HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - 03-00048 - Deseret Industries - New Commercialn
SUBSURFACE
i I GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
L I For
n DESERET INDUSTRIES
lJ STORE AND WAREHOUSE
REXBURG, IDAHO
Prepared
For
JRW ARCHITECTS
REXBURG, IDAHO
Prepared
By
FORSGREN ASSOCIATES
I1
() August 14, 2002
Project No. 01-02-0136
FORSGREN
I : ASSOCIATES, INC.
A COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
FORSGREN
ASSOCIATES INC.
j August 14, 2002
01-02-0136
0/o1Tcd01-02-01]6/wve, letter
!f
Johnny Watson
t i JRW & Associates
49 Professional Plaza
Rexburg, ID 83440
RE: Deseret Industries
i Dear Johnny:
The enclosed report summarizes the results of the geotechnical soils site investigation for
4 the new Deseret Industries Store and Warehouse. The details of the investigation, design,
1 and construction recommendations are contained in the report. Six copies have been
provided for your use and distribution.
The predominate subsurface soil found throughout the site is alluvial gravel. The depth
of the gravel ranges from 0.5 feet to 5.0 feet below ground surface. It is recommended
that all structures be founded on the gravel material. The ideal construction method
would be to remove all silt and sand above the gravel and place structural fill for the
building pads. Minimum structural fill recommended can be found in the Foundation and
Slab section.
Sincerely,
FORSGRF,N ASSOCIATES, INC.
I! /
l ll,��ll,C,l.I1C
(Jeffrey M. S yder, P.4.r
Geotechnical Engineer
JMS/amz
Enclosure
A COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CENTRAL OFF/CE 350 NORTH 2ND EAST/ REXBURG, IDAHO 83440 / (208) 356-9201
REXBURG / BOISE / EVANSTON / WEST YELLOWSTONE / SALT LAKE CITY / WENATCHEE
SUBSURFACE
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
For
DESERET INDUSTRIES
STORE AND WAREHOUSE
REXBURG, IDAHO
Prepared
For
JRW ARCHITECTS
REXBURG, IDAHO
Prepared
By
FORSGREN ASSOCIATES
REXBURG, IDAHO
August 14, 2002
Project No. 01-02-0136
r,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................
3
ProjectDescription...................................................................................................................
3
Purpose......................................................................................................................................
3
Scope.........................................................................................................................................
3
! ! Design Parameter Summary ....................................................................................................
3
iDESCRIPTION OF SITE..............................................................................................................................4
Site Location and General Information...................................................................................
4
(� General Geology of the Area....................................................................................................
4
Site Topography, Drainage, and Vegetation...........................................................................
4
Site Climatology and Geochemistry ........................................................................................4
! Geoseismic Setting...................................................................................................................4
SeismicDesign Parameters.....................................................................................................5
FIELDEXPLORATION................................................................................................................................
6
Iy General Notes............................................................................................................................
6
Exploration And Sampling Procedures...................................................................................
6
LaboratoryTesting Program....................................................................................................
6
SUBSURFACECONDITIONS.......................................................................................................................
6
GeneralNotes............................................................................................................................
6
Description Of Subsurface Materials.......................................................................................
6
WaterLevel Measurements......................................................................................................
7
Hydraulic Conductivity - Percolation.......................................................................................
7
FOUNDATION AND SLAB DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................
7
GeneralNotes............................................................................................................................
7
Foundation Design Recommendations...................................................................................7
FloorSlabs-On-Grade...............................................................................................................
8
Concrete Slab -On Grade Construction....................................................................................
8
PARKING LOT RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................
8
GeneralNotes............................................................................................................................
8
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................................
9
Earthwork..................................................................................................................................
9
iStructural Fill.............................................................................................................................
10
Backfill.......................................................................................................................................
10
Excavations...............................................................................................................................11
iWet Weather Control.................................................................................................................11
GroundwaterControl................................................................................................................
11
GENERALCOMMENTS...............................................................................................................................11
Authorization.............................................................................................................................12
Warranty and Limiting Conditions...........................................................................................
12
APPENDIX................................................................................................................................................13
1 Site Vicinity Map.......................................................................................................................14
Site Plan with Test Hole Locations and Bedrock Contours ...................................................
15
GeneralNotes............................................................................................................................
16
iTest Pit Log...............................................................................................................................17
LaboratoryResults...................................................................................................................
24
PavementThickness Design....................................................................................................
29
1�
August 14, 2002
Page 3 of 29
INTRODUCTION
Forsgren Associates (FA) presents the results of a subsurface geotechnical investigation for the
proposed new Deseret Industries (DI) Store and Warehouse, Idaho. The soil investigation complies
with Chapter 18 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Information on subsurface conditions,
including groundwater levels, necessary for the design of buildings foundation system, parking lot,
and subsurface components are included. The basis for this report is as follows:
i I Project Description:
The Church of Latter -Day Saints plans to construct a new Deseret Industries facility in Rexburg.
r Site improvements will include store building, warehouse building, water distribution lines, sewer
t collection lines, parking lot with driveways, and stormwater drainage plan.
�) Purpose:
} The purpose of this exploration and soils analysis was to determine the various soil, groundwater,
and subgrade engineering characteristics. The project design team will use this information for
designing the building's foundation system, developing site plan, and design parking lot paving
i 1 section.
I) Scope:
The scope of this investigation includes a review of available geotechnical and geologic information,
a reconnaissance of the immediate site, a subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and
t an engineering analysis and evaluation of the subsurface materials.
Design Parameter Summary:
The following table summarizes the pertinent recommended design parameters derived from this
investigation:
Design Parameter
Design Value
Seismic Zone
Zone 3
Seismic Design Parameters
See Geoseismic Setting Section
Snow Load, Wind Load
35 psf, 80 mph
Peak Groundwater Elevation
None
Waterline Buried Depth
6 feet, 7 feet under roads and driveways
Lateral Sliding Coefficient
0.25
Footing Depth (bottom of footing)
42 inches below finish grade
Allowable Foundation Soils Bearing Capacity
3000 psf Founded upon pre Teton flood native
gravel or structural fill.
Parking Lot Surfacing
See Parking Lot Recommendation Section
Detail discussions of the above values are provided in the subsequent sections. The exploration
and analysis of the subsurface conditions reported herein are considered sufficient in detail and
scope to form a reasonable basis for the foundation system. Any revision in the plans for the
r August 14, 2002
i Page 4 of 29
r�proposed structures from those provided and referenced in this report should be brought to the
attention of FA, so that we may determine if changes in the recommendations are required. If
f deviations from the noted subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, they should
also be brought to the attention of FA.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE
Site Location and General Information:
The project site is on North 2n4 East Street and is located in the NE '% Section 19 of Township 6
North Range 40 East of the Boise Meridian; Rexburg, Idaho.
General Geology of the Area:
The subject site is located within the Snake River Plain. The Snake River Plain is composed of
alluvial gravel deposited over basalt lava bedrock. Lying over top of the alluvial gravel are alternate
layers of silts and sands deposited by the Teton Flood.
Site Topography, Drainage, and Vegetation:
1 Regional topographic features consist of very wide, flat, valley bottoms and moderate to steep hills
({ and mountains above the valleys. Regional drainage is generally to the southwest in the flow
direction of the Snake River.
,t
The site is on the north side of Rexburg. The proposed facility is on a nearly level surface. It
appears that most the snowmelt and runoff percolates through the surface material. Local surface
t drainage is to the southeast toward the Teton River, which flows into the Snake River.
