HomeMy WebLinkAbout625 S. PETERSON MULTI-FAMILY - PDP - PDP160005 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - GEOTECHNICAL (SOILS) REPORTGEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT
625 PETERSON STREET – PROPOSED EXPANSION
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EEC PROJECT NO. 1152122
Prepared for:
alm2s
712 Whalers Way
Building B, Suite 100
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Attn: Mr. Brad Massey (bmassey@alm2s.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
January 26, 2016
alm2s
712 Whalers Way
Building B, Suite 100
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Attn: Mr. Brad Massey (bmassey@alm2s.com)
Re: Geotechnical Exploration Report
625 Peterson Street – Proposed Expansion
Fort Collins, Colorado
EEC Project No. 1152122
Mr. Massey:
Enclosed herewith, are the results of the subsurface exploration completed by Earth Engineering
Consultants, LLC for the referenced project. For this exploration, three (3) soil borings were
extended to depths of approximately 10 to 25 feet below existing site grades within the proposed
addition and site improvements. In addition, three (3) shallow soil percolation related borings
were extended to depths of approximately 2 to 3½ feet below existing site grades within the
proposed pavement/parking area potentially utilizing permeable pavers as requested. This
subsurface exploration was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated December
8, 2016.
In summary, the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings generally consisted of
sandy lean clay to the depths explored except for boring B-2, which was underlain by poorly
graded sand and gravel encountered at approximately 16½ feet below site grades, and extending
to the depths explored, approximately 25½ feet. The near surface soils showed generally low
swell potential with the exception of one sample encountered in boring B-3 at approximately 2
feet below site grades and pre-loaded at 150 psf. Groundwater was observed in the deeper test
boring B-2 at the time of drilling at approximate depth of 20 feet below site grade. The borings
were backfield upon completion of the drilling operations; therefore subsequent measurements
were not obtained.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings and the anticipated loading
conditions, we believe the proposed single story slab-on-grade three (3) unit apartment building
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT
625 PETERSON STREET – PROPOSED EXPANSION
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EEC PROJECT NO. 1152122
January 26, 2016
INTRODUCTION
The geotechnical subsurface exploration for the proposed three (3) unit apartment type addition,
planned for construction on the west side of the existing 2-story residential type structure located at
625 Peterson Street in Fort Collins, Colorado has been completed. As a part of this exploration, two
(2) foundation related borings (borings B-1 and B-2), one (1) pavement related boring (boring B-3)
and three (3) shallow soil percolation related borings (borings P-1 through P-3) were drilled at the
approximate locations shown on the boring location diagrams (Figures 1 and 2) included with this
report. Foundation related soil borings completed within the proposed improvement areas were
extended to depths of approximately 15 to 25½ feet below existing site grades while the pavement
related soil boring extended to an approximate depth of 10 feet below existing site grades. In
conjunction with the pavement soil profile boring, three (3) soil percolation borings were completed
within the proposed pavement area and extended to depths of approximately 2 to 3½ feet below
existing site grades to assist the design team in determining if permeable pavers are feasible for this
project. Individual boring logs are provided with this report. Site photographs of the property at the
time of our exploration are also provided with this report.
We understand the proposed apartment type addition involves the construction of a three (3) unit
apartment addition to the existing 2-story structure, various site improvements, and
pavements/parking. The proposed structure addition is expected to be single-story, slab-on-grade.
Foundation loads for the structure are expected to be light with continuous wall loads less than 3
kips per lineal foot and individual column loads less than 50 kips. Floor loads are expected to be
light. Paved drives and parking are expected as a part of the site development with a designated area
possibly utilizing permeable pavers. The pavements are expected to carry light traffic volume
consisting predominately of automobiles and light trucks. Small grade changes, with fill on the
order of 1½ feet in the building addition area, are expected to develop site grades for the proposed
improvements.
The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings,
analyze and evaluate the field and laboratory test data and provide geotechnical recommendations
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152122
January 26, 2016
Page 2
concerning design and construction of foundations and support of floor slabs, exterior flatwork, and
pavements for the proposed development, as well as provide preliminary percolation rates for site
soils.
EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES
The boring locations were established in the field by a representative of Earth Engineering
Consultants, LLC (EEC) by pacing and estimating angles from identifiable site features. The
locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods
used. Photographs of the site at the time of drilling are included with this report and the approximate
locations of the borings are indicated on the attached boring location diagrams.
The test borings were completed 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 in the
foundation related borings were obtained using split barrel and California barrel sampling
procedures in general accordance with ASTM Specifications D1586 and D3550, respectively. In-
situ infiltration/soil percolation characteristics were performed at each soil percolation boring
location.
In the split barrel and California barrel sampling procedures, standard sampling spoons are advanced
into the ground by means of 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, relatively undisturbed samples are obtained in removable brass liners. All samples
obtained in the field were sealed and returned to the laboratory for further examination,
classification and testing.
Laboratory moisture content tests were completed on each of the recovered samples. Atterberg
Limits and washed sieve analysis tests were completed on selected samples to evaluate the quantity
and plasticity of fines in the subgrade. Swell/consolidation tests were completed on selected
samples to evaluate the potential for the subgrade materials to change volume with variation in
moisture and load. Water soluble sulfate was determined from one sample of site overburden
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152122
January 26, 2016
Page 3
materials to estimate the potential for sulfate attack on site-cast Portland cement 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
this report. Classification of the bedrock was based on visual and tactual observation of auger
cuttings and disturbed samples. Coring and/or petrographic analysis may reveal other rock types.
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The proposed three (3) unit apartment addition is planned for construction on the west side of the
existing 2-story residential structure located at 625 Peterson Street. The development parcel is
presently developed residential lot with sparse vegetation and topsoil, various mature trees, two
single story wood frame buildings/sheds and various site flatwork. Ground surface in this area is
relatively flat.
The near surface materials in the test borings generally consisted of thin layer of topsoil and
vegetation. Possible fill on the order of 2 to 3 feet was observed in borings B-2 and B-3 underlying
the topsoil/vegetation and generally classified as sandy lean clay. Underlying the thin layer of
topsoil/vegetation in boring B-1 and underlying the possible fill in borings B-2 and B-3 was
relatively dry, stiff to very stiff sandy lean clay. The essentially cohesive soils exhibited generally
low swells in laboratory testing at in-situ moisture and density with the exception of one swell in
boring B-3, which was moderate when inundated with water at 150 psf loading. The cohesive soils
extended to the depths explored in borings B-1 and B-3, approximately 15 and 10-feet, respectively.
The cohesive soils in boring B-2 were underlain by poorly graded sand with gravel encountered at
an approximate depth of 16½ feet below existing site grades, which extended to the depths explored,
approximately 25½ feet below existing grade. Bedrock was not encountered in any of the borings to
the depths explored, approximately 10 to 25½ feet below existing site grades.
The stratification boundaries indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate locations of
changes in soil types. In-situ, the transition of materials may be gradual and indistinct.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152122
January 26, 2016
Page 4
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Observations were made while drilling and after completion of the borings to detect the presence and
depth to hydrostatic groundwater. At the time of drilling, free groundwater was observed in one of
the two deeper foundation related borings, B-2, at an approximate depth of 20 feet while free water
was not observed in the other borings. The borings were backfilled upon completion of the drilling
operations except for the soil percolation borings; therefore subsequent groundwater measurements
were not performed.
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. Longer term monitoring of
water levels in cased wells, which are sealed from the influence of surface water, would be required
to more accurately evaluate fluctuations in groundwater levels at the site. Perched groundwater is
commonly observed in subgrade soils overlying less permeable bedrock. We have typically noted
deepest groundwater levels in late winter and shallowest groundwater levels in mid to late summer.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Swell – Consolidation Test Results
The swell-consolidation test is performed to evaluate the swell or collapse potential of soils or bedrock
to help determine foundation, floor slab, and pavement design criteria. In this test, relatively
undisturbed samples obtained directly from the California barrel sampler are placed in a laboratory
apparatus and inundated with water under a predetermined load. All inundated samples are monitored
for swell and consolidation. The swell-index is the resulting amount of swell or collapse after
inundation, expressed as a percent of the sample’s initial thickness. After the initial inundation period,
additional incremental loads are applied to evaluate the swell pressure and consolidation.
