The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSTANFORD SENIOR LIVING - PDP200022 - - GEOTECHNICAL (SOILS) REPORTGEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT THE STANFORD – SENIOR LIVING FACILITY SOUTH OF MONROE DRIVE AND WEST OF STANFORD ROAD FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1202023 Prepared for: United Properties 1331 17th Street – Suite 604 Denver, Colorado 80202 Attn: Mr. Matt Oermann (matt.oermann@uproperties.com) Prepared by: Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC 4396 Greenfield Drive Windsor, Colorado 80550 4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE W INDSOR, COLORADO 80550 (970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 May 1, 2020 United Properties 1331 17th Street – Suite 604 Denver, Colorado 80202 Attn: Mr. Matt Oermann (matt.oermann@uproperties.com) Re: Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report The Stanford – Senior Living Facility South of Monroe Drive and West of Stanford Road Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1202023 Mr. Oermann: Enclosed, herewith, are the results of the subsurface exploration completed by Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC (EEC) for the referenced project. For this exploration, twelve (12) soil borings were extended to depths of approximately 10 to 35 feet below existing site grades. This subsurface exploration was carried out in general accordance with our proposal dated April 3, 2020. In summary, the subsurface conditions encountered beneath the surficial vegetation layer in the test borings, generally consisted of sandy lean clay transitioning to clayey sand at depths of approximately 4 to 11 feet below the ground surface. The sandy lean clay was generally dry, stiff to very stiff, and exhibited low to high swell potential at current moisture and density conditions. The clayey sand extended to the depths explored at approximately 10 feet in the pavement and percolation borings and to the underlying bedrock at depths of approximately 13 to 19 feet in the remaining borings. Sandstone/siltstone/claystone bedrock was encountered below the overburden subsoils in the building borings and extended to the depths explored, approximately 20 to 35 feet below the ground surface. The bedrock was generally moist in situ, highly weathered to moderately hard and exhibited low swell potential at current moisture and density conditions. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings which extended to maximum depths of approximately 10 to 35 feet below the ground surface. Based on the encountered subsurface conditions, in our opinion, the proposed building should be supported on straight shaft drilled piers extending into the underlying bedrock formation, with GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT THE STANFORD – SENIOR LIVING FACILITY SOUTH OF MONROE DRIVE AND WEST OF STANFORD ROAD FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1202023 May 1, 2020 INTRODUCTION The geotechnical subsurface exploration for the proposed senior living facility planned for construction south of Monroe Drive and west of Stanford Road in Fort Collins, Colorado has been completed. To develop subsurface information in the proposed development area, twelve (12) soil borings were drilled within the proposed building footprint and various site improvement areas. Nine (9) borings were extended to depths of approximately 20 to 35 feet below existing site grades within the proposed building area, two (2) percolation borings were extended to depths of approximately 10 feet within the proposed detention pond and garden areas, and one (1) boring was extended to a depth of approximately 10 feet within the proposed pavement areas. A site diagram indicating the approximate boring locations is included with this report. We understand the proposed development will consist of a new senior living facility with associated utility improvements, a courtyard, a detention pond, and paved parking spaces. The proposed building is expected to be an approximate 240,000 (+/-) total square foot building consisting of 1 to 2 below grade parking levels and 4 stories above grade. We anticipate maximum foundations loads will be relatively moderate to heavy with maximum wall and column loads less than 6 klf and 250 kips, respectively. If the actual loads vary significantly from the assumed loads, we should be consulted to verify our recommendations are consistent for the actual loads. Floor loads are expected to be light to moderate. Pavement areas are expected to accommodate large volumes of light vehicles and smaller volumes of heavy-duty traffic. Small grade changes are expected to develop site grades for the proposed improvements. Overall, cuts and fills are anticipated to be less than 5 feet to develop finish site grades. 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 and floor slabs and support of flatwork. Recommended pavement sections are also included. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 2 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES The test boring locations were selected and established in the field by EEC personnel by pacing and estimating angles from identifiable site features. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the attached boring location diagram. The boring locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to make the field measurements. 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 augers. Samples of the subsurface materials encountered were obtained using split-barrel and California barrel sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM Specifications D1586 and D3550, respectively. In the split-barrel and California barrel sampling procedures, standard sampling spoons are advanced into the ground 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. 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 with unconfined compressive strength of appropriate samples estimated using a calibrated hand penetrometer. Atterberg limits and washed sieve analysis tests were completed on select samples to evaluate the quantity and plasticity of fines in the subgrades. Swell/consolidation testing was completed on select samples to evaluate the potential for the subgrade materials to change volume with variation in moisture content and load. 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 soil’s texture and plasticity. The estimated group symbol for the Unified Soil Classification System is indicated on the boring logs and a brief description of that classification system is included with this report. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed Stanford – Senior Living Center project is planned for construction south of Monroe Drive and west of Stanford Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. Sparse vegetation was encountered at the surface of the borings. Ground surface in this area is relatively flat with approximately 5 feet ± of relief from north to south, based on our cursory review of the site on Google Earth, and the topographic contour map prepared by the project’s civil engineering consultants. 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. From the ground surface, the subgrades underlying the vegetation layer consisted of soils classified as sandy lean clay transitioning to clayey sand at depths of approximately 4 to 11 feet below the ground surface. The sandy lean clay was generally dry, stiff to very stiff, and exhibited low to high swell potential at current moisture and density conditions. The clayey sand extended to the depths explored at approximately 10 feet in the pavement and percolation borings and to the underlying bedrock at depths of approximately 13 to 19 feet in the remaining borings. Sandstone/siltstone/claystone bedrock was encountered below the clayey sand soils in the building borings and extended to the depths explored, approximately 20 to 35 feet below the ground surface. The bedrock was generally moist in situ, highly weathered to moderately hard and exhibited low swell potential at current moisture and density conditions. A bedrock contour map showing approximate bedrock elevations has been included with this report, to assist the designing in determining final site grades as well as the selected foundation system for the project. The stratification boundaries indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition of materials may be gradual and indistinct. