HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEOTECH REPORT - 23-00173 - Beehive Federal Credit UnionXcell Engineering, LLC
260 Laurel Lane
Chubbuck, ID 83202
Phone (208) 237-5900
Fax (208) 237-5925
E-mail: paul@xcelleng.com
Ryan Singleton
Project Administrator
Connect Engineering
2295 N Yellowstone Hwy #6
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
December 14, 2022
P22296
RE: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Beehive Credit Union
Rexburgls Idaho
Ryan:
Xcell Engineering has prepared this authorized geotechnical engineering evaluation for
the new Beehive Credit Union in Rexburg, Idaho. The purpose of our geotechnical engineering
evaluation was to explore the subsurface soil and geologic conditions within the proposed
development area and to provide geotechnical-engineering recommendations to assist project
planning, design, and construction.
This report summarizes the results of our field evaluation. laboratory testing, engineering
opinions, and geotechnical recommendations. The soil and groundwater conditions at the site are
presented in the following report. Specific geotechnical opinions and recommendations for
foundation design are included. The geotechnical recommendations presented must be read and
implemented in their entirety. Portions or individual portions of the report cannot be relied upon
without the supporting text of relevant sections.
The success of the proposed construction will depend in part, on following the report
recommendations and good construction practices. We recommend that Xcell be retained to
provide geotechnical testing and consultation services during construction to verify our report
recommendations are followed. It has been our experience that maintaining continuity with a
single geotechnical consultant reduces errors and contributes to overall project success and
economy. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please do not hesitate
to contact us if you have any questions or comments.
"&uldiag as Eueffe«ee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1.1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.......................................................................................1.1
SL)BSURPACE EVALUATION PRO EDURE.,.-„..............................................................
LABORATORY TESTING.... . ..................................... ............................. --............... , ........
GENERAL OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ... -- —..............................................3
SITEARt�PARTATION................................,.......... ................................................. , .,...,. ,.-
ExCAVATI0N CHARACTERISTICS.........................................................................................4
TEMPORARYSLOPES .........................................................................................................4
STRUCTURALFILL.............................................................................................................. 6
CONCRETE SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS ..................... ................. ............................1..1... , ....1. 5
SEISMICITY..........................................................................................,..,....-......-......-..-.....
FOUNDATION D sI N. ...,.-•...........................................................................................6
It{1{l-4 Wl{i * N S T R I a k► A
SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE........................................................... .......... -...- 8
ADDITIONAL SERVICE S REC ON1MENDED...-. —......................................................... —la
REVIEW DF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS..................................................................... - - - 8
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ......... .................................................. 8
l .Ixgl:3 ol],LgIRIIItIsAlIL•ri I `7
REPORT
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Beehive Credit Union
Rexburg, ID
INTRODUCTION
Xcell Engineering has performed the authorized geotechnical engineering
evaluation for the new credit union building in Rexburg, Idaho. A Site Plan is presented
as Plate 1. The purpose of this geotechnical engineering evaluation is to assess the
general soil and geologic conditions within the proposed development area and to
provide geotechnical and soil related construction recommendations with respect to the
proposed development. Our recommendations are based on our field observations and
laboratory test results. To provide this evaluation of the site we conducted the following
scope of work:
1. Reviewed site map and topography maps.
2. Observed the excavation of four test pits plus one perc boring to depths of up to
10 feet. The soil encountered in the test pits was described and classified
referencing ASTM D 2487 and D 2488 Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
on plate 2 that accompanies this report. Soil profiles were logged, and test pit
logs are included in the appendix.
3. Field and laboratory data were analyzed to provide the project design team with
geotechnical opinions and recommendations for planning, design, and
construction.
4. Prepared and provided one digital copy of our final report of findings, opinions,
and geotechnical recommendations to assist design, planning and construction.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The project site is located on N 2"d and E Moody as shown on the site plan. We
understand proposed construction will consist of a one-story, building with a concrete
slab on grade floor. Conventional spread footings are planned for perimeter wall and
Beehive Credit Union
Rexburg, Idaho
File: P22296
Page 2
interior bearing walls are planned. Storm water will be retained on site. Access
pavement and parking is planned around the structure.
