The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION - 08-00322 - Teton Radiology Madison - New Building0800322 Rexburg Outpatient Clinic REPORT Geotechnical Evaluation Teton Radiology - Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Rexburg, Idaho PREPARED FOR: Ward + Blake Architects 200 E Broadway Jackson, WY 83002 PREPARED BY: Xcell Engineering, LC 5745 Industry Way, No. 4 Chubbuck, Idaho 83202 (4 i5'ueQe(**ry ops S:cefeeroe FOR QUEN 1599e -C u J 5(4M n 6 n-MaWtW 350 North 2nd East Rexburg, ID 83440 November 12, 2007 Xcell Engineering, LC 5745 Industry Way, No. 4 Chubbuck,ID 83202 Phone (208) 237-5900 Fax (208) 237-5925 E-mail: xcellenq(a.gwest.net Mr. Carl Detwyler Ward + Blake Architects 200 E Broadway Jackson, WY 83002 Dear Mr. Detwyler FMG�REN 350 North 2nd East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.356.9201 Fax: 208.356.0206 bcrowther@forsgren.com November 12, 2007 P07092A RE: REPORT Geotechnical Evaluation Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Rexburg,ID We have performed the authorized geotechnical evaluation for the proposed clinic in Rexburg, Idaho. This evaluation was performed to assess the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the proposed site to provide geotechnical information to assist project planning, design and construction. The work was performed in accordance with our proposal of October 27, 2007. This report summarizes the results of our field evaluation, provides laboratory test results and presents our geotechnical findings and opinions. Specific geotechnical information is included in this report for soil and groundwater characteristics encountered during our field exploration. Individual portions of this report cannot be relied upon without the supporting text throughout the report and in subsequent addendums and must be verified through appropriate geotechnical design and construction continuity as the design and planning process evolves. It has been our experience that maintaining geotechnical design continuity through all phases of the project reduces the potential for soil -engineering related errors during design and construction and contributes to overall project success and economy. We appreciate the opportunity to work for Ward + Blake Architects and anticipate partnering on future projects, if you have questions or comments. JBP/BC Sincerely, Forsgren Associates, Inc. -_/t c__rC/ Brent Crowther, PE District Manager stwzw REPORT Geotechnical Evaluation Teton Radiology - Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Rexburg, Idaho PREPARED FOR: Ward + Blake Architects 200 E Broadway Jackson, WY 83002 PREPARED BY: Xcell Engineering, LC 5745 Industry Way, No. 4 Chubbuck, Idaho 83202 (4 Fmdduay off GcxcePfe�ue FolScREN N.z� E-9-" SUro M e&a -4a/4w 350 North 2nd East Rexburg, ID 83440 November 12, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION............................................................................... 1 SITEEVALUATION..................................................................................................2 SUBSURFACECONDITIONS................................................................................................. 2 LABORATORYTESTING....................................................................................................... 2 DISCUSSION........................................................................................................... 2 GEOTECHNICAL OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 3 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS...................................................................................... 3 Site and Subgrade Preparation..........................................................................3 Wet Weather/Wet Soil Construction...................................................................3 Slope Stability for Temporary Excavation and Cuts...........................................4 StructuralFill......................................................................................................5 Foundations........................................................................................................6 SeismicConsiderations......................................................................................6 Concrete.............................................................................................................6 UtilityTrench Backfill..........................................................................................6 Surface Drainage and Erosion...........................................................................6 Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Section Design.......................................7 REVIEWOF PLANS................................................................................................. 8 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ................................................. 