The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER LOT 4 - FDP200011 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 5 - Geotechnical (Soils) Report 4396 GREENFIELD D RIVE W INDSOR, C OLORADO 80550 (970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 www.earth-engineering.com July 31, 2024 TW Beck Architects 170 South St. Vrain Avenue P.O. Box 57 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Attn: Mr. Thomas W. Beck (thomas@twbeckarchitects.com) Re: Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report – Addendum No. 1 Proposed Salud Family Health of Fort Collins 1830 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1162045 Mr. Beck: Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC (EEC) performed a subsurface exploration on May 19, 2016, which consisted of drilling/completing six (6) soil borings within the proposed improvement areas to depths of approximately 15 to 30 feet below existing site grades for the proposed building renovations and site improvements at 1830 LaPorte Avenue in Fort Collins. For further information and findings thereof, please refer our “Subsurface Exploration Report” (GEO-Report 2016) dated June 9, 2016, EEC Project No. 1162045. We understand the proposed site improvements planned in 2016 have not yet been performed and at this time, the same site improvements are currently in the design and development stages. The current plans have been submitted for review and approval and one of the review comments indicated an updated “soils” report would be required unless the geotechnical engineer of record (GEOR) can provide a letter indicating the existing report is still valid. Included herein are our comments/opinions for the use of the GEO-Report 2016 for the current development improvements. The original GEO-Report 2016 provided conventional spread footing foundation recommendations for the proposed additions, and conventional spread footings and/or drilled pier recommendation for the proposed bridge structure building foundations, along with project-specific pavement recommendation for the planned on-site improvements. Since completion of the GEO-Report 2016, we understand that no disturbance to the existing terrain or grade changes, (i.e., no excavations and/or fill placement activities) have taken place; therefore, the subsoils encountered in 2016 have remained unchanged. In our opinion, the recommendations provided in our GEO-Report 2016 are still valid and this report can be used/relied upon for the current plan design concept. Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC � EEC Project No. 1162045 July 31,2024 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed t•eport, or if we can be of further service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact us. Veiy truly yours, Earth En ineering Consultants, LLC Q�o�p,o0 LICF,y�,F .`Q Ri�y..o . , . 7� • ._- . �- . : � -�9..�'3/z�,.��, �FFSSION A�� David A. Richet•, P.E. Senior Project Engineer SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT PROPOSED SALUD FAMILY HEALTH OF FORT COLLINS 1830 LAPORTE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1162045 Prepared for: TW Beck Architects 170 South St. Vrain Avenue P.O. Box 57 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Attn: Mr. Thomas W. Beck (thomas@twbeckarchitects.com) Prepared by: Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC 4396 Greenfield Drive Windsor, Colorado 80550 June 9, 2016 TW Beck Architects 170 South St. Vrain Avenue �.�I ENGINEERING P.O. Box 57 CONSULTANTS, LLC Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Attn: Mr. Thomas W. Beck thomas cr;rivbeckarchitects.com) Re: Geotechnical Subsurface Explorarion Report Proposed Salud Family Health of Fort Collins 1830 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1162045 Mr. Beck: Enclosed, herewith, are the results of the geotechnical subsurface exploration completed by Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC personnel for proposed building renovations and site improvements at 1830 LaPorte Avenue in Fort Collins. For this exploration, six (6) soil borings were completed in proposed improvement areas to depths of approximately 15 to 30 feet below existing site grades. Results of those test borings and geotechnical recommendations based on the developed data are provided with the enclosed report. This exploration was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated May 3, 2016. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed report, or if we can be of further service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very tnxly yours, Earth En ineering Consultants, LLC �PP�' I Cf F h;,o :Q' 9S ;a : . 12 • . � /� :� . � 9oFF S/ONA��,� S�.....••'�C� David A. Richer, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Reviewed by: Lester L. Litton, P.E. Principal Engineer 4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550 (970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 www.ear[h-engineering.com GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT PROPOSED SALUD FAMILY HEALTH OF FORT COLLINS 1830 LAPORTE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1162045 June 9, 2016 INTRODUCTION The subsurface exploration for the proposed building renovations and site improvements for the Salud Family Health of Fort Collins facility at 1830 LaPorte Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado, has been completed. As a part of that exploration, six (6) soil borings were completed in the vicinity of proposed building and site improvements to develop information on existing subsurface conditions. Those borings were extended to depths of approximately 15 to 30 feet below existing site grades. Individual boring logs and a diagram indicating the approximate boring locations are provided with this report. This exploration was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated May 3, 2016. We understand this project involves building renovations and site improvements to the existing facility at 1830 LaPorte Avenue in Fort Collins. Specifics concerning the building renovations were not available at the time of this report; however, it is anticipated lightly loaded footing foundations may be required for a portion of those renovations. The existing structure is a single story, slab-on- grade (non-basement) building. Site improvements will include construction of a detention pond, (please refer to our test boring location diagram in the vicinity of boring B-1) development of paved drive and parking areas (Boring Nos. 2, 3 and 4) and a new bridge and/or culvert structure spanning the Larimer County No. 2 Canal to provide property access (Boring Nos 5 and 6). We expect small grade changes will be required to develop the proposed site improvements. