Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical InvestigationCTLITHOIVIPSON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING SPENCER PARKWAY AND SIPPRELLE DRIVE BATTLEMENT MESA, COLORADO Prepared For: GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT 501 Airport Road Rifle, CO 81650 Attention: Mr. Don Stevens Project No. GS05679-125 234 Center Drive I Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970-945-2809 Fax: 970-945-7411 October 2, 2012 020000 - 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE 1 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4 SITE DEVELOPMENT 5 Excavation 5 Structural Fill 6 Pavement Subgrade 7 Foundation Backfill 8 STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS 9 Footings on Natural Gravel 9 Mat Foundation 10 SEISMIC DESIGN 11 BASEMENT AND SLAB -ON -GRADE 11 BELOW -GRADE WALLS 13 FOUNDATION DRAIN 13 SURFACE DRAINAGE 14 PAVEMENT 14 EARTH RETAINING WALLS 16 MSE Structures 17 Reinforced Concrete Walls 17 CONCRETE 17 DESIGN CONSULTATION AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS 18 GEOTECHNICAL RISK 19 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING 19 LIMITATIONS 19 FIGURE 1 — LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND VICINITY MAP FIGURES 2 AND 3 — SUMMARY LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 4 —WEST — EAST CROSS-SECTION FIGURE 5 — EXTERIOR FOUNDATION WALL DRAIN GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL I T PROJECT NO. 6505679-i25 51G505579.000N 2542. Repar1MG505879 125 R1.doc 020000-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) FIGURE 6 - RECOMMENDED ROCK WALL SCHEDULE FIGURE 7 -- TYPICAL EARTH RETAINING WALL DRAIN APPENDIX A - LABORATORY TEST RESULTS APPENDIX B - PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX C - TYPICAL PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT DAV LENIENT MOB CTL 1 T PROJECT NO, 0505679-125 S:1GS05519.000112512. ReporlslGS05674 125 R1.doc 020000 - 3 SCOPE This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the planned Grand River Hospital District, Battlement Medical Office Building (MOB) east of the intersection of Spencer Parkway and Sipprelle Drive in Battlement Mesa, Colorado. We conducted this investigation to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed construction. The scope was described in our Proposal (DN 12-0434) dated August 15, 2012. This report was based on our field investigation findings, laboratory data, engineering analysis and experience with similar construction. This report includes a description of the subsurface conditions found in our exploratory borings, results of laboratory testing, and our opinions and recommendations regarding excavations, below -grade walls, subsurface drain systems, foundations, floor systems, pavements and details influenced by the subsoils. We should be informed if the proposed construction differs from descriptions in the report to allow us to check whether our recommendations remain appropriate. Detailed design criteria are presented within the report. A brief summary of our conclusions and recommendations is presented below. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. Proposed construction will consist of a two-level building with ground level access at the east and west ends, The lower level will "walkout" on the west (downhill) side. Foundation walls will retain earth in the eastern portion of the building. Parking and drive areas are planned adjacent to the structure. 2. Subsoils found in our exploratory borings consisted of about 6 inches of topsoil above about 2.5 to 7 feet of clay or silt underlain by gravel in a clay -silt matrix with basalt boulders. Drilling refusal occurred in all holes drilled deeper than ten feet. Our borings indicated the gravel surface is near or above an elevation of about 5473 feet in the building footprint. GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL j T PROJECT NO. G505679-125 53GSOS574.909412542. Reports4GS95579125 R1.doo 1 020000 - 4 3. Groundwater was not encountered in our borings the day of drilling. We cased TH-3 and TH-7 with PVC pipe to allow further measurements. No water was found in TH-3 or TH-7 when checked 21 days after drilling. 4. Our subsurface information indicates that natural gravel in a clay -silt matrix will likely be exposed in the majority of the excavation at the planned floor elevation of approximately 5474 feet. The structure can be constructed on footing foundations supported on the undisturbed, natural gravels or densely compacted fill. A mat foundation is an alternative to reduce potential settlement. Subexcavation of 5 feet of soil below the foundations and floors is an alternative to reduce the potential for foundation movement. We can assess the risk of potential settlement during excavation. Design and construction criteria are presented in the report. 5. We judge the risk of poor performance of a slab -on -grade lower floor placed on the natural gravel is low. If a mat foundation option is chosen the mat will be the lower level floor slab. 6. Below -grade walls are planned on the eastern portion of the structure. Recommendations for below -grade walls are presented in the report. 7. Parking and drive areas may be constructed with asphalt or concrete pavement. Recommendations are presented in the report. 