SUBSURFACE EVALUATION PROCEDURES
Test pits and one boring were advanced December 12, 2022 within the proposed
project area as identified on the Site Plan. The test pits were advanced with a track
mounted excavator and one 4-inch boring was hand augured to a depth of 9 feet. The
boring was substituted for test pit five in the center of the building because it causes
much less disturbance protects the owner from future settlement beneath the building
associated with excavation of test pits. Soil encountered was visually classified and
described referencing ASTM D 2487 and D 2488, Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS). The USCS is provided on Plate 2 and should be referenced to interpret the
terms used throughout this report. Subsurface profiles were logged. Boring logs and
laboratory test data are presented in the Appendix to this report. Select soil samples
were obtained for laboratory testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface soil conditions are relatively uniform across the site. Subsurface soil
conditions consisted of 1.5 to 2 feet of dark brown clay underlain by dense silty gravel to
depths of 3 to 4 feet and then clean dense fine to coarse sandy gravel. Groundwater
was not encountered in any of the test pits. However, evidence of high groundwater or
iron oxide staining was observed from 3 to 4 feet indicating that water levels rise in the
irrigation season to with 3-4 feet of the ground surface. The clay is moisture and frost
sensitive. The gravel underlying the site is dense and cohesionless. For these reasons
site grading to accomplish good drainage and prevent ponding of incident precipitation
is required. Specific information to address the required good construction practices are
outlined in the following sections of this report
LABORATORY TESTING
Select samples of the native soil were tested to assess grain size
distribution and its plasticity index. Laboratory testing was performed referencing ASTM
test procedures and indicates the moderately to highly plastic and frost sensitive. The
M dd4V o f Sxe Ve ree
Beehive Credit Union
Rexburg, Idaho
File P22296
Page 3
laboratory test results can be found in the appendix of this report. Infiltration tests were
performed in the laboratory to determine the in -situ permeability of the clay and
underlying clean gravel on the site. On -site testing (perc tests) was not performed
because the upper clay soil was frozen and therefore completely impermeable. Design
Infiltration rates of the clay and underlying clean gravel were determined to be 1x10-5
and 1x10-2 cm/ second respectively.
GENERAL OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our geotechnical opinions and recommendations are presented in the following
sections to assist project planning, design, and construction of the proposed
construction. Our recommendations are based on the results of our field evaluation,
laboratory testing, experience with similar projects in the area, and our understanding of
the proposed construction. These opinions and recommendations reflect our
conversations with the project team and are based, in part on information provided to us
by your company. If design plans change, such as loading conditions, foundation sizes
or configuration, Xcell should be notified to review our report recommendations and
make necessary modifications.
Soil conditions in the test pits were observed to be relatively uniform. However,
subsurface conditions may vary slightly. Changes in conditions may not be apparent
until construction. If the subsurface conditions change from those observed, then
construction schedules, plans, and costs may change.
Site Preparation
Existing vegetation and debris will need to be removed from the site.
Incorporation of any of these materials into structural fill supporting the new buildings or
pavement section shall not be permitted without prior, written design approval and
documentation by Xcell Engineering. Native gravel soil is suitable for support of the
proposed foundations in its current condition. We recommend a minimum of 12-inches
below foundation subgrade elevation in foundation locations be compacted to at least
soyd4g " £wd&wx
Beeh ve Credit Union
Rexburg, Idaho
File: P22296
Page 4
95% of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM test D-0698 prior to placement
of concrete for foundations. Inadequate compaction of bearing soil beneath foundations
will increase the risk of differential settlement. We recommend foundations for the
proposed building be supported by at least 12-inches of compacted native subgrade.
The native subgrade and any structural fill must be compacted in -place to at least 95%
of its maximum dry density prior to placement of structural fill or concrete. Native
subgrade is suitable for support of concrete slab on grade floors provided it is properly
moisture conditioned and compacted as outlined in the following sections of this report.
Prior to placement of fill the exposed native subgrade in the building, parking and
access road locations should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content
and compacted in -place to at least 95% of its maximum dry density per ASTM D-698. If
pumping or unstable soil is observed during compaction, the unstable soil should be
removed and replaced with structural fill.
We recommend final subgrade preparation for sidewalks and building areas
include compaction of loose or disturbed sub -grade soil to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698 (Standard Proctor).
Subgrade soil should be properly moisture conditioned prior to attempting
compaction efforts. Optimum moisture content for compaction will vary, we anticipate
optimum moisture for the soil will be near 10%. Therefore, the contractor should
anticipate a moisture conditioning effort to achieve acceptable moisture levels. Xcell
should review the compaction process prior to placing structural fill. Once the native
soil subgrade has been proof rolled as described above, structural fill placement or
foundation or slab preparation may commence.
Excavation Characteristics
Native soil may be excavated using conventional soil excavation techniques.
The native fine sandy silt can be excavated near vertical for excavations up to 4 feet in
depth. Trench excavations deeper than 4 feet should allow provisions for excavations to
be sloped back at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical). Alternatively, deeper trenches and
excavations should be shored or braced in accordance with OSHA regulations and local
'W5=ffewX
Beehive Credit Union
Rexburg, Idaho
File: P22296
Page 5
codes. We anticipate that the soil will be consistent throughout the property. The soil is
loose and susceptible to erosion.
