The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSIT AND STAY DOG BAR - PDP210016 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - GEOTECHNICAL (SOILS) REPORTGEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT DOG PARK FACILITY AND RESTAURANT 1524 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1212053 Prepared for: Sit & Stay, LLC c/o VFLA 419 Canyon Avenue – Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Attn: Mr. Patrick Duncan (Prduncan@sitandstay.dog) Prepared by: Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC 4396 Greenfield Drive Windsor, Colorado 80550 4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE W INDSOR, COLORADO 80550 (970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 July 16, 2021 Sit & Stay, LLC c/o VFLA 419 Canyon Avenue – Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Attn: Mr. Patrick Duncan (Prduncan@sitandstay.dog) Re: Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Dog Park Facility and Restaurant 1524 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1212053 Mr. Duncan: Enclosed, herewith, are the results of the geotechnical subsurface exploration completed by Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC (EEC) for the proposed Dog Park Facility and Restaurant and associated on-site pavement improvements planned for construction in Fort Collins, Colorado. For this exploration, EEC personnel advanced four (4) soil borings to depths of approximately 15 to 25 feet below present site grade at pre-selected locations within the various proposed building footprints and associated on-site pavement improvements. This exploration was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated May 26, 2021. In summary, the subsurface conditions encountered beneath the surficial sparse vegetation generally consisted of cohesive lean clay with sand soils extending to granular gravel/sand with silt soils at depths of approximately 6 to 8 feet. The cohesive soils were generally dry and very stiff near the surface and exhibited low to moderate swell potential at current moisture and density conditions. Gravel/sand with silt soils were encountered below the cohesive soils and extended to the depths explored at approximately 15 to 25 feet. Zones of cobbles were also encountered at increased depths within the gravel/sand soils. The gravel/sand soils were generally dry to moist nearing the groundwater table and medium dense to very dense. Groundwater was observed at depths of approximately 6 to 11 feet below the ground surface. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings, as well as the anticipated maximum loading conditions, we believe the proposed slab-on-grade structures could be supported on a spread footing foundation system bearing on a minimum 2-foot zone of GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT DOG PARK FACILITY AND RESTAURANT 1524 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1212053 July 16, 2021 INTRODUCTION The geotechnical subsurface exploration for the proposed Dog Park and Restaurant project planned for construction at 1524 North College Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado has been completed. For this exploration, Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC (EEC) advanced four (4) soil borings to depths of approximately 15 to 25 feet below present site grades at pre-selected locations within the various building footprints and associated on-site pavement improvement areas. This exploration was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated May 26, 2021. We understand the proposed development consists of an approximate 16,000 square foot dog park and restaurant facility with associated pavements. The proposed building is expected to be constructed as slab-on-grade (no basement). Foundation loads for the new building are estimated to be light with maximum continuous wall loads on the order of approximately 1 to 3 kips per linear foot (KLF) and maximum column loads on the order of approximately 25 to 50 kips. Floor loads are expected to be light. If actual loads exceed those assumed herein or if basement construction is being considered for the site, we should be consulted to review and modify the recommendations accordingly, if necessary. Adjacent to the building will be associated pavement areas to accommodate the anticipated parking. Small grade changes, cuts and fills less than 5 feet, are expected to develop site grades for the proposed development. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings, analyze and evaluate the test data and provide geotechnical recommendations concerning design and construction of foundations, support of floor slabs and exterior flatwork, and design of pavements for the proposed development. EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES The boring locations were established in the field by representatives from EEC by pacing and estimating angles from identifiable site features. Those approximate boring locations are indicated on the attached boring location diagram. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to make the field measurements. Photographs of the site taken at the time of drilling are included with this report. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1212053 July 16, 2021 Page 2 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 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, relatively intact samples 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. Atterberg limits and washed sieve analysis tests were completed on selected samples 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 materials to change volume with variation in moisture and load. Soluble sulfate tests were completed on selected samples to evaluate potential adverse reactions to 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 by an engineer and classified in general 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 disturbed samples and auger cuttings. Coring and/or petrographic analysis may reveal other rock types. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed development lot is located at 1524 North College Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado. The project site is undeveloped and appears to have been previously used as a staging area for construction of nearby buildings and pavements. A small soil stockpile is situated on the southwest portion of the site. The development lot is presently surfaced with topsoil and weeds/vegetation. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1212053 July 16, 2021 Page 3 The development location is relatively flat with approximately 2 to 4± feet of relief from northwest to southeast. The interior roadways and lots adjacent to the development have previously been developed, and evidence of surficial soil densification, potentially due to previous construction activities were observed in the borings. EEC field personnel were 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 results of laboratory testing and evaluation. Based on results of the field borings and laboratory testing, subsurface conditions can be generalized as follows. The subsurface soils encountered beneath surficial sparse vegetation, generally consisted of cohesive lean clay with sand soils extending to granular gravel/sand with silt soils at depths of approximately 5 to 8 feet. The cohesive soils were generally dry and very stiff near the surface and exhibited low to moderate swell potential at current moisture and density conditions. Gravel/sand with silt soils were encountered below the cohesive soils and extended to the depths explored at approximately 15 to 25 feet. Zones of larger cobbles were also encountered in the gravel/sand soils. The gravel/sand soils were generally dry to moist nearing the groundwater table and medium dense to very dense. The stratification boundaries indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate locations of changes in soil and bedrock types. In-situ, the transition of materials may be gradual and indistinct. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Observations were made while drilling and after completion of the borings to detect the presence and depth to hydrostatic groundwater. At the time of drilling and directly after, groundwater was observed in the borings at depths of approximately 6 to 11 feet below the ground surface with shallower groundwater generally encountered on the southwest side of the site. The borings were backfilled upon completion of the drilling operations; therefore, subsequent groundwater measurements were not obtained. Fluctuations in groundwater levels can occur over time depending on variations in hydrologic conditions, irrigation demands on and/or adjacent to the site 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 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1212053 July 16, 2021 Page 4 levels at the site. We have typically noted deepest groundwater levels in late winter and shallowest groundwater levels in mid to late summer. Zones of perched and/or trapped water can be encountered at times throughout the year in more permeable zones in the subgrade soils and perched water is commonly observed in subgrade soils immediately above lower permeability bedrock. 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 intact 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 five (5) swell-consolidation tests on samples recovered from various intervals/depths. The swell index values for the in-situ soil samples analyzed revealed low to moderate swell characteristics as indicated on the attached swell test summaries. The (+) test results indicate the soil materials swell potential characteristics while the (-) test results indicate the soils materials collapse 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. Table I – Laboratory Swell-Consolidation Test Results No of Samples Tested Pre-Load / Inundation Pressure, PSF Description of Material In-Situ Characteristics Range of Swell – Index Test Results Range of Moisture Contents, % Range of Dry Densities, PCF Low End, % High End, % Low End, PCF High End, PCF Low End (+/-) % High End, (+/-) % 2 150 Lean Clay with Sand 14.0 14.7 116.7 118.6 (+) 2.4 (+) 4.7 3 500 Lean Clay with Sand 11.4 12.9 116.6 118.6 (+) 0.5 (+) 3.1 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 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1212053 July 16, 2021 Page 5 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 Based 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 to moderate range. General Considerations The overburden soils on this lot include approximately 5 to 8 feet of lean clay with sand soils overlying gravel/sand soils. Low to moderate swell potential was exhibited by the near surface clay samples; in our opinion this is likely due to the dry and very stiff conditions of the lean clay with sand soils. In general, clay soils tend to swell when inundated with water when in-situ moisture contents are less than -2% dry of optimum moisture content. Typical optimum