HomeMy WebLinkAboutReports - Soils - 04/04/2025GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROSPECT SELF STORAGE PHASE 1
LOT 11 – RUDOLPH FARM
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EEC PROJECT NO. 1252011
Prepared for:
Uplift Development Group
2120 Midpoint Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Attn: Mr. Tony Ollila (tony@upliftdg.com)
Prepared by:
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
4396 Greenfield Drive
Windsor, Colorado 80550
4396 Greenfield Drive
Windsor , C olorado 80 550
(970) 663-0282 FAX (970) 663-0282
www.earth -engineering.com
March 28, 2025
Revised April 4, 20251
Uplift Development Group
2120 Midpoint Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Attn: Mr. Tony Ollila (tony@upliftdg.com)
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Prospect Self Storage Phase 1
Lot 11 – Rudolph Farm
Fort Collins, Colorado
EEC Project No. 1252011
Mr. Ollila:
Enclosed are the results of the subsurface exploration completed by Earth Engineering
Consultants, LLC (EEC) for the referenced project. For this exploration, five (5) soil borings
were extended to depths of approximately 20 to 25½ feet below existing site grade. This
subsurface exploration was carried out in general accordance with our proposal dated February
20, 2025.
In summary, the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings generally consisted of a
thin layer of vegetation and topsoil overlying approximately 3 to 7 feet of sandy lean clay
underlain by clayey, silty sand to the depths explored. No bedrock was encountered during the
exploration. Groundwater was measured at depths 5½ to 7 feet in the borings. The near surface
soils were slightly compressive to highly expansive and some of the soils were soft and expected
to have low support capacity.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, it is our opinion the proposed structure could be
supported on spread footing foundations bearing on minimum of 2 feet of imported structural fill
material placed upon over-excavated, moisture conditioned and recompacted existing soil.
Pavements and exterior flatwork should be supported on over-excavated, properly moisture
conditioned and recompacted soils. Geotechnical recommendations concerning design and
construction of the proposed building, floor slabs, flatwork and pavements are provided within
the attached report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
PREVIOUS EXPLORATIONS ................................................................................................... 1
EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES .................................................................. 1
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 3
Groundwater ............................................................................................................................... 4
SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS ........................................................................ 4
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 5
Site Preparation ........................................................................................................................... 6
Foundations ................................................................................................................................. 7
Foundation and Utility Backfill .................................................................................................. 8
Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork .............................................................................................. 8
Lateral Earth Pressures ............................................................................................................... 9
Water Soluble Sulfates (SO4) .................................................................................................... 10
Seismic ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Pavement ................................................................................................................................... 10
Other Considerations ................................................................................................................ 11
GENERAL COMMENTS .......................................................................................................... 12
APPENDIX A — SITE PHOTOGRAPHS AND BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM
APPENDIX B — GENERAL NOTES, EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS AND FENCE
LOGS
APPENDIX C — LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROSPECT SELF STORAGE PHASE 1
LOT 11 – RUDOLPH FARM
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EEC PROJECT NO. 1252011
March 28, 2025
Revised April 4, 2025
INTRODUCTION
The geotechnical subsurface exploration for the proposed 3-story self-storage building in Fort
Collins, Colorado has been completed. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface
conditions encountered in the test borings, analyze and evaluate the field and laboratory test data and
provide geotechnical recommendations concerning design and construction of foundations, floors
and pavements. This scope of services was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated
February 20, 2025.
We understand the proposed project involves construction of Building A which is an approximately
34,000 square-foot, in plan line dimensions, 3-story building including paved parking and access
drives, planned for design and construction east of the Interstate 25 and north of East Prospect Road
in Fort Collins. The structure is expected to be a wood and/or steel-framed building, with stucco and
metal exterior, constructed with a slab-on-grade (no basement) main floor system. Foundation loads
for the planned building are assumed to be light to moderate with continuous wall loading less than 3
kips per foot and individual column loads less than 100 kips. Floor loads are expected to be
relatively with up to 200 psf. We understand that vehicle traffic on the site will likely be light duty to
medium duty vehicles with some heavy truck traffic. We understand that the building pad grade is
expected to be raised with up to 4½ feet of imported material.
PREVIOUS EXPLORATIONS
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC performed a Preliminary Subsurface Exploration for the greater
Rudolph Farms development under EEC Project No. 1052027, report dated April 11, 2005, and a
Supplemental Preliminary Subsurface Exploration, report dated June 3, 2022 under EEC Project No.
1222014. Data from these reports were considered in preparation of this report.
EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES
The building footprint was field located by others and the test boring locations were selected by
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC (EEC) personnel. Approximate locations of the borings are
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1252011
March 28, 2025, Revised April 4, 2025
Page 2
shown on the attached Boring Location Diagram. The test borings were advanced 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 solid
stem augers. Samples of the subsurface materials encountered in the borings 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 drive 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. 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 tests were conducted on select samples recovered from the borings with unconfined
compressive strength of appropriate samples estimated using a calibrated hand penetrometer.
