the field exploration, and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations. 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, 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. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 5 For this assessment, we conducted fourteen (14) swell-consolidation tests on soil samples obtained from the California barrel sampler. The swell index values for the in-situ near surface soil samples generally revealed moderate to high 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 soil materials collapse/consolidation potential characteristics when inundated with water. 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, % (+/-) 1 9 Brown, Reddish Sandy Lean Clay 8.6 119.4 500 (+) 1.3 2 4 Brown Lean Clay with Sand 9.6 107.1 500 (+) 2.9 3 4 Brown Sandy Lean Clay / Lean Clay with Sand 7.7 117.9 500 (+) 6.7 4 4 Brown Sandy Lean Clay / Lean Clay with Sand 9.3 107.1 500 (+) 1.2 5 2 Brown Sandy Lean Clay / Lean Clay with Sand 11.4 111.4 150 (+) 4.5 7 9 Red Clayey Sand with Gravel 10.0 115.8 500 (+) 1.1 9 9 Red Clayey Sand with Gravel 5.1 120.5 500 (+) 0.5 10 4 Brown Lean Clay with Sand 10.5 110.0 500 (+) 4.0 11 2 Brown Sandy Lean Clay / Lean Clay with Sand 11.2 114.4 150 (+) 10.8 12 4 Brown Sandy Lean Clay / Lean Clay with Sand 10.6 112.6 500 (+) 3.3 13 2 Brown Lean Clay with Sand 11.1 109.3 150 (+) 10.4 14 4 Brown Sandy Lean Clay / Lean Clay with Sand 11.8 111.1 500 (+) 3.1 15 2 Brown Lean Clay with Sand 10.7 104.8 150 (+) 7.3 16 9 Brown Lean Clay with Sand 15.8 116.7 500 (+) 0.9 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 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 6 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 commonly within the moderate to high range near surface and lower swell with increased depth. The higher swell-index values were of dry and dense subgrade samples obtained at depths of 2 to 4 feet. In our opinion, these subsoils when over-excavated, moisture conditioned and properly placed and compacted as engineered/controlled fill material would most likely reveal generally low swell potential results. Site Preparation All existing topsoil/vegetation should be removed from the site improvement areas. The variability of the existing subsoils (please refer to the boring logs presented in the Appendix of this report and note the moderately to highly expansive near surface cohesive soils) at approximate foundation and slab subgrade elevations could result in significant total and differential movement of conventional foundation and floor slab-on-grade should the expansive soils become elevated in moisture content. The swell index values for the samples analyzed revealed low to moderate to high swelling characteristics on the order of (+) 0.5 to (+) 10.8% at varying loading conditions, with an overall average of about (+) 4.1%. Without an extensive over-excavation and replacement concept, movement of conventional foundations and floor slabs is estimated to be on the order of 4 to 6 inches or more. Therefore, to reduce the potential movement of foundation and floor slabs, included herein are recommendations for an over-excavation and replacement concept. If the owner cannot tolerate the amount of floor slab movement predicted with the overexcavation process, consideration could be given to the use of a structural floor system, supported independent of the subgrade soils. A common practice to reduce potential foundation and slab movement/heave involves over- excavation of the expansive soils and replacing these materials with low to non-expansive moisture conditioned engineered fill material and/or with an approved imported structural/granular fill material. This alternative over-excavation and replacement concept will not eliminate the possibility Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 7 of foundation and/or slab heave; but movements should be reduced and tend to be more uniform. Constructing improvements (i.e. buildings, flatwork, pavements, floor slabs, etc.) on a site which exhibits potential for swelling is inherently at high risk for post construction heaving, causing distress of site improvements. The following recommendations provided herein are to reduce the risk of post construction heaving; however, that risk cannot be eliminated. If the owner does not accept that risk, we would be pleased to provide more stringent recommendations. After removal of all topsoil/vegetation within the planned development areas, as well as removal of unacceptable or unsuitable subsoils and removal of overexcavation materials, 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 – 1 to +3% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content and compacted to within the range of 94 to 98% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D698. Foundation Bearing Strata Preparation To reduce the potential of foundation movement and allow for the use of a conventional spread footing foundation system, we recommend the entire building(s) footprint be over-excavated. The over-excavation should extend to a depth of at least 6 feet below existing site grades or final site grade, (whichever results in the deeper excavation), and be replaced with either on-site subsoils reconditioned to (-) 1% to (+) 3% of the material’s optimum moisture content and compacted to be within the range of 94 – 