Vegetation on the site consists of grass and weeds.
i f Site Climatology and Geochemistry:
Average precipitation in the area is approximately 12.97 inches per year, and the average
cumulative snowfall is about 54 inches per year. The recorded average winter snow depth is
approximately 6 inches, subject to moderate drifting. The annual average temperature ranges from
` approximately 28OF to 57°F, with extremes ranging from -40°F to 98°F. FA recommends that water
lines beneath plowed roads have a minimum of 84 inches of cover to prevent freezing.
` I Some iron staining was noted near the surface of the alluvial gravel layer. This staining indicates a
previous presence of water within the gravel strata. The previous presence of water is likely due to
historic sub -irrigation.
Geoseismic Setting:
Rexburg, including the project site, is located just west of the Intermountain Seismic Belt, a zone
that extends from southern Utah through eastern Idaho and western Montana, and encompasses
western Wyoming and the Teton Range (Smith and Arabasz, 1991). This project site is located
within a seismic "Zone 3 Area" as per the 1997 edition of the UBC. All structures on this project
should be designed according to the UBC requirement for such a seismic classification. The
investigation did reveal that there is one fault as mapped by the USGS within two (2) miles of the
site. According to the U.S. Geologic Survey's National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, the
projected peak ground acceleration due to a seismic event around Rexburg, has a 10% probability
of exceeding 0.11 times that of gravity (g) in fifty years, has a 5% probability of exceeding 0.14g in
fifty years, and has a 2% probability of exceeding 0.21g in fifty years. Potential ground motion
based on the 0.2 Second Spectral Acceleration system has a 10% probability of exceeding 0.24g in
August 14, 2002
Page 5 of 29
fifty years, has a 5% probability of exceeding 0.30g in fifty years, and has a 2% probability of
exceeding 0.438 in fifty years. In order to translate acceleration values into terms that are more
understandable, Bolt (1988) generated a generalized comparison between peak accelerations and
effects from a corresponding seismic event. These effects are summarized as follows:
Peak Ground
Effects
Acceleration
Sc
Fraction of g
0.3
0.015-0.02g
Sensation like heavy truck striking building.
0.03-0.048
Cracked plaster in a few places.
0.06-0.07g
Some fallen plaster and damaged chimneys.
seismic source type
Damage negligible in well-designed and well-built structures, slight to
0.1-0.15g
moderate damage in well-built to ordinary structures, considerable damage in
near source factor- N,
poorly built structures.
0.25-0.3g
Damage slight in specifically designed structures, considerable in ordinary
buildings with partial collapse, great in poorly built structures.
0.5-0.55g
Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse, underground pipes
broken.
>0.6g
Some well-built wooden structures and most masonry and frame structures
destroyed, landslides, and railroad rails bent.
The Seismic Design Parameters for the subject site as defined in the 1997 UBC are shown in the
following table.
Seismic Design Parameters:
PARAMETER
FACTOR/COEFFICIENT
seismic soil profile
Sc
seismic zone factor
0.3
seismic response coefficient -Ce
0.33
seismic response coefficient -C,
0.45
nearest seismic source
2 -mi. (3.2 -km)
seismic source type
„C"
near source factor- Ne
1.0
near source factor- N,
1.0
August 14, 2002
Page 6 of 29
FIELD EXPLORATION
General Notes:
I 1 The Feld exploration to determine subsurface conditions and the engineering characteristics of the
foundation materials included a reconnaissance of the project site and investigation by test pit.
l Nineteen test pits were dug on the site as indicated on the site map. The test pit locations shown on
+ the site map contained in the Appendix were determined by normal surveying procedures and are
presumed to be accurate to within 0.1 foot.
j Exploration And Sampling Procedures:
The soil test pit subsurface exploration method is an alternate standard practice to that described by
ASTM designation D1452 and D1586. The advantage to the test pit method is that a greater portion
i of the site can be more accurately evaluated and the entire soil profile can be examined. The
disadvantage is that considerably larger areas of the site soils are disturbed, and Standard
r 1 Penetration Test (SPT, N values) blow counts cannot be performed. Zollinger Construction
` excavated test pits with a CAT 426 rubber tire backhoe and disturbed grab samples were recovered
from the spoils. In-place field soil density tests were taken at approximate footing subgrade
r elevation using a nuclear densometer. Samples were collected from the subsurface material,
t classified in the field by our geotechnical engineer, identified according to test hole number and
depth, and transported to the laboratory in sealed containers.
Laboratory Testing Program:
Along with the field investigation, supplemental laboratory testing was conducted to determine
additional pertinent engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials necessary in evaluating
and predicting the behavior of the proposed systems. The laboratory testing program included
` Atterberg Limits Tests - ASTM Designation D4318, Grain Size Analysis - ASTM Designation C117
and C136, Soil Moisture Content Determinations - ASTM Designation D2216, and Soil Classification
- ASTM Designation D2487.
All phases of the laboratory testing program were conducted according to applicable ASTM
Specifications; the results of these tests are listed in the Appendix.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
General Notes:
The subsurface materials encountered have been visually classified and are described in detail on
the logs provided in the Appendix. It is recommended that the logs not be used for estimating
quantities due to highly interpretive results.
Description Of Subsurface Materials:
The majority of the site's surface has not been recently disturbed but had been historically used for
farming. The topsoil thickness ranges from 0.5 to 1.0 foot. The predominant topsoil, discovered
throughout the site is medium brown silty -sandy loam. Below the topsoil, across most of the site
was found a layer of medium brown silt with fine sand in a dry to slightly moist and stiff condition.
The thickness of the silty material ranged from 0.5 feet to 4.0 feet; however in some areas on the
south portion of the site the silt was not present. Found throughout the site at depths ranging
between 0.5 feet and 5.0 feet below ground surface was a gray -brown gravel with sand and cobbles
in dense and slightly moist condition. In some areas a layer of gray -brown sand existing between
the silt and gravel. The excavations caved easily once the gravel was penetrated.
it
August 14, 2002
Page 7 of 29
Water Level Measurements:
Groundwater was not encountered during the investigation; however there are indications that water
has been within five (5) feet of ground surface. Soil moistures in the test holes did vary somewhat,
primarily due to elevation and proximity to ground surface. Based on site observations freestanding
groundwater will not be encountered during deep excavation up to seven feet.
Hydraulic Conductivity - Percolation:
Soil permeability or hydraulic conductivity, a measure of the ability of a liquid to move through a soil,
was not tested in the field.
Percolation is estimated based on particle size of the gravel material. For seepage bed design the
percolation through the gravel material, found throughout the site, is estimated at 15 inches per
hour.
FOUNDATION AND SLAB DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General Notes:
It is anticipated that project development is principally concerned with soil parameters encountered
at less than 10 feet in depth. Items presented in this section emphasize concerns within this zone.
The following guidelines are based on those conditions.
Foundation Design Recommendations:
On the basis of the data obtained from the site and tests performed, FA recommends that the
following guidelines be used for the net allowable soils bearing capacity.
-'- "" -' ' . Uvulduu Net Allowable 1
Surface Compaction Bearing Cape
wring on native gravel or Native gravel — none
:ted structural till Structural Fill — 95% 3000 Ibs/ft2
FA anticipates that project elements (i.e. slabs) will be founded upon granular fill at shallower
depths, than stated above.