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Observations were made while drilling and after completion of the borings to detect the presence and depth to hydrostatic groundwater. At the time of drilling and on the dates indicated on the boring Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 4 logs, groundwater was not observed in the borings which extended to maximum depths of approximately 10 to 35 feet below the ground surface. The borings were backfilled upon completion of the drilling operations; therefore, subsequent groundwater measurements were not performed. Fluctuations in groundwater levels can occur over time depending on variations in hydrologic conditions and other conditions not apparent at the time of this report. Longer term monitoring of water levels in cased wells, which are sealed from the influence of surface water, would be required to more accurately evaluate fluctuations in groundwater levels at the site. We have typically noted deepest groundwater levels in late winter and shallowest groundwater levels in mid to late summer. Zones of perched and/or trapped water can be encountered at times throughout the year in more permeable zones in the subgrade soils and perched water is commonly observed in subgrade soils immediately above lower permeability bedrock. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Swell – Consolidation Test Results The swell-consolidation test is performed to evaluate the swell or collapse potential of soils to help determine foundation, floor slab and pavement design criteria. In this test, relatively undisturbed samples obtained directly from the California sampler are placed in a laboratory apparatus and inundated with water under a predetermined load. The swell-index is the resulting amount of swell or collapse after the inundation period expressed as a percent of the sample’s preload/initial thickness. After the inundation period, additional incremental loads are applied to evaluate the swell pressure and/or consolidation. For this assessment, we conducted fifteen (15) swell-consolidation tests on relatively undisturbed soil samples obtained at various intervals/depths on the site. The swell index values for the in-situ soil samples analyzed revealed low to high swell characteristics as indicated on the attached swell test summaries. The (+) test results indicate the soil materials swell potential characteristics while the (-) test results indicate the soils materials collapse/consolidation potential characteristics when inundated with water. The following table summarizes the swell-consolidation laboratory test results for samples obtained during our field explorations for the subject site. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 5 Table I – Laboratory Swell-Consolidation Test Results No of Samples Tested Pre-Load / Inundation Pressure, PSF Description of Material In-Situ Characteristics Range of Swell – Index Test Results Range of Moisture Contents, % Range of Dry Densities, PCF Low End, % High End, % Low End, PCF High End, PCF Low End (+/-) % High End, (+/-) % 3 150 Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 7.3 10.6 105.5 127.0 (+) 2.9 (+) 14.4 9 500 Sandy Lean Clay (CL) or Clayey Sand (SC) 5.9 14.0 82.5 129.7 (+) 0.5 (+) 8.5 3 1000 Claystone 18.2 20.5 103.1 112.1 (+) 0.1 (+) 3.3 Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers (CAGE) uses the following information to provide uniformity in terminology between geotechnical engineers to provide a relative correlation of slab performance risk to measured swell. “The representative percent swell values are not necessarily measured values; rather, they are a judgment of the swell of the soil and/or bedrock profile likely to influence slab performance.” Geotechnical engineers use this information to also evaluate the swell potential risks for foundation performance based on the risk categories. Table II - Recommended Representative Swell Potential Descriptions and Corresponding Slab Performance Risk Categories Slab Performance Risk Category Representative Percent Swell (500 psf Surcharge) Representative Percent Swell (1000 psf Surcharge) Low 0 to < 3 0 < 2 Moderate 3 to < 5 2 to < 4 High 5 to < 8 4 to < 6 Very High > 8 > 6 Based on the laboratory test results, the in-situ samples analyzed for this project were within the low to high range. Additionally, the near surface pavement boring sample exhibited a swell index greater than the maximum allowable 2% criteria. Therefore, a swell mitigation procedure, consisting of a 2-foot over excavation and replacement or fly ash treatment of the pavement subgrades should be implemented. General Considerations Sandstone/siltstone/claystone bedrock was generally encountered at depths of approximately 13 to 19 feet below the ground surface. Due to the expected 1 to 2 stories of below grade construction it is likely that foundations and basement slabs will be constructed at elevation approaching or in the Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 6 bedrock formation. The bedrock exhibited generally low swell potential at current moisture and density conditions. If the bedrock were to dry out and become inundated with excess moisture, potential movement could occur. In general, we recommend a separation of at least 4 feet between the bottom of spread footings and bedrock, to prevent surface infiltration from pooling at foundation levels and potential movement. Depending upon final site grades and actual design loads, consideration should be given to supporting the building on a grade beam and straight shaft/drilled pier foundation system or completing an over excavation procedure to provide the minimum separation to bedrock as described herein. The overburden sandy lean clay soils generally exhibited moderate to high potential when inundated with water. Although we expect the building foundations to extend into the clayey sand/bedrock strata for below grade parking, if foundations are expected in the sandy lean clay soils the use of drilled pier foundations or swell mitigation and ground modification procedures would be required to mitigate for potential movement and due to the expected moderate to high building loads. The purpose of these procedures is to reduce the potential for post-construction movement. It should be noted however, that the risk of potential movement cannot be completely eliminated. Site Preparation Prior to placement of any fill and/or improvements, we recommend any existing topsoil, vegetation, and undocumented fill, and any unsuitable materials be removed from the planned development areas. Depending on the chosen foundation system, an over excavation procedure for either the floor slabs or spread footings should be completed to the depths specified in the sections titled Footing Foundations and Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork. Potholing and/or other observations should be completed prior to construction, to determine the depth to bedrock throughout the proposed building footprint. If bedrock is encountered less than 4 feet below proposed foundations or floor slabs, strong consideration should be given to using drilled pier foundations. Over excavating to provide at least a minimum 4 feet of separation to the bottom of foundations and/or floor slabs and bedrock, to mitigate for swell potential, and/or provide greater bearing capacity for foundations in the overburden soils could be considered if the ownership group is willing to accept a potential risk of movement. If chosen as the swell mitigation plan for pavements, a minimum 2-foot over excavation should be completed below proposed pavements. Over excavations should be extended laterally beyond the edge of foundations and/or floor slabs, a minimum of 8-inches for every 12-inches of depth. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 7 After removal of all topsoil, vegetation, and removal of unacceptable or unsuitable subsoils, any overexcavation, and prior to placement of fill, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 9 inches, adjusted in moisture content to within ±2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D698. Fill materials to develop the subgrades should consist of approved, low-volume-change materials, which are free from organic matter and debris. It is our opinion, either granular structural fill or on- site overburden soils (i.e. bedrock should not be reused as engineered fill material), could be used as fill in these areas, provided adequate moisture treatment and compaction procedures are followed. It should be noted that if the site sandy lean clay soils are used as fill materials, greater potential for movement should be expected. The imported granular materials should be graded similarly to a CDOT Class 5, 6 or 7 aggregate base. Fill materials should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted in moisture content to within ±2% for cohesive subsoils and ±3% for cohesive/granular soils, 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. If the site sandy 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. Care should be exercised after preparation of the subgrades to avoid disturbing the subgrade materials. Materials which are loosened or disturbed should be reworked prior to placement of foundations/flatwork. Foundation Systems – General Considerations The following foundation systems were evaluated for use on the site for the proposed building.  Straight shaft drilled piers bearing into the underlying bedrock formation with either a structural floor slab or a minimum 4 feet of separation to bedrock, and a conventional floor slab bearing on a zone of fill material.  Footing foundations bearing on properly prepared fill materials, with a minimum 4-foot zone of over excavated and replaced fill materials below footings and a minimum 4-foot separation Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 8 from the bottom of footings to bedrock could be considered if the ownership group is willing to accept a greater potential risk of movement. Other alternative foundation systems could be considered, and we would be pleased to provide additional alternatives upon request. Drilled Piers/Caissons Foundations Due to the necessity to over-excavate and ground modify the existing cohesive overburden soils if foundations are placed at higher elevations, and the relatively shallow depth to the underlying bedrock for the expected below grade construction, as well as the expected building load conditions, consideration should be given to supporting the proposed building on a grade beam and straight shaft drilled pier/caisson foundation system extending into the underlying bedrock formation. For axial compression loads, the drilled piers could be designed using a maximum end bearing pressure of 25,000 pounds per square foot (psf), along with a skin-friction of 2,500 psf for the portion of the pier extended into the underlying firm and/or harder bedrock formation. The piers require sufficient dead-load and/or additional penetration into the bearing strata to resist the potential uplift of the expansive materials. All piers should be design for a minimum dead-load pressure of 5,000 psf, based upon pier end area. Straight shaft piers should be drilled a minimum of 15 feet into competent or harder bedrock with minimum pier length of at least 25 feet. Due to the weathered condition of the upper strata of bedrock, the top 3 feet should be neglected for final penetration depth. Lower values may be appropriate for pier “groupings” depending on the pier diameters and spacing. Pile groups should be evaluated individually. Required pier penetration should be balanced against potential uplift forces due to expansion of the subsoils and bedrock on the site. For design purposes, the uplift force on each pier can be determined on the basis of the following equation: Up = 30 x D Where: Up = the uplift force in kips, and D = the pier diameter in feet Uplift forces on piers should be resisted by a combination of dead-load and pier penetration below a depth of about 15 feet and into the bearing strata. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 9 To satisfy forces in the horizontal direction, piers may be designed for lateral loads using a coefficient of subgrade reaction for varying pier diameters is as follows: Table III – Lateral Load Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction Pier Diameter (inches) Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction (tons/ft3) Site Soils Bedrock 12 50 400 18 33 267 24 25 200 30 20 160 36 17 133 When the lateral capacity of drilled piers is evaluated by the L-Pile 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 computer program: Table IV – L-Pile Parameters Parameters On-Site Overburden Soils Bedrock Unit Weight of Soil (pcf) 120(1) 125(1) Cohesion (psf) 200 5000 Angle of Internal Friction () (degrees) 25 20 Strain Corresponding to ½ Max. Principal Stress Difference 50 0.02 0.015 *Notes: 1) Reduce by 62.4 pcf below the water table All piers should be reinforced full depth for the applied axial, lateral and uplift stresses imposed. The amount of reinforcing steel for expansion should be determined by the tensile force created by the uplift force on each pier, with allowance for dead load. Minimum reinforcement of at least one percent of the cross-sectional area of each pier should be specified. To reduce potential uplift forces on piers, use of long grade beam spans to increase individual pier loading, and small diameter piers are recommended. For this project, use of a minimum pier diameter of 18 inches is recommended. A minimum 6-inch void space should be provided beneath grade beams between piers. The void material should be of suitable strength to support the weight of fresh concrete used in grade beam construction and to avoid collapse when foundation backfill is placed. 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 bedrock Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 10 may be encountered throughout the site at various depths where specialized drilling equipment and/or rock excavating equipment may be required. Consideration should be given to obtaining a unit price for difficult caisson excavation in the contract documents for the project. To provide increased resistance to potential uplift forces, the sides of each pier should be mechanically roughened in the bearing strata. This should be accomplished by a roughening tooth placed on the auger. Pier bearing surfaces must be cleaned prior to concrete placement. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should inspect the bearing surface and pier configuration. We expect temporary casing may be required to maintain open boreholes. Concrete should be placed as soon as practical after drilling each shaft to reduce the potential for sloughing of sidewalls. Groundwater encountered should be removed from each pier hole prior to concrete placement. Pier concrete should be placed immediately after completion of drilling and cleaning. If casing is used for pier construction, it 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. Pier concrete should have relatively high fluidity when placed in cased pier holes or through a tremie. Pier concrete with slump in the range of 6 to 8 inches is recommended. Free-fall concrete placement in piers will only be acceptable if provisions are taken to avoid striking the concrete on the sides of the hole or reinforcing steel. The use of a bottom-dump hopper/tremie pipe or an elephant's trunk discharging near the bottom of the hole where concrete segregation will be minimized, is recommended. A maximum 6-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. Foundation excavations should be 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. We estimate the long-term settlement of drilled pier foundations designed and constructed as outlined above would be less than 1-inch. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 11 Footing Foundations As an alternative to a deep foundation system and assuming a greater risk of potential movement, consideration could be given to supporting the proposed building on conventional footing foundations bearing on a minimum 4-foot zone of fill materials prepared as recommended in the section Site Preparation. For design of footing foundations bearing on properly prepared engineered fill on-site moisture conditioned material (i.e. no reprocessed bedrock material) or imported structural fill material, we recommend using a net allowable total load soil bearing pressure not to exceed 2,000 psf or 3,000 psf, respectively. 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. All footings should bear on a uniform, consistent fill zone to minimize the potential for differential movement of dissimilar material. Exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas should be located a minimum of 30 inches below adjacent exterior grade to provide frost protection. We recommend formed continuous footings have a minimum width of 12 inches and isolated column foundations have a minimum width of 24 inches. Trenched foundations should not be used. 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 materials which become dry and desiccated or wet and softened should be removed and replaced prior to placement of foundation concrete. We estimate the long-term settlement of footing foundations designed and constructed as outlined above would be 1 inch or less. It should be noted that if the sandy lean clay soils are used as compacted fill materials below footings, greater potential for movement could be expected. Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork Subgrades for floor slabs, flatwork and site pavements should be prepared as outlined in the section Site Preparation. If drilled pier foundations are used, a structural floor slab should be considered; however, assuming a greater potential risk of slab movement, an over excavation and replacement concept extending a minimum 4 feet below the floor slab could be considered. If spread footing foundations are used, we recommend an over excavation extending approximately 4 feet below the Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 12 bottom of footings and approximately 4 feet below the floor slab. Any over excavations and placement of fill materials should be completed as described in the section Site Preparation. For structural design of concrete slabs-on-grade, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) or 200 pci could be used for floors supported on controlled/engineered fill materials or imported structural fill materials, respectively. 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.  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 imported structural fill material.  Floor slabs should not be constructed on frozen subgrade.  Other design and construction considerations as outlined in the ACI Design Manual 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. The project architect and/or material manufacturers should be consulted with for specific under slab requirements. We estimate the long-term movement of floor slabs designed and constructed as outlined above would be 1 inch or less. It should be noted that if the sandy lean clay soils are used as compacted fill materials below floor slabs, greater potential for movement could be expected. Care should be exercised after development of the floor slab and exterior flatwork 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. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 13 Lateral Earth Pressures Portions of the new structure or site improvements which are constructed below grade may be subject to lateral earth pressures. Passive lateral earth pressures may help resist the driving forces for retaining wall or other similar site structures. Active lateral earth pressures could be used for design of structures where some movement of the structure is anticipated, such as retaining walls. The total deflection of structures for design with active earth pressure is estimated to be on the order of one half of one percent of the height of the down slope side of the structure. We recommend at- rest pressures be used for design of structures where rotation of the walls is restrained, such as below grade walls for a building. Passive pressures and friction between the footing and bearing soils could be used for design of resistance to movement of retaining walls. Coefficient values for backfill with anticipated types of soils for calculation of active, at-rest and passive earth pressures are provided in Table V below. Equivalent fluid pressure is equal to the coefficient times the appropriate soil unit weight. Those coefficient values are based on horizontal backfill with backfill soils consisting of on-site essentially cohesive subsoils. For at-rest and active earth pressures, slopes down and away from the structure would result in reduced driving forces with slopes up and away from the structures resulting in greater forces on the walls. The passive resistance would be reduced with slopes away from the wall. The top 30 inches of soil on the passive resistance side of walls could be used as a surcharge load; however, should not be used as a part of the passive resistance value. Frictional resistance is equal to the tangent of the friction angle times the normal force. Surcharge loads or point loads placed in the backfill can also create additional loads on below grade walls. Those situations should be designed on an individual basis. Table V - Lateral Earth Pressures Soil Type On-Site Overburden Sandy Lean Clay Soils Imported Medium Dense Granular Material Wet Unit Weight (psf) 105 135 Saturated Unit Weight (psf) 115 140 Friction Angle () – (assumed) 20° 35° Active Pressure Coefficient 0.49 0.27 At-rest Pressure Coefficient 0.66 0.43 Passive Pressure Coefficient 2.04 3.70 Coefficient of Friction at Base 0.20 0.35 The outlined values do not include factors of safety nor allowances for hydrostatic loads and are based on assumed friction angles, which should be verified after potential material sources have been identified. Care should be taken to develop appropriate drainage systems behind below grade walls Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 14 to eliminate potential for hydrostatic loads developing on the walls. Those systems would likely include perimeter drain systems extending to sump areas or free outfall where reverse flow cannot occur into the system. Where necessary, appropriate hydrostatic load values should be used for design. To reduce hydrostatic loading on retaining walls, a subsurface drain system should be placed behind the wall. The drain system should consist of free-draining granular soils containing less than five percent fines (by weight) passing a No. 200 sieve placed adjacent to the wall. The free-draining granular material should be graded to prevent the intrusion of fines or encapsulated in a suitable filter fabric. A drainage system consisting of either weep holes or perforated drain lines (placed near the base of the wall) should be used to intercept and discharge water which would tend to saturate the backfill. Where used, drain lines should be embedded in a uniformly graded filter material and provided with adequate clean-outs for periodic maintenance. An impervious soil should be used in the upper layer of backfill to reduce the potential for water infiltration. As an alternative, a prefabricated drainage structure, such as geo-composite product, may be used as a substitute for the granular backfill adjacent to the wall. Seismic The site soil conditions generally consist of sandy lean clay which extended to the underlying bedrock at depths of 13 to 19 feet. For those site conditions, the International Building Code indicates a Seismic Site Classification of D. Drilling to a greater depth could reveal a different site classification. Pavements Pavement subgrades should be prepared as outlined in the section Site Preparation. A swell mitigation plan consisting of a 2-foot over excavation and/or fly ash treatment of the subgrades should be implemented. For fly ash treatment, we recommend the addition of at least 13% Class C fly ash to the in-place subgrade materials, based on dry weights. The Class C fly ash should be thoroughly blended with the in-place soils to a depth of 12 inches below the top of subgrade. The blended materials should be adjusted to be within ±2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95% of Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 15 the materials maximum dry density as determined in accordance with the standard Proctor procedure for stabilized materials (ASTM Specification D558). We anticipate the site pavements would include areas designated for low volumes of light weight automobiles (light duty) and areas of higher volumes of light weight automobiles and low volumes of trucks (heavy duty). An equivalent daily load application (EDLA) value of 7 was assumed for light duty areas and an EDLA of 15 was assumed for heavy duty areas. Proofrolling and recompacting the subgrade is recommended immediately prior to placement of the aggregate road base section. Soft or weak areas delineated by the proofrolling operations should be undercut or stabilized in-place to achieve the appropriate subgrade support. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, an assumed R-value of 7 was used in design of the pavement sections. Recommended minimum pavement sections are provided below in Table VI. HBP sections may show rutting/distress in truck loading and drive areas; therefore, concrete pavements should be considered in these areas. The recommended pavement sections are considered minimum; thus, periodic maintenance should be expected. Table VI - Recommended Minimum Pavement Sections Automobile Parking Heavy Duty Areas 18-kip EDLA 18-kip ESAL’s Reliability Resilient Modulus (R = 7) PSI Loss 7 51,100 75% 3230 psi 2.5 15 109,500 85% 3230 psi 2.2 Design Structure Number 2.55 3.07 (A) Composite Hot Bituminous Pavement Aggregate Base (Design Structural Number) 4" 7" (2.53) 5" 8" (3.08) (B) Composite with Fly Ash Treated Subgrade Hot Bituminous Pavement Aggregate Base Fly Ash Treated Subgrade (Design Structure Number) 3½" 6" 12" (2.70) 4" 8" 12" (3.14) (C) PCC (Non-reinforced) 5" 6" We recommend aggregate base meet a CDOT Class 5 or Class 6 aggregate base. Aggregate base should be adjusted in moisture content and compacted to achieve a minimum of 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 16 HBP should be graded as SX or S and be prepared with 75 gyrations using a Superpave gyratory compactor in accordance with CDOT standards. The HBP should consist of PG 58-28 or PG 64-22 asphalt binder. HBP 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. Wire mesh or fiber could be considered to reduce shrinkage cracking. Long-term pavement performance will be dependent upon several factors, including maintaining subgrade moisture levels and providing for preventive maintenance. The following recommendations should be considered the minimum:  The subgrade and the pavement surface should be adequately sloped to promote proper surface drainage.  Install pavement drainage surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting (e.g. landscaped and irrigated islands, etc.),  Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately,  Seal all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to minimize or prevent moisture migration to subgrade soils;  Placing compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter; and, Placing curb, gutter, and/or sidewalk directly on approved proof rolled subgrade soils without the use of base course materials. Please note that if during or after placement of the stabilization or initial lift of pavement, the area is observed to be yielding under vehicle traffic or construction equipment, it is recommended that EEC be contacted for additional alternative methods of stabilization, or a change in the pavement section. Detention Pond A detention pond is planned for construction on either the southeast or the southwest side of the site. As a part of our subsurface exploration, two (2) borings were extended within the detention pond area, and field percolation tests were completed, (P-1 and P-2). The field percolation test borings on either Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 17 side of the development exhibited a soil percolation rate of approximately 20 min/in or an equivalent falling head coefficient of permeability of approximately 2.1x10-3 cm/sec. In general, the more granular clayey sand materials encountered at depths of approximately 5 to 8 feet in borings P-1 and P- 2 are more permeable than the overburden clay subsoils. Water Soluble Sulfates (SO4) The water-soluble sulfate (SO4) content of the on-site overburden subsoils, taken during our subsurface exploration at random locations and intervals are provided below. Based on reported sulfate content test results, the Class/severity of sulfate exposure for concrete in contact with the on- site subsoils is provided in this report. Table VII - Water Soluble Sulfate Test Results Sample Location Description % of Soil by Weight B-2, S-1, at 4’ Sandy Lean Clay 0.01 B-5, S-1, at 2’ Sandy Lean Clay 0.01 B-6, S-4, at 9’ Sandy Lean Clay 0.01 Based on the results as presented above, ACI 318, Section 4.2 indicates the site lean clay soils have a low risk of sulfate attack on Portland cement concrete, therefore, ACI Class S0 requirements should be followed for concrete placed in the overburden soils and underlying bedrock. Foundation concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4. Other Considerations Positive drainage should be developed away from the structures and pavement areas with a minimum slope of 1 inch per foot for the first 10 feet away from the improvements in landscape areas. Care should be taken in planning of landscaping (if required) adjacent to the buildings to avoid features which would pond water adjacent to the foundations or stemwalls. Placement of plants which require irrigation systems or could result in fluctuations of the moisture content of the subgrade material should be avoided adjacent to site improvements. Irrigation systems should not be 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 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1202023 May 1, 2020 Page 18 drains should be designed to discharge at least 5 feet away from the structures and away from the pavement areas. Excavations into the on-site lean to fat clay soils and underlying bedrock can be expected to stand on relatively steep, temporary slopes during construction. The individual contractor(s) should be made responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. GENERAL COMMENTS The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the indicated locations and from any other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect any variations, which may occur between borings or across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. It is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained to review the plans and specifications, so comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. It is further recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained for testing and observations during earthwork phases to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of United Properties for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranty, express or implied, is made. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing by the geotechnical engineer. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC DRILLING AND EXPLORATION DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SS: Split Spoon ‐ 13/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted PS: Piston Sample ST: Thin‐Walled Tube ‐ 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted WS: Wash Sample R: Ring Barrel Sampler ‐ 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D. unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger FT: Fish Tail Bit HA: Hand Auger RB: Rock Bit DB: Diamond Bit = 4", N, B BS: Bulk Sample AS: Auger Sample PM: Pressure Meter HS: Hollow Stem Auger WB: Wash Bore Standard "N" Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2‐inch O.D. split spoon, except where noted. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL : Water Level WS : While Sampling WCI: Wet Cave in WD : While Drilling DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal AB : After Boring ACR: After Casting Removal Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of ground water. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of ground water levels is not possible with only short term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification system and the ASTM Designations D‐2488. Coarse Grained Soils have move than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as : clays, if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non‐plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse grained soils are defined on the basis of their relative in‐ place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their consistency. Example: Lean clay with sand, trace gravel, stiff (CL); silty sand, trace gravel, medium dense (SM). CONSISTENCY OF FINE‐GRAINED SOILS Unconfined Compressive Strength, Qu, psf Consistency < 500 Very Soft 500 ‐ 1,000 Soft 1,001 ‐ 2,000 Medium 2,001 ‐ 4,000 Stiff 4,001 ‐ 8,000 Very Stiff 8,001 ‐ 16,000 Very Hard RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE‐GRAINED SOILS: N‐Blows/ft Relative Density 0‐3 Very Loose 4‐9 Loose 10‐29 Medium Dense 30‐49 Dense 50‐80 Very Dense 80 + Extremely Dense PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF BEDROCK DEGREE OF WEATHERING: Slight Slight decomposition of parent material on joints. May be color change. Moderate Some decomposition and color change throughout. High Rock highly decomposed, may be extremely broken. HARDNESS AND DEGREE OF CEMENTATION: Limestone and Dolomite: Hard Difficult to scratch with knife. Moderately Can be scratched easily with knife. Hard Cannot be scratched with fingernail. Soft Can be scratched with fingernail. Shale, Siltstone and Claystone: Hard Can be scratched easily with knife, cannot be scratched with fingernail. Moderately Can be scratched with fingernail. Hard Soft Can be easily dented but not molded with fingers. Sandstone and Conglomerate: Well Capable of scratching a knife blade. Cemented Cemented Can be scratched with knife. Poorly Can be broken apart easily with fingers. Cemented Group Symbol Group Name Cu≥4 and 1<Cc≤3E GW Well-graded gravel F Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3E GP Poorly-graded gravel F Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel G,H Fines Classify as CL or CH GC Clayey Gravel F,G,H Cu≥6 and 1<Cc≤3E SW Well-graded sand I Cu<6 and/or 1>Cc>3E SP Poorly-graded sand I Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I inorganic PI>7 and plots on or above "A" Line CL Lean clay K,L,M PI<4 or plots below "A" Line ML Silt K,L,M organic Liquid Limit - oven dried Organic clay K,L,M,N Liquid Limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O inorganic PI plots on or above "A" Line CH Fat clay K,L,M PI plots below "A" Line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M organic Liquid Limit - oven dried Organic clay K,L,M,P Liquid Limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O Highly organic soils PT Peat (D30)2 D10 x D60 GW-GM well graded gravel with silt NPI≥4 and plots on or above "A" line. GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay OPI≤4 or plots below "A" line. GP-GM poorly-graded gravel with silt PPI plots on or above "A" line. GP-GC poorly-graded gravel with clay QPI plots below "A" line. SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC IIf soil contains >15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name JIf Atterberg limits plots shaded area, soil is a CL- ML, Silty clay Unified Soil Classification System Soil Classification Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests Sands 50% or more coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve <0.75 OL Gravels with Fines more than 12% fines Clean Sands Less than 5% fines Sands with Fines more than 12% fines Clean Gravels Less than 5% fines Gravels more than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Coarse - Grained Soils more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve CGravels with 5 to 12% fines required dual symbols: Kif soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel", whichever is predominant. <0.75 OH Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor ABased on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve ECu=D60/D10 Cc= HIf fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name LIf soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. MIf soil contains ≥30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. DSands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: BIf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name.FIf soil contains ≥15% sand, add "with sand" to GIf fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC- CM, or SC-SM. Silts and Clays Liquid Limit less than 50 Silts and Clays Liquid Limit 50 or more 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) LIQUID LIMIT (LL) ML OR OL MH OR OH For Classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils. Equation of "A"-line Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5 then PI-0.73 (LL-20) Equation of "U"-line Vertical at LL=16 to PI-7, then PI=0.9 (LL-8) CL-ML THE STANFORD FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1202023 APRIL 2020 B-412B-2B-9P-1P-2B-7B-10B-3B-1B-5B-8B-6Boring Location DiagramSenior Living Facility - The Stanford - Fort Collins, ColoradoEEC Project #:1202023April 2020EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLCB-1 thrX B-: Appro[imateLocations for FoXndationBorings Drilled 20-3 LegendB-10: Appro[imate Locationfor 1 Pavement BoringDrilled 10 P-1 P-2: 2 ShalloZ SoilPercolation Borings Drilled10 1Site PhotosPhotos taNen in appro[imatelocation, in direction of arroZ B-412B-2B-9P-1P-2B-7B-10(5018)[5003.5](5013.5)(5013.5)(5019.5)(5016.5)[4997]B-3B-1B-5(5017)[5001](5018.5)[5002](5016)[5002](5016)[5001.5](5016)[5003](5014)[4999.5]499849995000500150025003B-8(5017.5)[5003]B-6Bedrock Contour DiagramSenior Living Facility - The Stanford - Fort Collins, ColoradoEEC Project #:1202023April 2020EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLCAppro[imate BoringLocationsLegendAppro[imate GroundSurface ElevationsAppro[imate BedrockElevationsAppro[imate BedrockContours(5017)[5001] DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF SPARSE VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff to stiff _ _% @ 150 psf with calcareous deposits 3 26 9000+ 9.2 114.5 37 21 54.8 9000 psf 14.4% _ _ 4 _ _ 5 11 5000 10.5 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ CLAYEY SAND (SC)10 21 9000+ 6.5 28 14 48.0 1100 psf 0.5% red, tan _ _ medium dense 11 _ _ 12 _ _ *increase in GRAVEL with depth 13 _ _ 14 _ _ 15 11 4.2 _ _ 16 _ _ SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE / CLAYSTONE 17 brown / grey / rust _ _ highly weathered to moderately hard 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 30 9000+ 18.5 111.7 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 36 9000+ 19.1 continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC CS SS A-LIMITS SWELL CS SS CS SS APPROX. SURFACE ELEV 5017 FINISH DATE 4/15/2020 4/15/2020 WHILE DRILLING None SOIL DESCRIPTION THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY LOG OF BORING B-1PROJECT NO: 1202023 APRIL 2020 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 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 _ _ SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE / CLAYSTONE 27 brown / grey / rust _ _ moderately hard 28 _ _ 29 _ _ 30 50/9" 9000+ 16.2 116.7 _ _ 31 _ _ 32 _ _ 33 _ _ 34 _ _ 35 50/10" 9000+ 15.6 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 35.0' _ _ 36 _ _ 37 _ _ 38 _ _ 39 _ _ 40 _ _ 41 _ _ 42 _ _ 43 _ _ 44 _ _ 45 _ _ 46 _ _ 47 _ _ 48 _ _ 49 _ _ 50 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC CS SS A-LIMITS SWELL 5017 4/15/2020 0 1/0/1900APPROX. SURFACE ELEV WHILE DRILLING None FINISH DATE START DATE 4/15/2020 THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO LOG OF BORING B-1 APRIL 2020PROJECT NO: 1202023 SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF SPARSE VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _ brown 2 stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 _ _ 4 _ _ 5 10 9000 12.3 110.8 5000 psf 