98% of standard Proctor maximum dry density or with an approved imported structural fill material. The over-excavated areas should extend laterally in all directions beyond the edges of the foundation a minimum of 5 feet. Fill materials used to replace the over-excavated zone and establish the conventional spread footing foundation bearing zone, after the initial zone has been moisture conditioned/stabilized as discussed in the “Site Preparation” section, should consist of approved on-site cohesive subsoils moisture conditioned and compacted as previously described or an imported structural fill material which is free from organic matter and debris. Structural fill consisting of CDOT Class 6 or 7 aggregate base course (ABC) materials or approved recycled concrete could be considered. Structural fill material should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick and adjusted to a moisture content range of +/-3% of optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Specification D698. The over-excavation and replacement concept when completed will in essence, provide a minimum 6 foot separation from bottom of the finish floor slab, Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 8 and a minimum of 3 feet of separation below the exterior perimeter footings, assuming a minimum frost depth of 30 inches. Spread Footing Foundation System Recommendations Footing foundations bearing on a zone of approved engineered reconditioned on-site subsoils or a zone of imported structural fill material, placed and compacted as previously outlined, could be designed for a maximum net allowable total load bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Total loads include full dead and live load conditions. We estimate the long-term settlement of footing foundations, designed and constructed as outlined above, would be approximately 1-inch. After placement of the fill materials, care should be taken to avoid excessive wetting or drying of those materials. Bearing 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 or reworked in place prior to construction of the overlying improvements. The outlined steps for preparing bearing materials will significantly reduce but not eliminate the potential for movement of the building with heaving of the underlying materials. Over-excavation to a greater depth of material could be considered to further reduce the potential for post-construction movement. Exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas should be located at least 30 inches below adjacent exterior grade to provide frost protection. We recommend formed continuous footings have a minimum width of 12 inches and isolated column foundations have a minimum width of 24 inches. Floor Slab/Flatwork Design and Construction Recommendations Assuming the owners are willing to accept total and differential movements of the floor as outlined herein, an over-excavation and replacement concept could be considered. As previously recommended the entire building should be over-excavated to a depth of at least 6 feet below existing site grades and replaced either moisture conditioned on-site engineered fill material and/or approved imported structural fill material. An underslab gravel layer or thin leveling course could be used underneath the concrete floor slabs to provide a capillary break mechanism, a load distribution layer, and as a leveling course for the concrete placement. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 9 Failure to limit the intrusion of water from any source (i.e., surface water infiltration, seepage from nearby detention ponds if applicable, and/or adjacent utility trenches bedding zone, run-off, etc.) into the underlying expansive subgrade materials could result in movement greater than those outlined herein. The following table provides estimates for the total and differential amounts of movement which could be expected with an over-excavation replacement concept with either on-site reconditioned on-site subsoils or with a non-expansive imported structural/granular fill material, should the soils underlying the over-excavated zone become elevated in moisture content to a reasonable depth. Calculated Heave Potential Depth of Removal of Expansive Soil and Replacement with Low to Non Expansive Fill Materials (ft) Calculated Heave Potential, Inches Re-Conditioned On-Site Cohesive Soils as Engineered Fill Material Imported Structural/Granular Fill Material 0 > 5" > 5” 4 2-1/2” 1-1/2” 6 < 1-1/2" < 1” It should be noted that the heave potential is the heave that could occur if subsurface moisture increases sufficiently subsequent to construction. When subsurface moisture does not increase, or increases only nominally, the full heave potential may not be realized. For this reason, and assuming some surface water run-off will be controlled with grading contours, drainage swales, etc., we provided surface slope and drainage recommendations in our report to reduce the potential for surface water infiltration. With appropriate surface features to limit the amount infiltration, we would not expect the full amount of potential heave to occur. Additional floor slab design and construction recommendations are as follows:  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 provided in slabs to control the location and extent of cracking.  