FA recommends footings be standard continuous spread footings, minimum width and thickness of
12 inches. The footings should be proportioned to meet the selected bearing capacity. Total
settlement should be limited to . -inch total, with differential settlement of Y -inch. The footings
should bear on either compacted native gravel material or structural fill. If footings are to bear on
native gravel material top six inches of native gravel material shall be removed to ensure firm
subgrade for load bearing. If footing grades dictate bottom of footing are above gravel surface the
footings shall bear on structural fill and the following procedure shall be used. The native subgrade
material should be excavated six inches into native gravel and structural fill placed in lifts not to
exceed 6 -inches to the desired elevation. The on-site gravel material will meet the requirements of
structural fill, which is defined in subsequent sections of this report. Each lift shall be compacted to
a minimum of 95% of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Any excavation for
structural fill should extend outside each edge of the footing the same distance as the depth of the
excavation. Any soil type encountered at the bottom of footing excavations other than the ones
described above, including clay pockets, should be analyzed by a soils engineer, or removed and
replaced with structural fill. Any excessively loose or soft spots/areas that are encountered in the
August 14, 2002
Page 8 of 29
footing subgrade will require over -excavation and backfilling with structural fill. In order to minimize
the effects of any slight differential movement that may occur due to variations in the characters of
the supporting soils and any variations in seasonal moisture contents, it is recommended that all
continuous footings be suitably reinforced to make them as rigid as possible. For frost protection,
the bottom of external footings should be a minimum of 36 inches below the finished grade.
Floor Slabs -On -Grade:
Interior slabs shall be founded upon a free -draining leveling course mat 4.0 inches in thickness. The
leveling course material shall be a granular W minus material. The leveling course mat should be
compacted to a minimum of 95% of maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557. The leveling
coarse should be placed over the native gravel or a minimum of 12 inches of structural fill in the
store building and minimum of 24 inches in the warehouse building.
Exterior concrete slabs for foot traffic shall be placed on a minimum of 4.0 inches of 3/" minus
l crushed gravel. The native subgrade upon which the slab is to be constructed must be properly
stripped, compacted, and inspected. It must be compacted to not less than 95% of the maximum
dry density indicated by ASTM D1557. Any fill required to increase the elevation of the slab should
meet the requirements for granular structural fill. Refer to the section on structural fill for
I requirements. All fill material within four feet of the slabs must be compacted to a minimum 95% of
the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557.
(� All slabs should be a minimum of 4.0 inches thick and, as indicated, the free -draining
I should be provided directly below all slabs on grade. The free-draininggranular granular mat
consist of a'/." minus crushed sand -gravel mixture. A moisture reta der canbe pla edtbene beneath alerial l
} floor slabs to minimize potential ground moisture effects on floor coverings.
Concrete Slab -On -Grade Construction:
Concrete slab -on -grade control joints should be saw -cut as early as possible. FA recommends the
use of a soft cut system, which allows saw -cutting as soon as the concrete can support foot traffic.
Successful crack control is dependent upon proper joint spacing. FA recommends that control joints
be placed in accordance with current Portland Cement Concrete Paving Association guidelines and
spaced no more than 12 feet on center.
PARKING LOT RECOMMENDATIONS
' General Notes:
In the design of the pavement, the "total pavement thickness" includes the asphaltic concrete, base
courses and prepared subgrade. The A.A.S.H.T.O. design method has been used to calculate the
j
following 1 g pavement sections. Calculation sheets provided indicate the soils constant, traffic loading,
traffic projections, and material constants used to calculate the pavement sections. FA has made
assumptions for some of these variables. The Client should review these assumptions to make
sure they reflect the intended use and projected loading of the pavements. A subgrade C.B.R.
design value of 3.6 was obtained from another site with similar subgrade material.
FA recommends that all materials used in the construction of Asphaltic Concrete Pavements meet
the requirements of the State Transportation Department Standard Specification for Highway
Construction. Construction of the pavement section should be in accordance with IDT specifications
and FA guidelines.
August 14, 2002
Page 9 of 29
Pavement Section Components
Residential Streets
Asphaltic Concrete
2.5 Inches
Crushed Aggregate Base Course
4.0 Inches
Sub -Base Structural Fill (pit run)
8.0 Inches
Geotextile Fabric
Non Woven
Compacted Subgrade
As Noted Below
(� Aggregate Base Material complying with a/4" base course for ITD Highway Construction.
` Course
Sub -base Granular Material 100% passing 4", less than 30% retained on W, less
Structural Fill than 12% passing 200.
Geotextile Fabric Non woven, minimum grab tensile strength of 100 lbs.
f Compacted Native in-place material, top twelve inches compacted and approved by
Subgrade soils technician.
i
The subgrade upon which the above pavement sections are to be constructed must be properly
stripped, compacted, and inspected. At the project site the upper portion of the soil column may be
t in a loose condition. It must be compacted to not less than 95% of the maximum dry density
indicated by ASTM D698 prior to constructing the pavement section. FA anticipates that pavement
areas will be subject to moderate construction traffic. Native material may begin pumping during
i compaction, because silts and clays with a moisture content well above optimum moisture tend to
pump when subject to loading. All pumping or soft areas must be removed and replaced with
1 structural fill.
All fill material, including aggregates, in support of the pavement section must be compacted to not
less than 95% of the maximum dry density indicated by ASTM D698. If a material placed as a
pavement section component cannot be tested according to ASTM D 698, compaction of that
material shall be approved by observed proof rolling. Proof rolling used to demonstrate compaction
shall be done with a loaded ten -wheel dump truck or equivalent.
FA recommends that rigid concrete pavement be provided for heavy garbage receptacle parking.
This will eliminate damage caused by the load of the containers transferred into the small steel
wheels and subsequently into the asphaltic concrete. Rigid concrete pavement should consist of
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP) generally adhering to IDPW specifications for Urban
Concrete. PCCP shall be 6 inches thick on a 4" drainage fill course and should be reinforced with
6X6 1.9X1.9 welded wire mesh, or wire mesh may be replaced with synthetic fiber reinforced
concrete. Control joints shall be on 12 foot centers or less.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Earthwork:
Recommendations in this report are based upon all structural elements of the project being founded
on either structural fill or compacted native material. It is recommended that all topsoil, if
encountered, be stripped to depths of 12 inches (minimum) and wasted or stockpiled for later use.
Exact depths of stripping should be adjusted in the field to assure that the entire root zone, topsoil,
and/or disturbed zone is removed.
�1
1
:1
August 14, 2002
Page 10 of 29
(l FA strongly recommends that, after stripping and excavation, a qualified soils technician inspect the
final exposed subgrade. This inspection should verify that all silt, organic, and/or disturbed material
r have been removed from structural areas. Any soft spots or deflecting areas should be removed to
sound bearing soils and replaced with structural fill.
l After the existing subgrade soils are excavated to design grade, proper control of the subgrade
i I conditions (i.e., moisture content) and the placement and compaction of new fill (if required) should
be monitored by a representative of the soils engineer. The recommendations for structural fill
presented within this report can be utilized to minimize the volume, changes and differential
i settlements that are detrimental to the behavior of footings, slabs, and pavements. Enough density
tests should be taken to monitor proper compaction. For structural fill beneath building structures,
t one in-place density test per lift for every 1,000 square feet is recommended. In parking and
i driveway areas, this can be decreased to one test per lift for every 2,000 square feet.
t 1 For inclement weather, earthwork conducted during late fall or early spring, the possibility exists for
l l previously acceptable materials to become saturated. Saturated soils tend to fail if construction
activity occurs on them. Proper measures, such as the routing of traffic and the scheduling of
I material placement, will minimize the potential for experiencing failed saturated soils.
