Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT - 23-00396 - Starbucks - New Commercial Bldg - Shell Only
RockSmith Engineering, PLLC 2426 Diamond H Lane • Rexburg, Idaho 83440 • (801) 556-6407 • rocksmithllc@gmail.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Geotechnical design and construction considerations for the proposed site improvements include the following: Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, we believe that the subject site is suitable for the proposed Starbucks as long as the recommendations presented herein are followed and implemented during design and construction. During our field investigation, 1 to 3 feet of undocumented fill consisting of imported and undocumented fill from neighboring construction sites used for leveling the site was observed across the site, especially along the site's eastern half, laying directly beneath the proposed structure and into the parking area. Therefore, removing all undocumented fill beneath structures and pavements is required across most of the site. In areas not covered with fill during our field investigation, 6 to 8 inches of topsoil was observed across the north edge of the site, directly beneath the proposed driveway and parking area. Therefore, removing all topsoil beneath pavements is recommended across the site's northern perimeter. Beneath the undocumented fill and topsoil, medium-stiff lean clay and poorly graded sand with clay were observed down to a depth of approximately 9 feet. In addition to removing the topsoil and fill, this silty sandy material should be removed to a depth of two feet from under the building footprint before placing the foundation. Beneath the lean clay and poorly graded sand, a denser layer of clean sand with rounded gravel was found. The gravel content and density of the gravel increase with depth. For design purposes, our analyses indicate that spread or continuous wall footings constructed on 2 feet of properly compacted select fill soils over the lean clay and poorly graded sand layers may be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. We anticipate that substantial areas of soft, compressible, loose, or wet natural soils will be encountered during site grading in the upper three feet of the site. These soils may be susceptible to rutting and pumping. During construction activities in the wet times of the year, care should be taken to ensure that equipment avoids churning this surface into soft spots. The soil in any obvious soft spots should be removed and replaced with granular material. There are buried utilities throughout the area; it is also likely that abandoned structures and utilities were present but not encountered during field operations. However, the presence of buried abandoned utilities should be anticipated during construction. GEOTECHNICAL SOIL STUDY For STARBUCKS REXBURG, IDAHO Prepared for BARRY BAME Idaho Falls, Idaho Prepared by ROCKSMITH ENGINEERING, PLLC Rexburg, Idaho PROJECT NO. RSE 22015 AUGUST 2022 RockSmith Engineering, PLLC TABLE OF CONTENTS i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ II INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 TEST PITS AND LABORATORY TESTS ......................................................................................................... 1 FIELD EXPLORATION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................................................. 1 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................................... 2 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 2 STRATIGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................................. 3 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................................ 3 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 6 SITE GRADING ................................................................................................................................................ 6 SHALLOW FOUNDATION ............................................................................................................................... 6 Allowable Bearing Capacity .................................................................................................................... 6 FROST PROTECTION ...................................................................................................................................... 7 AREA FLATWORK ........................................................................................................................................... 7 SHALLOW FOOTINGS FOUNDATION ............................................................................................................ 8 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................... 8 SITE DRAINAGE .............................................................................................................................................. 8 SITE PREPARATION ........................................................................................................................................ 8 BACKFILL ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 SELECT FILL .................................................................................................................................................... 9 SHALLOW FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS .................................................................................................... 10 EXCAVATION SLOPING AND BENCHING ..................................................................................................... 10 UTILITIES ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 11 SUBGRADE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 11 DESIGN INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................... 11 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT ................................................................................................................................... 12 RockSmith Engineering, PLLC TABLE OF CONTENTS ii Garbage Dumpsters .............................................................................................................................. 12 RIGID PAVEMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 12 PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 13 SUBGRADE PREPARATION .......................................................................................................................... 13 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 13 ON-SITE SILT FILL ......................................................................................................................................... 14 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE ......................................................................................................................... 14 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE .................................................................................................. 14 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ................................................................................................................. 14 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 14 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES ...................................................... 14 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 15 TABLES Table 1 – Samples Collected ............................................................................................................................... 1 Table 2 – Laboratory Tests Performed ............................................................................................................... 2 Table 3 – Seismic Coefficients ............................................................................................................................. 3 Table 4 – Bearing Capacity Design Parameters .................................................................................................. 7 Table 5 – Select Fill Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 9 Table 6 – Compaction Requirements ................................................................................................................ 10 PICTURES Picture 1 - Looking south from TP-1 near the NW corner of the property. .................................................. 4 Picture 2 - Looking southwest from the northeast corner of the property................................................ 4 Picture 3 - Looking east from TP-1. .............................................................................................................. 5 Picture 4 - Looking west from TP-2. ............................................................................................................. 