Interior trench backfill placed beneath slabs should be compacted in a similar manner as previously described for imported structural fill material.  Floor slabs should not be constructed on frozen subgrade.  Other design and construction considerations, as outlined in the ACI Design Manual, Section 302.1R are recommended. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 10 Positive drainage should be developed away from the building with a minimum slope of 1 inch per foot for the first 10 feet away from the structure within landscape areas. Flatter slopes can be developed in flatwork areas provided positive drainage is maintained away from the structure. Seismic Conditions The site soil conditions consist of approximately 23 to 27-feet of overburden soils overlying moderately hard bedrock. For those site conditions, the 2012 International Building Code indicates a Seismic Site Classification of D. Lateral Earth Pressures For any site improvements being constructed below grade, including the swimming pool, those improvements 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. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 11 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 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. Pool / Pool Building Design and Construction As currently planned, the proposed project will include the construction of a swimming pool in a freestanding building. The construction and performance of the pool and surrounding structure will be dependent upon the amount of seepage from the pool impacting the in-situ moderate to high swell potential subsoils. Based on the field results from Borings B-9 and B-10, it appears the pool will be excavated and constructed within the overburden/cohesive zone. The sandy lean clay / lean clay with sand overburden within the proposed pool building footprint, as evident by the swell-consolidation test results presented with this report, exhibited moderate to high swell potential. Groundwater was not encountered in Borings B-9 and B-10, however groundwater was observed at approximate depths of 16 to 21 feet below existing site grade across the site. Special precautions will be necessary to address the expansive subsoils and, depending on final site grades, the potential presence of groundwater during the construction of the proposed pool building. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 12 Following the removal of existing topsoil/vegetation as recommended in the “Site Preparation” section, EEC recommends the building foot print be over excavated 6 feet below the bottom of swimming pool grade and replaced with either moisture conditioned on-site engineered fill material and/or approved imported structural fill material reworked in the pool buildings area as recommended in the “Foundation Bearing Strata Preparation” to reduce the potential for the moderate swell in-place soils causing excessive post-construction heaving of the overlying pool. The over excavation should extend laterally1-foot for every foot of over excavated material outside the perimeter of the pool building. Following the removal of over excavation materials, the exposed soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted and fill/backfill materials placed and compacted as recommended in the “Foundation Bearing Strata Preparation” section. A drainage system should be provided around and beneath the pool according to general industry standards. To reduce possible damage that could be caused by movement of the subgrade soils, we recommend:  deck slabs be supported on fill material with no, or very low expansion or compressibility characteristics,  strict moisture-density control during placement of subgrade fills  placement of effective control joints on relatively close centers and isolation joints between slabs and other structural elements  provision for adequate drainage in areas adjoining the slabs  use of designs which allow vertical movement between the deck slabs and adjoining structural elements Pavements – Design and Construction Recommendations Since movement of pavements is generally more tolerable, we suggest the over excavation depth in the pavement areas could be reduced to 2 feet. We expect the site pavements will include areas designated primarily for light-duty/automobile traffic usage and areas for heavy-duty/garbage truck traffic. For design purposes we are using an assumed equivalent daily load axle (EDLA) rating of 5 to be used in the light-duty areas and an EDLA rating of 25 in the heavy-duty areas. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site we recommend the on-site parking area be designed using an R-value of 5. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 13 Due to the expansive characteristics of the overburden material zone, we recommend over-excavating a minimum of two (2) feet of the overburden 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; 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 to fly ash and the 2-foot reconditioned fill material would be to over-excavate and/or “cut to grade” to accommodate a minimum 2-foot layer of non-expansive granular soils to be placed and compacted beneath the pavement section. 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 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 subgrades should be thoroughly evaluated and proofrolled prior to pavement construction. Recommended pavement sections are provided in the table below. 