moisture contents for clay soils range from approximately 15 to 20%. The moisture contents observed in the top 5 feet of the borings, were up to 9% less than the high end of that range. Additionally, the lean clay soils appeared to be very stiff near surface. When moisture conditioned and re-compacted to near optimum moisture and density conditions, the swell potential of clay soils can be significantly reduced. The site preparation section of this report includes recommendations for an over excavation moisture treatment, and re-compaction procedure to reduce the risk of movement for the soils underlying the proposed site improvements. Although these methods reduce the overall risk of potential movement, that risk cannot be completely eliminated. Groundwater was observed at depths of 6 to 11 feet across the site. We suggest that floor slab subgrade(s) be placed a minimum of 4 feet above the maximum anticipated rise in groundwater levels. If final site grading consists of cuts extending floor slabs to less than 4 feet above the maximum anticipated rise in groundwater, consideration could be given to designing and installing a Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1212053 July 16, 2021 Page 6 perimeter drainage system or to elevating/raising the site grades to establish the minimum required 4-foot separation to the maximum anticipated rise in groundwater. The drainage system should be constructed around the exterior perimeter of the foundation and sloped at a minimum 1/8 inch per foot to a suitable outlet, such as a sump and pump system or daylighted away from the building. The drainage system should consist of a properly sized perforated pipe, embedded in free-draining gravel, placed in a trench at least 12 inches in width. Gravel should extend a minimum of 3 inches beneath the bottom of the pipe, and at least 1 to 1-1/2 feet above the bottom of the foundation wall. The system should be underlain with a polyethylene moisture barrier, sealed to the foundation walls, and extending at least to the edge of the backfill zone. The gravel should be covered with drainage fabric prior to placement of foundation backfill. Site Preparation Prior to placement of any fill and/or improvements, we recommend any existing surficial topsoil, undocumented fill materials, and any unsuitable materials be removed from the planned development areas. Due to the moderate swell potential of the on-site lean clay with sand soils and, we recommend a minimum of 4 feet of over excavation below the building floor slab and a minimum 2 feet of over excavation and replacement below all spread footings. We anticipate spread footings will be constructed at a depth of approximately 3 feet below existing site grades. Therefore, the over excavations below all spread footings should extend to approximately 5 feet below existing site grades or 2 feet beneath all spread footings, whichever provides the greater over excavation depth. The over excavation below pavements could be reduced to a minimum of 2 feet below the pavements provided the owner accepts greater potential for movement of the pavement areas. Consideration could also be given to fly ash or Portland cement treating the upper 12-inches of pavement subgrades for swell mitigation. The over excavations should extend 8 inches beyond the edges of the building for every 12 inches of over excavation depth. Due to the shallower groundwater table if the over excavation below footings nears the groundwater table and soft/compressible soils are encountered, consideration could be given to ground modification of the subgrades prior to placement of the over excavation backfill soils. Ground modification would consist of completing the 2 foot over excavation below spread footings as described above. At the bottom of the 2-foot over excavation zone, to create a working platform and stabilized zone below the fill materials, we recommend a minimum 6 to 8-inch zone of an Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1212053 July 16, 2021 Page 7 interlocking coarse granular, fractured face 3 to 1½ inch minus aggregate material, such as recycled concrete or equivalent be placed and incorporated/pushed into the soft subgrade soils to create a stable platform. Fill materials placed above the stabilized zone should consist of structural fill in these areas. In general, over excavations should not be extended all the way into the groundwater table. If the proposed over excavations are expected to extend into groundwater, we should be consulted to review the recommended over excavation depth and provide revised recommendations. After stripping, completing all cuts, over excavation, and removing all unacceptable materials/soils, and prior to placement of any fill or site improvements, we recommend the exposed soils be scarified to a minimum depth of 9-inches, adjusted in moisture content to within ±2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D698. Fill soils required for developing the site subgrades, after the initial zone has been prepared or stabilized where necessary, should consist of approved, low-volume-change materials, which are free from organic matter and debris. It is our opinion imported structural fill materials or moisture conditioned site lean clay soils could be used as engineered/controlled fill material. Imported structural fill materials should be graded similarly to CDOT Class 6 or 7 base course materials with sufficient fines to prevent ponding of water in the fill. Care should be taken to prevent