Temporary Slopes
Native soil is loose and prone to sloughing and slope or trench instability. If
water is permitted to drain into excavations and pond, the soil will soften, lose much of
its shear strength, and become unstable. Care should be taken to rout run-off away
from slopes to avoid saturation and softening of the slope. Permanent slopes should be
paved or re -vegetated as quickly as possible to reduce the risk of erosion and improve
slope stability.
Structural Fill
Structural fill beneath foundations and footings should consist of soil classified as
GP or GW soil types according to the USCS. Aggregate and rocks comprising the
gravel should be hard and durable and should not experience significant crushing or
breaking while being compacted. Structural fill should not contain rocks or aggregate
larger than 4 inches in any dimension because compaction equipment will tend to ride
on the larger aggregate which hinders uniform compaction of the lift and can lead to
poorly or non -uniformly compacted structural fill. Structural fill should be placed in loose
lifts that are 8-inches or less in thickness and each lift should be compacted to at least
95% of its maximum dry density per ASTM D-698 prior to placement of additional fill.
Native soil is not suitable for use as structural fill.
Concrete Slab -on -Grade Floors
We recommend that concrete slab -on -grade floors be underlain by at least 4
inches of 3/-inch-minus, well -graded, crushed sand and gravel base course to provide a
leveling course and moisture protection for the slab. The base course shall be placed
over compacted native soil and compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry
density as determined by ASTM test D 698 (Standard Proctor). Subgrade areas that
become soft, wet or disturbed must be over -excavated to undisturbed, native soil and
Beehive Credit Union
Rexburg, Idaho
File: P22296
Page 6
replaced with granular structural fill. The base course and vapor barriers, if installed,
should be installed after the majority of under slab plumbing and utilities are completed.
Floor slabs should be designed for the anticipated use and equipment or storage
loading conditions. Based on correlation to our field and laboratory test results, we
recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 230 pounds per cubic inch (pci) be
used for concrete floor slab design. This modulus is based on a silt subgrade with at
least 6 inches of properly compacted %-inch-minus base coarse sand and gravel
beneath the floor slab.
Seismicity
We understand the 2021 International Building Code (IBC) will be utilized for
project structural design. The 2021 IBC outlines the procedure for evaluating site
ground motions and design -spectral response accelerations. Xcell used site soil,
geologic data and the project location to establish earthquake loading criteria at the site
referencing the 2021 IBC. Based on the results from exploration, we recommend a Site
Class D be utilized as a basis for structural seismic design for the project. The
calculated design seismic acceleration for a 0.2 second duration is 0.368g.
Foundation Design
The site preparation procedures discussed above must be implemented prior to
initiating foundation preparations. We recommend all foundations for these structures
bear on 12 inches of compacted native soil at least 36 inches below outside adjacent
grade. All structural fill in the bottom of excavations (if any) for footings and foundations
should be compacted to at least 95% of its maximum dry density per ASTM test D-698.
The native soil may be reused as landscaping fill.
The following recommendations should be accomplished for all foundations for
the building:
1. SITE OBSERVATION: Xcell Engineering should be retained to observe all
footings (soil improvement) over -excavations to verify dimensions,
sad4v dw SWA
Beehive Credit Union
Rexburg, Idaho
File: P22296
Page 7
structural fill, and to verify that all bearing surfaces have been prepared in
accordance with this report.
2. EXTERIOR FOOTINGS: Exterior footings should bear at least 36 inches
below the final exterior grade to help reduce frost effects. Interior footings
should bear a minimum of 12 inches below the finished floor elevation.
3. FOOTING WIDTHS: Minimum strip footing widths should be consistent
with the International Building Code (IBC).
4. FOOTING SUBGRADE: Loose soil, in the bottom of the footing
excavations must be compacted in -place to at least 95% of its maximum
dry density prior to placement of structural fill and concrete. Footings
should never be constructed over loose, saturated, or frozen soil. If loose
or unstable areas are observed prior to placing structural fill or concrete,
they should be over -excavated to undisturbed soil and replaced with
compacted granular structural fill. Structural fill should extend a minimum
of 1 foot beyond the footing edge on both sides of the footing for every
foot of over -excavation.
5. ALLOWABLE BEARING VALUE: If above recommendations are
accomplished, a maximum allowable bearing value (ABV) of 2,500 psf
may be used for the footing design. This allowable bearing value takes
into account reductions caused by potentially higher groundwater.