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, analyze and evaluate the test data and provide geotechnical recommendations concerning design and construction of lightly loaded foundations, support of floor slabs and flatwork, support of site pavements, development of the site detention pond and support of the proposed ditch crossing structure. EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES The boring locations were established in the field by Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC (EEC) personnel by pacing and estimating angles from identifiable site features. The approximate locations of the test borings are indicated on the attached boring location diagram. The locations of the test Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 2016 Page 2 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 our field exploration are included with this report. The test borings were completed using a truck mounted, CME-55 drill rig equipped with hydraulic head employed in drilling and sampling operations. The boreholes were advanced using 4-inch nominal diameter continuous flight augers and 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 driven into the ground by means of a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the 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. In addition, the unconfined strength of appropriate samples was estimated using a calibrated hand penetrometer. Atterberg limits and washed sieve analysis tests were completed on selected samples to evaluate the quantity and plasticity of fines in the subgrades. Swell/consolidation tests were completed on selected samples to evaluate the potential for the subgrade and foundation bearing materials to change volume with variation in moisture content and load. Selected samples of near surface soils were also tested to determine quantities of water soluble sulfates to evaluate the potential for sulfate attack on site 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 general accordance with the attached General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System, based on the soils’ 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. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 2016 Page 3 SITE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS An EEC field engineer was on-site during drilling operations to evaluate the subsurface conditions encountered and direct the drilling activities. Field logs developed 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 boring and laboratory testing, subsurface conditions can be generalized as follows. Sparse vegetation and topsoil were generally encountered at the surface of the boring locations except in boring B-4 where approximately 3 inches of gravel surfacing was encountered. The topsoil/vegetation and/or gravel surfacing were underlain by brown sandy lean clay. A portion of the near surface materials appeared to be fill soils. The cohesive overburden soils extended to depths of approximately 7 feet in the proposed detention pond area, to depths of approximately 9 to 11 feet in the immediate vicinity of the existing structure, and to depths on the order of 12½ to 14½ feet at the proposed bridge location. Those soils were underlain by sands and gravels with varying amounts of silt and clay. The sands and gravels extended to the bottom of boring B-3 at a depth of approximately 15 feet and to depths of approximately 12½ to 22 feet at the other boring locations. The sand and gravel deposits were underlain by brown and grey siltstone, sandstone, claystone bedrock. The bedrock at those locations extended to the bottom of the borings at depths of approximately 15 to 30 feet. The near surface cohesive soils were generally loose or soft to stiff with particularly soft soils observed in boring B-2. The underlying sands and gravels were generally medium dense to dense with the underlying claystone bedrock being moderately hard. The overburden lean clay showed low potential to swell with increased moisture content at current moisture and density conditions. The underlying claystone bedrock showed moderate swell potential. The stratification boundaries indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate locations of changes in soil and rock types. In-situ, the transition of materials may be gradual and indistinct. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 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. Free water was observed in the borings at depths ranging from approximately 8 to 16 feet below current ground surface. The water level measurements are indicated in the upper right hand corner of the boring logs. The boreholes were backfilled upon completion so that longer term observations of groundwater levels were not obtained. Fluctuations in groundwater levels can occur over time depending on variations in hydrologic conditions and other conditions not apparent at the time of this report. Monitoring in cased borings sealed from the influence of surface infiltration would be required to more accurately evaluate groundwater levels and fluctuations in those groundwater levels over time. Zones of perched and/or trapped water may be present at times in the subsurface soils. The location and amount of perched/trapped water is dependent upon several factors including hydrologic conditions, type of site development, irrigation demands on or adjacent of this site and seasonal and weather conditions. The observations provided in this report represent groundwater conditions at the time of the field exploration and may not be indicative of other times or other locations. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Swell / Consolidation Test Results The swell/consolidation test is performed to evaluate the swell or collapse potential of soils to help determine foundation, floor slab and pavement design criteria. In this test, relatively intact samples obtained directly from the California barrel sampler are placed in a laboratory apparatus and inundated with water under a predetermined load. The swell-index is the resulting amount of swell or collapse after the initial inundation period 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/or consolidation response. As a part of our laboratory testing, we conducted six (6) swell/consolidation tests on samples of the overburden cohesive soils and underlying bedrock. The swell index values for the samples analyzed revealed low swell characteristics in the cohesive overburden soils and moderate swell for the underlying bedrock. Results of the laboratory swell tests are indicated on the attached boring logs and are shown on the enclosed summary sheets. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 2016 Page 5 Building Foundations We expect any new foundations for building improvements will be lightly loaded with continuous wall loads less than 2 kips per lineal foot and column loads less than 50 kips. Based on materials observed in the nearby test borings, we anticipate the building foundations could be supported on conventional footings. Care will be necessary to see that footing foundations are supported on suitable strength native soils consisting of either stiff to very stiff sandy lean clays or underlying medium dense essentially granular to granular soils. For design of footing foundations bearing on suitable strength native soils, we recommend using a net allowable total load soil bearing pressure not to exceed 1,500 psf. The 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. Close evaluation of foundation bearing materials will be required during construction to see that those footings are supported on suitable strength native soils. Soft soils were observed in boring B-2 at the time of drilling. If soft or loose zones are observed in the subgrade soils at foundation bearing level, extension of the foundation bearing below the soft or loose materials or removal and replacement of those materials with appropriate fill soils would be required. The suitability of the site subgrade materials can best be evaluated in “foundation-excavation/open-hole” observations during construction. Any exterior foundations or foundations in unheated areas should be located a minimum 30 inches below adjacent exterior grade to provide frost protection. We recommend formed continuous footings have a minimum width of 16 inches and isolated column foundations have a minimum width of 30 inches. Trenched foundations or grade beam foundations should not be used in the building areas to allow for close observation of the foundation bearing strata. No unusual problems are anticipated in completing the excavations required for construction of new footing foundations. Care should be taken during construction to avoid disturbing the foundation bearing materials. Soils 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. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 2016 Page 6 We anticipate settlement of footing foundations designed and constructed as outlined above would be less than 1-inch. Differential settlement between new footings and the existing structure may approach total settlement of the new footing foundations. Steps should be taken to accommodate anticipated differential settlement between the existing building and the new foundations. Bridge Foundation Systems – General Considerations We expect the proposed bridge will be a single span bridge designed to accommodate low volume vehicular traffic. The following foundation systems were evaluated for use for the proposed bridge structure.  Based on the subsoils observed at the test boring locations, (i.e., borings B-5 and B-6, we believe the structure could be supported on conventional type spread footings bearing on a zone of approved, placed and compacted imported structural fill material.  As an alternative to an over-excavation and replacement method, and depending upon the seepage/liner characteristics of the existing canal, consideration could also be given to supporting the bridge structure on a straight shaft drilled pier foundation system extending into the underlying bedrock formation. Foundation – Conventional Type Spread Footing System Based on materials encountered in the borings completed near the proposed bridge, it is our opinion the proposed structure could be supported on conventional footing foundations either extending to the medium dense granular soils at depths ranging from approximately 12½ to 14½ feet below existing site grades or on granular structural fill materials extending to the underlying medium dense native granular materials. For design of footing foundations bearing on natural, medium dense granular soils or suitable placed fill materials we recommend using a net allowable total load soil bearing pressure not to exceed 3,000 psf. The net bearing pressure refers to pressure at foundation bearing level in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure. Total load should include full dead and live loads. For bridge foundations supported on granular structural fill, we recommend all in-place lean clay soils be removed down to the natural granular materials. Overexcavation should extend 8 inches beyond the footing foundations laterally in all directions for each 12 inches of fill to be placed below Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 2016 Page 7 foundation bearing level. The fill materials to develop foundation bearing should consist of approved granular structural fill materials similar to CDOT Class 5, Class 6 or Class 7 structural fill. The fill materials should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted in moisture content to a workable moisture and compacted to at least 98% of standard Proctor maximum dry density. No unusual problems are anticipated in completing excavations required for construction of the footing foundations. Footing foundations will extend to near groundwater levels as observed at the time of the test borings. Care should be taken to avoid disturbing the bearing soils; soils which become loosened or disturbed by the construction activities should be