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. 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. Composite HMA underlain by ABC pavements may show rutting and distress in truck loading and turning areas including trash removal trucks. Concrete pavements should be considered in those areas. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 14 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTIONS Automobile Parking Heavy Duty Areas 18-kip EDLA 18-kip ESAL Reliability Resilient Modulus PSI Loss 5 36,500 70% 3025 2.5 25 182,500 75% 3025 2.0 Design Structure Number 2.43 3.25 Composite: Hot Mix Asphalt - (0.44 strength coefficient) Aggregate Base Course - (0.11 strength coefficient) Fly Ash Treated Subgrade (0.05 strength coefficient) Design Structure Number 3-1/2" 4" 12" (2.58) 4" 8" 12" (3.24) PCC (Non-reinforced) – placed on a stable subgrade 5-1/2" 7" 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 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 failure of the pavement. Stabilization of the subgrades will reduce the potential for cracking of the pavements. 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: Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 15  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 without 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 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. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 Page 16 Soil Corrosivity The results of the soluble sulfate tests completed for this project have indicated low potential for sulfate attack on Portland cement concrete. ASTM Type I Portland cement may be suitable for concrete on and below site grade within the overburden soils. However, if there is no, or minimal cost differential, use of ASTM Type I/II Portland cement is recommended for additional sulfate resistance of construction concrete. Foundation concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4. Other Considerations Positive drainage should be developed away from the structures and pavement areas with a minimum slope of 1-inch per foot for the first 10 feet away from the improvements in landscape areas. Flatter slopes could be considered in hardscape/pavement 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 EEC Project No. 1142094 December 15, 2014 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 Inland Group 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. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC 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. Group Symbol Group Name Cu≥4 and 1<Cc≤3 E GW Well-graded gravel F Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3 E GP Poorly-graded gravel F Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel G,H Fines Classify as CL or CH GC Clayey Gravel F,G,H Cu≥6 and 1<Cc≤3 E SW Well-graded sand I Cu<6 and/or 1>Cc>3 E SP Poorly-graded sand I Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I inorganic PI>7 and plots on or above "A" Line CL Lean clay K,L,M PI<4 or plots below "A" Line ML Silt K,L,M organic Liquid Limit - oven dried Organic clay K,L,M,N Liquid Limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O 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 Organic clay K,L,M,P Liquid Limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O Highly organic soils PT Peat (D30)2 D10 x D60 GW-GM well graded gravel with silt NPI≥4 and plots on or above "A" line. GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay OPI≤4 or plots below "A" line. GP-GM poorly-graded gravel with silt PPI plots on or above "A" line. GP-GC poorly-graded gravel with clay QPI plots below "A" line. 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 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC IIf soil contains >15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name JIf Atterberg limits plots shaded area, soil is a CL- ML, Silty clay Unified Soil Classification System AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1142094 NOVEMBER 2014 DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 _ _ SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) 1 brown _ _ stiff to very stiff 2 with calcareous deposits _ _ CS 3 16 9000+ 11.1 105.8 _ _ 4 _ _ with traces of gravel SS 5 11 9000+ 8.7 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ brown / red CS 10 18 9000+ 8.6 119.4 35 22 60.3 2,000 psf 1.3% _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ SS 15 9 9000+ 17.1 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ brown / tan / rust CS 20 13 2500 21.4 109.2 stiff _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 CLAYEY SAND & GRAVEL (SC/GP) _ _ brown / grey / rust, dense SS 25 33 2000 17.3 Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 CLAYEY SAND & GRAVEL (SC/GP) _ _ brown / grey / rust 27 _ _ CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE 28 brown / grey / rust _ _ hard 29 _ _ CS 30 50/8" 9000+ 16.9 113.5 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 30.0' _ _ 31 _ _ 32 _ _ 33 _ _ 34 _ _ 35 _ _ 36 _ _ 37 _ _ 38 _ _ 39 _ _ 40 _ _ 41 _ _ 42 _ _ 43 _ _ 44 _ _ 45 _ _ 46 _ _ 47 _ _ 48 _ _ 49 _ _ 50 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 stiff to very stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 19 9000+ 9.6 107.1 