6. ANTICIPATED SETTLEMENT: If the above bearing soil, site preparation,
earthwork and foundation recommendations are accomplished, we
anticipate total settlement will be less than 114 inch and differential
settlement will be less than 118th inch per 25 feet of wall length, or between
similarly loaded footings that are not less than 25 feet apart.
Wet Weather Construction
We recommend that site construction be undertaken during dry weather
conditions. If the site preparation and grading is undertaken during wet conditions, the
native or re -compacted soil will be susceptible to pumping or rutting when subjected to
heavy loads from rubber -tired equipment or vehicles that exert a point load. Wet
weather earthwork should be performed by low pressure, track -mounted equipment that
spread and reduce the vehicle load. Work should not be performed immediately after
rainfall. All soft and disturbed areas should be excavated to undisturbed soil and
backfilled with structural fill. Alternatively, the area should be moisture conditioned and
re -compacted to structural fill requirements
Beehive Credit Union
Rexburg, Idaho
File: P22296
Page 8
Assuming the soil is wet and soft but not
disturbed, the initial layer of fill placed over the native soil should be at least 12 inches,
but no greater than 24 inches, in depth.
Subgrades that become disturbed under construction traffic will require over -
excavation to remove soft or disturbed soil. Careful construction procedures are critical
to successful grading operation if the onsite soil is at or above optimum moisture
content. Consulting Xcell prior to initiating this type of construction is recommended to
help improve earthwork efficiency and achieve a stable subgrade.
Surface and Subsurface Drainage
Site grading, including all sidewalks and landscaped area grading, should slope a
minimum of 2 percent away from the proposed building to help prevent ponding and to
direct surface runoff away from the structure. All runoff from downspouts, roof areas,
sidewalk areas, landscaped areas, and other large volumes of storm water should be
directed and maintained away from the structure and not be allowed to infiltrate the soil
beneath the building area, sidewalks or footings. All storm water must be retained on -
site. The native gravel soil is moderately to highly permeable and will provide a design
infiltration rate of 1x10-2 cm/second. This value should be used to account for infiltration
in stormwater storage swales or ponds. Stormwater runoff volume on the site resulting
from a 100-year storm event is calculated to be 1536 W. Pond or swale storage to retain
runoff should provide this volume and a factor of safety against overtopping of 1.1.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES RECOMMENDED
Review of Plans and Specifications
We recommend that Xcell be retained to review the civil and structural foundation
plans and earthwork specifications prior to bidding of the construction documents. It
has been our experience that having the geotechnical consultant from the design team
review the construction documents reduces the potential for errors and reduces costly
changes to the contract during construction. Xcell can provide review of the construction
documents on a time and expenses basis.
Fw" Sm
Beeliive Credit Union
Rexburg, Idaho
File: P22296
Page 9
Construction Observation and Testing
We recommend that Xcell be retained to observe the exposed subgrade in all
building footing trenches and sidewalk areas to verify site stripping, and excavation has
been accomplished to the recommended native bearing soil, that all soft or unsuitable
soil has been compacted or removed as described above, and that all bearing surfaces
have been prepared in accordance with this report. Xcell can provide construction
material testing and special inspection for earthwork, concrete, asphalt, masonry, and
steel. If we are not retained to perform the recommended services, we cannot be
responsible for soil engineering related construction errors or omissions. The
recommended services are not included in this evaluation and would be billed on a time
and expense basis.
EVALUATION LIMITATIONS
This geotechnical engineering report has been prepared to assist planning and
design of the proposed credit union in Rexburg, Idaho. Our services consist of
professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with generally
accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This acknowledgment is in
lieu of all warranties either expressed or implied.