surface water infiltration from impacting the fill materials as described herein. We recommend all fill materials and foundation backfill materials, be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick and adjusted in moisture content, ±2% for cohesive soils and ±3% for granular soils of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 % of the materials maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D698, the standard Proctor procedure. If the site’s sandy cohesive soils are used as engineered/controlled fill material, care will be needed to maintain the recommended moisture content prior to and during construction of overlying improvements. The site cohesive lean clay soils should be used as exterior foundation backfill to prevent surface water infiltration from reaching interior slab or foundation subgrades. Settlement of the backfill soils should be anticipated with total settlement estimated on the order of 1% of the backfill height. Care should be exercised after preparation of the subgrades to avoid disturbing the subgrade materials. Positive drainage should be developed away from the structure to avoid wetting of subgrade materials. Subgrade materials becoming wet subsequent to construction of the site structure can result in unacceptable performance. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1212053 July 16, 2021 Page 8 Foundation Systems – General Considerations The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based on the results of our field exploration and our understanding of the proposed development plans. The following foundation systems were evaluated for use on the site for the proposed building.  Spread footing foundations with a minimum 2-foot over excavation of the lean clay overburden soils below spread footings and replacement with either an imported structural fill material or approved on-site moisture conditioned engineered/controlled fill material Other alternative foundation systems could be considered, and we would be pleased to provide additional alternatives upon request. Footing Foundations on Structural Fill Based on the observed subsurface conditions encountered, in our opinion the proposed building could be supported on spread footing foundations bearing on a minimum 2-foot zone of either imported structural fill materials or moisture conditioned engineered/controlled fill materials, respectively. If structural fill materials are used, special care should be given to site grading and placement of exterior backfill to prevent the infiltration of water into the fill materials. If infiltration were to occur, a bathtub effect could be created within the structural fill, if used, and/or the cohesive soils could be wetted, causing heaving of the foundation subgrades. The over excavation and backfill procedure should be completed as described in the section Site Preparation. For design of footing foundations bearing on at least 2 feet of properly placed and compacted approved moisture conditioned site soils or structural fill materials, we recommend using a net allowable total load soil bearing pressure not to exceed 2,000 psf. Th e net bearing pressure refers to the pressure at foundation bearing level in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure. Total load should include full dead and live loads. We estimate the long-term settlement of footing foundations designed and constructed as outlined above would be less than 1-inch. 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. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1212053 July 16, 2021 Page 9 No unusual problems are anticipated in completing the excavations required for construction of the footing foundations. Care should be taken during construction to thoroughly evaluate the bearing soils prior to and during the fill placement to verify that the footing foundations are supported on suitable strength materials. Care should be taken during construction to avoid disturbing the foundation bearing materials. Materials which are loosened or disturbed by the construction activities or materials which become dry and desiccated or wet and softened should be removed and replaced prior to placement of foundation concrete. Lateral Earth Pressures Portions of the new structure or site improvements which are constructed below grade may be subject to lateral earth pressures. Passive lateral earth pressures may help resist the driving forces for retaining wall 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 structures. We recommend at- rest pressures be used for design of structures where rotation of the walls is restrained, such as below grade walls for a building. 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 Table III 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 on-site essentially cohesive subsoils. For 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. 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. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1212053 July 16, 2021 Page 10 Table III - Lateral Earth Pressures Soil Type On-Site Overburden Cohesive Soils Imported Medium Dense Granular Material Wet Unit Weight (psf) 125 135 Saturated Unit Weight (psf) 135 140 Friction Angle () – (assumed) 20° 35° Active Pressure Coefficient 0.49 0.27 At-rest Pressure Coefficient 0.66 0.43 Passive Pressure Coefficient 2.04 3.69 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. Seismic Site Classification The site soil conditions consist of lean clay with sand soils underlain by gravel/sand soils. For those site conditions, the International Building Code indicates a Seismic Site Classification of D. Slab-On-Grade In our opinion, the floor slabs could be supported on a zone of imported structural fill or controlled engineered fill materials. The subgrades should be over excavated to a minimum depth of 4 feet below existing grades or final slab grades, whichever provides the greater depth of over excavation, and prepared as subsequently outlined in the Site Preparation section of this report. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci or 200 pci could be used for design of the slab supported on moisture conditioned on-site soils or imported structural fill material, respectively. A granular leveling course could be used, if needed. Under slab vapor barrier should be used at the architect’s discretion. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1212053 July 16, 2021 Page 11 Additional 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.  A minimum 2-inch void space should be constructed above, or below non-bearing partition walls placed on the floor slab. Special framing details should be provided at door jambs and frames within partition walls to avoid potential distortion. Partition walls should be isolated from suspended ceilings.  Interior trench backfill placed beneath slabs should be compacted in a similar manner as previously described for imported structural fill material.  The concrete 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 After stripping, removing apparent fill materials, and completing all cuts and prior to placement of any fill, road base or pavements, we recommend a 2-foot over excavation below pavements and replacement with engineered, moisture-controlled fill or imported structural fill as recommended in the Site Preparation section of this report. As an alternative swell mitigation approach, or if additional stabilization of the cohesive soils is required, consideration could be given to fly ash or Portland cement treatment of the top 12 inches of pavement subgrades. If fly ash treatment is selected, we recommend the addition of at least 13% Class C fly ash to the in- place subgrade materials, based on dry weights. If cement treatment is selected, we suggest the addition of at least 4% Portland cement to the in-place subgrade materials, based on dry weight. The Class C fly ash and/or cement should be thoroughly blended with the in-place soils to a depth of 12 inches below the top of subgrade. The blended materials should be adjusted to be within ±2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95% of the materials maximum dry density as determined in accordance with the standard Proctor procedure for stabilized materials (ASTM Specification D558). We expect the site pavements will include areas designated for light-duty automobile traffic as well as some areas for heavier automobile and heavy-duty truck traffic. For design purposes, an assumed Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1212053 July 16, 2021 Page 12 equivalent daily load axle (EDLA) rating of 7 is used in the light-duty pavement areas and an EDLA of 15 is used in the heavy-duty pavement areas. An assumed R-Value of 10 is being used for the pavement design, based off of the observed subsurface conditions and soil classification. Note that Larimer County requires a minimum 5 inches of asphalt for minor collector roadways and a minimum ABC thickness of 6 inches for all roadways. Hot mix asphalt (HMA) underlain by aggregate base course or a non-reinforced concrete pavement may be feasible options for the proposed on-site paved sections. HMA pavements may show rutting and distress in areas of heavy truck traffic or in truck loading and turning areas. Concrete pavements should be considered in those areas. Suggested pavement sections are provided in the table below. The outlined pavement sections are minimums and thus, periodic maintenance should be expected. Table IV - Minimum Pavement Thickness Recommendations Light Duty Areas Heavy Duty Areas 18-kip EDLA 18-kip ESAL Reliability Resilient Modulus (Based on R-Value=10) PSI Loss 7 51,100 75% 3562 2.5 15 109,500 80% 3562 2.2 Design Structure Number 2.47 2.88 Composite Section – Option A (assume Stable Subgrade) Hot Mix Asphalt Aggregate Base Course Structure Number 4" 7" (2.53) 5" 7" (2.97) Composite Section with Fly Ash Treated Subgrade Hot Mix Asphalt Aggregate Base Course Fly Ash or Cement Treated Subgrade (assume half-credit) Structure Number 3-1/2" 6" 12" (2.80) 4" 6" 12" (3.02) PCC (Non-reinforced) – placed on a stable subgrade 5½" 6" We recommend aggregate base be graded to meet a Class 5 or Class 6 aggregate base. Aggregate base should be adjusted to a workable moisture content and compacted to achieve a minimum of 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density. HMA should be graded to meet a S (75) or SX (75) with PG 58-28 or 64-22 binder. HMA should be compacted to achieve 92 to 96% of the mix's theoretical maximum specific gravity (Rice Value). Portland cement concrete should be an acceptable exterior pavement mix with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,500 psi and should be air entrained. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1212053 July 16, 2021 Page 13 The recommended pavement sections are minimums; thus, 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. 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.  