5 Picture 5 - Looking northwest toward TP-1 from TP-3. ............................................................................... 6 ATTACHMENTS The following figures are attached and complete this report: Test Pit Location Map ........................................................................................................................ Figure 1 Test Pit Logs ............................................................................................................................. Figures 2 to 5 Key to Terms and Symbols ................................................................................................................ Figures 6 Results of Soil Analysis ...................................................................................................................... Figures 7 RockSmith Engineering, PLLC TABLE OF CONTENTS iii APPENDIX Appendix ............................................................................................................................... Soil Test Results Appendix ........................................... Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 1 INTRODUCTION RockSmith Engineering (RSE) has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and foundation analysis for the proposed Starbucks at 975 University Blvd. in Rexburg, Idaho. This report briefly describes the procedures utilized during this study and presents our findings and recommendations for foundation design, construction considerations, pavement design, and construction guidelines. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The improvements to be considered in this study include a new, single-story, 2,500-square-foot Starbucks and associated amenities, including ancillary driveways and parking areas. Based on conversations with Connect Engineering and the provided drawings of the site, our understanding is that the proposed building will be a single-story stick frame structure, the walls will be founded on a strip footing, and parts of the roof structure will be supported on columns founded on conventional isolated footings. The subject site is located on 0.6 acres at the southwest corner of the intersection of University Blvd and Golden Beauty Dr. in Rexburg, Idaho. Therefore, relatively light loads are anticipated to be carried by the foundation system. We understand that site grading plans and proposed structural loads were not yet available at the time of this study. Therefore, the recommendations presented in this report were prepared to assume that the building structure's final grade will be within plus or minus 3 ft of existing grades. TEST PITS AND LABORATORY TESTS FIELD EXPLORATION The field study was conducted on June 10, 2022. The test pits were advanced with a mobile Kubota KX033-4 tracked excavator to a depth of approximately 9.5 to 10.5 feet below the existing grade, at which point dense sandy gravel was encountered, terminating the excavation. Both bulk and relatively "undisturbed" soil samples were obtained during test pit operations. Subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by 3 test pits, as shown on the Test Pit Location Map, Figure 1. Test Pit locations are approximate, and distances were measured using pacing and visual cues offered by on-site landmarks. The following samples were collected: Table 1 – Samples Collected Type of Sample Number Collected Bag/Disturbed Samples 9 LABORATORY TESTING Each sample was visually classified in the field by a member of our geotechnical engineering staff. The following tests evaluated the geotechnical engineering properties of the strata: Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 2 Table 2 – Laboratory Tests Performed Type of Test Number Conducted Natural Moisture Content 2 Atterberg Limits 2 Sieve Analysis 2 The results of laboratory tests are presented in graphical or numerical form on the test pit logs illustrated in Figures 2 through 5. In addition, a key to classification terms and symbols used on the logs is presented in Figure 6. Samples will be retained in our laboratory for 30 days after the submittal of this report. Other arrangements may be provided at the request of the client. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is a 0.6-acre tract of primarily undeveloped land located at the southwest corner of University Blvd and Golden Beauty Dr. in Rexburg, Idaho. The site is predominantly flat and has a sand and gravel parking area. Electrical utilities run through the site. The topography is generally level with a slight downward slope towards the south and west with vertical relief of about 3 ft across the site. There are buried utilities throughout the area; it is also likely that abandoned foundations, structures, and utilities were present but not encountered during field operations. The presence of buried structures (old foundations, pavements, abandoned utilities, etc.) should be anticipated during construction. Site development will require some earthwork in the form of cutting and filling. At this time, we project that maximum cuts will generally not exceed three to four feet. Additionally, it is projected that the maximum fill will generally not exceed three to four feet. The site is bordered to the north by a flowing canal, then further to the north by a five-lane asphalt paved road, and then further to the north by commercial buildings and a rental facility. Next, the site is bordered to the south by a parking lot and, further to the south, a two-story motel. Next, the site is bordered to the east by a two-lane asphalt paved roadway. Finally, the site is bordered to the west by a single-story Applebee’s restaurant. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Based on the soil test pits conducted for this investigation, the upper 100 feet of soil may be characterized as stiff soil, and a Class D Site Class Definition (Chapter 20 of ASCE 7) has been assigned to this site. The Structural Engineers Association of California/Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (SEAOC/OSHPD) website1 utilizes the International Building Code (IBC) and U.S. Seismic Design Maps to develop seismic design parameters; the following seismic considerations are associated with this site. 1 https://seismicmaps.org Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 3 Table 3 – Seismic Coefficients Ss = 0.438g Sms = 0.635g SDS = 0.423g S1 = 0.155g Sm1 = 0.338g SD1 = 0.225g Based on the parameters listed above, as well as Tables 1613.3.5(1) and 1613.3.5(2) of the 2015 IBC, the Seismic Design Category for both short period and 1-second response accelerations is D. As part of the assumptions required to complete the calculations, a Risk Category of II, was selected. STRATIGRAPHY The subsurface conditions encountered at the test pit locations are shown on the test pit logs, Figures 2 through 4. These test pit logs represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on the field logs, visual examination of field samples by our personnel, and test results of selected field samples. Each stratum has been designated by grouping soils with similar physical and engineering characteristics. The lines establishing the interfaces between strata on the test pit logs represent approximate boundaries. Therefore, transitions between strata may be gradual. Based on our field observations, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and review of geologic soil maps, the subject site is underlain primarily by shallow depths of fill, sandy lean clay, and fine gravelly sand. Surface material approximately 2-3 feet below the surface is generally classified as fill consisting of poorly graded sandy clay with gravel covering the entire area. Between about 3 and 9 feet, brown- colored lean clay with varying amounts of sand and gravel was encountered. At approximately 9 to 10.5 feet, poorly graded sandy gravel was encountered to the maximum depth explored of 10.5 feet, at which point refusal was encountered as the density of the gravel increased. Undocumented fill was encountered throughout the property. Fill was found in each test pit above the native, lean clay and sand. The fill ranges from 1 to 3 feet in depth and could be deeper along the easternmost edge of the site. The undocumented fill consists of lean clay with fine gravelly sand and lies directly beneath the proposed structure and into the parking areas. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits below the existing ground surface either during or immediately upon completion of the digging operations. All test pits remained dry during the field exploration phase. However, groundwater can exist beneath this site at shallow depths temporarily. In particular, seasonal and yearly fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur depending on topography, subsurface geologic conditions, precipitation, and other factors. Iron oxide staining was encountered in all TPs, indicating a possible seasonal high-water table or sub-water conditions during spring and early summer. In addition, the canal directly to the north of the site was full and could influence the water table along the northern edge of the site. Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 4 Picture 1 – Looking south from TP-1 near the NW corner of the property. Picture 2 – Looking southwest from the northeast corner of the property. Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 5 Picture 3 – Looking east from TP-1. Picture 4 – Looking west from TP-2. Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 6 Picture 5 – Looking northwest toward TP-1 from TP-3. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS SITE GRADING Site grading plans can change almost all aspects of foundation recommendations. We have prepared all foundation recommendations based on our study's existing ground surface and the stratigraphic conditions. If site grading plans differ from existing grade by more than plus or minus 3 ft, RSE must be retained to review the site grading plans before bidding the project for construction. This will enable RSE to provide input for any changes in our original recommendations that may be required due to site grading operations or other considerations. SHALLOW FOUNDATION Based on subsurface conditions encountered in our test pits, we believe that the project site is suitable for development, with the lightly loaded building supported on conventional spread footing foundations, which bear on 2 feet of select fill over native soils. Within 2 feet from the bottom of footings, we recommend complete removal of the surficial light brown wind-blown silt replacement with select fill. Allowable Bearing Capacity For preliminary planning purposes, our analyses indicate that spread or continuous wall footings that bear on at least 2 feet of compacted select fill over native subgrade material may be designed using an allowable net bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The minimum recommended width of spread and continuous wall footings is 24 inches. Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 7 Shallow foundations founded on compacted select fill should be proportioned using the design parameters tabulated below: Table 4 – Bearing Capacity Design Parameters Minimum depth below final grade 30 in. Minimum spread and continuous wall footing width 24 in. Maximum allowable bearing pressure for footings on 24” of select fill 2,000 psf The above presented maximum allowable bearing pressures will provide a calculated factor of safety of about 3 with respect to the expected shear strength of in-situ materials, and the subgrade is prepared and fill placed as recommended in the Site Preparation and Select Fill section of this report. We recommend that a vapor barrier be placed between the supporting soils and the concrete floor slab. FROST PROTECTION Frost depth in the vicinity of this site is approximately 30 inches. Therefore, footings should extend a minimum depth of 30 inches below the final grade for frost protection. Footings protected from the full effect of frost may be established at higher elevations; however, a minimum depth of 24 inches is recommended for confinement purposes. AREA FLATWORK It should be noted that ground-supported flatwork such as walkways will be subject to potential soil- related movements. Thus, differential movements should be anticipated when these elements abut rigid building foundations or isolated/suspended structures. As a minimum, we recommend that flexible joints be provided where such elements abut the main structure to allow for differential movement; at these locations where flatwork connects the exterior perimeter shallow foundation of the new building, care must be taken to provide a smooth, vertical construction joint between the edge of the flatwork and the shallow perimeter foundation. The flatwork should preferably abut the shallow foundation at least 4 inches, preferably more, below the bottom of the brick lug (or other exterior veneer material) to avoid damage to the veneer when movements occur in the flatwork. In addition, the construction joint should be wide enough to ensure that vertical movement in the flatwork will not bind on and damage the exterior veneer material. The construction joint should be completed using an appropriate elastomeric expansion joint filler to reduce the amount of water passing through the construction joint. In addition, proper and regular maintenance of the expansion joint will help reduce the water seepage at the flatwork/foundation interface. A better option, if feasible, is to separate the flatwork away from the building foundation so that movements incurred by the flatwork are totally independent of the building foundation. Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 8 SHALLOW FOOTINGS FOUNDATION As recommended in this report's Allowable Bearing Capacity section, the proposed building may be supported on shallow spread footings bearing on 24 inches of select fill. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS SITE DRAINAGE Drainage is an essential key to the successful performance of any foundation. Good surface drainage should be established before and maintained after construction to help prevent water from ponding within or adjacent to the building foundation and facilitate rapid drainage away from the building foundation. Failure to provide positive drainage away from the structure can result in localized differential vertical movements in soil-supported foundations and floor slabs, cracking in the sheetrock partition walls, shifting of ceiling tiles, and improper operation of windows and doors. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), current ordinances may dictate maximum slopes for walks and drives around and into the new building. However, these slope requirements can result in drainage problems for buildings supported on expansive soils. Therefore, we recommend that the maximum permissible slope be provided away from the building on all sides. Also, to help control drainage in the vicinity of the structure, we recommend that roof/gutter downspouts and landscaping irrigation systems not be located adjacent to the building foundation. Where a select fill overbuild is provided outside of the floor slab/foundation footprint, the surface should be sealed with an impermeable layer (pavement or clay cap) to reduce infiltration of both irrigation and surface waters. Careful consideration should also be given to the location of water-bearing utilities and to provisions for drainage in the event of leaks in water-bearing utilities. All leaks should be immediately repaired. SITE PREPARATION Before grading, the ground surface in proposed improvement areas should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, debris, organics (including vegetation), and other deleterious material. In general, a stripping depth of about 1 to 3 feet will be required across the site to remove the fill. Topsoil can be stockpiled on-site and used in landscape areas. The Geotechnical Engineer should observe the exposed subgrade soils to evaluate if removals down to more competent soils are needed. Proof rolling with construction equipment may be used for this evaluation. Soft, saturated, or otherwise unsuitable native soils should be removed from proposed improvement areas and replaced with granular material. BACKFILL On-site material consists of wind-blown silt and fine gravely sand and should not be used under building foundations, pavements, or behind retaining walls. Please reference the tables below for guidelines to achieve adequate compaction under critical zones, including beneath footings and pavements. Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 9 SELECT FILL Select fill is defined as fill that will be subjected to structural loading. This includes footings, floor slabs, pavements, and concrete flatwork. In addition, select fill will be required to raise the site grade along the southern half of the site and underneath concrete flatwork areas. Imported select fill should consist of well-graded granular materials free of organic and deleterious materials. We recommend that imported, select fill material be sampled at the borrow source and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before delivery to the project site. Select fill should meet the following specifications unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Table 5 – Select Fill Requirements In addition, if these materials are utilized, grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits must be performed at a rate of one test each per 5,000 cubic yards of material due to the high degree of variability associated with pit-run materials. If the above-listed select fill materials are being considered for bidding purposes, the materials should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for pre-approval at a minimum of 10 working days or more prior to the bid date. Failure to do so will be the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor will also be responsible for ensuring that the properties of all delivered alternate select fill materials are similar to those of the pre-approved submittal. It should also be noted that when using alternative fill materials, difficulties may be experienced with respect to moisture control during and subsequent to fill placement and erosion, particularly when exposed to inclement weather. This may result in sloughing of trenches and/or pumping of the fill materials. Soils classified as CH, CL, MH, ML, SM, GM, OH, OL, and Pt under the USCS are not considered suitable for use as select fill materials at this site. In addition, the native soils at this site, brown to light-brown sandy silts (ML), are not considered suitable for use as select fill materials. Suitable on-site native soils and non-engineered fill meeting these requirements may be utilized as select fill. In general, this would preclude most materials on-site in the upper 5 feet. Select fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 to 12 inches in loose thickness. Moisture conditioned to approximately optimum moisture content and compacted to at least the following percentages in Table 4, as determined by ASTM D-1557. Sieve Size Percent Passing 4" 100 ¾" 75 - 100 No. 4 40 – 80 No. 40 10 – 40 No. 200 5 -15 Liquid Limit (LL) 20 Max Plasticity Index (PI) 6 Max Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 10 Table 6- Compaction Requirements All fills should be free of organic, frozen, or other deleterious material or garbage. SHALLOW FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS The Geotechnical Engineer or their representative should observe shallow foundation excavations prior to reinforcing steel and concrete placement. This is necessary to observe that the bearing soils at the bottom of the excavations are similar to those encountered in our test pits and that excessive loose materials and water are not present in the excavations. If soft pockets of soil are encountered in the foundation excavations, they should be removed and replaced with a compacted non-expansive fill material or lean concrete up to the design foundation bearing elevations. EXCAVATION SLOPING AND BENCHING If utility trenches or other excavations extend to or below a depth of 5 ft below construction grade, the contractor or others shall be required to develop a trench safety plan to protect personnel entering the trench or trench vicinity. The collection of specific geotechnical data and the development of such a plan, which could include designs for sloping and benching or various types of temporary shoring, are beyond the scope of the current study. However, any such designs and safety plans shall be developed in accordance with current OSHA guidelines and other applicable industry standards. UTILITIES Utilities that project through slab-on-grade, slab-on-fill, or any other rigid unit should be designed with some degree of flexibility or sleeves. Such design features will help reduce the risk of damage to the utility lines as vertical movements occur. Our experience indicates that significant settlement of backfill can occur in utility trenches, particularly when trenches are deep, when backfill materials are placed in thick lifts with insufficient compaction and when water can access and infiltrate the trench backfill materials. The potential for water to access the backfill is increased where water can infiltrate base materials due to insufficient penetration of curbs and at sites where geological features can influence water migration into utility trenches (such as fractures within a rock mass or at contacts between rock and clay formations). Another factor that can significantly impact settlement is the migration of fines within the backfill into the open voids in the underlying free- draining bedding material. Select Fill Percent of Maximum Dry Density Below foundations, pavement, and concrete flatwork 95% Fills thicker than 5 feet below foundations, pavement, and concrete flatwork 97% Utility Trenches 95% Behind Retaining Walls 90% In Landscape Areas 85-90% Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 11 To reduce the potential for settlement in utility trenches, we recommend that consideration be given to the following: All backfill materials should be placed and compacted in controlled lifts appropriate for the type of backfill and the type of compaction equipment utilized, and all backfilling procedures should be tested and documented. Trench backfill materials should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM D-1557. The moisture content of the fill should be maintained within the range of 2 percentage points below to 2 percentage points above the optimum moisture content for non-cohesive soils and maintained within the range of optimum to 3 percentage points above optimum moisture content for cohesive soils until final compaction. Curbs should completely penetrate base materials and be installed sufficiently to reduce water infiltration beneath the curbs into the pavement base materials. To reduce the infiltration and loss of fines from backfill material into the interstitial voids, consideration should be given to wrapping free-draining bedding gravels with a geotextile fabric (similar to Mirafi 140N) in bedding materials. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for both flexible and rigid pavements are presented in this report. The Owner and/or design team may select either pavement type depending on the performance criteria established for the project. Flexible pavement systems generally have a lower initial construction cost than rigid pavements. However, maintenance requirements over the life of the pavement are typically much greater for flexible pavements. This typically requires regularly scheduled observation, repair, overlays, and/or other pavement rehabilitation at approximately one-half to two-thirds of the design life. On the other hand, rigid pavements are generally more "forgiving," tend to be more durable, and require less maintenance after construction. Drainage conditions will significantly impact long-term performance for either pavement type, particularly where permeable base materials are utilized in the pavement section. Therefore, drainage considerations are discussed in more detail in a subsequent section of this report. SUBGRADE CONDITIONS We have assumed the subgrade in pavement areas will consist of the surficial light brown wind-blown native silt or recompacted on-site silts, placed and compacted as recommended in the Onsite SIlt Fill section of this report, or native basalt rock. Based on our experience with similar subgrade soils, we have assigned a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 3 for use in pavement thickness design analyses for the surficial silty soils and a CBR of 8 for use in pavement thickness design for rock subgrades. DESIGN INFORMATION The following recommendations were prepared based on the 1993 "Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures" by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The following recommendations were prepared assuming a 20-yr design life and Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) of 240,000 for light-duty pavements and 1,100,000 for heavy-duty pavements. This traffic frequency is approximately equivalent to 1 and 25 tractor-trailer trucks per day for a design period of 20 Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 12 years for light and heavy-duty pavements, respectively. The Project Civil Engineer should review anticipated traffic loading and frequencies to verify that the assumed traffic loading and frequency are appropriate for the facility's intended use. FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT Flexible pavement sections recommended for this site are listed in the table below: Flexible Pavement Design Layer Description Layer Thickness Light Duty 240,000 ESAL's (Parking areas) HMA Surface Course Aggregate Base Course Combined Total 3.0 in. 9.0 in. 12.0 in. Heavy Duty 1,100,000 ESAL’s (entrances, drives, channelized traffic) HMA Surface Course Aggregate Base Course Combined Total 3.0 in. 12.0 in. 15.0 in. Garbage Dumpsters We recommend providing reinforced concrete pads in front of and beneath trash receptacles where flexible pavements are constructed at any site. The dumpster trucks, if any, should be parked on the rigid pavement when the receptacles are lifted. It is suggested that such pads be provided in drives where the dumpster trucks make turns with small radii to access the receptacles. The concrete pads at this site should be a minimum of 6 in. thick