Structural Fill:
Soils suitable for use as structural fill are granular soils classified as GW, GP, SW, and SP in
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Granular Structural fill is defined as follows:
Granular structural fill should consist of a 6 -inch minus select, clean, granular soil with no more than
40% oversize (greater than'/<") material and no more than 15% fines (less than #200) and placed in
layers of not more than 10.0 inches in thickness. Each layer of structural fill should be compacted to
a minimum density of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Designation D1557
(for rigid structures). If the material contains more than 30% oversize (greater than '/s"), the
maximum density cannot be determined by use of the ASTM Designation D1557. In this case, a
field maximum density may be determined by a test strip method. The material shall be rolled at or
near optimum moisture content with a 10 -ton or greater vibratory smooth -drum roller. Afield density
test shall be taken after each pass of the roller. This sequence shall continue until the maximum
field density is achieved. This maximum field density shall be used for subsequent field compaction
tests.
For structural fill below isolated footings, the area of the compacted backfill must extend outside the
perimeter of the footing for a distance equal to the thickness of the fill between the bottom of the
foundation and the underlying soils, or five feet, whichever is less.
Backfill:
Trench, footing, and wall backfill materials shall comply with the requirements of structural fill
EXCEPT that the maximum material size shall be four inches. All backfill should be compacted in
accordance with the specifications for structural fill, except in those areas where it is determined that
future settlement is not a concern, such as planter areas. In nonstructural areas such as planter
areas, all backfill must be compacted to a firm condition.
Backfill placed against structures (i.e., pipes and walls) shall be of a character and shall be placed in
a manner that will not damage that structure. In no case shall material greater than two inches in
diameter bear directly on or against these structures. Placing oversized material against rigid
surfaces can damage the structure and interferes with proper compaction.
August 14, 2002
Page 11 of 29
Excavations:
c Shallow excavations in native sand material required for construction of foundations that do not
exceed two feet in depth may be constructed with side slopes approaching vertical. Below this
depth, it is recommended that slopes not exceed 2 foot horizontal to t foot vertical. For deep
f excavations into sand material, the sidewalls cannot be expected to remain in position. These
i materials can be expected to fail and collapse into any excavation, thereby undermining the upper
materials. Proper care must be taken to protect personnel and equipment.
�) Care must be taken so that all excavations made for the foundations are properly backfilled with
suitable material compacted according to the procedures outlined in this report. Before the backfill
is placed, all water and loose debris should be removed from these excavations.
' This information is provided for planning purposes. It is our opinion that maintaining safe working
f conditions is the responsibility of the contractor. Job site conditions such as soil moisture content,
weather condition, earth movements, and equipment type and operation can all affect soil stability.
t All excavations should be sloped or braced as required by applicable local, state, and federal
requirements.
Wet Weather Control:
If earthwork is to occur during wet weather, the following guidelines should be addressed:
t • The use of rubber -tired equipment should be limited to prevent the disruption of subgrade
materials that are to remain in place.
1 • Haul roads consisting of up to two feet of structural fill material may be required to allow access
to construction areas.
• Lay -down areas for construction materials may require surfacing with a suitable aggregate.
• Compaction of material placed on soil subgrades should not be performed until the moisture
content of the underlying soils is appropriate for the compactive effort.
• Runoff caused by wet weather must be directed away from all open excavations. It may be
advantageous to develop a temporary drainage system to minimize the potential for saturated
soils.
Adherence to the above guidelines will minimize the occurrence of pumping and rutting materials in
structural subgrades. Pumping and rutting structural subgrades must be removed and replaced with
structural fill.
1 Groundwater Control:
Groundwater was not encountered in the investigation and should not be present within deep
excavations.
GENERAL COMMENTS
When the plans and specifications are complete, or if significant changes are made in the character
or location of the proposed structure, a consultation should be arranged to review them regarding
the prevailing soil conditions. It may be necessary to submit supplementary recommendations. It is
recommended that the service of a qualified soils engineering firm be engaged to test and evaluate
foundation subgrade before placing concrete to determine if the soils meet the subgrade and/or
compaction requirements. Monitoring and testing should also be performed to verify that suitable
materials are used for structural fills and backfills, and that they are properly placed and compacted.
rl
August 14, 2002
Page 12 of 29
11 Concrete testing and special inspection should be performed prior to and during placement of all
concrete to ensure concrete and reinforcing steel bar complies with project plans and specifications.
F,
Authorization:
Authorization to perform this study was in the form of written authorization to proceed dated on or
about August 1, 2002 from JRW.
Warranty and Limiting Conditions:
(� The field observations and research reported herein are considered sufficient in detail and scope to
t form a reasonable basis for the purposes cited above. Forsgren Associates warrants that the
findings and conclusions contained herein have been promulgated in accordance with generally
' accepted professional engineering practice in the fields of foundation engineering, soil mechanics,
and engineering geology, only for the site described in this report. No other warranties are implied
or expressed.
i These engineering methods have been developed to provide the client with information regarding
apparent or potential engineering conditions relating to the subject property within the scope cited
i above and are limited to the conditions observed at the time of the site visit and research. There is
a distinct possibility that conditions may exist which could not be identified within the scope of the
investigation or which were not apparent during the site investigation. The report is also limited to
the information available at the time it was prepared. In the event additional information is provided
to FA following the report, it will be forwarded to the client in the form received for evaluation by the
client. This report was prepared for the use of Bureau of Land Management and their retained
design consultants ("Client') and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are
based upon the agreed-upon scope of work outlined in the report and the Contract for Professional
Services between Client and Forsgren Associates ("Consultant'). Use or misuse of this report, or
reliance upon the findings hereof by any parties other than the Client, is at their own risk. Neither
Client nor Consultant make any representation of warranty to such other parties as to the accuracy
or completeness of this report or the suitability of its use by such other parties for any purpose
whatsoever, known or unknown, to Client or Consultant. Neither Client nor Consultant shall have
I any liability to, or indemnifies or holds harmless third parties for any losses incurred, by the actual or
purported use or misuse of this report. No other warranties are implied or expressed.
August 14, 2002
Page 13 of 29
APPENDIX
VICINITY MAP
SITE PLAN
GEOTECHNICAL GENERAL NOTES
GEOTECHNICAL TEST HOLE LOGS
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PAVEMENT DESIGN SHEETS
MOSCOW .._
r
..
SPLYON
4Nm }f��
.._e_t \ V ._ II�EY• V
e\ V ..-..:..OIETPICH✓
TWIN f'dLVS -.. '•
VICINITY MAP
FORSGREN
ASSOCIATES, INC.
LOCAnON MAP
REXBURG
REXBURG, IDAHO
DESERET INDUSTRIES
PROJECT LOCATION
PROJECT NO.
PG -14
FIGURE NO.
020136
�1P 1000 NORTH �EFM�
I r
r����i�
R' TP -11
t / TP -10 � w "
i TP -3 cn `
/ TP -9 w
TP -8 TP —2
Z
i/
TP-13TP-4
% TP -7 TP -6
TP -5
/
TP— 12
TP -18J / I + �; r r-,....,:Mx•:� s
TP -15
TP -17 TP -14 I II
TP -16
TP— 19
.wry+► �.. � xis �
0
P
7
w
PROJECT NO.