Place and compact 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. If during or after placement of the 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 methods of stabilization, or a change in the pavement section. Water Soluble Sulfates (SO4) The water-soluble sulfate (SO4) content of the on-site overburden subsoils, taken during our subsurface exploration at random locations and intervals are provided below. Based on reported sulfate content test results, the Class/severity of sulfate exposure for concrete in contact with the on- site subsoils is provided in this report. Table V - Water Soluble Sulfate Test Results Sample Location Description % of Soil by Weight B-2, S-2, at 4’ Lean Clay with Sand (CL) 0.16 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1212053 July 16, 2021 Page 14 Based on the results as presented above, ACI 318, Section 4.2 indicates the site soils have a moderate risk of sulfate attack on Portland cement concrete, therefore, ACI Class S2 requirements should be followed for concrete placed in the overburden soils. 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 structure 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 used in hardscapes areas although positive drainage should be maintained. Care should be taken in planning of landscaping adjacent to the building, parking, and drive areas to avoid features which would pond water adjacent to the pavements, foundations, or stem walls. 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. Excavations into the on-site soils may encounter a variety of conditions. Excavations into the on-site lean clay soils can be expected to stand on relatively steep temporary slopes during construction while excavations extending to the gravel/sand soils may experience caving/sloughing. 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. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1212053 July 16, 2021 Page 15 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use for Sit & Stay, LLC and VFLA 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. 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 Group Symbol Group Name Cu≥4 and 1<Cc≤3E GW Well-graded gravel F Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3E 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≤3E SW Well-graded sand I Cu<6 and/or 1>Cc>3E 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 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 110PLASTICITY 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 DOG PARK FACILITY AND RESTAURANT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1212053 JUNE 2021 DOG PARK FACILITY AND RESTAURANT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1212053 JUNE 2021 B-1B-2B-3B-41234Boring Location DiagramDog Park Facility and RestaurantFort Collins, ColoradoEEC Project #: 1212053 Date: June 2021EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLCASSro[imate BoringLocations1LegendSite PKotosPKotos taken in aSSro[imatelocation, in direction oI arroZ DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DAR 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 WEEDS / VEGETATION _ _ 1 LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff _ _ with trace gravel CS 3 23 9000+ 10.5 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 31 9000+ 12.8 122.3 34 16 76.4 3200 PSF 3.1% _ _ 6 _ _ GRAVEL/SAND with SILT (GP/SP - SM) 7 brown / gray / rust _ _ very dense 8 poorly graded _ _ with cobbles 9 _ _ SS 10 50/9" 2.9 6.8 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ SS 15 50/10" 9.7 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20' _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC DOG PARK FACILITY AND RESTAURANT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO LOG OF BORING B-1PROJECT NO: 1212053 JUNE 2021 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 6/23/2021 WHILE DRILLING 11' FINISH DATE 6/23/2021 AFTER DRILLING 10' A-LIMITS SWELL DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DAR 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 TOP SOIL & WEEDS _ _ 1 LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff _ _% @ 150 PSF CS 3 25 9000+ 14.0 118.8 34 16 72.2 3600 PSF 4.7% _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 25 9000+ 11.7 116.6 _ _ 6 GRAVEL/SAND with SILT (GP/SP - SM) _ _ brown / gray / rust 7 medium dense to very dense _ _ 8 _ _ 9 with cobbles _ _ SS 10 22 3.2 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ SS 15 50/4" 3.1 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.5' 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC DOG PARK FACILITY AND RESTAURANT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1212053 LOG OF BORING B-2 JUNE 2021 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 6/23/2021 WHILE DRILLING 11' FINISH DATE 6/23/2021 AFTER DRILLING 11' A-LIMITS SWELL DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DAR 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 WEEDS / VEGETATION _ _ 1 LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff _ _% @ 150 PSF CS 3 18 9000+ 14.7 114.3 2800 PSF 2.4% _ _ 4 red _ _ CS 5 22 9000+ 11.8 118.3 28 12 77.8 900 PSF 0.5% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 GRAVEL/SAND with SILT (GP/SP - SM) _ _ brown / gray / rust 8 very dense _ _ poorly graded 9 with cobbles _ _ SS 10 50/10" 5.4 10.4 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ SS 15 50/9" 7.2 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20' _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC DOG PARK FACILITY AND RESTAURANT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1212053 