41 27 79.1 2,500 psf 2.9% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ brown / red SS 10 10 9000+ 9.9 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ brown / grey / rust CS 15 32 9000 12.5 120.5 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.0' _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff to stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 19 9000+ 7.7 117.9 8,000 psf 6.7% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ SS 10 14 9000+ 8.3 _ _ 11 CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC) _ _ red 12 medium-dense _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ CS 15 14 7500 6.0 118.3 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) SS 20 9 3500 24.8 brown / tan / grey _ _ stiff to medium stiff 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 brown / grey / rust _ _ CS 25 6 500 19.3 111.7 Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 _ _ SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) 27 brown / grey / rust _ _ 28 _ _ 29 CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE _ _ brown / grey / rust SS 30 28 7000 11.1 highly weathered, moderately hard _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 30.5' 31 _ _ 32 _ _ 33 _ _ 34 _ _ 35 _ _ 36 _ _ 37 _ _ 38 _ _ 39 _ _ 40 _ _ 41 _ _ 42 _ _ 43 _ _ 44 _ _ 45 _ _ 46 _ _ 47 _ _ 48 _ _ 49 _ _ 50 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff to stiff with depth _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 17 9000+ 9.3 107.1 1,100 psf 1.2% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ SS 10 15 9000+ 9.8 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ CS 15 10 9000+ 17.4 108.4 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.0' _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 stiff to very stiff _ _ % @ 150 PSF with calcareous deposits CS 3 13 9000+ 11.4 111.4 3,500 4.5% _ _ 4 _ _ SS 5 9 9000 12.2 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ CS 10 30 9000+ 12.5 120.7 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ SS 15 8 4000 19.6 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.5' 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 stiff to medium-stiff with depth _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 14 9000+ 11.2 106.3 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ SS 10 16 9000+ 9.7 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ CS 15 5 2500 18.4 107.0 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.0' _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown / tan 2 stiff to medium-stiff to soft with depth _ _ CS 3 10 9000+ 11.8 108.8 _ _ 4 _ _ SS 5 11 9000+ 11.9 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC) _ _ red CS 10 32 9000+ 10.0 115.8 31 19 45.8 1,300 psf 1.1% dense _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown SS 15 7 3000 21.0 medium-stiff to soft with depth _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ CS 20 3 500 23.6 105.3 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE 24 brown / grey / rust / olive _ _ highly weathered, moderately hard to hard SS 25 28 8500 22.5 Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 / grey / rust / olive _ _ highly weathered 28 hard _ _ 29 _ _ CS 30 50/10" 9000+ 17.7 113.6 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 30.0' _ _ 31 _ _ 32 _ _ 33 _ _ 34 _ _ 35 _ _ 36 _ _ 37 _ _ 38 _ _ 39 _ _ 40 _ _ 41 _ _ 42 _ _ 43 _ _ 44 _ _ 45 _ _ 46 _ _ 47 _ _ 48 _ _ 49 _ _ 50 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 _ _ SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) 1 brown / tan _ _ stiff to medium stiff 2 with traces of gravel _ _ 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CL 5 11 9000+ 10.3 108.5 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ SS 10 6 9000+ 9.6 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ brown CS 15 6 500 22.9 103.0 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ brown / grey / rust SS 20 13 2000 20.7 with light gravel seams _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ CS 25 16 Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 / grey / rust _ _ moderately hard 28 _ _ 29 _ _ SS 30 46 9000+ 18.6 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 30.5' 31 _ _ 32 _ _ 33 _ _ 34 _ _ 35 _ _ 36 _ _ 37 _ _ 38 _ _ 39 _ _ 40 _ _ 41 _ _ 42 _ _ 43 _ _ 44 _ _ 45 _ _ 46 _ _ 47 _ _ 48 _ _ 49 _ _ 50 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 _ _ SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) 1 brown _ _ stiff 2 with calcareous deposits _ _ CS 3 11 9000+ 11.1 115.1 _ _ 4 _ _ SS 5 9 9000+ 11.4 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC) CS 10 20 9000+ 5.1 120.5 25 13 39.1 900 psf 0.5% red _ _ medium-dense 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown SS 15 9 6000 18.6 stiff _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.5' 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 stiff to very stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 13 9000 10.5 110.0 45 30 84.6 4,000 psf 4.0% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ brown / tan SS 10 24 9000+ 8.5 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 brown _ _ CS 15 22 9000+ 10.8 121.4 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ brown / grey / rust SS 20 11 4500 22.5 with traces of coarse sand _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE _ _ brown / grey / rust, soft to moderately hard CS 25 28 9000+ 19.5 109.8 Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 / grey / rust, moderately hard _ _ 28 _ _ 29 _ _ SS 30 20/4" 9000+ 15.6 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 30.5' 31 _ _ 32 _ _ 33 _ _ 34 _ _ 35 _ _ 36 _ _ 37 _ _ 38 _ _ 39 _ _ 40 _ _ 41 _ _ 42 _ _ 43 _ _ 44 _ _ 45 _ _ 46 _ _ 47 _ _ 48 _ _ 49 _ _ 50 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff _ _ % @ 150 PSF with calcareous deposits CS 3 30 9000+ 11.2 114.4 ~11,500 psf 10.8% _ _ 4 _ _ SS 5 19 9000+ 9.9 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ SS 10 23 9000 9.1 _ _ 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 AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 11 9000+ 10.6 112.6 3,000 psf 3.3% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ SS 10 9 9000+ 9.3 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ CS 15 8 3000 18.5 106.6 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.0' _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 stiff _ _ % @ 150 PSF with calcareous deposits CS 3 10 9000+ 11.1 109.3 40 23 77.5 7,000 psf 10.4% _ _ 4 _ _ SS 5 13 9000+ 10.0 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 with gravels _ _ SS 10 15 9000+ 9.0 _ _ 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 AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 stiff to very stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 13 9000+ 11.8 111.1 3,200 psf 3.1% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ SS 10 23 9000+ 8.0 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ CS 15 11 8500 17.4 111.3 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.0' _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _ 1 LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff to medium-stiff with depth _ _ % @ 150 PSF with calcareous deposits & traces of gravel CS 3 18 9000+ 10.7 104.8 41 24 82.0 4,000 psf 7.3% _ _ 4 _ _ SS 5 14 9000+ 8.6 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ brown / tan SS 10 7 9000+ 9.9 _ _ 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 AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 _ _ SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) - FILL 1 dark brown / grey / rust _ _ stiff to very stiff 2 _ _ 3 SS _ _ 13 9000+ 2.4 4 _ _ brown / rust 5 SS _ _ 18 9000+ 12.9 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) CS 10 14 9000+ 15.8 116.7 41 25 86.4 2,500 psf 0.9% brown _ _ stiff to very stiff 11 with calcareous deposits _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 brown / tan _ _ SS 15 15 9000+ 13.3 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.5' 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 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 TOPSOIL & VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY / LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff to soft to medium stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits & traces of coarse sand CS 3 19 9000+ 10.6 113.7 _ _ 4 _ _ with sandy seams SS 5 2 9000+ 11.6 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ SS 10 7 7500 12.7 _ _ 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 AFFINITY OF FORT COLLINS Project: Location: Project #: Date: SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown, Reddish Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Sample Location: Boring 1, Sample 3, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: 35 Plasticity Index: 22 % Passing #200: 60.3% Beginning Moisture: 8.6% Dry Density: 114.9 pcf Ending Moisture: 17.4% Swell Pressure: 2000 psf % Swell @ 500: 1.3% Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 December 2014 -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) Consolidatio Swell Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 December 2014 Beginning Moisture: 9.6% Dry Density: 101.9 pcf Ending Moisture: 22.7% Swell Pressure: 2500 psf % Swell @ 500: 2.9% Sample Location: Boring 2, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: 41 Plasticity Index: 27 % Passing #200: 79.1% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown 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) Consolidatio Swell Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 December 2014 Beginning Moisture: 7.7% Dry Density: 117.9 pcf Ending Moisture: Swell Pressure: 8000 psf % Swell @ 500: 6.7% Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay / 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) Consolidatio Swell Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 December 2014 Beginning Moisture: 9.3% Dry Density: 94.9 pcf Ending Moisture: 26.4% Swell Pressure: 1100 psf % Swell @ 500: 1.2% Sample Location: Boring 4, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay / 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) Consolidatio Swell Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 December 2014 Beginning Moisture: 11.4% Dry Density: 111.4 pcf Ending Moisture: 18.0% Swell Pressure: 3500 psf % Swell @ 150: 4.5% Sample Location: Boring 5, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay / 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) Consolidatio Swell Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 December 2014 Beginning Moisture: 10.0% Dry Density: 115.8 pcf Ending Moisture: 14.1% Swell Pressure: 1300 psf % Swell @ 500: 