8 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS................................................................................... 8 REPORT Geotechnical Evaluation Teton Radiology - Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Rexburg, ID INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluation for a proposed outpatient clinic in Rexburg as shown on the attached site plan, plate 1. The purpose of this evaluation was to characterize the subsurface soil and water conditions to prepare geotechnical opinions and recommendations for planning, design and construction of the facility. To accomplish this evaluation, we performed the following services: 1. Reviewed data from evaluations near the site and reviewed conceptual drawings for the plant. 2. Coordinated with Digline to avoid existing utilities at the site. 3. Observed 4 exploratory test pits at the site. The soils encountered were described and classified referencing ASTM D 2488 and D 2487, Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Select soil samples were obtained for laboratory testing and the soil profile was logged. 4. Analyzed soil test data to provide engineering and construction earthwork recommendations. 5. Performed analyses based on project plans and prepared geotechnical recommendations for foundation bearing soil, allowable bearing pressure, excavation characteristics, temporary excavations, structural fill and earthwork and seismicity. 6. Three bound copies of this report have been provided. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION We understand plans for construction include the following: • Placement of up to 2 feet of fill on the site to allow construction above the defined floodplain • One single story wood frame or concrete building with a concrete slab on grade floor FMdWlay off gueeeeoe 5-q&evU'q .Stnaa M eacranusrilie¢ Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Rexburg, ID P07092A Page 2 • Parking for approximately 60 vehicles consisting of asphalt pavement and rigid pavement for sidewalks, access aprons and for the trash enclosure. • On-site storm water disposal SITE EVALUATION The Engineer subcontracted the advancement of four test pits on the site on October 19, 2007. Exploration locations are presented on the Site Plan and were approximately located relative to existing site features. Soil types encountered in the borings were evaluated and logged in the field by an engineer from our office referencing the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A thorough explanation of the USCS is presented on Plate 2. The USCS should be used to interpret the terms on the boring logs and throughout this report. The boring logs are presented in the Appendix. Subsurface Conditions Soil conditions and depth to water varied slightly across the site. The soil profile encountered consists of 1.0 to 4.5 feet of silty fine sand underlain by dense fine to coarse sandy gravel to a depth of 10 feet. Silty fine sand on the site is frost susceptible and poor drainage may result in frost heaving of the pavement. The underlying gravel is porous and we anticipate transmissivity on the order of 1 x 10-1 cm/sec. Both the silt and gravel will be prone to erosion if subjected to running water. Groundwater was not observed in the depths explored. We anticipated that subsurface flow from the river is low due to small particles plugging or blinding off the flow path at the wetted perimeter of the south fork of the Teton River. Specific layer contacts and geotechnical data are presented on the test pit logs in the Appendix. Groundwater has the potential to vary with seasonal fluctuations in precipitation, river stage, irrigation, infiltration and development to the project site and adjacent properties. Proximity to the river and high water levels should be considered when determining final floor elevation. Laboratory Testing Select soil samples were tested to assess Atterberg limits, moisture content, and grain- size distribution. Laboratory testing was performed in reference to individual ASTM procedures. The results of laboratory testing are presented on the test pit logs. DISCUSSION The proposed construction site is situated in the existing flood plain of the South Fork of the Teton River. While no evidence of standing water and shallow groundwater was observed it should be noted that the subsurface soils are highly permeable and capable of transmitting high volumes of water. The engineering properties of the soil materials encountered were assessed via subsurface exploration, in situ and laboratory testing and indicate that, if properly prepared, the soil will not be prone to settlement when SFaddewy " Grzcefl we Gerry<'aerhGr9 QST "9M eaaixraIWO Rexburg outpatient Clinic Rexburg, ID P07092A Page 3 subjected to loads associated with structures and planned improvements. The owner and design team should accept that the following specific site preparation and geotechnical improvements to the soil conditions beneath buildings and foundations will be required. Our engineering analyses and this report were prepared primarily to identify general soil and groundwater characteristics to facilitate project planning and design. Dewatering is not anticipated and conventional foundations will be adequate for support of the proposed buildings and basins provided the recommendations