For this assessment, we conducted four (4) swell-consolidation tests on samples recovered from
various intervals/depths. The swell index values for the samples analyzed in the overburden sandy lean
clay soils revealed generally low swell characteristics of approximately (+) 0.4% to (+) 0.8% at 150
and 500 psf dead loads, while a moderate swell potential of (+) 5.6% in boring B-3 at 150 psf was
observed. The laboratory swell-consolidation test results are summarized in the table below and the
swell test data sheets are provided with this report.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152122
January 26, 2016
Page 5
TABLE I – Summary of Swell Test Results
Boring
No.
Depth
(ft) Material Type
Swell Consolidation Test Results
Dry
Density,
(pcf)
In-Situ
Moisture
Content
(%)
Inundation
Pressure
(psf)
Swell
Index
(%)
Swell
Pressure
(psf)
1 4’ Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 104.1 6.9 500 (+) 0.8 1200
2 2’ Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 112.7 12.6 150 (+) 0.8 650
2 9’ Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 119.5 8.4 500 (+) 0.4 800
3 2’ Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 105.9 12.3 150 (+) 5.6 4000
Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers (CAGE) uses the following information presented
below to provide uniformity in terminology between geotechnical engineers to provide a relative
correlation of 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.
TABLE II - 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
Base on the laboratory test results, the swell samples analyzed for this project at current moisture
contents and dry densities conditions were generally in the low range with zones of soils exhibiting
swell in the moderate range.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152122
January 26, 2016
Page 6
Site Preparation
Prior to placement of any fill and/or improvements, we recommend any existing vegetation, topsoil,
undocumented fill, trees and associated roots, and any unsuitable materials be removed from the
planned improvement areas. In the demolition areas of the existing buildings to be removed, all
existing building elements including walls, floors, footings and any other structural improvements
should be removed. Care should be taken to remove any previously placed fill material with
unknown origin or compaction verification. In addition, we recommend two feet of subgrade
materials be overexcavated below floor slabs, exterior flatwork and pavement areas current grades as
a swell-mitigation approach. 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 placement of fill, floor slabs and pavements, the exposed soils should be
scarified to a depth of 9 inches, adjusted in moisture content to within (+/-) 2% of standard Proctor
optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the material's standard Proctor
maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D698.
Fill materials used to replace the overexcavated zone and establish grades in the floor slab, flatwork
and pavement areas, after the initial zone has been prepared as recommended above, should consist
of approved on-site sandy lean clay, similar import material or approved structural fill material
which is free from organic matter and debris. If on-site cohesive subsoils or similar import materials
are used as engineered fill, they should be placed in maximum 9-inch loose lifts, moisture
conditioned and compacted as recommended for the scarified soils. If structural fill materials are
used they should be graded similarly to a CDOT Class 5, 6 or 7 aggregate base with sufficient fines
to prevent ponding of water within the fill. Structural fill material should be placed in loose lifts not
to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted to a workable moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of
standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Specification D698.
Fill soils to develop the floor slab, flatwork, pavement and site subgrades should consist of
approved, low-volume-change materials, which are free from organic matter and debris. It is our
opinion the on-site near surface soils or similar import fill soils could be used as fill in these areas,
provided adequate moisture treatment and compaction procedures are followed. We recommend
cohesive fill soils be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick and adjusted in moisture
content and compacted as recommended for the scarified soils. If the site sandy lean clay soils are
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152122
January 26, 2016
Page 7
used as fill material, care will be needed to maintain the recommended moisture content and
densities prior to and during construction of overlying improvements. Subgrade soils allowed to
become dry or densified by construction traffic may show increased swell potential.
Care should be exercised after preparation of the subgrades to avoid disturbing the subgrade
materials. Positive drainage should be developed away from the structures, flatwork and pavements
to avoid wetting of subgrade materials. Subgrade materials becoming wet subsequent to
construction of the site improvements can result in unacceptable performance.
Footing Foundations
Based on an initial cursory observation of the existing 2-story building exterior constructed in
approximately 1895, there are no noticeable structural issues. We also understand that any
additional loads being placed on existing foundations will be very small to nil.