I FORSGREN REXBURG, IDAHO PG -15
FIGURE NO,
ASSOCIATES, INC. DESERET INDUSTRIES 02013E
\;
August 14, 2002
Page 16 of 29
GEOTECHNICAL GENERAL NOTES
SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS
N: Standard "N" penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound
hammer falling 30" on a 2" O.D. SS
Qu: Unconfined compressive strength, tons/ft2
Qp: Penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength,
Ton/ft2
Qc: Cone Penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength,
pounds/int
V: Vane value, ultimate shearing strength, IbS/ft2
M: Water content, %
LL: Liquid limit, %
PI: Plasticity index, %
D: Natural dry density, lbs/ft'
WT: Apparent groundwater level at time noted after completion
MD: Maximum dry density (modified method), lbs/ft'
OM: Optimum Moisture content, %
DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS
SS: Split -Spoon - 1 3/8' I.D., 2" O.D., except where noted.
ST: Shelby Tube - 3" O.D., except where noted.
AU: Auger Sample.
DB: Diamond Bit.
CB: Carbide Bit.
GS: Grab Sample.
WS: Washed Sample.
RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION
Non -Cohesive Soils
Standard Penetration
Cohesive Soils
Qu-(tons/ft')
Very Loose
0 - 4
Very Soft
0-0.26
Loose
4-10
Soft
0.25-0.50
Slightly Compact
B-15
Firm (Medium)
0.50-1.00
Medium Dense
10-30
Stiff
1.00-2.00
Dense
30-50
Very Stiff
2.00-4.00
Very Dense
50+
Hard
4.00+
PARTICLE SIZE
Boulders: 8 in.+
Coarse Sand: 5 mm(#4)-0.6 mm(#30)
Silts: 0.074mm(#200)
-0.005mm
Cobbles: 8 in.-3in.
Medium Sand: 0.6 mm(#30)-0.2mm(#80)
Gravel: 3in.-5mm(#4)
Fine Sand: 0.2mm(#80)-0.074mm(#200)
Clays: 0.005mm
& Smaller
BORE HOLE LOG
Test Hole:
TP�
Sampled
Project:
Deseret Industries
GW
Date:
Elevation:
4867.4
Zollinger Construction
Excavated By:
d B
Depth of Hole
6.5 Feet
0.0'
Water Level
N/A
Solis Profile-
Sample Sample
Sample Sample
0.0'
Depth Type
1.01
Brown Silty -Loam Topsoil
Date:
No.2
LOS
GW
114.1
Medium to Light Brown Silt with little Fine
No.3
Zollinger Construction
Water Level
Depth of Hole
6.5 Feet
0.0'
Sand, Low to Non -Plastic, Firm and Dry to 3.0'
N/A
Soils Profile,
Sample Sample
Sample
Slightly Moist.
Depth Type
USCS DD MC Number
4.0'
• •
•
Gray -Brown Sand Poorly Graded Medium 4.5'
• J• ♦ 5.0'
Grein Size, Dense, Slightly Moist.
0:0
a
o g' o o
Gray -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles
p .
Well Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, 5.5'
O o a.' 0.0
Slightly Moist.
.
6o-o
August 14, 2002
Page 17 of 29
Sample
USCS DD MC Number
ML
No. 1
SGS
SP
Date:
No.2
LOS
GW
114.1
5.6
No.3
Project
Deseret Industries
Date:
08/07/02
LGS
Elevation:
4867.4
Medium to Light Brown Sill with Ifile Fine
Excavated By:
Zollinger Construction
Water Level
Depth of Hole
6.5 Feet
0.0'
Water Level
N/A
Soils Profile,
Sample Sample
Sample
0.0'
Depth Type
USCS DD MC Number
i.01
Brown Silty -Loam Topsoil
Date:
No.2
LGS
GW
114.1
Medium to Light Brown Sill with Ifile Fine
No.3
Water Level
Soils Profile-
Sample Sample
0.0'
Sand, Low to Non -Plastic, Firm and Dry to 3.0'
1.01 Brown Silty -Loam Topsoil
Slightly Moist.
Medium to Light Brown Silt with little Fine
4.0'
•
•
Gray -Brown Sand Poody Graded Medium 4.5'
•� a• � 5.0'
Gmin Size, Dense, Slightly Moist,
0
Oo. .' O:o o
Gray -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles
o
Well Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, 5.5'
O o -.'00
Slightly Moist.
LGS ML 93.0 8.3% No. t
SGS
SP
Date:
No.2
LGS
GW
114.1
5.6
No.3
Project:
Deseret Industries
Date:
Elevation:
4867,0
Excavated By:
Depth of Hole
4.0 Feet
Water Level
Soils Profile-
Sample Sample
0.0'
Depth Type
1.01 Brown Silty -Loam Topsoil
Medium to Light Brown Silt with little Fine
Sand, Low to Non -Plastic, Firm and Dry to
3.0' LGS
Slightly Moist.
Sample
USCS DD MC Number
ML 93.0 8.3% No.1
August 14, 2002
Page 18 of 29
BORE HOLE LOG
Project:
Elevation:
Deseret lndustdes
4666.9
Date: te: �r
D
Excavated
Date: ✓r
Excavated By:
08/07/02
Zollin er Construction
Depth of Hote
Depth of Hole
3.0 Feet
Zollin er2 Construction
Water Level
N/A
Water Level
N/A
Sample Sample
Solis Profile:
g
0.01
Sample
Sample
Sample
0.5' Brown Sandy -Loam Topsoil
Depth
Type
USCS DD MC Number
O� p O'
Well Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense.
O .. 0
p o gp o
Gray -Brown Gravel with Send and Cobbles
Op?.'O;o
Slightly Moist.
3
Well Graded Maximum Size 4"• Dense,
5.5'
LGS
GW 114.1
Slightly Moist,
5.6 No. 3
Project:
Elevation:
Deseret Industries
4866.5
Date: te: �r
D
Excavated
•+e�� on 7uer
08/0 /0
Depth of Hote
4.0 Feet
By:
Zollin er2 Construction
Water Level
N/A
Soils Profile-
00
Sample Sample
Sample
0.5' Brown Sandy -Loam Topsoil
Depth Type
USCS DD MC Number
o.. :o
'0 .. p'� p
O � ?.' O; o
Grey -Brawn Gravel with Sand and Cobbles
O� p O'
Well Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense.
5.5' LGS
GW 114.1 5.6 No. 3
Op?.'O;o
Slightly Moist.
3
o ,, Oe O.
Project
Elevation:
Deseret Industries
4866.5
""'•r•-- ter.
Date:
Excavated
+_�y�n
08/07/02
Depth of Hole
3.5 Feet
By:
Zollinger Construction
Water Level
INiA
Solis Profile.
0.0'
Sample Sample
Sample
0.5' Brown Sandy -Loam Topsoil
Depth Type
USCS DD MC Number
MO
Gmy-Brawn Gravel with Sand antl Cobbles
Well Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense,
5.5' LGS
GW 114.1 5.6 No.
Slightly Maist.
3
August 14, 2002
Page 19 of 29
BORE HOLE LOG
Project:
Deseret Industries
Dale:
08/07/02
1081OV02
Elevation:
14866.1
Excavated By:
Zollln er Construction
Excavated By:
Depth of Hole
8.0 Feal
Water Level
N/A
4.5 Feet
Solis Profile:
INIA
Sample Sample
Solis Profile:
Sample
0.0'
Depth Type
USCS DD MC
Number
0.5' Brown Sandy -Loam Topsoil
Depth Type
USCS DD MC
Number
Medium to Light Brown Slit with little Fine
0.5' Brown Sandy -Loam Topsoil
Sand, Low to Non -Plastic, Firm and Dry to
'
ML 93.0 8.3%
Na. 1
Slightly Moist.