The following plates accompany and complete this report:
Plate 1: Site Map
Plate 2: Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Appendix:
Test Pit Logs
Seismic Site Characterization
Bearing Capacity Spreadsheet
Pavement Design
S046hg m £red&we
gy�
I k :
a m
yy
a m m
p
m g
y a m g
A N
Q C m C N
Q C m m y
i w lA
E
a'�
EC{$
L
O�
c�
fi
s g
d
IS
❑�
q
❑
g
°
g�
Z (i
R
z
-zi. nP
o
c
E o
Na
c�a
o
c
42a
E `o
E
y
t g
01
C_
❑
E
C_
s ..a
U
Oi
E
C
°
U
E
L
V f C ^ J
�' � s° J
F
oaQ
z
a
Z
a
a_
f.1
a
-
CJ r= s
sloquu[s !enp to esn Ouppbei sesea euipsWoq sie %Z! of
%S 3S Ws ,00 ,V40 = %a ue4l eiow dS 'MS 'dD MS = %S uey! ssa_I
� 4 -
's"110} se perpsseo sm sl!os e"a!s OOZ ON sy{ Missed 90inumied uo Bu!puedep
xep l :v""d
aeon uo!jnqujs!p ez!s uejB uwy pues pus eneJB }o seBetusajad su!uuelep
pleg ey} w papuep se suol}oeil AJuan o} ammo uoi}nq!.qs!p ens u!eiB ash
O
N
VI C C a C W LMy _N �j Oj
fn O C 10 p J O
C�i W
m C a
y m l6 C C a C C
m °1 G E .c � L" E m€ N o Co m g�Q — m E N
E
6 O L�' Gl O m V1 1Cp
Gi' C {6 g u-- .N m N
G
t
d a E O E-1 s U '2 C 0 8 .Gz X: 3 O
Q
£
¢ N 0 C c in X O
8 aa� o
CO '�C
a
11Wl 4
x �^ m c m 8_ '- 'm 2 E .k
41 Q W C m j_ € G ❑ y l6 N .r
$
�' O N W
m m y o m�
d C O N 'aLo �-s- tl_1
G
_O
m ° `�y° o �i CnC $ ° d `rg Eyy ? z E 9
C E C y N N
_R
c9 c ro s E w m C
3 E
C
C
C v� ;�Q O U U N all
m N
v
E W c¢n 1x6 C O C C € E !� -
E c U
O
c Q
S o 5 °7o a
c a
V
}
S C
$ N
�p117
N
N
C m 0
O N N
N
O N
r
C
N
N
6c
c
��
@=
o,c
ci
mm
2 p m
c
�'c�
�$�
a
E
o
H
i0
m
`0
y p
y m
o
y m
a-._
zQQ
$
vv
v G
° G
'a
a
c
w °�
m c
o a
v10i u
s
_
c
V
Z
o1
2i �?
ui '�
a°i
m aoi
z Tc
n i
10 `"
m
c
E c
L `°
`ot5
`�
O
m
a
N
am
tll
vp L
N a
Ed
'C1
S
E
�_
u;m°
Y
O
V!
N W
U R >
mom—
+tl_%
'Yl
N
N
oN
m
0 0.
m°
N
p
��r
`_
!aE
lNR
ld N
��CQ.
tm J
V
C N
�m
a
�Cy
✓j C
��G[[
C r
c
Q
cm
Yl N
}
n7
•C ,O
ZS
U
°DE
oi>
rnG
a'i
'°
o,E
c
�m
CD
°�°
3
d N
V
o
C
O
o�
m
d
_
E
v
c
O
a
E :?
(g
a
C7
2
C7
U
U
Q
to
2
N
U
V3
_j
J
U
-A
O
x
x
U
2
O
3+
lL
W
19
° 5
c
d
to
° a
'm
c
i
E
E
+rs
1cs�
E°
m€
2E
o
`cc3
o
c
c
z
>
E
r
>
E
v
m
p
O
OI
o
co
0
rs
to
^�!
Nf
u1 a
�
C 1
m�
c_ N
° N
O J
r2yy
C
d
z
a
O
~
z
(n
m
cn
vl O
y 1�C
.Q
Uyy
U
_m
O
M O'E
_N
O
O
6� 0
$
'�
C W
u°
N
m'
�E`�'Q�E`
C
o'
N
m�
E
'�
N
{gi'
p
Cd
m c
C
79X}C
m m
c c
C L
.� ?pXZ
�
rn
cc
�i
N
Z`
2k
°
Z`
O
G .'7
o, yy
tl/
N 75
v G
E
O
a Q
N
m Q
N m
9 c
E
O
m
Q a
N
m Q
Fi
1.9
m
Y
>
b
y
O
3
C
o
Z
7
s
?.
C
sp
L
N
C
a
N
C
d
Q
U
�+°
c°
IV
a C
.9 d)
ij d+
N
d _N
z
w
a'"
z
U.
C
CS
z
(nS
O
z
v=
°
lSa1%g
-5
OI
ad
Z
.2)s
Wx
'
N
'
V
�!