and reinforced with conventional steel reinforcing bars or welded wire mats. The concrete should be placed over 6 inches of aggregate base course, over properly prepared natural subgrade or site grading select fills. RIGID PAVEMENT We recommend that rigid pavements be considered in areas of channelized traffic, particularly where truck or bus traffic is planned, particularly where such traffic will make frequent turns, such as described above for garbage dumpster areas. We recommend that rigid pavement sections at this site consist of the following: Traffic Type Portland Cement Concrete Light Duty Traffic 5 in. Heavy Duty Traffic 7 in. We recommend placing the concrete pavements over 8 inches of aggregate base course material as outlined below. We also recommend that the concrete pavements be reinforced with bar mats. As a minimum, the bar mats should be No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced 18 in. on center in both directions. The Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 13 concrete reinforcing should be placed approximately 1/3 the slab thickness below the slab's surface, but not less than 2 in. The reinforcing should not extend across expansion joints. Joints in concrete pavements aid in the construction and control the location and magnitude of cracks. Where practical, lay out the construction, expansion, control, and sawed joints to form square panels. The ratio of slab length-to-width should not exceed 1.25. Recommended joint spacings are 12 ft longitudinal and 12 ft transverse. All control joints should be formed or sawed to a depth of at least 1/4 the thickness of the concrete slab. Sawing of control joints should begin as soon as the concrete will not ravel, generally the day after placement. Control joints may be hand-formed or formed by using a premolded filler. We recommend that all longitudinal and transverse construction joints be dowelled to promote load transfer. Expansion joints are needed to separate the concrete slab from fixed objects such as drop inlets, light standards, and buildings. Expansion joint spacings are not to exceed a maximum of 75 ft, and no expansion or construction joints should be located in a swale or drainage collection locations. If possible, the pavement should develop a minimum slope of 0.015 ft/ft to provide surface drainage. Reinforced concrete pavement should cure a minimum of 3 and 7 days before allowing automobile and truck traffic, respectively. PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS SUBGRADE PREPARATION Areas to support pavements should be stripped of all vegetation, and organic topsoil and the exposed subgrade should be proof rolled according to the Site Preparation section recommendations under Foundation Construction Considerations. After completion of the proof rolling operations and just prior to base placement, the exposed subgrade should be moisture conditioned by scarifying to a minimum depth of 6 in. and recompacting to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D-1557. The moisture content of the subgrade should be maintained within the range of optimum moisture content to 3 percentage points above optimum until permanently covered. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS As with any soil-supported structure, the satisfactory performance of a pavement system is contingent on the provision of adequate surface and subsurface drainage. Insufficient drainage, which allows the saturation of the pavement subgrade and/or the supporting granular pavement materials, will significantly reduce the performance and service life of the pavement systems. Surface and subsurface drainage considerations crucial to the performance of pavements at this site include (but are not limited to) the following: 1) Any known natural or man-made subsurface seepage at the site that may occur at sufficiently shallow depths to influence moisture contents within the subgrade should be intercepted by drainage ditches or below-grade French drains. 2) Final site grading should eliminate isolated depressions adjacent to curbs, allowing surface water to pond and infiltrate into the underlying soils. Curbs should completely Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 14 penetrate base materials and should be installed to a sufficient depth to reduce water infiltration beneath the curbs. 3) Pavement surfaces should be maintained to help minimize surface ponding and provide rapid sealing of any developing cracks. These measures will help reduce the infiltration of surface water downward through the pavement section. ON-SITE SELECT FILL As discussed, the pavement recommendations presented in this report were prepared assuming that on-site soils will not be used for select fill grading in proposed pavement areas. However, if used as subgrade under footings and pavement, we recommend that on-site soils be scarified down to 6 inches in thickness and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D- 1557. The moisture content of the fill should be maintained within the range of optimum water content to 3 percentage points above the optimum water content until permanently covered. We recommend that fill materials be free of roots and other organic or degradable material. We also recommend that the maximum particle size not exceed four inches or one-half the lift thickness, whichever is smaller. AGGREGATE BASE COURSE The aggregate base course should be crushed aggregate. Base course should be placed in lifts with a maximum thickness of 8 in. and compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of the maximum density at a moisture content within the range of 2 percentage points below to 2 percentage points above the optimum moisture content determined by ASTM D-1557. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the mixture's maximum theoretical specific gravity (Rice) determined according to Test Method AASHTO T209. Pavement specimens, which shall be either cores or sections of asphaltic pavement, will be tested according to Test Method ASTM D2726 and ASTM D3549 for density and thickness, respectively. The nuclear-density gauge or other methods that correlate satisfactorily with results obtained from project roadway specimens may be used when the Engineer approves. Unless otherwise shown on the plans, the contractor shall be responsible for obtaining the required roadway specimens at their expense and in a manner and at locations selected by the Engineer. PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE The Portland cement concrete should be air-entrained to result in a 5.5 percent plus/minus 1 percent air, have a maximum slump of 5 inches, and have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi. A liquid membrane-forming curing compound should be applied as soon as practical after broom finishing the concrete surface. The curing compound will help reduce the loss of water from the concrete. The reduction in the rapid water loss will help reduce the concrete's shrinkage cracking. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SERVICES CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES As presented in the attachment to this report, Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report, subsurface conditions can vary across a project site. The conditions described in this report are Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 15 based on interpolations derived from a limited number of data points. Variations will be encountered during construction, and only the geotechnical design engineer can determine if these conditions differ from those assumed for design. Construction problems resulting from variations or anomalies in subsurface conditions are among the most prevalent in construction projects and often lead to delays, changes, cost overruns, and disputes. These variations and irregularities can best be addressed if the geotechnical Engineer of record, RSE, is retained to perform construction observation and testing services during the project's construction. This is because: RSE intimately understands the geotechnical engineering report's findings and recommendations. RSE understands how the report should be interpreted and can provide such interpretations on-site, on the client's behalf. RSE knows what subsurface conditions are anticipated at the site. RSE is familiar with the goals of the owner and project design professionals, having worked with them in developing the geotechnical workscope. This enables RSE to suggest remedial measures (when needed) which help meet the owner's and the design teams' requirements. RSE has a vested interest in client satisfaction and thus assigns qualified personnel whose principal concern is client satisfaction. This concern is exhibited by how contractors' work is tested, evaluated, and reported and by selecting alternative approaches when necessary. RSE cannot be held accountable for problems resulting from misinterpretation of our findings or recommendations when we are not on hand to provide the required interpretation. LIMITATIONS This soil report has been prepared in accordance with accepted Geotechnical Engineering practices in the region of Rexburg, Idaho, and for the use of Connect Engineering and their representatives for design purposes. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other uses. This report is not intended for use in determining construction means and methods. The recommendations submitted in this report are based on our conversations with Connect Engineering, the data obtained from three test pits, and our understanding of the project information provided. If the project information described in this report is incorrect, is altered, or if new information is available, we should be retained to review and modify our recommendations. This report may not reflect the actual variations of the subsurface conditions across the site. The nature and extent of variations across the site may not become evident until construction commences. The construction process itself may also alter subsurface conditions. If variations appear evident at the time of construction, it may be necessary to reevaluate our recommendations after performing on-site observations and tests to establish the engineering impact of the variations. Project No. RSE 22015 RockSmith Engineering August 9, 2022 16 The scope of our Geotechnical Soils report does not include an environmental assessment of the air, soil, rock, or water conditions on or adjacent to the site. Therefore, no environmental opinions are presented in this report. Instead, professional judgments on subsurface conditions and analysis conclusions are presented in this report. RSE represents that our services are performed within the limitations prescribed by the client in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other professional consultants under similar circumstances. No other representation to the client is expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended. It is the client's responsibility to see that all parties to the project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are aware of this report. Therefore, using the information in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's option and risk. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The following figures are attached and complete this report: Test Pit Location Map ........................................................................................................................ Figure 1 Test Pit Logs ............................................................................................................................. Figures 2 to 4 Key to Terms and Symbols ................................................................................................................. Figure 5 Results of Soil Analysis ....................................................................................................................... Figure 6 Appendix REVISIONS PROJECT NO.: No. Date Description 1 8/7/2022 drawing ISSUE DATE: Engineering • Testing • Materials DRAWN BY:ABS Geotechnical • Pavement CHECKED BY: 2426 Diamond H Lane Starbucks Coffee REVIEWED BY:ABS Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Connect Engineering (801) 556-6407 TEL.Golden Beauty Dr. and University Blvd. rocksmithllc@gmail.com Rexburg, ID www.rocksmithengineering.com NOTE: This Drawing is Provided for Illustration Only. May Not be to Scale and is Not Suitable for Design or Construction Purposes © 2022 by RockSmith Engineering, PLLC RSE 22012 1 TEST PIT LOCATION MAP FIGURE RockSmith Engineering TP-3, 10.5' TP-1, 9.5' 100 ft. TP-2, 9.5' University Blvd. GB 1 GB 2 GB 3 97.0 95.0 92.5 89.0 Moisture 24.9%, -No. 200 88.4%, LL 28, PL 21, PI 7. GP- GC CL SP- SC SP- SM 1.5 3.5 6.0 9.5 (GP-GC) Fill - Sandy Gravel with Clay - Medium dense, moist, brown. (CL)Sandy Lean Clay - Medium stiff, moist, brown, slight pinholes and roots. (SP-SC) Poorly Graded Sand with Clay - Medium dense, brown , moist, 1-3 inch seams of interlayered clay and sand, iron oxide staining around 4.5 feet. (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel - Medium dense, moist, brown. Bottom of test pit at 9.5 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 98.5 ft LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 6/10/22 COMPLETED 6/10/22 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in piezometer AFTER EXCAVATION --- DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 PROJECT NAME Rexburg Idaho Starbucks PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho CLIENT Connect Engineering PROJECT NUMBER RSE220012 GE N E R A L B H / T P / W E L L - G I N T S T D U S . G D T - 8 / 9 / 2 2 1 2 : 1 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ P U B L I C \ D O C U M E N T S \ B E N T L E Y \ G I N T C L \ P R O J E C T S \ T E T O N I A . G P J RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Lane Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Telephone: (801) 556-6407 REMARKS U. S . C . S . MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GR A P H I C LO G RSE GB 4 GB 5 97.5 93.0 90.5 GP- GC CL SP- SC 2.5 7.0 9.5 (GP-GC) Fill - Sandy Gravel with Clay - Dense, moist, brown. Cobbles with max diam. of 5 inches. (CL)Poorly Graded Sand - Medium dense, slightly moist, light brown, iron oxide stains at 5 ft., clay seams 1-2 inches thick interlayered throughout from 3-5 ft. (SP-SC) Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel - Medium dense, slightly moist, brown. Heavy iron oxide staining at 7 ft. Gravel increases with depth starting at 6.5 ft. Bottom of test pit at 9.5 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 100 ft LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 6/10/22 COMPLETED 6/10/22 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in piezometer AFTER EXCAVATION --- DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 PROJECT NAME Rexburg Idaho Starbucks PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho CLIENT Connect Engineering PROJECT NUMBER RSE220012 GE N E R A L B H / T P / W E L L - G I N T S T D U S . G D T - 8 / 9 / 2 2 1 2 : 1 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ P U B L I C \ D O C U M E N T S \ B E N T L E Y \ G I N T C L \ P R O J E C T S \ T E T O N I A . G P J RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Lane Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Telephone: (801) 556-6407 U. S . C . S . MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GR A P H I C LO G RSE GB 6 GB 7 GB 8 GB 9 97.0 94.5 89.0 88.0 Moisture 19.0%, -No. 200 49.8%, LL 26, PL 24, PI 2. SC- SM CL CL GP 1.5 4.0 9.5 10.5 (SC-SM) Fill - Sandy Gravel with Clay - Dense, moist, brown. Max diam. 5 inches. (CL)Lean Clay with Sand - Medium stiff, moist, brown, slight pinholes and roots. (CL)Lean Clay with rounded gravel - Medium stiff, brown , moist, dark gray. Slight roots and organics. (GP) Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand - Medium dense, moist, dark gray. Bottom of test pit at 10.5 feet. NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 98.5 ft LOGGED BY ABS EXCAVATION METHOD Test Pit Kubota KX033-4 Trackhoe TEST PIT SIZE width, 24 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Mark Hayes GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY ABS DATE STARTED 6/10/22 COMPLETED 6/10/22 AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- AT END OF EXCAVATION --- no water in piezometer AFTER EXCAVATION --- DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R PAGE 1 OF 1 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 PROJECT NAME Rexburg Idaho Starbucks PROJECT LOCATION Rexburg, Idaho CLIENT Connect Engineering PROJECT NUMBER RSE220012 GE N E R A L B H / T P / W E L L - G I N T S T D U S . G D T - 8 / 9 / 2 2 1 2 : 1 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ P U B L I C \ D O C U M E N T S \ B E N T L E Y \ G I N T C L \ P R O J E C T S \ T E T O N I A . G P J RockSmith Engineering 2426 Diamond H Lane Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Telephone: (801) 556-6407 REMARKS U. S . C . S . MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GR A P H I C LO G RSE PROJECT NO. RSE22015 CLAY-SHALE SAMPLE TYPES NO INFORMATION BLANK PIPE ASPHALT IGNEOUS LIMESTONE FILL GEOPROBESAMPLER TEXAS CONEPENETROMETER DISTURBED METAMORPHIC MARL MUDROTARY NORECOVERY SPLIT BARREL SPLIT SPOONNX CORE SHELBY TUBE CALCAREOUS CLAY CLAYEY GRAVEL GRAVELLY WELL CONSTRUCTION AND PLUGGING MATERIALS SILTSTONE CALICHE CONGLOMERATE AIRROTARY GRABSAMPLE DOLOMITE BENTONITE CORE SOIL TERMS OTHER NOTE: VALUES SYMBOLIZED ON BORING LOGS REPRESENT SHEARSTRENGTHS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BASE KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS CUTTINGS SAND SANDY SILT SILTY CHALK STRENGTH TEST TYPES CEMENT GROUT GRAVEL SAND POCKET PENETROMETER TORVANE UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TRIAXIAL COMPRESSIONUNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL COMPRESSIONCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED BRICKS /PAVERS SCREEN MATERIAL TYPES VOLCLAY SANDSTONE SHALE ROCK TERMS WASTE CONCRETE/CEMENT PEAT BENTONITE &CUTTINGS CONCRETE/CEMENT CLAYSTONE ROTOSONIC-DAMAGED ROTOSONIC-INTACT PITCHER FIGURE 6aREVISED 04/2012 RockSmith Engineering PROJECT NO. RSE22015 KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS (CONT'D) TERMINOLOGY RELATIVE DENSITY PLASTICITYCOHESIVE STRENGTH PenetrationResistanceBlows per ft Degree ofPlasticityPlasticityIndexRelativeDensityResistanceBlows per ft 0 4 10 30 - - - - > 4 10 30 50 50 Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Consistency CohesionTSF - - - - > - - - - - > Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Total Xylenes Total BTEX Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Not Detected Not Analyzed Not Recorded/No Recovery Organic Vapor Analyzer Parts Per Million 2 4 8 15 30 30 Very Soft Soft Firm Stiff Very Stiff Hard 0 2 4 8 15 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 1.0 - - - - - > 0.125 0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 2.0 0 5 10 20 5 10 20 40 40 None Low Moderate Plastic Highly Plastic = = = = = = = = = = = ABBREVIATIONS Qam, Qas, Qal Qat Qbc Qt Qao Qle Q-Tu Ewi Emi Mc EI Kknm Kpg Kau = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Kef Kbu Kdr Kft Kgt Kep Kek Kes Kew Kgr Kgru Kgrl Kh Quaternary Alluvium Low Terrace Deposits Beaumont Formation Fluviatile Terrace Deposits Seymour Formation Leona Formation Uvalde Gravel Wilcox Formation Midway Group Catahoula Formation Laredo Formation Navarro Group and MarlbrookMarl Pecan Gap Chalk Austin Chalk = = = = = = = = = = = = = Eagle Ford Shale Buda Limestone Del Rio Clay Fort Terrett Member Georgetown Formation Person Formation Kainer Formation Escondido Formation Walnut Formation Glen Rose Formation Upper Glen Rose Formation Lower Glen Rose Formation Hensell Sand B T E X BTEX TPH ND NA NR OVA ppm Terms used in this report to describe soils with regard to their consistency or conditions are in general accordance with the discussion presented in Article 45 of SOILS MECHANICS IN ENGINEERING PRACTICE, Terzaghi and Peck, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967, using the most reliable information available from the field and laboratory investigations. Terms used for describing soils according to their texture or grain size distribution are in accordance with the UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, as described in American Society for Testing and Materials D2487-06 and D2488-00, Volume 04.08, Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics; 2005. The depths shown on the boring logs are not exact, and have been estimated to the nearest half-foot. Depth measurements may be presented in a manner that implies greater precision in depth measurement, i.e 6.71 meters. The reader should understand and interpret this information only within the stated half-foot tolerance on depth measurements. FIGURE 6bREVISED 04/2012 RockSmith Engineering PROJECT NO. RSE22015 KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS (CONT'D) TERMINOLOGY SOIL STRUCTURE SAMPLING METHODS Having planes of weakness that appear slick and glossy. Containing shrinkage or relief cracks, often filled with fine sand or silt; usually more or less vertical. Inclusion of material of different texture that is smaller than the diameter of the sample. Inclusion less than 1/8 inch thick extending through the sample. Inclusion 1/8 inch to 3 inches thick extending through the sample. Inclusion greater than 3 inches thick extending through the sample. Soil sample composed of alternating partings or seams of different soil type. Soil sample composed of alternating layers of different soil type. Soil sample composed of pockets of different soil type and layered or laminated structure is not evident. Having appreciable quantities of carbonate. Having more than 50% carbonate content. Slickensided Fissured Pocket Parting Seam Layer Laminated Interlayered Intermixed Calcareous Carbonate RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SAMPLING NOTE: To avoid damage to sampling tools, driving is limited to 50 blows during or after seating interval. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) Cohesive soil samples are to be collected using three-inch thin-walled tubes in general accordance with the Standard Practicefor Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils (ASTM D1587) and granular soil samples are to be collected using two-inch split-barrelsamplers in general accordance with the Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (ASTMD1586). Cohesive soil samples may be extruded on-site when appropriate handling and storage techniques maintain sampleintegrity and moisture content. Description 25 blows drove sampler 12 inches, after initial 6 inches of seating. 50 blows drove sampler 7 inches, after initial 6 inches of seating. 50 blows drove sampler 3 inches during initial 6-inch seating interval. Blows Per Foot 25 50/7" Ref/3" FIGURE 6c A 2-in.-OD, 1-3/8-in.-ID split spoon sampler is driven 1.5 ft into undisturbed soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 in. After the sampler is seated 6 in. into undisturbed soil, the number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 in. is the Standard Penetration Resistance or "N" value, which is recorded as blows per foot as described below. REVISED 04/2012 SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER DRIVING RECORD RockSmith Engineering PROJECT NO. RSE22015 6 ft or more 2 to 6 ft 8 in. to 2 ft 2 in. to 8 in. 2 in. or less Flat Dipping Steeply Dipping Massive Thickly Bedded Medium Bedded Thinly Bedded 0 to 20 degrees 20 to 45 degrees 45 to 90 degrees WEATHERING Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent - - - - - - - - - - No evidence of any chemical or mechanical alteration. Slight discoloration on surface, slight alteration along discontinuities, less than 10 percent of the rock volume altered. Discoloring evident, surface pitted and altered with alteration penetrating well below rock surfaces, weathering "halos" evident, 10 to 50 percent of the rock altered. Entire mass discolored, alteracation pervading nearly all of the rock with some pockets of slightly weathered rock noticeable, some minerals leached away. Rock reduced to a soil with relicit rock texture, generally molded and crumbled by hand. Fresh Slightly Weathered Moderately Weathered Highly Weathered Decomposed Very soft Soft Moderately hard Hard Very hard Can be deformed by hand. Can be scratched with a fingernail. Can be scratched easily with a knife. Can be scratched with difficulty with a knife. Cannot be scratched with a knife. ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION < < < < < 25 50 75 90 25 50 75 90 100 HARDNESS From United States Army Corps of Engineers, EM 1110-1-2908 Rock Foundations, November 1994 ROCK TYPE "Rock type refers to the general geologic classification of the rock (e.g. basalt, sandstone, limestone, etc.). Certain physical characteristics are ascribed to a particular rock type with a geological name given according to the rocks mode of origin. Although the rock type is used primarily for identification and correlation, the type is often an important preliminary indication of rock mass behavior." Texture Coarse Grained Medium Grained Fine Grained Aphanite Sedimentary Particle Name Cobble Gravel - Sand - Clay, Silt Rock Name Conglomerate - - Sandstone - Shale, Claystone Siltstone 80 5 - 80 2 - 5 0.4 - 2 0.1 - 0.4 0.1 DISCONTINUITIES Describe the type of joint (i.e. bedding, cleavage, foliation, schistocity, or extension), the degree of weathering, joint wall separations (filled or clean), roughness, and any infilling (source, type, and thickness). ROCK TERMINOLOGY KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS (CONT'D) Grain Diameter mm mm mm mm mm mm TEXTURE Igneous and Metamorphic Grain Diameter 5 1 - 5 0.1 - 1 0.1 mm mm mm mm Texture * * Coarse Grained Medium Grained Fine Grained Very Fine Grained 3-ft thick or greater beds from 1- to 3-ft thick beds from 4 in. to 1-ft thick 4-in. thick or less Unfractured Slightly Fractured Moderately Fractured Highly Fractured Intensely Fractured - - - - - - - - - - - - ROCK STRUCTURE FIGURE 6dREVISED 04/2012 RockSmith Engineering PROJECT NO. RSE22015 Starbucks Rexburg, Idaho 2426 Diamond H. Lane Rexburg, Idaho 83440(801) 556-6407 Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA PL A S T I C I T Y I N D E X ( P I ) "A-li ne" "U-l i n e " 160 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 4 7 