Slightly Moist.
Sand. Low to Non -Plastic, Firm and Dry to
-
3.0'
Na. 1
a
Grey -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles
Well Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense,
-
GW 114.1 5.6%
No.3
O oP.' O: o
Slightly Moist.
Gray-Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles
&: o . o'
Q.�
Well Gratlatl Maximum Size 4", Dense,
- -
Project:
Deseret Industries
Deseret Industries
Date:
1081OV02
4866.1
Elevation:48fifi.5
Zollinger Construction
Depth of Hole
Excavated By:
Zollin er ConaWction
N/A
Depth of
Hole
4.5 Feet
Water Level
INIA
0.0'
Solis Profile:
USCS DD MC Number
Sample Sample
Sample
Brown Sandy -Loam Topsoil
0.0'
Depth Type
USCS DD MC
Number
0.5' Brown Sandy -Loam Topsoil
Sand, Law to Non -Plastic, Firm and Dry to
Medium to Light Brown Silt with little Fine
Slightly Moist.
Sand. Low to Non -Plastic, Firm and Dry to
-
ML 93.0 0.3 %
Na. 1
Slightly Moist.
2.5'
o 0
oo
oge
Gray-Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles
Q.�
Well Gratlatl Maximum Size 4", Dense,
- -
GW 114.1 5.6%
No. 3
O o -.'o
o
Slightly Moist.
d..,. O
a O.
Project:
Deseret Industries
Date:
08/07/02
Elevation:
4866.1
Excavated By:
Zollinger Construction
Depth of Hole
15.5 Feet
Water Level
N/A
Solis Profile:
Sample Sample
Sample
0.0'
Depth Type
USCS DD MC Number
Brown Sandy -Loam Topsoil
1.01
Medium to Light Brown Sift with little Fine
Sand, Law to Non -Plastic, Firm and Dry to
ML 93.0 8.3% No. t
Slightly Moist.
3.5'
BORE HOLE LOG
Project
Deseret Industries
Elevation:
4886.5
Depth of Hole
Depth of Hole
16.5 Feet
Sglls Profile•
Solis Profile:
0.0'
0.5' Brown Silty -Loam Topsoil
Brown Silty -Loam Topsoil
Medium to Light Brown Silt with little Fine Sand,
1.01
1.5' Low to Non -Plastic, Firm and Dry to Slightly Moist.
♦
♦
Grey -Brown Sand Poorly Graded Medium Grain
`� )•
2.5 Size, Dense, Slightly Moist.
Medium to Light Brown Silt with little Fine Sand,
Ooo.a
Gray -Brawn Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
p
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist.
o
Low to Nan -Plastic, Firm and Dry to Slightly Moist.
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist
0
5.0'
`
5.5'
Gray -Brown Sand, Poorly Graded.
Gray -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist.
O
Project:
I Deseret Industries
Elevation:
14866.1
Depth of Hole
6.5 Feet
Solis Profile -
Sglls Profile•
Brown Sandy -Loam Topsoil
1.0'
0.0'
0.5' Brown Silty -Loam Topsoil
Medium to Light Brown Silt with little Fine Sand,
1.5' Low to Non -Plastic, Firm and Dry to Slightly Moist.
♦
♦
Grey -Brown Sand Poorly Graded Medium Grain
`� )•
2.5 Size, Dense, Slightly Moist.
0
O. 0.
Ooo.a
Gray -Brawn Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
p
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist.
o
Gray -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist
Project:
Deseret Industries
Elevation:4883.8
Depth of Hole
5.0 Feel
Solis Profile -
0.0'
Brown Sandy -Loam Topsoil
1.0'
Medium to Light Brown Silt with little Fine Sand,
Law to Non -Plastic. Firm and Dry to Slightly Moist.
2.5
0
o o
Gray -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist
0
August 14, 2002
Page 20 of 29
Date: 08/07/02
Excavated By: Zollinger Construction
Water Level INIA
Sample Sample Sample
Depth Type USCS DD MC Number
ML
No. 1
SP No. 2
GW 114.1 5.6 No.3
Date: 08/07/02
Excavated By: Zollinger Construction
Water Level N/A
Sample Sample Sample
Depth Type USCS DO MC Number
ML 93.0 8.3% No.1
SP No. 2
GW 114.1 5.6 No.3
Date: 08/07/02
Excavated By: Zollinger Construction
Water Level N/A
Sample Sample Sample
Depth Type USCS DD MC Number
ML 93.0 8.3% No.1
GW 114.1 5.6% No.3
BORE HOLE LOG
Project:
Deseret Industries
Deseret Industries
Elevation:
14865.5
4666.0
Depth of Hole
16.5 Feet
Hole
4.0 Feel
Soils Profile -
0.01
0.0'
0.5'
Brawn Sandy -Loam Topsoil
`
1.0'
Gray -Brown Sand, Poorly Graded.
o °.• 0.0
0
Gray -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
0 f o ' p'
2.0'
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist.
�.o P'
30,FVternateing
Layers of Sand and Silt (likely result
Gb.:. p'
0
3.5'
of Teton Flood) above historic gravel deposit.
�o
4.5'
o a ao 0
0: o
0.... pop.
dp�'o o
0"' gp
Q.o p'c, 0
Gray -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist.
Project:
Deseret Industries
Elevation:
4666.0
Depth of
Hole
4.0 Feel
Soils Profile:
0.0'
0.5' Brown Sandy -Loam Topsoil
ooh
a :o
0
8
0
o o..'
o ; o
�.o P'
.
aa
�o
Gray -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
Gb.:. p'
0
op
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, SlightlyMoist
0: o
0.... pop.
August 14, 2002
Page 21 of 29
Date: 08/07/02
Excavated By: Zollinger Construction
Water Level I N/A
Sample Sample Sample
Depth Type USCS DD MC Number
SP No. 2
Date:
Excavated By:
Water Level
Sample Sample
GW 114.1 5.6 No. 3
Sample
USCS DD MC Number
GW 114.1 5.6 No.3
BORE HOLE LOG
Project:
Deseret Industries
Deseret Industries
Elevation:
Elevation:
No.1
4865.8
Depth of Hole
Depth of
Depth of
Hole
5.0 Feet
0.0'
0.0'
Solis Profile:
1.01
0.0'
0.5' Brown Sandy -Loam Topsoil
0.5'
Brown Sandy -Topsoil
elastic, Firm and Dry to Slightly Moist.
Medium to Light Brown Silt with little Fine Sand,
2.0'
1.5'
Low to Non -Plastic, Firm and Dry to Slightly Moist.
,.o
2.0
Gray -Brown Sand, Poorly Graded.
o.
0
o o
Gray -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
0o
O o
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist.
<!101;.]:
raY-
.o
oOtl
GBrown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
4' . C'
O '
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist.
ODa.
O(to
Project
Deseret Industries
IDeseret Industries
Elevation:
Elevation:4865.6
No.1
SP
Depth of Hole
Depth of
Hole
5.0 Feet
Solis Profile:
0.0'
0.0'
1.01
Brown Silty -Loam Topsoil
0.5' Brown Sandy -Loam Topsoil
Medium Brown Silt with little Fine Sand, Low to Non -
elastic, Firm and Dry to Slightly Moist.