(saug
jo }unowe
(saug
g
O1
L
a E
8 E
--
a
3 e
ou jo apul)
elgepaidde)
ou jo atoll)
;o lunowea!gemaidde)
y
E
rn
.2
a-
E
m
$
'
slaneJD ue913
sang
spueg uealD
saug y}!M spueg
c
o
o
rn E
V E
_
�2
a
a
QM s!ameAD
c
z'
e
m
ueyl �aB�el s! u!o!}oeJ} as�eao
41l uey} Jellews s
09
09 UmJa}eaf6 }!wll
uogoejj amoo;lay uey} ajoyy spueg
v
uey} sse; }!wg p!nbg sAep pue s}I!S
p!nbrl sdep pug s}l!g
k
lley ueyl aiOW slamea�
m
o,
c
O
a
(q) azlS amalS 00Z 'ON uey} JOBAel sl leIJOIew }O ley MR WOW
ama!s OOZ -ON ay} uey}
°i
:silos Pau1ei9 asie03
Jallews sl le!Aa}ew ay} 1194 uey; WOW yy :silos pau!e�B au!j
Beehive Credit Union
Rexburg, Idaho
File: P22296
Page 10
Appendix:
Test Pit Logs
Seismic Site Characterization
Bearing Capacity Spreadsheet
Pavement Design
TEST PIT No. 1
Project: Beehive Credit Union
File: P22296
DEPTH SOIL SOIL
(Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION
0.0 — 2.0 CL CLAY, dark brown, top 0'-2' random frozen gravel, moist
2.0 — 4.0 GM Poorly graded GRAVEL, dark brown, very dense, moist
4.0 -- 10.0 GP Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL, dark brown, very dense,
dry, Native
Excavated on 12112122
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 2.5 feet and 5.0 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by. KB
XCELL ENGINEERING, LC
TEST PIT No. 2
Project: Beehive Credit Union
File: P22296
DEPTH SOIL SOIL
(Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION
0.0 — 1.5 CL CLAY, dark brown, 0'-2' random frozen gravel, stiff, moist
1.5 — 3.0 GM Poorly Graded GRAVEL, orange, very dense, moist
3.0 — 10.0 GP Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL, gray, very dense, moist,
Native
Excavated on 12112122
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 3.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 10.0 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: KB
;� XCELL ENGINEERING, LC
TEST PIT No. 3
Project: Beehive Credit Union
File: P22296
DEPTH SOIL SOIL
(Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION
0.0 — 1.5 CL CLAY, dark brown, 0'-2' random frozen gravel, stiff, moist
1.5 — 3.0 GM Poorly Graded GRAVEL, orange, very dense, moist
3.0 — 10.0 GP Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL, gray, very dense, stiff,
moist, Native
Excavated on 12/12/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit tenninated at 10.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 1.5 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by. -KB
I t XCELL ENGINEERING, LC
'Md'6�'q eK £zeellewrce "
TEST PIT No. 4
Project: Beehive Credit Union
File: P22296
DEPTH SOIL SOIL
(Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION
0.0 — 2.0 CL CLAY, dark brown, top 0'-2' random frozen gravel, moist
2.0 — 4.0 GM Poorly graded GRAVEL, dark brown, very dense, moist
4.0 — 10.0 GP Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL, dark brown, very dense,
stiff, dry, Native
Excavated on 12112122
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet
Bulk samples taken: none
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by. KB
XCELL ENGINEERING, LC
..fir �u
Boring No. 1
Project: Beehive Credit Union
File: P22296
DEPTH SOIL SOIL
{Feet} CLASS DESCRIPTION
0.0 — 2.0 CL CLAY, dark brown, top 0'-2' random frozen gravel, moist
2.0 — 4.0 GM Poorly graded GRAVEL, dark brown, very dense, moist
4.0 — 9.0 GP Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL, dark brown, very dense,
stiff, dry, Native
Excavated on 12/12/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet
Bulk samples taken: none
Excavation Equipment: Hand Auger
Logged by: KB
Latitude, Longitude: 43.85431175,-111.77712438
Walfnart 5upercenter Y
. 9
Go gle I 111marp 33
Date 1211912022, 9:45:22 AM
Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-16
Risk Category 11
site Class D - Default (See Section 11.4.3)
Type
Value
Descriptlon
Ss
0,367
MCER ground motion. (far 0.2 second period)
S,
0.143
MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period)
SMS
0.553
Site -modified spectral acceleration value
SMI
0.331
Site -modified spectral acceleration value
Spg
0.366
Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA
Sol
0.221
Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA
Type
Value
Description
SDC
D
Seismic design category
Fa
1.507
Site amplification factor at 0.2 second
Fs,
2.314
Site amplification factor at 1.0 second
PGA
0.156
MCEG peak ground acceleration
FPGA
1.469
Site amplification factor at PGA
PGAM
0.232
Site modified peak ground acceleration
TL
6
Long -period transition period in seconds
SsRT
0.367
Probabilistic risk -targeted ground motion. (0.2 second)
SsUH
0.389
Factored uniform -hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration
SO
1.5
Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second)
S1 RT
0.143
Probabilistic risk -targeted ground motion. (1.0 second)
S1 UH
0,15
Factored uniform -hazard (2% probability of exceadance in 50 years) spectral acceleration.