Moisture content, dry density, Atterberg limits and washed sieve analysis tests were performed to
evaluate engineering characteristics and to determine the plasticity and quantity of fines in the
subgrades. Swell/consolidation tests evaluated the potential for volume changes due to moisture
variations and loading. Water-soluble sulfate content was measured in near-surface samples to assess
the risk of sulfate attack on concrete. The results of these tests are summarized in the attached boring
logs and summary sheets in the Appendices.
Samples were examined in the laboratory by a geotechnical engineer and classified in general
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System as presented in the attached General Notes,
based on their texture and plasticity. The estimated group symbols are indicated on the boring logs
included in this report.
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
This 3.1-acre parcel is part of the larger proposed multi-use development known as Rudolph Farms.
The site is located approximately 850 feet north of East Prospect Road and east of Interstate 25 in
southeast Fort Collins, Colorado. Historically, the land has been used as agricultural cropland.
The Timnath Middle-High School facility lies to the east, while vacant land surrounds the site to the
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1252011
March 28, 2025, Revised April 4, 2025
Page 3
north, south, and west. The terrain is relatively flat with about 3 feet of elevation change between
borings. Ground cover consisted of native weeds and grasses. The Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal
forms the southern boundary of the site. Site photos taken during our drilling operations are included
in Appendix A. Below is an aerial image highlighting the proposed development area and its
surroundings.
Image 1: Google Earth Image (October 2024)
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
To develop subsurface information for the project, five (5) soil borings were advanced within the
proposed Building A footprint to depths of approximately 20 to 25½ feet below existing site grades.
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 conditions encountered in the exploratory borings generally consisted of a thin layer
of vegetation and topsoil overlying approximately 3 to 7 feet of sandy lean clay underlain by clayey,
silty sand to the depths explored. The clayey soils were soft to stiff and the sandy soils were loose to
dense based on standard penetration testing. The clay soils were slightly compressive to highly
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1252011
March 28, 2025, Revised April 4, 2025
Page 4
expansive based on swell-consolidation test results. The sand is considered non-expansive. Bedrock
was not encountered during the exploration.
The stratification boundaries shown on the boring logs represent the approximate locations where
changes in soil types were observed. In the field, these transitions may be gradual and indistinct. The
conditions observed at the test boring locations may not fully reflect subsurface variations that can
occur over relatively short distances from these points.
Groundwater
Groundwater observations were made while drilling and several days after drilling to detect the
presence and depth to hydrostatic groundwater. Groundwater was encountered during drilling in all
of the borings at depths of 5½ to 7 feet below existing grade. When measured several days later
groundwater was at 6 to 7 feet in the borings. We recommend a minimum 3-foot separation between
foundation elements and slabs to groundwater. Provided grading plans indicate that the grade will be
raised approximately 1½ to 4½ feet above the existing grade, which should provide the necessary
separation. If plans change or that separation can’t be permanently maintained, a well-designed area
underdrain system could be considered to effectively lower and regulate groundwater levels in the
area. The estimated design groundwater elevations, based on the current known conditions, are
indicated on a fence boring diagram in Appendix B.
Groundwater levels may fluctuate over time due to changing hydrologic conditions and other factors
not evident at the time of this report. Depending on the condition of the Timnath Reservoir Inlet
Canal lining, it could be an influence on the local groundwater table while running. We typically see
a rise in groundwater beginning in late spring with elevated levels lasting until late October. To
accurately monitor these fluctuations, long-term observations of water levels in sealed cased wells
would be necessary.
SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
The swell-consolidation test evaluates the swell or collapse potential of soils and/or bedrock to
inform foundation, floor slab, and pavement design criteria. In this test, relatively intact samples,
obtained directly from the California sampler, are placed in a laboratory apparatus and subjected to
water inundation under a predetermined load. The swell index represents the percentage of swell or
collapse after the inundation period, based on the sample’s initial thickness under preload. Following
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1252011
March 28, 2025, Revised April 4, 2025
Page 5
the inundation period, additional incremental loads are applied to assess swell pressure and/or
consolidation behavior.
For this evaluation, four (4) swell-consolidation tests were conducted on relatively intact soil
samples collected at various depths across the site. The samples tested exhibited (-) 0.4 to (-) 0.8
percent consolidation and (+) 4.1 to (+) 7.3 percent swell when wetted under approximate
overburden pressures. The swell index values ranged from slightly compressive to high swelling in
the upper few feet of soils.