Notwithstanding the performance of the existing structure, placing foundation loads on virgin soils
either within or outside of the existing building footprint will result in some settlement of those
footings as the loads are applied. Since the existing footings have experienced loading over a period
of 117+ years we do not expect additional settlement will occur in those footings caused by minor
additional loads being placed on those footings. However, new footing loads placed in close
proximity to the existing foundations can result in increased stresses in the subgrade soils below
existing foundations and result in some small settlements of existing footings from the adjacent
loads in close proximity.
It is our opinion the proposed structures could be supported on conventional footing foundations
bearing on approved on-site native subgrade soils or a zone of engineered fill. For design of footing
foundations supported on properly placed and compacted engineered fill as outlined in the section “Site
Preparation” or on approved native subgrade soils, we recommend using a maximum net allowable
total load soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The net bearing pressure refers to the pressure at
foundation bearing level in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure. Total load would
include full dead and live loads.
Exterior foundations and foundation in unheated areas should be located at least 30 inches below
adjacent exterior grades to provide frost protection. Formed continuous footings should have a
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152122
January 26, 2016
Page 8
minimum width of 16 inches and isolated column foundations should have a minimum width of 30
inches.
Care should be taken to thoroughly evaluate anticipated bearing materials at the time of construction.
All footings for the structures should bear on uniform/similar materials to reduce the potential for
differential movement between soil types. We estimate the long term settlement of footings designed
and constructed as outlined would be less than 1-inch. We expect settlement of existing footing
foundations from placement of nearby new footings or column loads would be less than ½-inch.
Seismic
The site soil conditions generally consist of sandy lean clay to the depths explored, approximately 10
to 15 feet below site grades except for boring B-2 which had poorly graded sand and gravel
underlying the sandy lean clay at an approximate depth of 16½ feet and extended to the depths
explored, approximately 25½ feet. Bedrock was not encountered in any of the borings, therefore, for
those site conditions, the 2012 International Building Codes indicates a Seismic Site Classification
of D.
Floor Slabs, Flatwork and Pavement Subgrades
Subgrades for floor slabs, flatwork and site pavements should be prepared as outlined in the “Site
Preparation” section of this report. We estimate the long-term movement of floor slabs with
properly prepared subgrade subsoils as outlined above would be about one-inch or less assuming
reasonable moisture accumulation in the subgrade materials. Excessive moisture accumulation from
any source can result in additional movements.
For structural design of concrete slabs-on-grade, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 75 pounds per
cubic inch (pci) may be used for floors supported on a zone of reconditioned engineered fill.
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.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152122
January 26, 2016
Page 9
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.
Pavements
We expect the site pavements will include areas designated for low volume automobile and light
truck traffic. We are using an assumed equivalent daily load axle (EDLA) rating of 5.
Proofrolling and recompacting the subgrade is recommended immediately prior to placement of the
aggregate road base section. Soft or weak areas delineated by the proofrolling operations should be
undercut or stabilized in-place to achieve the appropriate subgrade support. Based on the subsurface
conditions encountered at the site, and the laboratory test results, it is recommended the on-site
private drives and parking areas be designed using an assumed R-value of 10.
Pumping conditions could develop within higher moisture content on-site cohesive soils. Subgrade
stabilization could be needed to develop a stable subgrade for paving. A stabilized subgrade could also
reduce the overlying pavement structure. Stabilization, if needed, would include incorporating
approximately 12 percent, by weight, Class C fly ash into the upper 12-inches of subgrade.
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) underlain by crushed aggregate base course with or without a fly ash treated
subgrade, and non-reinforced concrete pavement could be considered for the proposed on-site paved
sections. Eliminating the risk of movement within the proposed pavement section may not be feasible
due to the characteristics of the subsurface materials; but it may be possible to further reduce the risk of
movement if significantly more expensive subgrade stabilization measures are used during
construction. We would be pleased to discuss other construction alternatives with you upon request.
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
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152122
January 26, 2016
Page 10
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.