2.0'
0.:.0 g'a
0
o
o' 8-
0
o o
Gray -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
0o
' O
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist.
O1 4.0:0
Grey -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
p ;.. O p
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist,
Project:
Deseret Industries
Elevation:
4865.5
No.1
SP
Depth of Hole
7.5 Feet
5.6 No.3
Soils Profile,
0.0'
1.01
Brown Silty -Loam Topsoil
Medium Brown Silt with little Fine Sand, Low to Non -
Plastic, Firm and Dry to Slightly Moist.
5.0'
Grey Brown Sand With Little Gravel, Medium Grain
5.5'
Size Poorly Graded Dense Dry to Slightly Moist
(�O:s5$ ��
.a
Grey -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
p ;.. O p
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist,
Sampled By:
Date:
Excavated By:
Water Level
Sample Sample
Depth Type
Date:
Excavated By:
Water Level
Sample Sample
Date:
Excavated By:
Water Level
Sample Sample
August 14, 2002
Page 22 of 29
Sample
USCS DD
MC Number
ML
No.1
SP
No. 2
GW 114.1
5.6 No.3
Sample
USCS DD MC Number
ML 93.0 8.3% No.1
GW 114.1 5.6 No.3
Sample
USCS DD MC Number
ML 93.0 8.3% No. t
SP No. 2
GW 1141 5.6% No.3
BORE HOLE LOG
Project
Deseret Industries
Elevation:
4865.7
Depth of Hole
Depth or Hole
5.5 "or
0.01
Solis Profile:
0.0'
Medium to Light Brown Sill with little Fine Sand,
0.5'
Brown -Gray Sandy, Gravelly Topsoil
• t e y •?`
a..g' 0
Grayish -Brown Sand with little Gravel, Dense to
.b : c•
1.5'
Dry.
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist.
.00
.0 '00.7
Gray -Brown Gravel with Sand And Cobbles Well
`
3.0'
Graded, Dense, Dry to Slightly Moist.
0
Gray -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist.
0'a 0 .
Project
Deseret Industries
Elevation:
4865.6
Depth of Hole
lb.b Feet
Solis Profile -
0.01
0.5' Brown Sandy -Loam Topsoil
Medium to Light Brown Sill with little Fine Sand,
1.5' Low to Non -Plastic, Firm and Dry to Slightly Moist.
C1'� o
ao09.
a..g' 0
Q;o O
Gray -Brown Gravel with Sand and Cobbles Well
O.o
O 0
Graded Maximum Size 4", Dense, Slightly Moist.
.00
.0 '00.7
0.:,. 0 c 0
Sampled By:
Date:
Excavated By:
Water Level
Sample Sample
Data:
Excavated By:
Water Level
Sample Sample
August 14, 2002
Page 23 of 29
Sample
USCS DD MC Number
SP No. 2
GW 114.1 5.6 No.3
Sample
USCS DD MC Number
ML 93.0 8.3% No. t
GW 114.1 5.6 No.3
(�
`
I i
l
I
1
y)
ll r1_.-I_NCf;
YY..:SUNC; 6
1/V.)I IiC`I70 ,
o Geotechnical Services
0 Construction Materials Testing
August 14, 2002
Page 24 of 29
CONT ONE YANoLE
8/1212002
o Special Inspections
Sieve Analysis & Grain Size Distribution
Forsgreo &Associates
Sieve
Sieve
Percent
ITD
Attn: .Teff Suyder
Size
Size
Passing
Specifications
350 N 2 E
mm
Inches
llcxburg, ID
150
6"
100
4"
Project: Forsgrcn D.I. lo[ Q.C,
75
3"
Sotuce: Lot one :am le 1
P
62.5
21/2"
c
Sample ID: 2469
So
2"
37.5
1 1/2"
(�
Datc Received: August 8, 2002
25.00
1"
1
19.00
3/4"
Atterberg I.imib
12.50
12"
PLtistic Limit: no
9.50
3/8"
Liquid Limit no
4.75
94
100%
Plastiuily InUca: non -Plastic
2.76
#8
991Y.
Percent Moisture: 5.5%
1.180
016
96%
II
Fracture:
0.600
n30
90%
0.300
#50
75%
Sand Hgmvucnr
0.150
9100
48%
F
Cleymess Value:
0.075
4200
19.1 %
4
4
0.01
AASHTO T-27 & T-11, G"iu Size Dlstaibution
0.1 I to too 1000
Grata Sire (mm)
Re�n:uks:
Respectfully Submitted,
RELIANCE TESTING & INSPECTION
1 Reviewed by: Jon D. Kishiyama
General Mvmger
:I Cc
Fav (209) 5514923
570 IC: 15" S/
b,da FI,!/J. !D 83402
AASHTO T-27 & T-11, Grain Size Distribution
it
[1-
2 _ -T- --
0.0.I 0.1 I to loo I000
O GrAlu Si (mm)
Renlarl[-s:
Respectfully submitted,
RELIANCE TESTING & INSPECTION
Reviewed by: Jon D, Kishiyama
General Malinger
Cc:
rOS) 557-6200 _---- J_--�— P. 0 H0x 1509 —_� - ----- — Pox (.'03) 5524923
1 S: 0 It r 5" sr,
144, Fal.!, IIJ 33903
I
.1
August 14, LUUZ
j
Page 25 of 29
i l
RFI- i1NCE
lF.S""1`l;VZ; &
l i
(91
212002
AAA
I 1
t `
n Geolechnical Services o
Construction Materials Testing
o Special Inspections
Sieve Analysis
& Grain Size Distribution
Siwe
.Sivvc
Pc'um
ITD
Forsgren & Assoelales
Size
Sim
Passing
Spccificalions
Jeff Snyder
mm
Inches
�lAtta:
Il
350 N 2 V
I50
6"
Rexburg tD
too
4"
(�
rroj<ct;. Forsgron W. lot Q.C.
75
Y
jII
Source: Lot one sample 2
62.5
2 1/2"
Sample LD; 2469
50
2"
37.5
1 1/2"
I'
Dote Received: August 8, 2002
25.00
1"
19.00
3/4"
Atterberg Limlu
12.50
1/2'
(l
Plastic Limit: no
9.50
3/8"
t J
Liquid Limit: no
4.75
k4
100%
Plasticity [ndex: non -plastic
2.36
48
99°/A
Percent Moisture: 1.8%
1.180
016
94%
Fracture:
0.600
x30
69%
0.300
050
7%
Sand Equivalent:
0.150
0100
21/.
cleanness Value:
0.075
k200
1.1
AASHTO T-27 & T-11, Grain Size Distribution
it
[1-
2 _ -T- --
0.0.I 0.1 I to loo I000
O GrAlu Si (mm)
Renlarl[-s:
Respectfully submitted,
RELIANCE TESTING & INSPECTION
Reviewed by: Jon D, Kishiyama
General Malinger
Cc:
rOS) 557-6200 _---- J_--�— P. 0 H0x 1509 —_� - ----- — Pox (.'03) 5524923
1 S: 0 It r 5" sr,
144, Fal.!, IIJ 33903
I
.1
'
f
RI;LI:ANCI;
T_SWING&
INSPE CUONI
o Geotechnical Services
o Construction Materials Te6lin0
August 14, 'LUUG
Page 26 of 29
ONe , to
31131200 2
o Special Inspections
C
Sieve Analysis & Grain Size Distribution
Sieve
Sieve
Percent
ITD
For3gren & Associates
Size
size
Passing
Spccificadons
(�
Attn: Jeff Snyder
mm
Inches
i
350 N 2 E
150
6"
Rexburg ID
100
4"
(�
Project: Forsgren D.I. lot Q.C.