Using the laboratory test results, we estimate that heave of up to 2½ inches is possible for the near
surface soils. More or less heave is possible. A swell mitigation plan should be considered for the
structures and on-site pavement and is discussed further in this report.
It should be noted that the predicted heave represents the potential movement if subsurface moisture
increases significantly after construction. If moisture levels remain stable or increase only
minimally, the full heave potential may not be realized. To mitigate surface water infiltration, proper
site grading, hardscaped surfaces adjacent to the building and drainage swales should be
implemented. Our report includes surface slope and drainage recommendations to reduce this risk.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The subgrades encountered in the borings near anticipated foundation depths generally consisted of
slightly compressive to highly expansive sandy clay. Additionally, some of the near surface soils are
soft with a low bearing capacity. Improvements supported on the existing soils may be susceptible to
post-construction movement without mitigation. To enhance subgrade support and minimize the risk
of post-construction movement, we recommend placing improvements upon a uniform zone of
properly moisture treated and compacted imported structural fill and/or over-excavated, properly
moisture treated and re-compacted native soils. We understand that 1½ to 4½ feet of imported site
grading material is planned to build up the site elevation in this area. We recommend that this
imported material be placed upon improved existing soils. Detailed recommendations for over-
excavation and replacement below structures, flatwork and pavements are provided in the Site
Preparation section. Design and construction criteria for shallow foundations and slab-on-grade
floor systems are outlined in the Foundation and Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork section.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1252011
March 28, 2025, Revised April 4, 2025
Page 6
Site Preparation
Prior to placement of any fill and/or improvements, we recommend any existing vegetation, topsoil,
and any unacceptable debris be removed from the planned improvement areas. Any existing building
materials or previously placed, undocumented fill materials should also be removed. After stripping
the site and after making all cuts and prior to placing any fill for the improvements, we recommend
an over-excavation beneath the building foundation, floor slabs, exterior flatwork and pavements.
We recommend over-excavation, moisture conditioning and re-compaction of the upper 3 feet of the
existing soils below the entire building footprint followed by the incorporation of at least 2 feet of
Class 1 structural fill or similar material below foundations and slabs. At least 2 feet of subgrade
below the pavement and exterior flatwork should be over-excavated, properly moisture conditioned
and compacted engineered/controlled fill material.
Once the over-excavation depth is reached, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 9
inches, adjusted in moisture content to within 0% to 3% 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. The over-excavations should extend
laterally 8 inches for every 12 inches of over-excavation depth beyond the edges of the buildings,
exterior flatwork and pavements.
If groundwater or saturated conditions are encountered during the over-excavation, the over-
excavation should stop. The soil should be stabilized, if needed, by crowding 3-inch minus crushed
rock or recycled concrete until the subgrade deflects no more than ½-inch under compactive effort.
Once stabilized, the first fill lift can be placed as specified below.
We recommend all fill materials and foundation wall backfill materials, be placed in loose lifts not to
exceed 9 inches thick and adjusted in moisture content 0% to 3% of optimum for cohesive soils and
±2% for cohesionless granular soils and compacted to at least 95% of the materials standard Proctor
maximum dry density. If the site’s lean clay soils are used as fill material, care will be needed to
maintain the recommended moisture content prior to and during construction of overlying
improvements. Settlement of the backfill soils should be anticipated with total backfill settlement
estimated on the order of 1% of the backfill height.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1252011
March 28, 2025, Revised April 4, 2025
Page 7
Any fill soils used to develop the building elevations should consist of approved, low volume change
materials which are free from organic matter and debris. Imported structural fill materials should be
a Class 1 structural fill or material graded similarly to a CDOT Class 5, 6 or 7 aggregate base with
sufficient fines to prevent ponding of water within the fill. In general, we recommend a material with
low permeability be placed within the building envelope and especially around the exterior of the
foundation to prevent surface water infiltration. Any imported fill materials should be approved by
the geotechnical engineer.
Care should be taken after preparation of the subgrades to avoid disturbing the subgrade materials.
Materials which are loosened or disturbed by construction activities or materials which become wet
and softened or dry and desiccated should be reworked prior to placement of overlying
improvements.
Foundations
Based on materials observed at the test boring locations, it is our opinion that the proposed building
could be supported on a spread footing foundation system bearing on a uniform zone of over-
excavated and properly placed fill materials and structural fill as recommended in the section Site
Preparation. For design of footing foundations bearing on imported, properly placed structural fill,
we recommend using a net allowable total load soil bearing pressure not to exceed 3,000 psf. The
net bearing pressure refers to the pressure at foundation bearing level in excess of the minimum
surrounding overburden pressure. Total loads should include full dead and live loads. For transient
loads such as seismic or wind loads, the bearing pressure can be increased 33 percent. Care should
be taken to see that the foundation bear on uniform materials to prevent differential movement. We
estimate the long-term total settlement of footing foundations designed and constructed as outlined
above would be 1-inch or less with differential settlement expected to be half the total.