Recommended pavement sections are provided below in the table below. The hot bituminous
pavement (HBP) could be grading SX (75) or S (75) with PG 58-28 oil. The aggregate base should
be Class 5 or Class 6 base. Portland cement concrete for pavements should be a pavement design
mix with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4000 psi and should be air entrained.
TABLE III – Recommended Minimum Pavement Sections
18-kip EDLA
18-kip ESAL
Reliability
Resilient Modulus (R-Value = 10)
PSI Loss
5
36,500
75%
3562 psi
2.5
Design Structure Number 2.34
Composite:
Hot Mix Asphalt
Aggregate Base Course
Structure Number
4" @ 0.44 = 1.76
6" @ 0.11 = 0.66
(2.42)
Composite with Fly Ash Treated Subgrade
Hot Bituminous Pavement
Aggregate Base
Fly Ash Treated Subgrade
Structure Number
3” @ 0.44 = 1.32
6” @ 0.11 = 0.66
10” @ 0.05 = 0.50
(2.48)
PCC (Non-reinforced) – placed on a stable subgrade 5"
The recommended pavement sections are minimums and periodic maintenance should be expected.
Longitudinal and transverse joints should be provided as needed in concrete pavements for
expansion/contraction and isolation. The location and extent of joints should be based upon the final
pavement geometry. Sawed joints should be cut in general accordance with ACI recommendations.
All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where necessary for load
transfer.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152122
January 26, 2016
Page 11
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.
The collection and diversion of surface drainage away from paved areas is critical to the satisfactory
performance of the pavement. Drainage design should provide for the removal of water from paved
areas in order to reduce the potential for wetting of the subgrade soils. Long-term pavement
performance will be dependent upon several factors, including maintaining subgrade moisture levels
and providing for preventive maintenance. The following recommendations should be considered
the minimum:
The subgrade and the pavement surface should be adequately sloped to promote proper surface
drainage.
Install pavement drainage surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting (e.g. garden centers,
wash racks)
Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately,
Seal all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to minimize or prevent moisture migration
to subgrade soils;
Placing compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter; and,
Placing curb, gutter, and/or sidewalk directly on approved proof rolled subgrade soils.
Preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement
management program. Preventive maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement
deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventive maintenance consists of both
localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface
sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement
maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. Prior to
implementing any maintenance, additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the
type and extent of preventive maintenance.
Site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. However as construction
proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, or
rainfall. As a result, the pavement subgrade may not be suitable for pavement construction and
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152122
January 26, 2016
Page 12
corrective action will be required. The subgrade should be carefully evaluated at the time of pavement
construction for signs of disturbance, such as but not limited to drying, or excessive rutting. 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.
Pavement Design Consideration – Permeable Pavers
We understand design concepts for a permeable paver pavement section is currently being discussed
for the site to achieve LEED credits and to reduce the amount of storm water runoff. The following
provides general design considerations for use with permeable pavers. The recommendations in the
previous “Site Preparation,” and “Floor Slabs, Flatwork and Pavement Subgrades,” sections for
conventional parking areas will need to be revised if a permeable paver pavement alternative is
selected for the site.
To assess the feasibility for use of permeable pavers on site, EEC personnel conducted preliminary
infiltration characteristics by running “soil percolation” characteristics, similar to that used for
developing design criteria for an on-site sewage disposal system. The subsoils analyzed within the
proposed permeable paver pavement section on site, (i.e., the general vicinity of pavement related
soil boring B-3 and percolation borings P-1 through P-3), consisted of sandy lean clay to the depths
explored as previously described. The near surface potential fill sandy lean clay and/or native sandy
lean clay exhibited soil percolation characteristics on the order of about 10 to 15 minutes per inch,
which correlates to about 6 to 12 inches per hour. According to various pervious/permeable paving
documents, “as a general rule, soils with a percolation rate of ½ to 1 inch/hour are suitable for
subgrade under pervious/permeable pavements.” Clay soils and/or other impermeable layers, can
hinder the performance of pervious/permeable pavements and may need to be modified to allow
proper retention and percolation of precipitation. Design concepts to consider for accommodating
the presence of cohesive soils and/or unsuitable subsoils would be to over-excavate and replace the
relatively unsuitable soils with a more porous material, thicken the underlying granular subbase,
install edge drains and/or a network of pipes/under pavement drainage system beneath the granular
base, or install dry wells or drainage channels. EEC can provide supplemental design criteria and
recommendations upon request after design details and concepts have been determined.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152122
January 26, 2016
Page 13
Soil Corrosivity
The water soluble sulfate (SO4) testing of the near surface on-site overburden material taken during
our subsurface exploration is provided in the table below. Based on the reported sulfate content test
results, this report includes a recommendation for the CLASS or TYPE of cement for use for contact
in association with the on-site subsoils.