1.1% Sample Location: Boring 7, Sample 3, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: 31 Plasticity Index: 19 % Passing #200: 45.8% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown, Red Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) -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) Consolidatio Swell Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 December 2014 Beginning Moisture: 5.1% Dry Density: 115.7 pcf Ending Moisture: 13.8% Swell Pressure: 900 psf % Swell @ 500: 0.5% Sample Location: Boring 9, Sample 3, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: 25 Plasticity Index: 13 % Passing #200: 39.1% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Red Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) -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) Consolidatio Swell Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 December 2014 Beginning Moisture: 10.5% Dry Density: 107.7 pcf Ending Moisture: 22.2% Swell Pressure: 4000 psf % Swell @ 500: 4.0% Sample Location: Boring 10, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: 45 Plasticity Index: 30 % Passing #200: 84.6% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown 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) Consolidatio Swell Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 December 2014 Beginning Moisture: 11.2% Dry Density: 117 pcf Ending Moisture: 19.2% Swell Pressure: ~10,000 psf % Swell @ 150: 10.8% Sample Location: Boring 11, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay / Lean Clay with Sand (CL) -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Consolidatio Swell Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 December 2014 Beginning Moisture: 10.6% Dry Density: 112.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 19.8% Swell Pressure: 3000 psf % Swell @ 500: 3.3% Sample Location: Boring 12, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay / Lean Clay with Sand (CL) -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Consolidatio Swell Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 December 2014 Beginning Moisture: 11.1% Dry Density: 111.5 pcf Ending Moisture: 19.1% Swell Pressure: 7000 psf % Swell @ 150: 10.4% Sample Location: Boring 13, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: 40 Plasticity Index: 23 % Passing #200: 77.5% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL) -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Consolidatio Swell Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 December 2014 Beginning Moisture: 11.8% Dry Density: 100.3 pcf Ending Moisture: 22.5% Swell Pressure: 3200 psf % Swell @ 500: 3.1% Sample Location: Boring 14, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay / Lean Clay with Sand (CL) -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Consolidatio Swell Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 December 2014 Beginning Moisture: 10.7% Dry Density: 104.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 23.0% Swell Pressure: 4000 psf % Swell @ 150: 7.3% Sample Location: Boring 15, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: 41 Plasticity Index: 24 % Passing #200: 82.0% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL) -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Consolidatio Swell Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 December 2014 Beginning Moisture: 15.8% Dry Density: 112.9 pcf Ending Moisture: 19.2% Swell Pressure: 2500 psf % Swell @ 500: 0.9% Sample Location: Boring 16, Sample 3, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: 41 Plasticity Index: 25 % Passing #200: 86.4% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Consolidatio Swell Water Added 6" (152.4 mm) 5" (127 mm) 4" (101.6 mm) 3" (76 mm) 2 1/2" (63 mm) 2" (50 mm) 1 1/2" (37.5 mm) 1" (25 mm) 3/4" (19 mm) 1/2" (12.5 mm) 3/8" (9.5 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 8 (2.36 mm) No. 10 (2 mm) No. 16 (1.18 mm) No. 30 (0.6 mm) No. 40 (0.425 mm) No. 50 (0.3 mm) No. 100 (0.15 mm) No. 200 (0.075 mm) Project: Affinity of Fort Collins Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1142094 Sample ID: B3, S3, 14 Sample Desc.: Red Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) Date: December 2014 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) Sieve Size Percent Passing 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 92 86 80 78 72 64 59 54 45 34.1 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Date: Affinity of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado 1142094 B3, S3, 14 Red Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) December 2014 Project: Location: Project No: Sample ID: Sample Desc.: Cobble Silt or Clay Gravel Coarse Fine Sand Coarse Medium Fine 6" 5" 4" 3" 2.5" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" No. 4 No. 8 No. 10 No. 16 No. 30 No. 40 No. 50 No. 100 No. 