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 16 inches and isolated column footings have a minimum width of 36 inches.
Trenched foundations should not be used in granular subgrades.
No unusual problems are anticipated in completing the excavations required for construction of the
footing foundations. Care should be taken during construction to avoid disturbing the foundation
bearing materials. Materials which are loosened or disturbed by the construction activities or
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1252011
March 28, 2025, Revised April 4, 2025
Page 8
materials which become dry and desiccated or wet and softened should be reworked or removed and
replaced prior to placement of foundation concrete.
Foundation and Utility Backfill
Backfill needed to develop site grades following installation of foundations and site utilities should
consist of low volume change materials which are free of organic matter and debris. The site
cohesive soils or similar could be used. Backfill soils should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9
inches thick, adjusted in moisture content to within 0% to 3% of optimum moisture content and
compacted to at least 95% of the material’s maximum dry density as determined in accordance with
ASTM Specification D698, the standard Proctor procedure. Care should be taken when backfilling
against laterally unrestrained walls to minimize unbalanced lateral pressures.
Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork
Subgrades for floor slabs and exterior flatwork should be prepared as outlined in the section Site
Preparation. For structural design of concrete slabs-on-grade supported on compacted native
cohesive materials, a subgrade modulus of 75 pounds per cubic-inch (pci) could be used. Where
granular structural fill is imported and properly placed, a subgrade modulus of 200 pci could be
used.
Additional floor slab design and construction recommendations are as follows:
• Interior partition walls should be separated/floated from floor slabs to allow for
independent movement. 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 jams and frames within partition walls to avoid potential
distortion. Partition walls should be isolated from suspended ceilings.
• Positive separations and/or isolation joints should be provided between slabs and all
foundations, columns, and utility lines to allow for independent movement.
• Control joints should be provided in slabs to control the location and extent of
cracking.
• Interior trench backfill placed beneath slabs should be compacted in a similar manner
as previously described for on-site materials.
• Floor slabs should not be constructed on frozen subgrade.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1252011
March 28, 2025, Revised April 4, 2025
Page 9
• Other design and construction considerations as outlined in the ACI Design Manual
should be followed.
For interior floor slabs, depending on the type of floor covering and adhesive used, those material
manufacturers may require that specific subgrade, capillary break, and/or vapor barrier requirements
be met. A vapor barrier is most effective when placed between the slab and underlying subgrade or
capillary break material. We understand that this could increase risk of shrinkage curling or cracking
for which, we believe, the concrete mix can be designed to reduce. We would refer you to American
Concrete Institute (ACI) Guide to Concrete Floor and Slab Construction ACI 302.1R-15 for
guidance. The project architect and/or material manufacturers could also be consulted with for
specific under slab requirements.
Care should be exercised after development of the floor slab subgrades to prevent disturbance of the
in-place materials. Subgrade soils which are loosened or disturbed by construction activities or soils
which become wet and softened or dry and desiccated should be removed and replaced or reworked
in place prior to placement of the overlying slabs.
Lateral Earth Pressures
Portions of the new structures or site improvements which are constructed below grade may be
subject to lateral earth pressures. The recommended soil parameters for evaluating lateral earth
pressures at the site are provided below. These parameters, summarized in Table 1, are based on our
experience, general observations of the site soils, and available laboratory test data. If these values
are critical to the design of any site improvements, they should be field-verified prior to construction.
Table 1. Lateral earth pressure parameters.
Material γwet (lb/ft3) Friction Angle, φ Ka Kp Ko
Lean Clay 130 20 0.49 2.04 0.66
Granular Structural Fill 135 35 0.27 3.69 0.42
The parameters presented in Table 1 should be adjusted for saturated and/or buoyant conditions, as
applicable. Construction-phase observation is recommended to account for potential variability in
the retained soils; additional soil parameters may be required depending on actual site conditions.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1252011
March 28, 2025, Revised April 4, 2025
Page 10
The provided parameters do not include a factor of safety and are based on assumed friction angles,
which should be verified once potential material sources have been identified.
Water Soluble Sulfates (SO4)
Results of water-soluble sulfate testing on select samples of the site soil indicate sulfate (SO4)
contents of approximately 0.01% to 0.08%. ACI 318-19, Section 19.3.1 indicates the site soils have a
low risk of sulfate attack on Portland cement concrete or reaction to calcium in chemical stabilizers
such as cement or lime. ACI 318-19 indicates site concrete can be designed with a sulfate exposure
of S0 with no restriction on type of cementitious materials.