TABLE IV - Water Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Sample Location Description
Soluble Sulfate Content
(mg/kg)
Soluble Sulfate Content
(%)
B-2, S-2 at 4’ Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 110 0.01
Based on the results as presented in the table above, ACI 318, Section 4.2 indicates the site
overburden soils have a low risk of sulfate attack on Portland cement concrete. Therefore Class 0
and/or Type I/II cement could be used for concrete on and below site grade within the overburden
soils. Foundation concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design
Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4. These results are being compared to the following table.
TABLE V - Requirements to Protect Against Damage to Concrete by Sulfate Attack from External Sources of
Sulfate
Severity of Sulfate
exposure
Water-soluble sulfate (SO4)
in dry soil, percent
Water-cement ratio,
maximum
Cementatious material
Requirements
Class 0 0.00 to 0.10% 0.45 Class 0
Class 1 0.11 to 0.20% 0.45 Class 1
Class 2 0.21 to 2.00% 0.45 Class 2
Class 3 2.01 of greater 0.45 Class 3
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. Care should be taken in planning of landscaping, (if required), adjacent to the buildings to
avoid features which would pond water adjacent to the 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. Irrigation systems should not be
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1152122
January 26, 2016
Page 14
placed within 5 feet of the perimeter of the buildings and parking areas. Spray heads should be
designed not to spray water on or immediately adjacent to the structures or site pavements. Roof
drains should be designed to discharge at least 5 feet away from the structures and away from the
pavement areas.
Excavations into the on-site sandy lean clay can be expected to stand on relatively steep, temporary
slopes during construction. Deeper excavations into the underlying sand with gravel have the
potential for caving/sloughing side walls. 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.
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 phases to help determine that the
design requirements are fulfilled. Site-specific explorations should be completed to develop site-
specific recommendations for each of the site buildings.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of alm2s 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
1
2
P-1
B-3
P-3
P-2
B-1
B-2
Figure 1: Boring Location Diagram
625 Peterson St
Fort Collins, Colorado
EEC Project Number: 1152122 Date: January 2016
EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC
B-1 & B-2: Building Foundation Borings
Drilled 15-25' Below Site Grades
Legend
B-3: Pavement Related Boring Drilled 10'
Below Site Grades
P-1 thru P-3: Shallow Soil Percolation
Boring
1 Site Photos
(Photos taken in approximate location, in direction of arrow)
B-1
1
2
P-1
P-3
P-2
B-2
B-3
Figure 2: Boring Location Diagram
625 Peterson St
Fort Collins, Colorado
EEC Project Number: 1152122 Date: January 2016
EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC
B-1 & B-2: Building Foundation Borings
Drilled 15-25' Below Site Grades
Legend
B-3: Pavement Related Boring Drilled 10'
Below Site Grades
P-1 thru P-3: Shallow Soil Percolation
Boring
1 Site Photos
(Photos taken in approximate location, in direction of arrow)
625 PETERSON STREET
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EEC PROJECT NO. 1152122
JANUARY 2016
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 (CL) _ _
brown 2
stiff to very stiff _ _
with calcareous deposits 3
_ _
4
_ _
CS 5 11 9000+ 6.9 102.9 36 18 70.1 1200 psf 0.8%
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
SS 10 14 9000+ 9.4
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
sand becomes more coarse with depth _ _
CS 15 25 9000+ 9.6 115.4
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.0' _ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
20
_ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
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 _ _
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) - Possible Fill 1
dark brown / brown _ _
very stiff 2
_ _ % @ 150 psf
CS 3 13 7000 12.6 111.3 34 16 59.2 650 psf 0.8%
_ _
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 4
brown _ _
medium stiff SS 5 5 4000 8.4
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
with traces of gravel _ _
very stiff CS 10 17 9000+ 8.4 111.6 34 18 62.3 800 psf 0.4%
_ _