in this report are implemented. GEOTECHNICAL OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Primary concerns associated with construction on the site include site preparation of subsurface soils, seasonal high groundwater and frost sensitive soil. Our recommendations are based on the relatively uniform subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits. When design plans are finalized, we should be notified to review this report. The Engineer should be involved with the contractor(s) as construction plans are implemented. Geotechnical Considerations Site and Subgrade Preparation At the time of our evaluation vegetation on the site was minimal and extensive stripping and grubbing will not be required unless the site is allowed to grow over prior to construction. Soil in the building and pavement areas should be free from vegetation and debris and should be proof rolled using a riding compactor with a drum weight of at least five tons. Soft or unsuitable soil should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill as outlined in the structural fill section of this report. Frost or frozen soil should be used as fill or incorporated into fill. If the subgrade exposed by grading or removal of vegetation is disturbed or becomes unstable during the excavation process it should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. We recommend the upper 12 inches of silty fine sand be moisture conditioned to near optimum water content and compacted in-place to at least 95% of its maximum dry density per ASTM D-698 as discussed in the Structural Fill section of this report prior to placement of structural fill. Wet Weather/Wet Soil Construction Winter and spring months typically exhibit inclement weather and generally poor construction conditions. The on-site soils may become unstable if they are wet when subjected to wheeled traffic or construction loads. If construction commences before soil can dry after precipitation or during wet periods of the year, earthwork should be performed by low-pressure, track -mounted equipment that spread the vehicle load. All soft or disturbed soil should be removed as outlined in the Site and Subgrade Preparation section of this report. Material placement and compaction should be vwaddd&g ow $xcd&*e c Srrglneerrksy ,Samget eoarmwmrw Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Rexburg, ID P07092A Page 4 performed so as to prevent pumping and disturbance of the underlying soil. During construction, runoff from precipitation should be intercepted and diverted to prevent erosion and/or ponding of water within the project excavation. The Engineer should be periodically present during excavation and subgrade preparations to verify that no soft, saturated or disturbed areas exist prior to placing structural fill. We expect wet to saturated conditions may be encountered during foundation excavations and subgrade preparation. The contractor should expect these conditions and be equipped with equipment and material sources to replace wet or disturbed soil with granular structural fill. If significant disturbed soil conditions are encountered, the use of a woven geotextile fabric over excavated areas may be necessary. The Engineer should be consulted before placing any geotextile fabric. Once final subgrade is achieved, it will be the contractor's responsibility to protect the soil from degrading under construction traffic and/or wet weather. Initial footing excavations should not be initiated within 24 hours before expected precipitation. The surficial silt on-site is susceptible to frost action. Frozen soil is unsuitable for us as structural fill. Concrete or structural fill should never be placed over frozen soil. The condition of the subgrade and careful construction procedures are critical to foundation and slab stability and long-term performance of foundations. Slope Stability for Temporary Excavation and Cuts We expect most contractors will use open -excavation methods to achieve the desired subgrade and stable side slopes. Trench excavations are expected for pipe utilities connecting to the planned improvements. Excavations, including trench construction and earthwork, should be constructed according the OSHA excavation regulations, Document 29, CFR Part 1926, Occupation Safety and Health Standards — Excavations; Final Rule. In general, the subsurface conditions to 10 feet have been classified as cohesionless type C soil according to the OSHA criteria. Class C soil typically cannot be sloped steeper than 1'/2 to 1 H: V (horizontal to vertical). Excavations up to 4 feet deep may have vertical sidewalls. Deeper excavations must be sloped or shored and braced with some type of lateral support and protection (designed by a licensed engineer). Design of excavations and/or excavation support structures for excavations deeper than 4 feet in the saturated type C soil will likely require a dewatering plan, design calculations and a report by a licensed qualified engineer submitted to OSHA. The contractor will ultimately be responsible for excavation stability and site safety as soil and groundwater conditions can vary. Isolated, local