Seismic
The site soil conditions generally consist of up to approximately 25 feet of soft to stiff clay over
loose to medium dense clayey silty sand to the bottom of the exploratory borings. In accordance
with ASCE 7 and considering International Building Code, we believe this site would have a
Seismic Site Classification of D. Wind loads, not seismic loads, typically govern design in this area.
If seismic classification is critical to the structural design of this building, additional investigation to
a greater depth with shear wave velocity testing would be needed.
Pavement
We understand that the new site pavements will be private with relatively low traffic volume. Paved
areas could include parking and an access drive for light to medium duty passenger vehicles with
occasional heavier truck traffic. The section provided should also support periodic use of emergency
vehicles up to 85,000 pounds. Our recommendations for minimum pavement sections based on
subgrade conditions and our experience are provided below in Table 2. The recommended pavement
sections are considered minimum.
The subgrades below the site pavements should be developed as recommended in the section titled
Site Preparation. After site grades are established, the pavement subgrades should be proof rolled to
identify any soft and unstable areas. Soft and unstable areas would require removal and replacement
and/or reworking in-place, mechanical stabilization or chemical stabilization consisting of cement or
fly ash (CTS). Mechanical stabilization can likely be achieved using suitable 3-inch minus crushed
rock material or geogrid installation.
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1252011
March 28, 2025, Revised April 4, 2025
Page 11
Table 2: Recommended minimum pavement sections for assumed traffic conditions.
Design Information Pavement Sections
Flexible Pavement
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
Aggregate Base Course (ABC)
Moisture/Chemical Treated Subgrade (MTS/CTS)
4̎
6̎
24̎
Rigid Pavement
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)
Moisture/Chemical Treated Subgrade (MTS/CTS)
6̎
24̎
Aggregate base course should meet CDOT Class 5 or Class 6 aggregate base. Recycled asphalt
(RAP) and recycled concrete (RCP) pavement materials are acceptable as long as they can meet
Class 5 or Class 6 gradation specifications. Those materials should be placed in loose lifts not to
exceed 9 inches, adjusted in moisture content and compacted to achieve a minimum of 95% of
standard Proctor maximum dry density.
Asphalt pavement should be graded as S (75) PG 58-28 or PG 64-22 (HMA) material. If the mix
contains reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) material, we recommend using PG 58-28 binder. The
hot mix asphalt should be compacted to achieve 92 to 96% of the mix’s theoretical maximum
specific gravity (Rice Value). Portland cement concrete should be an approved exterior pavement mix
with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,500 psi and should be air entrained.
The diversion of surface drainage away from a pavement is important to the satisfactory
performance of the pavement constructed on the anticipated cohesive soils on this site. Drainage
should provide for the efficient removal of water and snow melt runoff and should prevent ponding
and excessive wetting of subgrade soils.
Regular maintenance is essential to maximize the lifespan of a pavement and should be proactively
planned. For asphalt or concrete pavements crack sealing should limit damage due to water
intrusion. Repairs and sealing of rigid and flexible pavements should take place as soon as possible
after defects appear to be most effective.
Other Considerations
Positive drainage should be developed away from the structures and pavement areas with a
minimum slope of 1 inch per foot for the first 10 feet away from the improvements in landscape
areas. Care should be taken in planning of landscaping adjacent to the buildings to avoid features
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC
EEC Project No. 1252011
March 28, 2025, Revised April 4, 2025
Page 12
which would pond water adjacent to the foundations or stemwalls. Placement of plants which
require irrigation systems or could result in fluctuations of the moisture content of the subgrade
material should be avoided adjacent to site improvements. Irrigation systems should not be placed
within 5 feet of the perimeter of the buildings and parking areas. Spray heads should be designed
not to spray water on or immediately adjacent to the structures or site pavements. Roof drains
should be designed to discharge at least 5 feet away from the structures and away from the pavement
areas.
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 in this report are based on data obtained from soil borings
conducted at the specified locations, along with other information discussed herein. This report does
not account for potential variations between boring locations or across the site, as such differences
may only become apparent during construction. Should significant variations arise, a re-evaluation
of the report's recommendations will be necessary.
We recommend retaining the geotechnical engineer to review the project plans and specifications to
ensure proper interpretation and integration of the geotechnical recommendations. Additionally, it is
advised to engage the geotechnical engineer for testing and observation during earthwork phases to
verify that the design requirements are met.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Uplift Development Group and their team 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.