S1 D
0.6
Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second)
PGAd
0.5
Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration)
PGAuH
0.156
Uniform -hazard (2% probability of exceedance In 50 years) Peak Ground Acceleration
CRs
0.943
Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods
CRt
0.952
Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s
Cv
0.945
Vertical coefficient
OSH PD
Firewise 9
Map data cT,2022
DISCLAIMER
While the Information presented on this website is believed to be correct,.qg6P.Q 0 �IPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or
liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination
and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this
information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the
standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from
this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible
for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by Iabludeflongitude location in the search results of this website.
Bearing Capacity - Meyerhof
Quit = cNcScDc+gNgSgDq+0.5YBNYSYM
Quit = cNcicDc+gNglqDq+0.5YBNYIYDY
Project: Beehive Credit Union
Date: December 13, 2022
Engineer: JPB
Material- Fine Sandu Silt
Inclination=
0
C=
0 =
Unit Wt - Y=
FTG Depth=
FTG Width=
FTG Len th=
0
32
135
3
1.5
30
K =
3.255
N =
23.2
Nc=
35.47
NY m =
22
Sc=
1.032545883
Dc=
1.721619102
S =
1.016272942
D =
DY =
1.360809551
2
1360809551
Degrees
psf
degrees
pcf
Feet
Feet
Feet
Vertical Footings
Inclined Footings
0
Ng
Nc
NY m
0
10
514
0.0
5
1.6
6.49
01
10
2.5
8.34
0.4
15
39
1097
1.1
20
6.4
1483
2.9
25
10.7
20.71
6.8
26
118
2225
80
28
14.7
2579
11.2
30
18.4
30.13
15.7
32
23.2
35.47
220
34
29.4
42.14
31.1
36
37.7
5055
44.4
38
48.9
61.31
64.0
40
64.1
75.25
93.6
45
1347
133.73
262.3
50
3185
266.50
871.7
For Silt/Sand/Gr Soils
0>10 Inclination=0
I Quit =
1 16075
psf
psf
10 Allow =
1 6368
For Clay Soils
0=0 Inclination=0
I Quit =
I 11624
psf
psf
10 Allow =
1 3875
1For Silt/Sand/Gr Soils
0>10 Inclination>0
I Quit =
15817
psf
psf
IQ Allow =1
5272
1For Clay Soils
0=0 Inclination>0
I Quit =
1 9396
psf
psf
IQ Allow =1
3132
NOTE:
1) C - Unconfined compressive Strer glF
2) q = Ovef burden PreSSVre . TOoplh of Fooling
3) B - width of Fooling
41 Una weigh) - effective unit weight
Stress With No Inclination
Fooling Within (k)
2
F IS Below Foaluq (ff)
1
sCoellCominuouang
0.85
Suess Coeif Square 11g
0.75
nav
2000
added Stress on Native (square;
17
psf
added Stress on Native
roMinuoua
1500
psf
Ofinat- Owlal Continuous
1295
Ofinal _ Qinitial Square
1095
psf
Negative Values Indicate
Unloaded Stress
Conditions
Inclination Factors
Ic=iq= 1.00
IY for 0>0 1.00
I for 0=0 0.00
In- Situ Stress O BOF
Qinitial =1 405 psf
MAIN /
F, �l■Itjkam
H.■1'� ■►1■
■■■■► jR ■
■M
■■■■o■■■■■■
e B 2B 3B 48
Square Footing
Flexible Pavement Design
Automobile Traffic
Project: Beehive Credit Union
Date: December 14, 2022
Engineer: 1JPB
Vehicle Enter EAL 20 Total 20 yr
Type ADT Yr Const Constant
Automobile 1000
1.38
1380
2-Axle Truck 10
1380
13800
3-Axle Truck 4
3680
14720
4-Axle Truck 1
5880
5880
5+-Axle Truck 0
13780
0
All Trucks=18 kip axle
TOTALEAL=1
34400
Traffic Index (TI) = 9.0 EAL11,000,000 "0.119 = 1 6.0
Enter R-Values:
Aggregate Base: 80
Aggregate Subbase: 65
Basement Soil: 1 25
Select a Recommended Safety Factor:
Enter
Selected
FS Value
0.18
Class A Cement Treated Base:
Class B Cement Treated Base:
Asphalt Treated Base:
Lime Treated Base:
Soil Cement:
Aggregate Base:
0.24
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.16
Calc GE
Thickness
feet
Equivalent
Thickness
Ratio
Value:1
Actual
Required
Thickness
feet
Design
Section
Inches
GE _ .0032 TI 100-R + FS
GE for AC = .0032(rl base)(100-R) +FS =
GE for Base = .0032(Tlsubbase)(100-R) +FS-Pavement -
GE Subbase = 0032(rl soil)(100-R)+FS-Pavement -Base =
Total Gravel Equiv. (Ft)
0.57
0.29
0.77
2.5
1
0.75
0.23
0.29
1.03
2.72
3.47
1234
1.63
Notes:
1) If frost depth is greater than the design pavement section it may be required to increase the sect on 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
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Project:
Beehive Credit Union
Material Desc:
GP
Project No.:
P21009
Date Sampled:
Client:
Forsgren
Date Tested:
December 14, 2022
Source:
TP 1 &2
Standards:
ASTM
•131140
•13422
AASHTO T88
C117
C136
T11
T27
Total Dry Wt
3772.2
Washed Wt
Method
A B C.