flattening of slopes may be required. Temporary trench excavation support in the form of steel trench boxes, steel or timber shoring, and other means of trench wall protection can be used for the project. If trench boxes or other means of temporary support of pipe excavations is utilized, the trench box or shoring should be of sufficient width to be able to install the pipe, pipe bedding, and provide safe and productive working conditions. We recommend a licensed engineer design any shoring plans required for excavation. Minor sloughing of the soil, represented in this report, could occur, requiring appropriate maintenance and protection for workers and equipment. Localized perched 8'uddk V 5ZM&&W Sng&me_y Saoagm ewruuawam Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Rexburg, ID P07092A Page 5 groundwater, subsequent to dewatering, may cause local flowing soil conditions and excavation instability. Caving will cause trench boxes to become lodged, requiring additional time to remove soil debris adjacent to, and confining the box and to move the box to a new location. Rain and other water sources will increase the potential for caving and sloughing of the soils. Excavation equipment and other construction procedures must be selected to avoid inducing dynamic loading (vibration) which could increase soil pore water pressure causing local instability, which may lead to both side slope and foundation soil instability of excavations. The interpreted subsurface conditions and the engineering properties of the soil will vary. We recommend geotechnical assessment of the soil conditions during construction to maintain project safety and production if deep trenching is planned. The assessment may take the form of qualitative, visual observations of the general soil conditions and performance as the soil is exposed. This may also include obtaining soil samples for laboratory testing and analyses, consulting with the project contractor and their operators relative to excavation ease (or difficulty), constructability and other safety issues. The contractor may use OSHA as a resource to provide periodic advice and to address questions or concerns. Structural Fill Structural fill should consist of granular soils. Structural fill should not contain debris, frozen clods, vegetation or organic matter and should consist of granular soil classified as GW, GP, GM, SW or SM as designated by the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), Plate 2. Structural fill should not contain rocks or aggregate larger than 6 inches in diameter. Granular drain rock should be 2- 3 inches in diameter and should be free draining. The on-site sand/silt/gravel soil may be used as structural fill, but will require sufficient moisture conditioning to allow the contractor to achieve compaction. The contractor should anticipate moisture conditioning when using the native soils. Imported structural fill must meet the above criteria and should be moisture conditioned to achieve compaction. We recommend structural fill be placed in maximum eight -inch -thick, loose lifts at near -optimum moisture content. Structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the soil as determined by ASTM D 698 (standard Proctor). We recommend the Engineer be requested to provide construction observation to help establish compaction methods and parameters and to verify that compaction specifications are met. These compaction requirements assume large (five -ton drum weight or larger) compaction equipment such as sheep's -foot rollers or smooth -drum rollers will be utilized. The lift thickness must be reduced when using light compaction equipment with less than five -ton drum weight. If earthwork and structural fill placement is completed under wet conditions, we recommend the contractor have contingencies for replacing soft, wet soil with structural fill or drain rock. Structural fill should never be placed over disturbed or frozen subgrade. We recommend The Engineer be retained to evaluate S'ulUd ors 5wellewe 5.a91aeetter9 56"9u eowuxuHClie¢ Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Rexburg, ID P07092A Page 6 the condition and suitability of on-site soil for reuse as structural fill and to monitor compaction during structural fill placement. Foundations The following geotechnical foundation recommendations are provided for static conditions. Conventional spread footings are recommended for support of the building and should be placed on the dense sand and gravel underlying the site or on compacted structural fill overlying the site. If structural fill used to construct the building pad is placed as recommended in the structural fill section of this letter we recommend an allowable bearing capacity of 3000 psf be used for foundation design. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 250 pounds per cubic inch can be utilized for design of slabs and pipe bedding placed in accordance with the Structural Fill and Site and Subgrade Preparation sections of this report. The modulus presupposes at least 6 - inches of compacted %-inch minus crushed gravel conforming to ISPWC section 802, below the slab. We estimate total and differential static foundation settlement for shallow conventional spread footings will be less than 1 -inch and 1/2 -inch, respectively. Foundations should bear a minimum of 30 inches below the finished exterior grade to help reduce the potential for frost action and should be placed on structural fill that has been compacted in-place as outlined for structural fill. Seismic Considerations We understand the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) will be utilized for project structural design. Section 1615.1 of the 2003 IBC outlines the procedure for evaluating site ground motions and design -spectral response accelerations. The Engineer utilized site soil and geologic data and the project location to establish earthquake -loading criteria at the site referencing Section 1615.1 of the 2003 IBC. Based on the results from initial exploration, and our review of well logs in the area, a Site Class C can be utilized. Concrete Type 1/II cement is expected to be suitable for use in concrete at the site. Corrosivity to uncoated steel is expected to be moderate to significant within the top 5 feet of the soil profile and coating or cathode protection should be considered. Utility Trench Backfill All saturated, loose, or disturbed soil should be removed from the bottom of utility trenches prior to placing pipe bedding. Bedding of pipes should be performed according to the Idaho Standards for Public Works. Surface Drainage and Erosion We recommend the ground surface around the proposed building be sloped at least 2 percent away from the improvements. This will reduce the potential for ponding VaddG g ox gzmffe ree 5-9mePrrlxq Srno� ea ."I'M a Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Rexburg, ID P07092A Page 7 and water infiltration into the subsurface soils. Permeability of on-site soils is suitable for placement of on-site storm water disposal sumps or drywells. We recommend a design percolation rate of 1 -inch in 5 minutes be used to size infiltration basins. Since even small amounts of grease or clay fines can reduce efficiency of infiltration basins, we recommend installation of a grease trap/ settling basin up -gradient of the infiltration basin. Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Section Design We estimate traffic volumes will be approximately 100, or less, Single Axle Loads per day in driveway areas. We anticipate the subgrade will consist of silty sand with an R -value of 35. Fill imported to raise site grades for the pavement subgrade and the pavement sections presented below should be evaluated prior to placement. Factors used to design this pavement section were based on empirical data obtained through field and laboratory testing, our estimates of traffic volumes for the proposed pavement areas and our understanding of the use for the pavement. Our pavement design and subgrade preparation recommendations reflect these anticipated loading applications and minimal heavy construction traffic. High volumes of heavy construction traffic should be supported by temporary gravel access roads. If subgrade conditions appear significantly different during construction, if traffic loading conditions change or traffic volumes increase, the Engineer should be notified to amend our recommendations accordingly. If construction equipment or traffic will access portions of the planned structure, the pavement section will require an evaluation specific to planned equipment. The pavement subgrade soil should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the soil as determined by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor) as discussed in the Site and Subgrade Preparation section. The Engineer should be retained to verify the native subgrade has been compacted to structural fill requirements. Providing the site preparation procedures are accomplished as described above, the following minimum pavement sections are recommended for traffic areas: Asphalt Pavement 2.5% Class III asphalt concrete top course 3.0"-'/-inch-minus, crushed sand and gravel base course 11.0% Pit -run sand and gravel subbase course The above -recommended flexible pavement section is based on a maximum 20 - year design life. Asphalt and aggregate support characteristics were estimated based on our experience with aggregate materials in the area. The subbase should consist of 6 -inch -minus, well -graded sand and gravel consistent with less than 10 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The base course should consist of 3/4 -inch -minus, well -graded, crushed sand and gravel with 3 to 9 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The subbase and base course should be compacted to structural fill requirements. b"udd&sy ox gucffeace say�rGrg SA09fn e"WW9&ea Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Rexburg, ID P07092A Page 8 The asphalt concrete for flexible pavement should have material properties as specified in ASTM D 3515 and have a mix design with a maximum aggregate size from 3/4 to 3/8 inch. The asphalt concrete should be compacted to at least 92% and not more than 95% of the maximum theoretical density