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) Cu > 4 and 3E > Cc > 1 Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E Fines classify as ML or MH Fines classify as CL or CH Cu > 6 and 3E > Cc > 1 Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E Fines classify as ML or MH Fines classify as CL or CH PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" lineJ PI < 4 or plots below "A" lineJ Liquid limit - oven dried Liquid limit - not dried PI plots on or above "A" line PI plots below "A" line Liquid limit - oven dried Liquid limit - not dried Highly organic soils Coarse Grained Soils More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve Gravels More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Sands 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor < 0.75 < 0.75 GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC CL ML CH MH PT OL OH Well-graded gravelF Poorly graded gravelF Silty gravelF,G, H Clayey gravelF,G,H Well-graded sandI Poorly graded sandI Silty sandG,H,I Clayey sandG,H,I Lean clayK,L,M SiltK,L,M Organic clayK,L,M,N Organic siltK,L,M,O Fat clayK,L,M Elastic SiltK,L,M Organic clayK,L,M,P Organic siltK,L,M,Q Peat UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Clean Gravels Less than 5% finesC Gravels with Fines More than 12% finesC Clean Sands Less than 5% finesD Sands with Fines More than 12% finesD Inorganic Organic Inorganic Organic Group Symbol Group Name B Soil Classification Silts and Clays Liquid limit less than 50 Silts and Clays Liquid limit 50 or more HIf fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. IIf soil contains > 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. JIf Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. KIf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel," whichever is predominant. LIf soil contains > 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. MIf soil contains > 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. NPI > 4 and plots on or above "A" line. OPI < 4 or plots below "A" line. PPI plots on or above "A" line. QPI plots below "A" line. ABased on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve BIf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. CGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. DSands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay ECu = D60/D10 Cc = (D30)2 / (D10 x D60) FIf soil contains > 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. GIf fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM. FIGURE 6e MH or OH For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils Equation of "A" - line Horizontal at PI = 4 to LL = 25.5 then PI = 0.73(LL-20) Equation of "U" - line Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7 then PI=0.9(LL-8) ML or OLCL-ML CL o r O L CH o r O H RockSmith Engineering 4103 E 605 N Ste1 Rigby, ID 83442 75 SIZE PASSING 50 Low High 38.1 3"100%25.4 2"100%19.1 1 1/2"100%12.7 1"100%9.5 3/4"100%4.75 1/2"100%2.36 3/8"100%1.18 No. 4 100%0.6 No. 8 100%0.3 No. 16 100%0.15 No. 30 100%0.075 No. 50 99% No. 100 97% No. 200 88.4% Reviewed By: Jacob Christensen Lab Manager Project Name: 24.9% ASTM C136 SPECIFICATION 22147 June 13, 2022 June 10, 2022 TP-1 @ 2' Project #: Lab #: Native Material 22-233B Rexburg Rock Smith ASTM D2216 Moisture Content As Received Siev Anlysis Sample Received: Report Date Material Description: Sample Location: Client: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t P a s s i n g Sieve Size (mm) Project Number:Client:Sample #: Project Name:Checked By: Sample Description:Location Sampled By: Plastic Limit Can ID Tammy Tina Tim Ty # of Blows 31 27 22 Mass of Can+ Wet Soil 43.2 44.9 42.1 29.7 Mass of Can+Dry Soil 38.1 39.6 37.4 28.1 Mass Water 5.1 5.3 4.7 0 0 1.6 Mass Can 20.7 20.4 20.2 20.5 Mass of Dry Soil 17.4 19.2 17.2 0 0 7.6 Percent Moisture 29.3%27.6%27.3%21.1% Corrected 29.3%27.6%27.3%21.1% Plasticity Index:6.7 27.7% Tested By:Signature:Date: m= b= Rexburg L. Hammar Atterburg Limits 22-233B Rock Smith 22146 Native Material TP 1 @ 2'L. Clifford Liquid Limit Liquid Limit:Plastic Limit:21.1% L.Clifford 6/13/2022 0.0021 0.2238 y = 0.0021x + 0.2238 26.5% 27.0% 27.5% 28.0% 28.5% 29.0% 29.5% 15 20 25 30 35 PE R C E N T M O I S T U R E NUMBER OF BLOWS # OF BLOWS VERSUS PERCENT MOISTURE 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Pl a s t i c I n d e x Liquid Limit Liquid Limit Versus Moisture Content DocuSign Envelope ID: AA3AEFA1-AFDF-4B4F-8912-4E14B572F1F4 4103 E 605 N Ste1 Rigby, ID 83442 75 SIZE PASSING 50 Low High 38.1 3"100%25.4 2"100%19.1 1 1/2"100%12.7 1"100%9.5 3/4"100%4.75 1/2"100%2.36 3/8"100%1.18 No. 4 100%0.6 No. 8 97%0.3 No. 16 91%0.15 No. 30 82%0.075 No. 50 73% No. 100 64% No. 200 49.8% Reviewed By: Jacob Christensen Lab Manager Project Name: 19.0% ASTM C136 SPECIFICATION 22146 June 13, 2022 June 10, 2022 TP 3 @ 8' Project #: Lab #: Native Material 22-233B Rexburg Rock Smith ASTM D2216 Moisture Content As Received Siev Anlysis Sample Received: Report Date Material Description: Sample Location: Client: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t P a s s i n g Sieve Size (mm) Project Number:Client:Sample #: Project Name:Checked By: Sample Description:Location:Sampled By: Plastic Limit Can ID 3 6 7 2 # of Blows 30 24 21 Mass of Can+ Wet Soil 32.4 28.1 29.1 12.3 Mass of Can+Dry Soil 26.4 22.8 23.5 10.4 Mass Water 6 5.3 5.6 0 0 1.9 Mass Can 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.5 Mass of Dry Soil 23.9 20.4 20.9 0 0 7.9 Percent Moisture 25.1%26.0%26.8%24.1% Corrected 25%26%27%24% Plasticity Index:1.9 26.0% Tested By:Signature:Date: m= b= Rexburg L. Hammar Atterburg Limits 22-233B Rock Smith 22147 Native Material TP 3 @ 8'L. Clifford Liquid Limit Liquid Limit:Plastic Limit:24.1% L.Clifford 6/13/2022 -0.0018 0.3050 y = -0.0018x + 0.305 25% 25% 26% 26% 27% 27% 15 20 25 30 35 PE R C E N T M O I S T U R E NUMBER OF BLOWS # OF BLOWS VERSUS PERCENT MOISTURE 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Pl a s t i c I n d e x Liquid Limit Liquid Limit Versus Moisture Content DocuSign Envelope ID: AA3AEFA1-AFDF-4B4F-8912-4E14B572F1F4 8/9/22, 1:44 PM U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://www.seismicmaps.org 1/2 Starbucks Rexburg Latitude, Longitude: 43.80418591, -111.81110855 Date 8/9/2022, 1:43:09 PM Design Code Reference Document IBC-2015 Risk Category II Site Class D - Stiff Soil Type Value Description SS 0.438 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period) S1 0.155 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period) SMS 0.635 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SM1 0.338 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 0.423 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA SD1 0.225 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Type Value Description SDC D Seismic design category Fa 1.45 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second Fv 2.18 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second PGA 0.154 MCEG peak ground acceleration FPGA 1.491 Site amplification factor at PGA PGAM 0.23 Site modified peak ground acceleration TL 6 Long-period transition period in seconds SsRT 0.438 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) SsUH 0.423 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration SsD 1.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) S1RT 0.155 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) S1UH 0.145 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration. S1D 0.6 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second) PGAd 0.6 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) PGAUH 0.154 Uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Peak Ground Acceleration CRS 1.035 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods CR1 1.068 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s CV Vertical coefficient Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you — should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: •not prepared for you, •not prepared for your project, •not prepared for the specific site explored, or •completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: •the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, •elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, •composition of the design team, or •project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly— from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report.Those recommendations are not final,because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual Important Information About Your Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. Geotechnical Engineering Report The following information is provided to help you manage your risks. subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely.Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures.If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045.0M