4.7% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ 10 5 8500 7.7 CLAYEY SAND (SC) _ _ red, tan 11 loose to medium dense _ _ 12 _ _ 13 *increase in GRAVEL with depth _ _ 14 _ _ 15 15 9000 6.9 127.0 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 18 9000 20.5 tan, gray, rust, highly weathered to moderately hard _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC SSSANDSTONE / SILTSTONE / CLAYSTONE CS THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY PROJECT NO: 1202023 LOG OF BORING B-2 APRIL 2020 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 4/15/2020 WHILE DRILLING None FINISH DATE 4/15/2020 APPROX. SURFACE ELEV 5016.5 SWELL SOIL DESCRIPTION CS SS A-LIMITS DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF SPARSE VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CLAYEY SAND (SC) 5 11 5.9 38 21 34.8 3500 psf 4.0% brown _ _ medium dense to loose 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 red, tan _ _ 10 7 5.3 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 *increase in GRAVEL with depth _ _ 14 _ _ 15 8 7500 7.4 112.8 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE / CLAYSTONE _ _ tan, gray, rust 18 highly weathered _ _ 19 _ _ 20 25 9000+ 20.2 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC CS SS SS CS APPROX. SURFACE ELEV 5018.5 SOIL DESCRIPTION A-LIMITS SWELL FINISH DATE 4/15/2020 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 4/15/2020 WHILE DRILLING None THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1202023 LOG OF BORING B-3 APRIL 2020 DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF SPARSE VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 _ _ 4 _ _ 5 15 9000+ 13.1 113.0 2500 psf 1.6% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ 10 4 5000 9.8 CLAYEY SAND (SC) _ _ red, tan 11 loose _ _ 12 _ _ 13 *increase in GRAVEL with depth _ _ 14 _ _% @ 1000 psf CLAYSTONE 15 17 9000+ 20.5 107.3 59 38 92.7 2000 psf 0.1% tan, gray, rust _ _ highly weathered 16 _ _ *bedrock classified as FAT CLAY (CH) 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 34 9000+ 19.4 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC SS CS SS CS SOIL DESCRIPTION A-LIMITS SWELL APPROX. SURFACE ELEV 5016 FINISH DATE 4/15/2020 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 4/15/2020 WHILE DRILLING None THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1202023 LOG OF BORING B-4 APRIL 2020 DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF SPARSE VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff to stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 19 9000+ 8.7 112.5 1700 psf 2.3% _ _ 4 _ _ 5 12 7000 10.6 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ 10 24 9000+ 7.9 116.7 31 17 56.0 11000 psf 8.5% _ _ CLAYEY SAND (SC) 11 red, tan _ _ medium dense 12 _ _ *increase in GRAVEL with depth 13 _ _ 14 _ _ 15 24 9000+ 15.0 SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE / CLAYSTONE _ _ brown, gray, rust 16 highly weathered to moderately hard _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 30 9000+ 17.1 116.3 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 *bedrock became more competent with depth _ _ 24 _ _ 25 45 9000+ 16.4 117.2 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.0' _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC CS CS CS SS CS SS APPROX. SURFACE ELEV 5016 SOIL DESCRIPTION A-LIMITS SWELL FINISH DATE 4/15/2020 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 4/15/2020 WHILE DRILLING None THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1202023 LOG OF BORING B-5 APRIL 2020 DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF SPARSE VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _ brown 2 stiff to very stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 _ _ 4 _ _ 5 7 5000 13.2 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ 10 12 9000+ 13.0 114.7 30 16 65.7 3800 psf 2.0% _ _ 11 _ _ CLAYEY SAND (SC) 12 red, tan _ _ medium dense 13 *increase in GRAVEL with depth _ _ 14 _ _ 15 12 6500 16.6 SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE / CLAYSTONE _ _ tan, gray, rust 16 highly weathered _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 30 9000+ 18.3 113.0 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.0' 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC SS CS SS CS APPROX. SURFACE ELEV 5017.5 SOIL DESCRIPTION A-LIMITS SWELL FINISH DATE 4/15/2020 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 4/15/2020 WHILE DRILLING None THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1202023 LOG OF BORING B-6 APRIL 2020 DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF SPARSE VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 _ _ 4 _ _ 5 16 9000+ 14.0 124.0 9000 psf 7.6% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ CLAYEY SAND (SC)10 14 6000 6.3 red, tan _ _ medium dense 11 _ _ 12 _ _ *increase in GRAVEL with depth 13 _ _ 14 _ _% @ 1000 psf 15 23 9000+ 18.9 109.3 53 31 77.8 4000 psf 1.6% SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE / CLAYSTONE _ _ brown, gray, rust 16 highly weathered to moderately hard _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 40 30 9000+ 17.5 _ _ 21 *bedrock became more competent with depth _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 50/8" 9000+ 16.2 116.7 continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC CS SS CS CS SS 5018 SOIL DESCRIPTION A-LIMITS SWELL FINISH DATE 4/15/2020 APPROX. SURFACE ELEV SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 4/15/2020 WHILE DRILLING None THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1202023 LOG OF BORING B-7 APRIL 2020 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 _ _ SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE / CLAYSTONE 27 brown, gray, rust _ _ moderately hard 28 _ _ 29 _ _ 30 50/9" 9000+ 16.2 _ _ 31 _ _ 32 _ _ 33 _ _ 34 _ _ 35 50/8" 9000+ 16.2 115.9 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 35.0' _ _ 36 _ _ 37 _ _ 38 _ _ 39 _ _ 40 _ _ 41 _ _ 42 _ _ 43 _ _ 44 _ _ 45 _ _ 46 _ _ 47 _ _ 48 _ _ 49 _ _ 50 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC CS SS APPROX. SURFACE ELEV 5018 4/15/2020 0 A-LIMITS SWELL FINISH DATE 1/0/1900 SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 4/15/2020 WHILE DRILLING None THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1202023 LOG OF BORING B-7 APRIL 2020 DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF SPARSE VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff _ _% @ 150 psf with calcareous deposits 3 16 9000+ 7.3 118.7 3500 psf 8.8% _ _ 4 _ _ 5 9 9000+ 9.4 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 CLAYEY SAND (SC) _ _ red, tan 10 25 5500 7.0 123.3 medium dense _ _ 11 *increase in GRAVEL with depth _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE / CLAYSTONE 14 brown, gray, rust _ _ highly weathered to moderately hard 15 23 5500 19.4 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 36 9000+ 18.6 111.9 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.0' _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC CS CS SS CS SS APPROX. SURFACE ELEV 5016 SOIL DESCRIPTION A-LIMITS SWELL FINISH DATE 4/15/2020 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 4/15/2020 WHILE DRILLING None THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1202023 LOG OF BORING B-8 APRIL 2020 DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF SPARSE VEGETATION _ _ 1 LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 _ _ 4 _ _ 5 16 6.9 37 17 72.6 600 psf 0.7% _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ 10 21 9000+ 2.8 CLAYEY SAND (SC) _ _ red, tan 11 medium dense _ _ 12 _ _ *increase in GRAVEL with depth 13 _ _ 14 _ _ 15 29 8000 18.2 113.3 SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE / CLAYSTONE _ _ brown, gray, rust 16 highly weathered to moderately hard _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 32 8000 18.8 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ *bedrock became more competent with depth 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 50 7000 15.9 122.6 continued on Sheet 2 of 2 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC SS CS CS SS CS APPROX. SURFACE ELEV 5014 SOIL DESCRIPTION