determined by the mix design. We recommend crack maintenance be accomplished in all pavement areas as needed and at least every two to three years to reduce the potential for surface water infiltration into the pavement section and underlying subgrade. Therefore, we recommend the subgrade, base and asphalt surfaces slope at no less than two percent to an appropriate storm water disposal system or other appropriate location that does not impact adjacent structures. The life of the pavement will be dependent on achieving adequate drainage throughout the section, especially at the subgrade, since water that ponds at the subgrade surface can induce heaving during freeze -thaw processes. REVIEW OF PLANS The Engineer should be retained to review final plans for the proposed project to evaluate our geotechnical recommendations and provide amendments to this report based on actual structure configurations and loading conditions. Without reviewing the project plans, we cannot be responsible for the geotechnical recommendations provided herein. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING It is our opinion the success of the proposed construction will be dependent on following the report recommendations, good construction practices and providing the necessary geotechnical construction observation, testing and consultation to verify the work has been completed as recommended. We recommend the Engineer be retained to provide geotechnical observation, testing and consultation services, to verify our report recommendations and related project specifications are being followed. If we are not retained to perform the recommended services, we cannot be responsible for geotechnical related construction errors or omissions. EVALUATION LIMITATIONS The opinions and recommendations contained in this report are based on findings and observations made at the time of our subsurface evaluation. Our services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This acknowledgement is in lieu of all warranties, either expressed or implied. This document has been prepared to provide geotechnical information to the engineering design team during the initial stages of project design. It is understood that changes and modifications to the proposed project may occur. The following plates accompany and complete this report: FW'66ay ors grcePfrtoue gift aePneb sznr aqm eooirmmwxw Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Rexburg, ID P07092A Page 9 Plate 1: Site Plan, Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Plate 2: Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Appendix: Exploratory Logs Seismic Design Response Spectrum Bearing Capacity — Meyerhof Lateral Earth Pressures Flexible Pavement Design References: References: 1. Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, 2005 Edition Section 200 — Earthwork — Pa rt 2. 2. Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, 2005 Edition Section 300 — Trenching 3.18. 3. Highway Engineering 5d' Edition Wright & Paquette pp 482-488. 4. NAVFAC Design Manual 7.02 Foundations & Earth Structures, 1986 7.2-63 Table 1. 5. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironnsental Engineering, Sep 1999 Volume 125 Seismic Earth Pressure on Retaining Structures, Richards, Huang & Fishman pp 771. 6. International Building Code — 2006 Chapters 16, 18 and 19. 7. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, Braja M. Das, PWS Publishers 1985. 8. Series in Soil Engineering— Soil Mechanics, Lambe & Whitman, Wiley 1969. 9. Soil Mechanic in Engineering Practice 3rd Edition, Terzaghi, Peck & Mesri Wiley 1996. 10. NAVFAC Design Manual 7.01 Soil Mechanics, 1986. 11. US EPA Siting Tool http://epamaD20.eDa.gov/tri/emtri.asi) 12. USGS Earthquake Hazards Program http:/%qdesign.cr.usgs.gov/c.gi-bin/desiqn-lookup- 13. National Geographic TOPO! Mapping Software. 14. Simplified Procedure for Evaluating soil Liquefaction Potential, Izzat M. Idriss, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE Vol 97, No. SM9 September, 1971. 66644P as SzcePfeyae G`'ayurePrrluy ,Stnonqu u�itlea i p$Hl C$ES@@RYY a¢gi ?'u!10luepedlnp Bmgxea � ueld el!S - l eleld s Fine-grained soils: More than half the material is smaller Coarse Grained Soils: T than the No. 200 sieveMore than half of material is larger than No. 200 Sieve Size (b) o- 0 � n W Silts and clays liquid Silts and clays liquid limit less than m Sands - More than half coarse fraction Gravels - More than half in a limit greater than 50 50 g, is smaller than 1/4" coarse fraction is larger than H 114.. i Q o $ = n o o Gravels with m c a 3 �'. 3 y E Jm " a Sands with fines Clean Sands fires- Clean Gravels -. 6 o ? h m (appreciable amount of (little or no (appreciable (little or no z r$ 3 0 3 o T iT ,o fines) fines) amount of fines) m 8 fines) ^ B M Z Z m D T Z Tl x N^ °o xO 6 o $o a a» 3 J W cQamd aate9m a£isZ »oJ ea0 o c g^^.m'2 c, c .., m n J m Fi' o m of m 'm m m ,'� 3 o d d m ¢ n C a F rn rn m n m m 3 ) 3 s O Z d N O N N dm N N N N v 3 S 3 »S C Nm . NJ 3 N m< J 3 m° N m J a NN Sl O 2 n x x O r 0 r Z�: r N () N N y G) 6) 0) 0 n K A O a C N^' 2. J Uh go `Za ngm ,oN amWN do dh nd m='rv_t eaO mt'mp 6i is m0J 'ndJ ^ ' ENJ a tmi cn F3 e y m r� Nri �n 3$ a. ° H w ^ M w '^ F 3a°o c� o o-yx s n'3$io m n' ° x:25, n m'N.a cQ H m 'o !