APPENDIX A
Site Photographs
Test Boring Location Diagram
PROSPECT ELF TORAGE HASE
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
EEC PROJECT NO. 1252011
MARCH 2025
APPENDIX B
Exploratory Boring Logs
Fence Logs
General Notes
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
Rudolph Farms - Prospect Storage Phase 1
Fort Collins, Colorado
Log of Soil Boring
B-1
Project Number:1252011
Drilling Firm:Dakota
Rig Type:CME-55
Drilling Method:4" Auger
Logged By:DG
Date Drilled:03/13/2025
Boring Elevation:4919'
Boring Depth:25.5'
Lat / long:
40.56969, -104.99576
At time of drilling:6'After Drilling:7'
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Visual Classification and Remarks
3.0
25.5
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
brown
CLAYEY, SILTY SAND (SC)
brown, red, gray
loose to dense
Samples
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Modified
CA
SS
SS
SS
SS
Sa
m
p
l
e
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
De
p
t
h
o
f
S
a
m
p
l
e
(
ft
)
14
24
9
4
19
N-
V
a
l
u
e
3
34
6
11
11
Lab
Un
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
(P
S
F
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(
%
)
16.0
9.4
9.7
11.3
9.3
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
P
C
F
)
113.6
Li
q
u
i
d
L
i
m
i
t
30
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y
I
n
d
e
x
21
%
Fi
n
e
s
39
Lo
a
d
i
n
g
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
P
S
F
)
%
Sw
e
l
l
Sw
e
l
l
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
P
S
F
)
Su
l
f
a
t
e
(
%
)
Graphics Legend
After Drilling (AD)
At Time of Drilling (ATD)
CL
SC
SS - Small Split Spoon
Modified CA - Modified
California Sampler
DRAFT
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC | 4396 Greenfield Drive | Windsor, Colorado | 970-545-3908 | www.earth-engineering.com
Rudolph Farms - Prospect Storage Phase 1
Fort Collins, Colorado
Log of Soil Boring
B-2
Project Number:1252011
Drilling Firm:
Rig Type:CME-55
Drilling Method:4" Auger
Logged By:DG
Date Drilled:03/13/2025
Boring Elevation:4918'
Boring Depth:20.5'
Lat / long:
40.56964, -104.99528
At time of drilling:6'After Drilling:7'
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Visual Classification and Remarks
6.0
20.5
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
brown
stiff to very stiff
CLAYEY, SILTY SAND (SC)
brown
loose to medium dense
Samples
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Modified
CA
Modified
CA
SS
SS
SS
Sa
m
p
l
e
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
De
p
t
h
o
f
S
a
m
p
l
e
(
ft
)
2
14
4
9
19
N-
V
a
l
u
e
18
10
31
8
7
Lab
Un
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
(P
S
F
)
9000
6000
1500
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(
%
)
11.5
27.5
9.1
9.0
26.9
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
P
C
F
)
114.3
76.8
Li
q
u
i
d
L
i
m
i
t
37
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y
I
n
d
e
x
26
%
Fi
n
e
s
68.6
Lo
a
d
i
n
g
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
P
S
F
)
150
500
%
Sw
e
l
l
7.30
0.0
Sw
e
l
l
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
P
S
F
)
4500
0
Su
l
f
a
t
e
(
%
)
0.08
Graphics Legend
After Drilling (AD)
At Time of Drilling (ATD)
SC
CL
Modified CA - Modified
California Sampler
SS - Small Split Spoon
DRAFT
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC | 4396 Greenfield Drive | Windsor, Colorado | 970-545-3908 | www.earth-engineering.com
Dakota
Rudolph Farms - Prospect Storage Phase 1
Fort Collins, Colorado
Log of Soil Boring
B-3
Project Number:1252011
Drilling Firm:
Rig Type:CME-55
Drilling Method:4" Auger
Logged By:DG
Date Drilled:03/13/2025
Boring Elevation:4916'
Boring Depth:20.5'
Lat / long:
40.56943, -104.9956
At time of drilling:6.5'After Drilling:7'
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Visual Classification and Remarks
6.5
20.5
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
brown
medium stiff
CLAYEY, SILTY SAND (SC)
brown, red, gray
loose to medium dense
Samples
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Modified
CA
SS
SS
SS
Sa
m
p
l
e
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
De
p
t
h
o
f
S
a
m
p
l
e
(
ft
)
14
9
19
4
N-
V
a
l
u
e
5
27
8
6
Lab
Un
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
(P
S
F
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(
%
)
19.1
9.1
12.8
19.3