A-LIMITS SWELL FINISH DATE 4/15/2020 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 4/15/2020 WHILE DRILLING None THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1202023 LOG OF BORING B-9 APRIL 2020 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 _ _ SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE / CLAYSTONE 27 brown, gray, rust _ _ moderately hard 28 _ _ 29 _ _ 30 50/9" 8500 16.3 _ _ 31 _ _ 32 _ _ 33 _ _ 34 _ _ 35 50/10" 4000 16.4 123.3 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 35.0' _ _ 36 _ _ 37 _ _ 38 _ _ 39 _ _ 40 _ _ 41 _ _ 42 _ _ 43 _ _ 44 _ _ 45 _ _ 46 _ _ 47 _ _ 48 _ _ 49 _ _ 50 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC 35 CS APPROX. SURFACE ELEV A-LIMITS SWELL 4/15/2020 0 1/0/19005014 FINISH DATE SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH START DATE 4/15/2020 WHILE DRILLING None THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1202023 LOG OF BORING B-9 APRIL 2020 DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF SPARSE VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 14 9000+ 10.6 124.5 34 10 55.2 1400 psf 2.9% _ _ 4 _ _ 5 16 9000+ 6.9 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 *transitioning to CLAYEY SAND with trace GRAVEL _ _ 9 _ _ 10 17 9000+ 17.9 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 10.0' 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ 15 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY PROJECT NO: 1202023 LOG OF BORING B-10 APRIL 2020 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 4/15/2020 WHILE DRILLING None SOIL DESCRIPTION A-LIMITS SWELL FINISH DATE 4/15/2020 CS SS SS APPROX. SURFACE ELEV 5013.5 DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF SPARSE VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) _ _ brown 2 very stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 _ _ 4 _ _ 5 16 9000+ 11.3 _ _ *transitioning to CLAYEY SAND with trace GRAVEL 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ 10 7 5000 7.0 22 8 37.9 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 10.0' 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ 15 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC SS SS APPROX. SURFACE ELEV 5019.5 SOIL DESCRIPTION A-LIMITS SWELL FINISH DATE 4/15/2020 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 4/15/2020 WHILE DRILLING None THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1202023 LOG OF PERCOLATION BORING P-1 APRIL 2020 DATE: RIG TYPE: CME55 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF SPARSE VEGETATION _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY to CLAYEY SAND (CL to SC) _ _ brown 2 very stiff _ _ with calcareous deposits 3 16 3500 10.6 39 22 49.5 _ _ 4 _ _ 5 16 5000 6.5 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 *transitioning to CLAYEY SAND with trace GRAVEL _ _ 9 _ _ 10 20 9000+ 9.3 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 10.0' 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ 15 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC CS SS SS APPROX. SURFACE ELEV 5013.5 SOIL DESCRIPTION A-LIMITS SWELL FINISH DATE 4/15/2020 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 4/15/2020 WHILE DRILLING None THE STANFORD - SENIOR LIVING FACILITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1202023 LOG OF PERCOLATION BORING P-2 APRIL 2020 Project: Location: Project #: Date: SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Sample Location: Boring 1, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: 37 Plasticity Index: 21 % Passing #200: 54.8% Beginning Moisture: 9.2% Dry Density: 127 pcf Ending Moisture: 17.0% Swell Pressure: 9000 psf % Swell @ 150: 14.4% The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 -5.0 -3.0 -1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 Beginning Moisture: 6.5% Dry Density: 112 pcf Ending Moisture: 15.4% Swell Pressure: 1100 psf % Swell @ 500: 0.5% Sample Location: Boring 1, Sample 3, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: 28 Plasticity Index: 14 % Passing #200: 48.0% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Red, Tan Clayey Sand (SC) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Sample Location: Boring 2, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - Beginning Moisture: 12.3% Dry Density: 114 pcf Ending Moisture: 16.4% Swell Pressure: 5000 psf % Swell @ 500: 4.7% The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 Beginning Moisture: 5.9% Dry Density: 100.8 pcf Ending Moisture: 18.8% Swell Pressure: 3500 psf % Swell @ 500: 4.0% Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: 38 Plasticity Index: 21 % Passing #200: 34.8% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Clayey Sand (SC) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 Beginning Moisture: 13.1% Dry Density: 124.9 pcf Ending Moisture: 22.6% Swell Pressure: 2500 psf % Swell @ 500: 1.6% Sample Location: Boring 4, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 Beginning Moisture: 20.5% Dry Density: 109.6 pcf Ending Moisture: 21.8% Swell Pressure: 2000 psf % Swell @ 1000: 0.1% Sample Location: Boring 4, Sample 3, Depth 14' Liquid Limit: 59 Plasticity Index: 38 % Passing #200: 92.7% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Tan, Gray, Rust Claystone (classified as FAT CLAY- CH) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Sample Location: Boring 5, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - Beginning Moisture: 8.7% Dry Density: 129.7 pcf Ending Moisture: 18.3% Swell Pressure: 1700 psf % Swell @ 500: 2.3% The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 Beginning Moisture: 7.9% Dry Density: 115.7 pcf Ending Moisture: 16.6% Swell Pressure: 11000 psf % Swell @ 500: 8.5% Sample Location: Boring 5, Sample 3, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: 31 Plasticity Index: 17 % Passing #200: 56.0% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 Beginning Moisture: 13.0% Dry Density: 128 pcf Ending Moisture: 14.2% Swell Pressure: 3800 psf % Swell @ 500: 2.0% Sample Location: Boring 6, Sample 2, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: 30 Plasticity Index: 16 % Passing #200: 65.7% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 Beginning Moisture: 14.0% Dry Density: 126.3 pcf Ending Moisture: 17.6% Swell Pressure: 9000 psf % Swell @ 500: 7.6% Sample Location: Boring 7, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 Beginning Moisture: 18.9% Dry Density: 112.1 pcf Ending Moisture: 21.9% Swell Pressure: 4000 psf % Swell @ 1000: 1.6% Sample Location: Boring 7, Sample 3, Depth 14' Liquid Limit: 53 Plasticity Index: 31 % Passing #200: 77.8% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown, Gray, Rust Claystone Bedrock (classified as Lean Clay w/ Sand ) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 Beginning Moisture: 7.3% Dry Density: 122.3 pcf Ending Moisture: 19.7% Swell Pressure: 3500 psf % Swell @ 150: 8.8% Sample Location: Boring 8, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: - - Plasticity Index: - - % Passing #200: - - SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 Beginning Moisture: 6.9% Dry Density: 82.5 pcf Ending Moisture: 26.4% Swell Pressure: 600 psf % Swell @ 500: 0.7% Sample Location: Boring 9, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: 37 Plasticity Index: 17 % Passing #200: 72.6% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown / Gray / Rust Sandstone / Siltstone / Claystone Sample Location: Boring 9, Sample 3, Depth 14' Liquid Limit: 37 Plasticity Index: 17 % Passing #200: 72.6% Beginning Moisture: 18.2% Dry Density: 103.1 pcf Ending Moisture: 22.3% Swell Pressure: 4500 psf % Swell @ 1000: 3.3% The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added Project: Location: Project #: Date: The Stanford - Senior Living Facility Fort Collins, Colorado 1202023 April 2020 Beginning Moisture: 10.6% Dry Density: 105.5 pcf Ending Moisture: 17.8% Swell Pressure: 1400 psf % Swell @ 150: 2.9% Sample Location: Boring 10, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: 34 Plasticity Index: 16 % Passing #200: 55.2% SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10Percent MovementLoad (TSF)SwellConsolidatioWater Added