removed and replaced prior to placement of overlying fill materials or a foundation concrete. Care should be taken to evaluate groundwater level prior to excavating for the footing foundations to evaluate the necessity of site dewatering for the construction activities. All foundations should bear on uniform type soils, (i.e., the entire foundation system should bear on the native granular subsoils or on a zone of imported structural fill material as described herein) to reduce the potential for differential movement of dissimilar soil types. Close evaluation of the foundation bearing strata materials will be necessary during the construction phase. Reinforced concrete dead-man foundations, cast-in excavations against undisturbed subsoils could be used for resistance to uplift. Footing or dead-man foundations may be designed using the cone method. The equation for determining the ultimate uplift capacity as a function of footing or dead- man foundation dimension, foundation depth, and soil weight is presented below: Tu = 0.6  x D2 x (B + L) + W Where: Tu = Ultimate uplift capacity (lbs)  = Unit weight of soil (lbs/ft3)* D = Depth to base of footing/dead-man foundation below final grade (ft.) B = Width of footing/dead-man foundation (ft.) L = Length of footing/dead-man foundation (ft.) W = Weight of footing/dead-man + weight of soil directly over the top of the footing/block (lbs) *A unit weight () of 120 pcf is recommended for soil (either undisturbed or compacted backfill) at this site. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 2016 Page 8 The design uplift resistance should be calculated by dividing the ultimate resistance obtained from the equation above by an appropriate factor of safety. A factor of safety of at least 2 is recommended for live uplift loads in the analysis. 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. If unacceptable materials are encountered at the time of construction, it may be necessary to extend the footings to suitable strength soils or over-excavate unacceptable materials and replace those soils with approved fill materials. Those conditions can best be evaluated in open excavations at the time of construction. Based on the consistency of the subgrade soils observed at the boring locations, we anticipate the long term settlement of footing foundation designed and constructed outlined above would be less than 1 inch. Foundation System – Drilled Piers Alternative deep foundations extending to bear within the underlying granular soils or on the weathered claystone/siltstone/sandstone bedrock could be considered. Micro piles or helical piers could be considered along with drilled pier foundations. Use of drilled pier foundations will require temporary casing to prevent influx of soil or groundwater in the boreholes during construction. For the proposed Salud bridge structure, consideration could also be given to supporting the canal crossing structure on straight shaft drilled piers/caissons extending into the underlying bedrock formation. Particular attention will be required in the construction of drilled piers due to the presence of groundwater as well as possible large particle sized cobbles within the granular zone above the bedrock. Bedrock was encountered at an approximate depths of 17-1/2 to 22 feet below existing site grades in borings B-5 and B-6. For axial compression loads, the drilled piers could be designed using a maximum end bearing pressure of 30,000 pounds per square foot (psf), along with a skin-friction of 3,000 psf for the portion of the pier extended into the underlying firm and/or harder bedrock formation. Straight shaft piers should be drilled a minimum of 10-feet into competent or harder bedrock. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 2016 Page 9 To satisfy forces in the horizontal direction, piers may be designed for lateral loads using a modulus of 75 tons per cubic foot (tcf) for native granular materials or engineered/structural fill material, and 400 tcf in bedrock for a pier diameter of 12 inches. The coefficient of subgrade reaction for varying pier diameters is as follows: Table I - Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction (tons/ft3) Pier Diameter (inches) Engineered Fill or Granular Soils Bedrock 18 50 267 24 38 200 30 30 160 36 25 133 When the lateral capacity of drilled piers is evaluated by the L-Pile (COM 624) computer program, we recommend that internally generated load-deformation (P-Y) curves be used. The following parameters may be used for the design of laterally loaded piers, using the L-Pile (COM 624) computer program: Table II - L-Pile Design Parameters – Pelican Lakes Golf Course Proposed Pedestrian Bridge Structure Parameters Native Granular Soils or Structural Fill On-Site Slightly Cohesive Subsoils Bedrock Unit Weight of Soil (pcf) 130(1) 115(1) 125(1) Cohesion (psf) 0 200 5000 Angle of Internal Friction () (degrees) 35 28 25 Strain Corresponding to ½ Max. Principal Stress Difference 50 --- 0.02 0.015 *Notes: 1) Reduce by 64 PCF below the water table Drilling caissons to design depth should be possible with conventional heavy-duty single flight power augers equipped with rock teeth on the majority of the site. However, areas of well-cemented, intermittent sandstone lenses within the claystone /sandstone bedrock formation may be encountered throughout the site at various depths where specialized drilling equipment and/or rock excavating equipment may be required. Excavation penetrating the well-cemented claystone/ sandstone bedrock may require the use of specialized heavy-duty equipment, together with rock augers and/or core barrels. Consideration should be given to obtaining a unit price for difficult caisson excavation in the contract documents for the project. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 2016 Page 10 Due to the depth of groundwater as well as the coarse granular soils with intermittent cobbles at increased depths within the proposed canal crossing/bridge alignment, maintaining open shafts should not be expected without stabilizing measures. Groundwater was encountered at an approximate depth of 11-1/2 to 16 feet below site grades; therefore, we expect temporary casing will be required to adequately/properly drill and clean piers prior to concrete placement. Groundwater should be removed from each pier hole prior to concrete placement. Pier concrete should be placed immediately after completion of drilling and cleaning. A maximum 3-inch depth of groundwater is acceptable in each pier prior to concrete placement. If pier concrete cannot be placed in dry conditions, a tremie should be used for concrete placement. Due to potential sloughing and raveling, foundation concrete quantities may exceed calculated geometric volumes. Pier concrete with slump in the range of 6 to 8 inches is recommended. Casing used for pier construction should be withdrawn in a slow continuous manner maintaining a sufficient head of concrete to prevent infiltration of water or the creation of voids in pier concrete. Foundation excavations should be continuously observed by the geotechnical engineer. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should inspect the bearing surface and pier configuration. If the soil conditions encountered differ from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations may be required. Lateral Earth Pressures Below grade structures including bridge abutment walls and wing walls, or site retaining walls will be subject to unbalanced lateral earth pressures. Active lateral earth pressures could be used for design of structures where some movement of the structures anticipated such as retaining walls or bridge wing walls. The total deflection of structures for design with active earth pressure is estimated to be on the order of one half of one percent of the height of the down slope side of the structure. We recommend at-rest pressures be used for design of structures where rotation of the walls is restrained such as the bridge abutments. Passive pressures and friction between the footing and bearing soils could be used for design of resistance to movement of abutment and/or 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 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 2016 Page 11 coefficient times the appropriate soil unit weight. As appropriate, buoyant weights and hydrostatic pressure should be considered. The coefficient values are based on horizontal backfill with backfill soils consisting of essentially granular material with a friction angle of 35 degrees or greater or low volume change cohesive soils with a friction angle of at least 28 degrees. For the at-rest and active pressures, slopes down 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 down 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. TABLE III - Lateral Earth Pressures Soil Type On-Site Cohesive Soils Imported Granular Fill Material Wet Unit Weight 120 135 Saturated Unit Weight 130 140 Friction Angle () 28° 35° Active Pressure Coefficient 0.36 0.27 At-rest Pressure Coefficient 0.53 0.42 Passive Pressure Coefficient 2.77 3.70 Surcharge loads or point loads placed in the backfill can also create additional loads on below grade walls. Those situations should be designed on an individual basis. The outlined values do not include factors of safety nor allowances for hydrostatic. Care should be taken to develop appropriate drainage systems behind below grade walls to eliminate the potential for hydrostatic loads developing on those walls. The drainage system would likely include a perimeter drain system 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. Site Subgrade Preparation The near surface subgrade soils observed at the site consist of low to moderate plasticity lean clay with varying amounts of sand. Those soils showed low potential for volume change with variation in moisture content at current moisture and density conditions. However, the cohesive subgrade soils can show instability at higher moisture contents and may show swell potential when Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 2016 Page 12 excessively dry. Although the in-place site soils could be used for subgrade support of floor slabs, flatwork and pavements, stabilization of the subgrades with the addition of Class C fly ash may be required to provide stable subgrades for placement of the overlying pavement sections. Stabilization of the subgrade would generally not be required in interior floor slab areas although excessively wet and unstable soils may require removal and replacement to develop suitable subgrades for placement of the interior floor slabs. Any existing vegetation and/or topsoil should be removed from beneath the proposed exterior flatwork and pavements. In addition, any existing unsuitable fill materials or structural elements should be removed from all of the subgrade areas. After stripping and completing all cuts and prior to placement of any fill, flatwork or pavements, we recommend the exposed subgrades be scarified to a minimum depth of 9 inches, adjusted in 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. The moisture content of the scarified soils should be adjusted to be within ±2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. Scarification and compaction of the subgrades below existing interior floor slab areas would not be required although care should be taken to evaluate suitability of the interior subgrade materials prior to placement of overlying fills and/or floor slabs. Any fill materials required to develop the subgrades should consist of approved, low-volume change materials which are free from organic matter and debris. If granular structural import materials are used, those soils should contain sufficient fines to prevent ponding of water in the fill materials. In our opinion, the site sandy lean clay soils observed in the test borings could be used for fill to develop the flatwork and pavement subgrades. Fill materials should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick and, adjusted in moisture content and compacted as outlined for the scarified soils. Care should be taken after preparation of the subgrades to avoid disturbing the subgrade materials. The site cohesive materials may be subject to instability in strength loss when wetted. Positive drainage should be developed from the subgrade areas to avoid wetting of bearing and/or subgrade materials. Stabilization of the cohesive materials may be required if instability is noted prior to placement of the overlying pavement section. Subgrade materials allowed to become saturated subsequent to construction of the site improvements can result in unacceptable performance. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 2016 Page 13 Seismic Conditions Site subgrade materials consist of overburden soils to depths of approximately 22 feet or greater overlying moderately hard bedrock. We recommend using an IBC site classification of D for structural design for the site structure. Water Soluble Sulfates (SO4) The water soluble sulfate (SO4) testing of the on-site overburden and bedrock materials taken during our subsurface exploration at varying depths are provided in Table IV below. Table IV- Water Soluble Sulfate Test Results Sample Location Description Soluble Sulfate Content (mg/kg) Soluble Sulfate Content (%) B-2, @ 4' Brown Sandy Lean Clay 240 0.02 B-5 @ 29' Brown/Grey Claystone/Siltstone 290 0.03 B6 @ 19' Brown Sand and Gravel 50 <0.01 Based on the results as presented in the table above, ACI 318, Section 4.2 indicates the site overburden soils and/or bedrock generally have a low risk of sulfate attack on Portland cement concrete. Therefore, Class 0 (Type I/II) could be used for concrete on and below site grade within the overburden soils and/or bedrock. Foundation concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, and 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 Site Pavements We anticipate site pavements will be used by low volumes of relatively light vehicles including automobiles and light trucks. Occasional heavier truck traffic may use the site pavements. We Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 2016 Page 14 anticipate subgrade in the pavement areas will consist of the site sandy lean clays with potential subgrade stabilization. Please note we are also including minimum pavement thicknesses associated with proposed local/City of Fort Collins roadway alignment that eventually will connect LaPorte Avenue and Maple Street, (please refer to the site diagrams included with this report). It should be noted that typically a final pavement design geotechnical engineering report is prepared after all roadway utilities have been installed and the roadway has been prepared to rough final subgrade elevations in general accordance with the City of Fort Collins/LCUASS pavement design guidelines. Recommended pavement sections based on the outlined traffic and subgrade conditions are provided in Table VI below. Table VI - RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTIONS Light Duty Heavy Duty Areas Local Roadway 18 kip EDLA 18 kip ESAL Reliability Resilient Modulus – (based on an R-Value of 10) PSI Loss (Initial – Final Serviceability Index) 7 51,100 70% 3562 2.5 15 182,500 75% 3562 2.2 25 182,500 75 3562 2.2 Calculated Design Weighted Structural Number 2.49 2.80 3.03 Composite: Alternative A Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Grading S (75 PG 58-28) Aggregate Base Course – CDOT Class 5 or 6 Actual Design Weighted Structural Number 4" 7" (2.53) 4-1/2" 8" (2.86) 5" 8" (3.08) Composite: Alternative B Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Grading S (75 PG 58-28)) Aggregate Base Course – CDOT Class 5 or 6 Fly Ash Treated Subgrade - (assume half-strength credit) Design Structure Number 3-1/2" 6" 12" (2.80) 3-1/2" 6" 12" (2.80) 4" 7" 12" (3.13) PCC (Non-reinforced) 5" 6" 6-1/2 We recommend hot bituminous pavement used in the pavement area consist of a grading S 75 or SX 75 with performance graded (PG) 58/28 or 64/22 binder. Aggregate base course should consist of Class 5 or Class 6 aggregate base course (ABC) consistent with Larimer County Urban Street Standards. Portland cement concrete, is used, should consist of approve exterior pavement mix with a minimum compressive strength of 4000 psi. Use of fiber mesh or woven wire could be considered as a reduced control. Control joints should cut at appropriate intervals and at time frames in accordance with ACI criteria. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 2016 Page 15 Positive drainage should be developed across and away from the pavement edges to avoid wetting of the subgrades. Pavements allowed to become wetted subsequent to construction can result in premature failure of the pavement section. Site Detention Pond Area Subgrade materials observed in the area of the proposed detention pond consist of sandy lean clay soils to a depth of approximately 7 feet underlain by sands and gravels. The overburden cohesive soils would have relatively low permeabilities with the underlying granular soils showing generally higher permeabilities. Groundwater levels in the area of the detention pond were observed at a depth of approximately 8 feet. For this project, we conducted two (2) soil percolation tests, one within the upper cohesive subsoils and the second within the lower granular subsoils in the vicinity of Boring B-1. Soil percolation testing within the proposed detention pond area conducted for a period of approximately 90 minutes after an initial “24-hour soaking period”, resulted in percolations rates from ground surface to approximately 4 to 5 feet below existing site grades on the order of 80 minutes/inch and approximately 20 minutes/inch within the granular subsoils; however, groundwater was measured at a depth of about 8 feet below site which may be influencing the infiltration rates with depth. The soil percolation rates are presented on the Log of Boring for B-1. If necessary, scarification and compaction or placement of a compacted zone of the site cohesive soils could be considered to reduce infiltration from the detention pond area. Greater infiltration rates could be developed extending the pond to the underlying sands and gravels. Care should be taken to establish appropriate base elevations considering groundwater levels in this area. 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. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1162045 June 9, 2016 Page 16 It is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained to review the plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. It is further recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained for testing and observations during earthwork and foundation construction phases to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of TW Beck Architects 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 90 100 110 PL A S T I C I T Y I N D E X ( P I ) 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 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 Figure 1: Boring Location Diagram Salud Family Health - 1830 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project #: 1162045 Date: June 2016 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC Approximate Boring Locations 1 Legend Site Photos (Photos taken in approximate location, in direction of arrow) 1 2 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 Figure 2: Boring Location Diagram Salud Family Health - 1830 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project #: 1162045 Date: June 2016 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC Approximate Boring Locations 1 Legend Site Photos (Photos taken in approximate location, in direction of arrow) SALUD - FORT COLLINS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1162045 MAY 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 medium stiff to stiff _ _ 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 8 5500 18.4 107.9 30 14 69.0 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ GRAVEL (GP) 8 brown, dense _ _ 9 _ _ SS 10 40 1000 10.2 NL NP 14.8 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE _ _ brown / grey / rust, moderately hard to hard 14 _ _ SS 15 50 8000 16.0 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.5' 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC SALUD FAMILY HEALTH - 1830 LAPORTE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO LOG OF BORING B-1PROJECT NO: 1162045 JUNE 2016 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 5/19/2016 WHILE DRILLING 8' FINISH DATE 5/19/2016 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A Soil Percolation / Infiltration Rate from approximately 1.0' to 4.0' = 80 minutes / inch Soil Percolation / Infiltration Rate from approximately 8.0' to 11.0' = 20 minutes / inch 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 _ _ 1 LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 soft to medium stiff _ _ CS 3 5 4000 19.3 104.3 35 21 70.5 <500 psf None _ _ 4 _ _ SS 5 2 1500 21.2 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ CLAYEY SAND & GRAVEL (SC/GP) CS 10 19 -- 4.8 113.7 brown, medium dense _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE SS 15 50 7500 17.0 brown / grey / rust, moderately hard to hard _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.5' 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC SALUD FAMILY HEALTH - 1830 LAPORTE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1162045 LOG OF BORING B-2 JUNE 2016 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 5/19/2016 WHILE DRILLING 10.5' SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 5/19/2016 AFTER DRILLING N/A 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 _ _ 1 FILL MATERIAL: Sandy Lean Clay with Gravel _ _ brown 2 _ _ SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) CS 3 9 7000 18.4 105.9 800 psf 0.3% brown _ _ medium stiff 4 _ _ SS 5 6 3000 19.6 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ CS 10 6 2000 19.6 104.6 600 psf 0.1% _ _ 11 _ _ 12 SAND & GRAVEL (SP/GP) _ _ brown, dense to very dense 13 _ _ 14 _ _ SS 15 50/11" -- 17.1 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.5' 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC SALUD FAMILY HEALTH - 1830 LAPORTE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1162045 LOG OF BORING B-3 JUNE 2016 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 5/19/2016 WHILE DRILLING 12' SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 5/19/2016 AFTER DRILLING N/A 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 GRAVEL - 3" _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _ brown 2 medium stiff to stiff _ _ CS 3 10 6000 12.5 112.7 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 10 4500 17.0 107.2 37 23 63.1 650 psf 0.1% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ SS 10 13 1000 20.5 SAND & GRAVEL (SP/GP) _ _ brown, medium dense to very dense 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ SS 15 50 -- 12.9 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE _ _ brown / grey / rust 19 moderately hard to hard _ _ CS 20 50/9" 2000 19.8 110.2 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ SS 25 50/10" 7000 15.4 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.5' _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC SALUD FAMILY HEALTH - 1830 LAPORTE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1162045 LOG OF BORING B-4 JUNE 2016 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 5/19/2016 WHILE DRILLING 10' SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 5/19/2016 AFTER DRILLING N/A 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 _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _ brown 2 stiff _ _ with traces of gravel 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 8 4000 19.1 105.3 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ SILTY SAND (SM) SS 10 8 -- 11.5 brown _ _ loose to medium dense 11 _ _ 12 with gravel _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ SAND & GRAVEL (SP/GP) SS 15 50 -- 11.0 NL NP 12.9 brown, dense _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE _ _ brown / grey / rust SS 20 50/9" 8000 15.7 moderately hard to hard _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 *Classified as LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _% @ 1000 psf CS 25 50/10" 9000+ 14.4 120.2 45 25 84.9 7000 psf 3.1% Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC SALUD FAMILY HEALTH - 1830 LAPORTE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1162045 LOG OF BORING B-5 JUNE 2016 SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 5/19/2016 WHILE DRILLING 11.5' SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 5/19/2016 AFTER DRILLING N/A 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 Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 26 _ _ CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE 27 brown / grey / rust _ _ hard 28 _ _ 29 _ _ SS 30 50/8" 9000+ 16.0 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 30.0' 31 _ _ 32 _ _ 33 _ _ 34 _ _ 35 _ _ 36 _ _ 37 _ _ 38 _ _ 39 _ _ 40 _ _ 41 _ _ 42 _ _ 43 _ _ 44 _ _ 45 _ _ 46 _ _ 47 _ _ 48 _ _ 49 _ _ 50 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC SALUD FAMILY HEALTH - 1830 LAPORTE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1162045 LOG OF BORING B-5 JUNE 2016 SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 5/19/2016 WHILE DRILLING 11.5' 5/19/2016 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE A-LIMITS SWELL N/A DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF _ _ SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 1 brown _ _ very stiff to medium stiff 2 _ _ CS 3 11 9000 16.3 99.8 _ _ 4 with traces of gravel _ _ SS 5 12 5500 17.0 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ CS 10 6 1500 20.2 101.0 35 19 69.3 <500 psf None _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ SS 15 29 1500 21.6 SAND & GRAVEL (SP/GP) _ _ brown, medium dense to very dense 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ SS 20 50 -- 12.2 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ CLAYSTONE / SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE 23 brown / grey / rust _ _ moderately hard to hard 24 _ _ CS 25 50/6" 9000+ 14.9 120.9 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.0' _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC SALUD FAMILY HEALTH - 1830 LAPORTE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1162045 LOG OF BORING B-6 JUNE 2016 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 5/19/2016 WHILE DRILLING 16' SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A FINISH DATE 5/19/2016 AFTER DRILLING N/A A-LIMITS SWELL Project: Location: Project #: Date: SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Lean Clay with Sand (CL) Sample Location: Boring 2, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: 35 Plasticity Index: 21 % Passing #200: 70.5% Beginning Moisture: 19.3% Dry Density: 104.2 pcf Ending Moisture: 20.2% Swell Pressure: <500 psf % Swell @ 500: None Salud Family Health - 1830 LaPorte Ave Fort Collins, Colorado 1162045 June 2016 -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 Pe r c e n t M o v e m e n t Load (TSF) Sw e l l Co n s o l i d a t i o Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - Beginning Moisture: 18.4% Dry Density: 113.9 pcf Ending Moisture: 19.6% Swell Pressure: 800 psf % Swell @ 500: 0.3% Salud Family Health - 1830 LaPorte Ave Fort Collins, Colorado 1162045 June 2016 -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 Pe r c e n t M o v e m e n t Load (TSF) Sw e l l Co n s o l i d a t i o Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 3, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - Beginning Moisture: 19.6% Dry Density: 112.1 pcf Ending Moisture: 24.0% Swell Pressure: 600 psf % Swell @ 500: 0.1% Salud Family Health - 1830 LaPorte Ave Fort Collins, Colorado 1162045 June 2016 -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 Pe r c e n t M o v e m e n t Load (TSF) Sw e l l Co n s o l i d a t i o Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Sample Location: Boring 4, Sample 2, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: 37 Plasticity Index: 23 % Passing #200: 63.1% Beginning Moisture: 17.0% Dry Density: 115.2 pcf Ending Moisture: 19.3% Swell Pressure: 650 psf % Swell @ 500: 0.1% Salud Family Health - 1830 LaPorte Ave Fort Collins, Colorado 1162045 June 2016 -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 Pe r c e n t M o v e m e n t Load (TSF) Sw e l l Co n s o l i d a t i o Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown / Grey / Rust Claystone / Siltstone (LEAN CLAY with SAND) Sample Location: Boring 5, Sample 5, Depth 24' Liquid Limit: 45 Plasticity Index: 25 % Passing #200: 84.9% Beginning Moisture: 14.4% Dry Density: 120.7 pcf Ending Moisture: 16.9% Swell Pressure: 7000 psf % Swell @ 1000: 3.1% Salud Family Health - 1830 LaPorte Ave Fort Collins, Colorado 1162045 June 2016 -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 Pe r c e n t M o v e m e n t Load (TSF) Sw e l l Co n s o l i d a t i o Water Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Sample Location: Boring 6, Sample 3, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: 35 Plasticity Index: 19 % Passing #200: 69.3% Beginning Moisture: 20.2% Dry Density: 106.3 pcf Ending Moisture: 20.4% Swell Pressure: <500 psf % Swell @ 500: None Salud Family Health - 1830 LaPorte Ave Fort Collins, Colorado 1162045 June 2016 -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 Pe r c e n t M o v e m e n t Load (TSF) Sw e l l Co n s o l i d a t i o Water Added 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: Salud Family Health - 1830 LaPorte Avenue Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1162045 Sample ID: B-1, S-2, 9' Sample Desc.: Sand & Gravel (SP/GP) Date: June 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 91 84 77 62 50 48 40 32 29 26 20 14.8 0.50 ‐‐‐ Fine ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ D30 D10 Cu CC June 2016 37.50 4.28 2.34 Salud Family Health - 1830 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 1162045 B-1, S-2, 9' Sand & Gravel (SP/GP) D100 D60 D50 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Date: Project: Location: Project No: Sample ID: Sample Desc.: Cobble Silt or ClayGravel Coarse Fine Sand Coarse Medium 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 0.010.11101001000 Fi n e r b y W e i g h t ( % ) Grain Size (mm) Standard Sieve Size 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: Salud Family Health - 1830 LaPorte Avenue Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1162045 Sample ID: B-5, S-3, 14' Sample Desc.: Sand & Gravel (SP/GP) Date: June 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 91 74 64 60 48 40 38 34 29 26 24 18 12.9 0.76 ‐‐‐ Fine ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ D30 D10 Cu CC June 2016 37.50 9.72 5.51 Salud Family Health - 1830 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 1162045 B-5, S-3, 14' Sand & Gravel (SP/GP) D100 D60 D50 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Date: Project: Location: Project No: Sample ID: Sample Desc.: Cobble Silt or ClayGravel Coarse Fine Sand Coarse Medium 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 0.010.11101001000 Fi n e r b y W e i g h t ( % ) Grain Size (mm) Standard Sieve Size