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
P
C
F
)
97.2
Li
q
u
i
d
L
i
m
i
t
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y
I
n
d
e
x
%
Fi
n
e
s
Lo
a
d
i
n
g
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
P
S
F
)
500
%
Sw
e
l
l
0.0
Sw
e
l
l
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
P
S
F
)
0
Su
l
f
a
t
e
(
%
)
Graphics Legend
After Drilling (AD)
At Time of Drilling (ATD)
CL
SC
SS - Small Split Spoon
Modified CA - Modified
California Sampler
DRAFT
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC | 4396 Greenfield Drive | Windsor, Colorado | 970-545-3908 | www.earth-engineering.com
Dakota
Rudolph Farms - Prospect Storage Phase 1
Fort Collins, Colorado
Log of Soil Boring
B-4
Project Number:1252011
Drilling Firm:
Rig Type:CME-55
Drilling Method:4" Auger
Logged By:DG
Date Drilled:03/13/2025
Boring Elevation:4916'
Boring Depth:20.5'
Lat / long:
40.56918, -104.99579
At time of drilling:5.5'After Drilling:6'
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Visual Classification and Remarks
7.0
20.5
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
brown
soft to stiff
CLAYEY, SILTY SAND (SC)
brown, red, gray
medium dense
Samples
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Modified
CA
Modified
CA
SS
SS
SS
Sa
m
p
l
e
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
De
p
t
h
o
f
S
a
m
p
l
e
(
ft
)
19
14
4
2
9
N-
V
a
l
u
e
12
4
29
10
11
Lab
Un
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
(P
S
F
)
9000
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(
%
)
16.1
15.7
8.1
13.7
25.2
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
P
C
F
)
109.2
104.5
Li
q
u
i
d
L
i
m
i
t
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y
I
n
d
e
x
%
Fi
n
e
s
Lo
a
d
i
n
g
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
P
S
F
)
150
%
Sw
e
l
l
4.1
Sw
e
l
l
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
P
S
F
)
1700
Su
l
f
a
t
e
(
%
)
Graphics Legend
After Drilling (AD)
At Time of Drilling (ATD)
SC
CL
SS - Small Split Spoon
Modified CA - Modified
California Sampler
DRAFT
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC | 4396 Greenfield Drive | Windsor, Colorado | 970-545-3908 | www.earth-engineering.com
Dakota
Rudolph Farms - Prospect Storage Phase 1
Fort Collins, Colorado
Log of Soil Boring
B-5
Project Number:1252011
Drilling Firm:
Rig Type:CME-55
Drilling Method:4" Auger
Logged By:DG
Date Drilled:03/13/2025
Boring Elevation:4917'
Boring Depth:25.5'
Lat / long:
40.56908, -104.99534
At time of drilling:6'After Drilling:6'
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
Visual Classification and Remarks
6.0
25.5
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
brown
soft
CLAYEY, SILTY SAND (SC)
brown, red, gray
loose to medium dense
Samples
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Modified
CA
SS
SS
SS
SS
Sa
m
p
l
e
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
De
p
t
h
o
f
S
a
m
p
l
e
(
ft
)
9
24
14
4
19
N-
V
a
l
u
e
4
23
13
6
11
Lab
Un
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
(P
S
F
)
1500
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(
%
)
15.5
15.2
13.9
15.9
10.7
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
P
C
F
)
97.2
Li
q
u
i
d
L
i
m
i
t
31
21
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y
I
n
d
e
x
19
3
%
Fi
n
e
s
55.3
29.2
Lo
a
d
i
n
g
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
P
S
F
)
500
%
Sw
e
l
l
0.0
Sw
e
l
l
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
P
S
F
)
0
Su
l
f
a
t
e
(
%
)
0.01
Graphics Legend
After Drilling (AD)
At Time of Drilling (ATD)
CL
SC
SS - Small Split Spoon
Modified CA - Modified
California Sampler
DRAFT
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC | 4396 Greenfield Drive | Windsor, Colorado | 970-545-3908 | www.earth-engineering.com
Dakota
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
f
e
e
t
)
4890
4895
4900
4905
4910
4915
4920
SC
CL
SC
CL
SC
CL
SC
CL
SC
CL
B-1
Elev: 4919.0 ft
Depth: 25.5 ft
B-2
Elev: 4918.0 ft
Depth: 20.5 ft
B-3
Elev: 4916.0 ft
Depth: 20.5 ft
B-4
Elev: 4916.0 ft
Depth: 20.5 ft
B-5
Elev: 4917.0 ft
Depth: 25.5 ft
6
11
34
3
11
18
8
10
31
7
8
27
6
5
11
10
4
12
29
23
11
13
4
6
Prospect Self Storage Phase 1Fort Collins, Colorado
EEC Project No. 1252011
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC | 4396 Greenfield Drive | Windsor, Colorado | 970-545-3908 | www.earth-engineering.com