^ ».8 3� oat o w 3 n d »a d» ar o' 3 l o48 clo d 3 n. O m N N N B fl N <an m N N Oa, O' N yl a M K .G's O d (Oii M o- 3 n03 ° ��3 rNF(oIj ap^. a o »:�N� . a Nm3g � PaH 3 Z, .B. 7 5. c3 3QW0 m o v3 3yJ c'm»o w °O 0�na o 3 amQ ^ m m 010p a� on� mNN O mOi° oj' 3 3 ° n3 i A03 W NNCom 7 yy do�mJ is EW C0 0 N� ',Y,l 1m11 N _O3; is t0m i^2F v O 6 Use grain size distribution curve to verify fractions as identified in the field Determine percentages of gravel and send from grain size distribution curve. Pi imex Depending on percentage passing the No. 200 sieve soils are classified as follows: _ S Less than 5%=GW, GP, SW, SP More than 12%=GM. GC, SM, SC 5% to 12% are borderme cases requiring use of dual symbols c- 0 o D D o D D m o � 0 'n 2c Dm ym n z r a o f '_° 3 m� 3 l�I o m sed o go `8? ".b8 Fs3 ��Z 03 o -00 F.3 o M 03. Cry2 CS.a NC a v_N w NC Aqa Vit AoF vg PN y2 Sao ^ z F o oo ry F 0 n 111 m 3 e ° � x �. _ x is g' 3�rn 33 3 w 3c D fi N om1D�'m J om'D�'m J r $ m am ^'� o �E a C c � m Appendix: Exploratory Logs Seismic Design Response Spectrum Bearing Capacity — Meyerhof Lateral Earth Pressure Pavement Design TEST PIT No. 1 Project: Rexburg Outpatient Clinic File: P07092 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0-4.5 SM Silty Fine to Coarse Sand — Light brown, medium dense, moist 4.5-10.0 GP Fine to Coarse Sandy Gravel — Gray, dense, moist Excavated on 9/19/07 Groundwater not encountered Test pit terminated at 10 feet Bulk samples taken at 2 & 6 feet Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Logged by: JPB XCEL��JJL ENGINEERING, LC OU ••[C4v . �iYIC�&Q ,• 1 TEST PIT No. 2 Project: Rexburg Outpatient Clinic File: P07092 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0-1.0 SM Silty Fine to Coarse Sand — Light brown, medium dense, moist 1.0-10.0 GP Fine to Coarse Sandy Gravel — Gray, dense, moist Excavated on 9/19/07 Groundwater not encountered Test pit terminated at 10 feet Bulk samples taken at 1 foot Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Logged by: JPB < XCELL ENGINEERING, LC CC TEST PIT No. 3 Project: Rexburg Outpatient Clinic File: P07092 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0-1.0 SM Silty Fine to Coarse Sand — Light brown, medium dense, moist 1.0-8.0 GP Fine to Coarse Sandy Gravel — Gray, dense, moist Excavated on 9/19/07 Groundwater not encountered Test pit terminated at 8 feet Bulk samples taken at 1 & 6 feet Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Logged by: JPB XCELL ENGINEERING, LC TEST PIT No. 4 Project: Rexburg Outpatient Clinic File: P07092 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0-1.0 SM Silty Fine to Coarse Sand — Light brown, medium dense, moist 1.0-9.0 GP Fine to Coarse Sandy Gravel — Gray, dense, moist Excavated on 9/19/07 Groundwater not encountered Test pit terminated at 9 feet Bulk samples taken at 6 feet Excavation Equipment: Backhoe Logged by: JPB tjs y < XCELL ENGINEERING, LC >, out � 5�d& as . Project: Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Date: November 12, 2007 Engineer: JPB 2% Pobability of Exceedance in 50 Years 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Site Class: Ss = S1 = Fa = Fv = valsi ui rd as a runcuon or ane uass and mapped Spec ra Response Acceleration at Short Periods (Ss)a SMS = `•i9�ga OldIi p1 m Q $ dr$a SMI = SI = 0.3 1.65 C; �'i Q / eU9el®panestw uD r a�s _ ...�. valsi ui rd as a runcuon or ane uass and mapped Spec ra Response Acceleration at Short Periods (Ss)a Site Class Ss < 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 1 Ss = 1.00 Ss ->i.25 A m Q $ dr$a 1.20 B SI = 0.3 1.65 C; �'i Q / Penetration uD r a�s E H f3sil ki1�j / ✓ �,. S j`l„ x 553 % !✓lip%'/. FNPoft y. seaoFtq Psidi,) YvUraUgil as a runcuon of one Mass and mappetl Response Acceleration at 1 Second (SI)a apectrai Site Class SI < 0.1 SI = 0.2 SI = 0.3 SI = 0.4 SI > 0.5 Penetration Strength Su in sf O8 0.8 Vs>5000 N/A B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.7 1.6 ". 1.5 1.4 -,-1,3 D 2.4 2 1.8 1.6 1.5 E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4 F Note b Note b Note b Note b Note b a - Use straight line interpolation for intermediate values of mapped spectral response acceleration. b - Site Specific geotechnical Invesligab.in & dynamic site response analyses shall be performed to determine appropriate values, except that for structures with periods of vibration equal to or less than 112 second, values of Fe for liquiflable soils are permitted to be taken equal to the values for the site class determined witheul regard to liquifasbou In section 1615 .15.1 C - S, and Ss can be determined from high detldeegn.cr. urge 900itml/design lookup hlmt Site Class Soil Profile Shear Wave Velocity Standard Undrained Shear Name Vs in feet per second Penetration Strength Su in sf A Hard Rock Vs>5000 N/A N/A B Rock 2500<Vs<5000 N/A N/A Dense Soil and C Soft rock 1200,Vs,2500 N>50 Su>2000 D Stiff Soil 600<Vs,1200 15<N,50 1000<Su<2000 E Soft Soil Vs,600 NJ Si Any profile with more than 100 feel of soil having the following characteristics: 1. E - Plasticity Index, PI > 20 2. Moisture Content w equal to or greater than 40, and 3. Undrained shear strength Su < 500 psf Any profile containing soils having one or more of the following characteristics: 1. Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading such as liquifiable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays or collapsable or weakly cemented F - soils. 2. Peats and/or highly organic clays(Thickness >10 feet) 3. Very high plasticity clays (Thickness > 25 feel of PI>75) 4. Very thick soft or medium stiff clays (thickness >120 feet) Bearing Capacity - Meyerhof Quit = cNcScDc+gNgSgDq+0.5YBNYSYDY Quit = cNc1cDc+gNgiqDq+0.5YBWN1)1 Project: Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Date: November 12, 2007 Engineer: JPB C= 0 = Unit Wt - V= FTG Depth= FTG Width= 0 0 30 125 3 1.5 TG Length 30 Kp= 3.000 Ni 18.4 Nc= 30.13 NV (m)= 15.7 Sc= 2.5 Dc= 1.692820323 Sq= 1.015 Dq=;1.346410162 1.1 SY= 1.015 Degrees psf degrees pcf feet feet feet Vertical Footings Inclined Footings _ 0 _ .. Nq Nc NY(m) 0 1.0 5.14 0.0 5 1.6 6.49 0.1 10 2.5 8.34 0.4 15 3.9 10.97 1.1 20 6.4 14.83 2.9 25 10.7 20.71 6.8 26 11.8 22.25 8.0 28 14.7 25.79 11.2 30 18.4 30.13 15.7 32 23.2 35.47 22.0 34 29.4 42.14 31.1 36 37.7 50.55 44.4 38 48.9 61.31 64.0 40 64.1 75.25 93.6 45 134.7 133.73 262.3 50 318.5 266.50 871.7 For Silt/Sand/Gr Soils 0>10 Inclination=0 I Quit= 1 11441 IQ All w=1 3814 For Clay Soils 0=0 Inclination=0 Quit = 8372 IQ Allow =1 2791 psf psf Psf psf For Silt/Sand/Gr Soils I Quit = 112 "' psf 0>10 Inclination>0 Q Allow = 3757 psf For Clay Soils 0=0 Inclination>0 l�iw.It: a 6600 IQAllow=l 2300 NOTE: 1) C = Unconfined Compressive Strength 2) q = Owr burden Pressure - v'Depth of Fooling 3) B = width of Footing 4) Unit weight = effective unit weight psf psf Rankine Lateral Earth Pressures Including analysis fQcA1,_i, ,FQrggDurinq Seismic Acceleration Project: Rexburg Outpatient Clinic Date: November 12, 2007 _ Soil Type: Silty Sand/ Sand Active Seismic Forces Using the *Mononobe-Okabe Equations elaborated by Seed and Whitman (1970) Indicate an additional thrust of <` -'r-. Pounds per linear fool of wall for the wall height shown, during the seismic event specked. The force acts atl/3 the wall height at an angle of degrees below perpendicular to wall face as shown below. Maximum depth to which tensile cracks in the soil may be anticipated isInches 'Ref. Dar: Searon 9, 10 pp337 9.IC A:,�be f..a_^ .n R:•r: ",na'9Jn'f'W,1h .n^o.IV,Y^ *1, 33/ A 1` 1 1 k IF i 1 B {{ k 19 14" k,,U' F (a) Fi9we 9.30 1.firr ilm.• acL,iuli 1.•,ill odL r:ulhgnvar P.rrr Friction Angle (De Friction An le Rad Ko Ka Kp 0 30 0.52360 0.99 0.82 0.76 0.71 0.08 0.44 065 1 00 030 170 " .y ! 0.500 - - 1 ` 0.333 3.000 _ V11-. rz?. Cohesion 0 Wall Height 4 Horiz Acceleration - Kh 0.4 Vert Acceleration - Kv 0.15 Unit Wt. (peo 125 Wall Inclination -Theta 0 Slope of retained fill - a 0 Wall Friction Angle - Delta 15 Beta=Tan^•1 Khl1•Kv 25.20 Alpha'=a+Beta 25.20:df' Theta'=Theta+Beta 25.20 We 0.75 1/cos 1319 1.11 Pae 705 Static Equivalent Fluid Pressure in Pounds Per Cubic Foot = 62.5 49.7 375.0 Active Seismic Forces Using the *Mononobe-Okabe Equations elaborated by Seed and Whitman (1970) Indicate an additional thrust of <` -'r-. Pounds per linear fool of wall for the wall height shown, during the seismic event specked. The force acts atl/3 the wall height at an angle of degrees below perpendicular to wall face as shown below. Maximum depth to which tensile cracks in the soil may be anticipated isInches 'Ref. Dar: Searon 9, 10 pp337 9.IC A:,�be f..a_^ .n R:•r: ",na'9Jn'f'W,1h .n^o.IV,Y^ *1, 33/ A 1` 1 1 k IF i 1 B {{ k 19 14" k,,U' F (a) Fi9we 9.30 1.firr ilm.• acL,iuli 1.•,ill odL r:ulhgnvar P.rrr Flexible Pavement Design Project: JR6xburg Outpatient Clinic Date: November 12, 2007 °ngineer: JPB Vehicle Enter EAL 20 Total 20 yr Type ADT Yr Const Constant Automobile 4)20%' 1.38 0.18 1380 2 -Axle Truck 0.18 1380 Aggregate Base: 13800 3 -Axle Truck „-. ,-, 4 F ; ; 3680 Calc GE Thickness Required Design Thickness Ratio Thickness Section 14720 4 -Axle Truck 5880 0 5+ -Axle Truck 0 xr,r- 13780 0 All Tracks=18 kip axle TOTALEAL= -.;2.900,1- Traffic Index (TI) = 9.0(EAL/1,000,000)A0.119 = ;-.g.0 Enter R -Values: Aggregate Base: f� Aggregate Subbase:��' Basement Soil: Select a Kecommenced Satety Factor: Enter Selected Class A Cement Treated Base: 0.24 Class B Cement Treated Base: 0.18 FS Value Asphalt Treated Base: 0.18 0.16 Lime Treated Base: 0.18 Soil Cement: 0.18 Aggregate Base: 0.16 Equivalent Actual Calc GE Thickness Required Design Thickness Ratio Thickness Section GE _ .0032(TI)(100-R) + FS I GE for AC = .0032(TI base)(100-R)+FS = I 0.54 I - - 2.5 I 0,21 2,68 GE for Base =.0032(Tlsubbase)(100-R)+FS-Pavement= 0.28 1 0.28 3.39 GE Subbase = .0032(TI soll)(100-R)+FS-Pavement-Base = 0.66 0.75 0.8$ 1 10.56 Notes: 1) If frost depth is greater than the design pavement section it may be required to increase the section thickness 2) The California Method is based on experience and fatigue analysis may be required 3) If basement soil is expected to become saturated it may be required to increase the section thickness