LOG OF BORING B-3 JUNE 2021 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 6/23/2021 WHILE DRILLING 10' FINISH DATE 6/23/2021 AFTER DRILLING 7.5' A-LIMITS SWELL DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DAR 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 WEEDS / VEGETATION _ _ 1 LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff _ _ CS 3 19 9000+ 15.1 115.4 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 25 9000+ 12.9 3000 PSF 1.9% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ GRAVEL/SAND with SILT (GP/SP - SM) 9 brown / gray / rust _ _ very dense SS 10 50/6" 20.1 with cobbles _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ SS 15 50/3" 9.5 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 sand lense _ _ 19 _ _ SS 20 50/4" 17.0 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25' _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC DOG PARK FACILITY AND RESTAURANT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1212053 LOG OF BORING B-4 JUNE 2021 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 6/23/2021 WHILE DRILLING 8' FINISH DATE 6/23/2021 AFTER DRILLING 6' A-LIMITS SWELL Project: Location: Project #: Date: Dog Park Facility and Restaurant Fort Collins, Colorado 1212053 July 2021 Beginning Moisture: 12.8% Dry Density: 116.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 17.6% Swell Pressure: 3200 psf % Swell @ 500: 3.1% Sample Location: Boring 1, Sample 2, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: 34 Plasticity Index: 16 % Passing #200: 76.4% 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 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidationWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Dog Park Facility and Restaurant Fort Collins, Colorado 1212053 July 2021 Beginning Moisture: 14.0% Dry Density: 118.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 19.0% Swell Pressure: 3600 psf % Swell @ 150: 4.7% Sample Location: Boring 2, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: 34 Plasticity Index: 16 % Passing #200: 72.2% 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 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidationWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Dog Park Facility and Restaurant Fort Collins, Colorado 1212053 July 2021 Beginning Moisture: 14.7% Dry Density: 116.7 pcf Ending Moisture: 15.5% Swell Pressure: 2800 psf % Swell @ 150: 2.4% Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - 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 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidationWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Dog Park Facility and Restaurant Fort Collins, Colorado 1212053 July 2021 Beginning Moisture: 11.4% Dry Density: 117.8 pcf Ending Moisture: 17.4% Swell Pressure: 900 psf % Swell @ 500: 0.5% Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 2, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: 28 Plasticity Index: 12 % Passing #200: 77.8% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Red 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 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidationWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: Dog Park Facility and Restaurant Fort Collins, Colorado 1212053 July 2021 Beginning Moisture: 12.9% Dry Density: 118.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 14.2% Swell Pressure: 3000 psf % Swell @ 500: 1.9% Sample Location: Boring 4, Sample 2, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - 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 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidationWater Added 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: Dog Park Facility and Restaurant Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1212053 Sample ID: B-1, S-3, at 9' Sample Desc.: Poorly Graded Gravel / Sand with Silt (GP / SP - SM) Date: July 2021 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) 100 Sieve Size Percent Passing 100 100 89 86 71 63 51 43 12 6.8 41 35 27 22 18 0.81 0.12Fine65.71 0.64D30D10CuCCJuly 202137.50 8.19 4.41Dog Park Facility and RestaurantFort Collins, Colorado1212053B-1, S-3, at 9'D100D60D50EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLCSummary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136)Date:Project:Location:Project No:Sample ID:CobbleSilt or ClayGravelCoarse FineSandCoarse Medium6"5"4"3"2.5"2"1.5"1"3/4"1/2"3/8"No. 4No. 8No. 10No. 16No. 30No. 40No. 50No. 100No. 20001020304050607080901000.010.11101001000Finer by Weight (%)Grain Size (mm)Standard Sieve Size 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: Dog Park Facility and Restaurant Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1212053 Sample ID: B-3, S-3, at 9' Sample Desc.: Poorly Graded Gravel / Sand with Silt (GP / SP - SM) Date: July 2021 66 57 49 15 10.4 48 42 34 28 22 100 100 89 75 71 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) 100 Sieve Size Percent Passing EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLCSummary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136)Date:Project:Location:Sample ID:Sample Desc.:CobbleSilt or ClayGravelCoarse FineSandCoarse MediumJuly 2021Dog Park Facility and RestaurantFort Collins, ColoradoB-3, S-3, at 9'Poorly Graded Gravel / Sand with Silt (GP / SP - SM)D100D60D50FineD30D10CuCC6"5"4"3"2.5"2"1.5"1"3/4"1/2"3/8"No. 4No. 8No. 10No. 16No. 30No. 40No. 50No. 100No. 20001020304050607080901000.010.11101001000Finer by Weight (%)Grain Size (mm)Standard Sieve Size