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Finer by Weight (%) Grain Size (mm) Standard Sieve Size Water Soluble Sulfate Ion ‐ Measurement Project No: 1142094 Project Name: Affinity at Fort Collins No. of Samples: 6 Test Standards: CP‐L2103 / ASTM‐C1580 Measurement Date: 12/10/2014 Sample ID (mg/l or ppm) (% of Soil by Wt) 1B‐1 S‐2 4' 300 0.03 2B‐4 S‐2 9' 300 0.03 3B‐7 S‐2 4' 280 0.03 4B‐9 S‐2 4' 180 0.02 5B‐13 S‐2 4' 260 0.03 6B‐17 S‐1 2' 230 0.02 Soluble Sulfate Content (SO4) FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-17 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING None SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-16 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/26/2014 WHILE DRILLING None SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/26/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-15 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/26/2014 WHILE DRILLING None SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/26/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-14 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/26/2014 WHILE DRILLING None SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/26/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-13 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/26/2014 WHILE DRILLING None SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/26/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-12 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/26/2014 WHILE DRILLING None SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/26/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-11 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/26/2014 WHILE DRILLING None SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/26/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-10 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING None 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE A-LIMITS SWELL N/A FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-10 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING None SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-9 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING None SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-8 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING 17' 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE A-LIMITS SWELL N/A FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-8 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING 17' SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-7 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING 16.5' 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE A-LIMITS SWELL N/A FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-7 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING 16.5' SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-6 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING None SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-5 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING None SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-4 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING None SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-3 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING 16' 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE A-LIMITS SWELL N/A FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-3 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING 16' SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-2 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING None SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-1 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING 21' 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE A-LIMITS SWELL N/A FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142094 LOG OF BORING B-1 DECEMBER 2014 SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 11/25/2014 WHILE DRILLING 21' SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 11/25/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL Soil Classification Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests Sands 50% or more coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve <0.75 OL Gravels with Fines more than 12% fines Clean Sands Less than 5% fines Sands with Fines more than 12% fines Clean Gravels Less than 5% fines Gravels more than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Coarse - Grained Soils more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve CGravels with 5 to 12% fines required dual symbols: Kif soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel", whichever is predominant. <0.75 OH Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor ABased on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve ECu=D60/D10 Cc= HIf fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name LIf soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. MIf soil contains ≥30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. DSands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: BIf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. FIf soil contains ≥15% sand, add "with sand" to GIf fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC- CM, or SC-SM. Silts and Clays Liquid Limit less than 50 Silts and Clays Liquid Limit 50 or more 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) LIQUID LIMIT (LL) ML OR OL MH OR OH For Classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils. Equation of "A"-line Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5 then PI-0.73 (LL-20) Equation of "U"-line Vertical at LL=16 to PI-7, then PI=0.9 (LL-8) CL-ML HARDNESS AND DEGREE OF CEMENTATION: 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 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.