11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
sand becomes more coarse with depth SS 15 15 9000+ 10.7
_ _
16
_ _
17
SAND & GRAVEL (SP/GP) _ _
brown / grey / red 18
dense to very dense _ _
19
_ _
CS 20 31 -- 10.9 119.5 4.1
_ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
SS 25 50 -- 14.9
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.5' _ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
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 _ _
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) - Possible Fill 1
dark brown / brown _ _
stiff 2
with calcareous deposits _ _ % @ 150 psf
CS 3 9 9000+ 12.3 100.0 36 20 78.9 4000 psf 5.6%
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _
brown 4
stiff to very stiff _ _
with calcareous deposits SS 5 11 3500 7.9
_ _
6
_ _
7
_ _
8
_ _
9
_ _
SS 10 11 4000 11.8
_ _
BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 10.5' 11
_ _
12
_ _
13
_ _
14
_ _
15
_ _
16
_ _
17
_ _
18
_ _
19
_ _
20
_ _
21
_ _
22
_ _
23
_ _
24
_ _
25
_ _
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
A-LIMITS SWELL
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
625 Peterson Street Multi-Family Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152122
January 2016
Beginning Moisture: 6.9% Dry Density: 104.1 pcf Ending Moisture: 21.5%
Swell Pressure: 1200 psf % Swell @ 500: 0.8%
Sample Location: Boring 1, Sample 1, Depth 4'
Liquid Limit: 36 Plasticity Index: 18 % Passing #200: 70.1%
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
625 Peterson Street Multi-Family Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152122
January 2016
Beginning Moisture: 12.6% Dry Density: 112.7 pcf Ending Moisture: 18.6%
Swell Pressure: 650 psf % Swell @ 150: 0.8%
Sample Location: Boring 2, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Liquid Limit: 34 Plasticity Index: 16 % Passing #200: 59.2%
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Dark Brown, Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
625 Peterson Street Multi-Family Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152122
January 2016
Beginning Moisture: 8.4% Dry Density: 119.5 pcf Ending Moisture: 19.0%
Swell Pressure: 800 psf % Swell @ 500: 0.4%
Sample Location: Boring 2, Sample 3, Depth 9'
Liquid Limit: 34 Plasticity Index: 18 % Passing #200: 62.3%
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
625 Peterson Street Multi-Family Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152122
January 2016
Beginning Moisture: 12.3% Dry Density: 105.9 pcf Ending Moisture: 20.7%
Swell Pressure: 4000 psf % Swell @ 150: 5.6%
Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 1, Depth 2'
Liquid Limit: 36 Plasticity Index: 20 % Passing #200: 78.9%
SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Material Description: Dark Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Percent Movement
Load (TSF)
Consolidatio Swell
Water Added
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: 625 Peterson Street Multi-Family Development
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Project No: 1152122
Sample ID: B-2, S-5, 19'
Sample Desc.: Sand & Gravel (SP/GP)
Date: January 2016
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
94
94
87
79
77
66
48
37
25
8
4.1
EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC
Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136)
Date:
625 Peterson Street Multi-Family Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
1152122
B-2, S-5, 19'
Sand & Gravel (SP/GP)
January 2016
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
Fines by Weight (%)
Grain Size (mm)
Standard Sieve Size
SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A
FINISH DATE 1/8/2016 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/8/2016 WHILE DRILLING None
625 PETERSON STREET MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152122 LOG OF BORING B-3 JANUARY 2016
SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A
FINISH DATE 1/8/2016 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/8/2016 WHILE DRILLING 20'
625 PETERSON STREET MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152122 LOG OF BORING B-2 JANUARY 2016
SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A
FINISH DATE 1/8/2016 AFTER DRILLING N/A
SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH
START DATE 1/8/2016 WHILE DRILLING None
625 PETERSON STREET MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO: 1152122 LOG OF BORING B-1 JANUARY 2016
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