EXPLORATION LOG LEGEND
Exploration designation
Exploration Top Elevation
Exploration Depth
First water encounter
Second water encounter
B-1
Elev: 4800 ft
8
Depth: 25 ft
N Value
Soil/Rock Strata as Described
in Exploration Log
Sampler graphic
LEGEND KEY
CL
SC(Approximate)
SS - Small Split Spoon
Modified CA - Modified
California Sampler
WC = 9.4%
WC = 9.7%
WC = 11.3%
WC = 9.3%
LL = 30; PI = 21WC = 16.0%DD = 113.6 PCFFI = 39%
WC = 9.1%
WC = 9.0%
WC = 26.9%
LL = 37; PI = 26SW = 7.3%WC = 11.5%DD = 114.3 PCFFI = 68.6%
SW = -0.4%WC = 27.5%DD = 76.8 PCF
WC = 12.8%
WC = 9.1%
WC = 19.3%
SW = -0.4%
WC = 19.1%DD = 97.2 PCF
SW = 4.3%
WC = 16.1%DD = 109.2 PCF
WC = 15.7%DD = 104.5 PCF
WC = 8.1%
WC = 13.7%
WC = 25.2%
LL = 21; PI = 3WC = 13.9%FI = 29.2%
WC = 15.9%
WC = 10.7%
WC = 15.2%
LL = 31; PI = 19SW = -0.8%WC = 15.5%DD = 97.2 PCFFI = 55.3%
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
f
e
e
t
)
4890
4895
4900
4905
4910
4915
4920
SC
CL
SC
CL
SC
CL
SC
CL
SC
CL
B-1
919.0 ftElev: 4
Elev:4893.5 ft
Depth: 25.5 ft
B-2
918.0 ftElev: 4
897.5 ftElev: 4
20.5 ftDepth:
B-3
Elev: 4916.0 ft
Elev: 4895.5 ft
Depth: 20.5 ft
B-4
Elev: 4916.0 ft
Elev: 4895.5 ft
Depth: 20.5 ft
B-5
.0 ftElev: 4917
1.5 ftElev: 489
Depth: 25.5 ft
6
11
34
3
11
18
8
10
31
7
8
27
6
5
11
10
4
12
29
32
11
31
4
6
LEGEND KEY
CL
SC
Prospect Self Storage Phase 1
Fort Collins, Colorado
EEC Project No. 1252011
Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC | 4396 Greenfield Drive | Windsor, Colorado | 970-545-3908 | www.earth-engineering.com
Final Floor Elevation = 4920.45'
4912'
4911'
4909'
4910'
4911'
4912'Current Estimated Design Groundwater Elevation
Note: Elevations were estimated using the Uplift Self Storage Overall Grading Plan by Kelly Development Services, LLC
Project No. 2109.01 dated February 12, 2025 and the "Existing and Overlot Grading" plan provided by the client.
Current Estimated Static Groundwater Level
Provided Final Floor Elevation
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
Material Description:Brown Sandy Lean Clay
Beginning Moisture: 11.5%Dry Density: 114.3 pcf Ending Moisture: 18.7%
-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
n
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
Material Description:Brown, Sandy Lean Clay
Beginning Moisture: 27.5%Dry Density: 86.1 pcf Ending Moisture: 29.9%
-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
n
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
Material Description:Brown, Sandy Lean Clay
Beginning Moisture: 19.1%Dry Density: 97.2 pcf Ending Moisture: 18.9%
-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
n
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
Material Description:Brown, Sandy Lean Clay
Beginning Moisture: 16.1%Dry Density: 109.2 pcf Ending Moisture: 21.1%
-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
n
Project:
Location:
Project #:
Date:
Material Description:Brown Sandy Lean Clay
Beginning Moisture: 15.5%Dry Density: 97.2 pcf Ending Moisture: 21.4%
-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
n
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:Rudolph Farms - Prospect Storage Phase 1
Location:Fort Collins, Colorado
Project No:1252011
Sample ID:B1 S2 9
Date:March 2025
94
74
51
10
6.8
46
34
22
18
15
100
100
100
100
99
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, LLC
Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136)
Date:
Project:
Location:
Project No:
Sample ID:
Cobble Silt or ClayGravel
Coarse Fine
Sand
Coarse Medium
March 2025
19.00 3.31 2.30
Rudolph Farms - Prospect Storage Phase 1
Fort Collins, Colorado
1252011
B1 S2 9
D100 D60 D50
0.98 0.15
Fine
22.34 1.98
D30 D10 Cu CC
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 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:Rudolph Farms - Prospect Storage Phase 1
Location:Fort Collins, Colorado
Project No:1252011
Sample ID:B3 S2 9
Date:March 2025
91
69
45
12
8.6
41
31
22
19
16
100
100
100
100
97
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, LLC
Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136)
Date:
Project:
Location:
Project No:
Sample ID:
Cobble Silt or ClayGravel
Coarse Fine
Sand
Coarse Medium
March 2025
19.00 3.83 2.83
Rudolph Farms - Prospect Storage Phase 1
Fort Collins, Colorado
1252011
B3 S2 9
D100 D60 D50
1.09 0.11
Fine
35.01 2.83
D30 D10 Cu CC
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