75
3"
100%
Source: Sample 43 Barrow
62.5
2 1/2"
99%
Sample ID: 2470
50
2"
98%
l
37.5
1 lrz"
94%
4
Date Received: August 8, 2002
25.00
P.
84°/
t_
19.00
3/4"
76%
Atterberg Limits
12.50
1/2"
65%
Plastic Limit: no
9.50
3/8"
59%
Liquid Limit: no
4.75
44
46%
Plancily index: non -plastic
2.36
48
35%
j
Percent Moisture: 3.4%
1.180
416
27%
Fracmtt:
0.600
430
19%
0.300
450
7%
Sand Equivalent:
0.150
4100
2%
f
Cleanness Value:
0.075
4200
1.5 9'a
AASHTO T-21 & T-11, Grain Size Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Grain Slee (mm)
? l
Remarks:
Respectfully submitted,
RELIANCE TESTING & INSPECTION
.i
I
Reviewed by: Jon D. Kishiyetua
General Manager
Cc:
I J roe) ss2 240
r�
,1
--- P 0. G°s - ""-..
5'0 IF', /S" S2.
1,466 FaIL, ID 83403
Fax (205) 5524978
r� REL.L41VCF
1 7L,ST1NG
INSPECnON
augUSL >_4a 4vve
Page 27 of 29
Havavno cnsB rao c.o�
en vol
�j u Geotechnical [nginaering o Construction Materials Testing u Special Inspections
FOrsgren & AssociRte9,Inc.
Attn: Jeff Snyder
3S0 N. tad L
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
As requested RTT has performed a proctor on the sample referenced below. The testing was performed ul
accordmice with current AASHTO or ASTM standards. The results obtained in our laboratory were as follows:
t
%nrcc
On Site Masuial/Silts atih C4`e
on,
Project-.
Forsp" QC
Sp Gr. Number
Date Obulaed:
August 9.2002
Dry Density
Sam It m:
92492
12.0
Send E ulvalcv
114.7 Ibs/ft^3
14.0
AST61 D 2487 CWSIrcalloa
LI Od Lung: 23 Plvatic Limit: 20
Plastid tvdta: 3
Semple Prepared:
Mniv x
Dry.
Manual: x
Mechanical:
Tw Snndard:
AASHTOT 99:
ASTM 17 698:
AASHTOT 180. Method
ASTM O 1157: - x
Aasusaed Poiec
Percent
on,
Maximum
Optimum 9'.
Sp Gr. Number
Moisture
Density
Dry Density
Moisture
1
12.0
113.2
114.7 Ibs/ft^3
14.0
2
14.5
114.6
ASTM 04718, Coated.
90
3
17.5
110.7
Cor Owaize PanicIcs
4
18.6
107.6
OA Ibam^3
j Respectfully submitted,
L Reliance Testin t1 I le t' a
i.f Reviewed by:on D. Kishiy a
Genera Manager
JRos15 . d?a0 — — ra a rib, 10
l
Pa (208) ;;14928
Sleve
Sia
Perteut
Peaafag
6.0"
d.6..
3.0"
LS"
L25"
l/d..
5/9
In"
1/4^
N4
N8
N10
916
N20
030
NA
too
99
96
90
Pa (208) ;;14928
RELIANCE
ns SVG &
INSPE-CTTON
August 14, 2002
Page 28 of 29
NErwv Mu 6AJE Pnucru6
816102
o Geolechnlcal Engineerlhg o Construction Materials Testing u Spacial Inspactions
r1 Forsgren & Associates, Inc.
I I Attn: Jeff Snyder
350 N. tad R.
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
As requested RTI has perfo3nTed a proctor on the sample referenced below. The testing was performed IIT
accordance with current AASHTO or ASTM standards. The results obtained in our laboratory were as follows:
$ovrca
OnSh<Mnmial/Gnvde witb Sand Lialc eo no Fra
Pro ccC
Por; , / QC
Date Obtained:
August 8.2002
10-
4 2491
Sand � arvei<u<r
Number
ASTMb2487 G1avaiflceelov
Liquid LimleNol able to obtain 'Plastic Limit: NM bte to Auto Plutl<Ily 1 -del: t4P
Semple Prepared:
-Moist: x MBousl' X
Dry: Njochm&.I.
Teu.4taudard:
AASHTO T 99: AASHTO T 180: Method
ASThI D 698: ASTM D 1557: X C
11
1
Amumcd
Polot
Pcrccvt
Dr)'
\tazfmam
optimum
V 1
SP Gr.
Number
Molstare
Deavity
Dry Denvlry
INantvre
2.58
1
4.4
125.0
129.6 IbeinA7
8.4 0/6
! j
2
6.6
127.3
ASSYM 13a718, Coumion
3
8.0
130.6
for Ovwizo Puncics
/I
4
12.7
123.5
136.0 Iba/n A3
Respectfully submitted,
Reliance Testing & spectlon
Reviewed by: D. Kis ama
General Manager
� Izosl sszsz4n---- r.2ina
Save
Slu
Percene
Passeag
6D'
10"
3 0"
1.5'
1.25..
1.0"
3/4'
518..
R"
Il4"
04
08
410
016
100
94
84
76
65
46
]5
27
A
u (208)552,1928
AASHTO Pavement Thickness Design
Pavement Section Design Location: DI Peking Lot
Average Daily Traffic Count:
Design Life:
% of Traffic in Design Lane:
Terminal Seviceablllty Index (Pt):
Level of Reliability:
Subgrade CBR Value:
Passenger Cars:
Buses:
Panel & Pickup Trucks:
2 Axle, 6 Tire Trucks:
Concrete Trucks:
Dump Trucks:
Tractor Semi Trailer Trucks:
Double Trailer Trucks
Heavy Tractor Trailer Combo Trucks:
Average Daily Traffic in Design Lane:
Total Design Life 18 kip ESAL's:
Actual Log (ESAL's):
Trial SN:
Trial Log (ESAL's):
Pavement Section Design SN:
Asphaltic Concrete:
Asphalt Treated Base:
Cement Treated Base:
Crushed Aggregate Base:
Pit Run Aggregate Subgrade:
Geotextile Subgrade Reinforcement:
500 All Lanes & Both Directions
20 Years
100%
2.5
95
3.6 Subgrade Mr:
Calculation of Design 18 kip ESALs
Daily
Growth
Load
Traffic
Rate
Factors
166
2.0%
0.0008
0
2.0%
0.6806
63
2.0%
0.0122
13
2.0%
0.1890
4
2.0%
4.4800
5
2.0%
3.6300
0
2.0%
2.3719
0
2.0%
2.3187
0
2.0%
2.9760
250
338,849
5.530
3.51
5,400
Design
ESAL's
1,180
0
6,762
20,952
148,991
160,964
0
0
0
August 14, 2002
Page 29 of 29
5.533 This must be equal to or greater than the Actual Log (ESAL's)
3.54 This Number must be equal to or greater than the trial SN
Design
Depth
Structural
Drainage
Inches
Coefficient
Coefficient
3.00
0.42
n/a
0.00
0.25
n/a
0.00
0.17
n/a
4.00
0.14
1.0
10.00
0.10
1.0
0.05
12.00
1.2