Weight
Reported
Retained
Cumulative %
Percent
Sieve No
Retained
Spec
Percent
on Each
Retained
Passing
(from scale)
Passing
Sieve
3"
3
0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
2"
2
0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1&1/2"
1.5
0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1"
1
329
8.7
8.7
91.3
91.3
314"
0.75
1078.5
28.6
37.3
62.7
62.7
1/2"
0.5
393.8
10.4
47.8
52.2
52.2
3/8"
0.375
194.7
5.2
52.9
47.1
47.1
1/4"
0.25
0
0.0
52.9
47.1
47.1
No 4
0.187
221 A
5.9
58.8
41.2
41.2
Pan
TOTAL
2217.8
1 58.8
1 58.8
1 41.2
1
41.2
Deviation From Standard:
Reason
Minus 4 wet weight:
1554.4
1 /2"
0.5
0
0.0
58.8
41.2
41.2
3/8"
0.375
0
0.0
58.8
41.2
41.2
No.4
0.187
0.0
0.0
58.8
41.2
41.2
No.8
0.125
421.8
11.2
70.0
30.0
30.0
No.10
0.0787
0.0
0.0
70.0
30.0
30.0
No.30
0.0234
1 652.1
17.3
87.3
12.7
12.7
No.40
0.0165
0.0
0.0
87.3
12.7
12.7
No.50
0.0117
0.0
0.0
87.3
12.7
12.7
No.80
0.007
0.0
0.0
87.3
12.7
12.7
No.100
0.0059
416.5
11.0
98.3
1.7
1.7
No. 200
0.0029
30.9
0.8
99.1
0.9
0.9
Pan
31.9
0.8
100.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
3771.0
99.97
200 wash:
Moisture:
Tare wt
Tare wt
Dry wt before wash
Wet wt
Dry wt after wash
Dry wt
Wt washed
thru 200
#VALUE!
Wt Moist
#VALUE!
Total % -200
#VALUE!
Moist%
#VALUE!
SAND EQ =
Soil Class: G P
Clay Read =
Sand Read =
Frac Face% _
Non Frac =
XCELLENGINEERING,
uestionable =
�F9
04 5xMffeu -
XCE9#ErNGPM EKING, LLC
ATTERBERG LIMITS WORKSHEET
Project:
Beehive Credit Union
Job No.:
P22009
Date Sampled:
/Z /Z Zti
Sampled By.
JPB
Sample Type:
Baggie
Sample Location:
TP 3 @ 1.5'
Lab Tech:
KS
Date Tested:
12/15/2022
ASTM Procedure ❑
AASHTO Procedure ❑
Plastic Limit
AASHTO T90-8g threads ASTMD-4318-
2g threads
Liquid Limit (25 Blows)
AASHTO T89 or ASTM D-4318
Can No.
10
1
Blow Count
25
,Weight of Can+Wet Soil
117
119.8
Weight of Can+Dry Soil
113.6
113.5
Wei ht of Water
3.4
6.3
Weight of Can
100.7
96.1
Weight of Dry Soil
12.9
174
Percent Moisture
26%
36%
Observe two closures for one point Liquid Limit values
ASTM: 1.5 - 2.Og threads and 6g moisture sample
AASHTO: 3g sample in 6-8 portions
60
:M1:7,
equal liquid hntit
50strength increase rc
v
increasingPlasticity index rA
40
cCH
Z' 30
V
OH
a 20
ort0OLr MH
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 wa
Liquidhunt
Plasticity chart
for laboratory classification of fine granted sods
70
60
G
°J 50
e
a
40
ry
7
ur 30
�O
2 20
Flow Curve
10 100
Number of Blows
Multi -Point Method PI = LL-PL
Single Point Method LL = W4(N125)1.121 or LL = KW4
Where: N = Blow Count
Wr = Moisture content
K = Factor given in Table 1 of ASTM Method 4318
PI = 16 LL = 36 PL = 26
CLASS