8. Surface drainage should be designed, constructed, and maintained to direct surface runoff away from the foundation. We recommend a foundation drain along the entire below -grade perimeter. SITE CONDITIONS The structure will be located east of the intersection of Spencer Parkway and Sipprelle Drive in Battlement Mesa. The site is currently vacant. Overall ground surface slopes down to the west at a grade of about 15 percent. A vicinity map of the project location is included on Figure 1. A masonry building is located south of Sipprelle Drive. Properties to the east, west and north are vacant. A school is located further east. GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL 1 T PROJECT NO. G505679-125 S:1GS05679.000Y12512. Repor1s1GS05G79 125 iRt.doc 2 020000 - 5 Some increase in subsurface moisture must be assumed due to the effects of site development. We compared moisture content and dry density verses collapse potential based on a rating system described in "Engineering Geology 14, Collapsible Soils in Colorado" (see Figure A-6). Based on the rating system, the soils exhibit moderate to high collapse potential. Samples tested in our laboratory exhibited low to nil collapse when wetted under loads of 500 psf. Based on our experience in the area, laboratory testing and published data, we consider the upper soils at this site to have collapse potential. Engineered design of foundations, slabs -on -grade, pavements and surface drainage can mitigate the effects of collapse -prone soils. We also found one sample of moderately expansive clay. As part of our assessment of potential risk, we visited the site and observed the condition of nearby structures. The masonry building to the south has some hairline cracking in walls and exposed foundation grade beams. The cracks are cosmetic, and we suspect they do not indicate "structural issues." The school to the south also has some very minor cracking. We spoke with the Garfield County Building Department and the Battlement Mesa HOA regarding performance of structures in Battlement Mesa. Our understanding is that building performance has been good; we are not aware of any foundation repairs that have been performed due to soil movement in Battlement Mesa, The on-site soils are prone to caving. Earth retention systems may be necessary to brace or shore the excavations where safe excavation side slopes cannot be achieved. We can provide earth retention system designs, if desired. SITE DEVELOPMENT Excavation Our subsurface information indicates that excavations to construct the structure will likely extend through most of the existing clay or silt and into the gravel GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL IT PROJECT NO. G505679-125 5t4G505679.00M125Y2. Reporte4GS05579125 R1.dnc 5 020000 - 8 with cobbles and boulders. Excavations at this site can likely be accomplished using conventional, heavy-duty excavation equipment. Basalt boulders will likely be encountered. We expect that excavations can be laid back to safe slopes. Sides of temporary excavations should be sloped or braced to meet local, state and federal safety requirements. We believe the natural gravels will probably classify as Type C soils based on Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards governing excavations. The day and silt soils in excavations may classify as Type B or Type C soils. Temporary slopes should be no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) in Type C soils and 1:1 in Type B soils according to OSHA requirements. Contractors are responsible for classifying soils found in excavations and for providing safe and stable excavations. Structural Fill We were provided with a preliminary site plan. it appears that cut depths and fill thickness of about 6 feet may be required to achieve grades for the parking and drive areas. The majority of required earthwork will be excavation to attain grades for the building lower level. Existing structures, pavements, utilities, and fill, if encountered, should be removed and replaced with compacted fill. We judge the clay and silt soils found near the ground surface to have potential for both collapse and expansion when wetted. The clay soils should be removed from beneath the building footprint and to a depth of at least 2 feet below exterior flatwork where less than 2 feet of fill is planned. All fill beneath the buildings should be constructed of silty to clayey sand or sand and gravel. These soils will compact into a high strength subgrade. Structural fill should be constructed with suitable on site gravel or imported sand (or sand and gravel) with 100 percent finer than 3 inches and between 15 and 30 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Occasional cobbles up to 6 inches are acceptable for fill below the building provided they are not nested together. Rock larger than 3 inches should not be used in the top 18 inches GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOE3 CTL I T PROJECT NO, G305619-125 S:lGS05679.00OS12542. RepnrtskGS05679 125 R1,doc 6 020000 - 9 below the floor to avoid problems with excavation of utilities. We recommend that a CDOT Class 6 aggregate base course be imported for use as the upper one foot of structural fill below interior slabs. Samples of soils proposed for import for structural fill should be submitted to our office for approval prior to transporting to the site. Placement and compaction of fill should be observed and tested by a representative of our firm during construction. The quality of construction of the fills is critical to the performance of floor slabs. The structural fill should be placed in maximum 8 inch thick loose lifts at a moisture content within 2 percent of optimum and compacted to at least 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). Pavement Subgrade Existing structures, pavements, utilities, and fill should be removed from below pavements. Due to the collapse or expansion potential of the natural clay or silt soils, we recommend moisture treatment of the subgrade. We recommend removal and replacement of at least 2 feet of the natural clay or silt below pavements, moisture treatment, and replacement. Prior to fill placement, we recommend scarifying the excavation bottom and soaking the scarified soil with water. The soaked subgrade should be left overnight then soaked again the next clay and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density. The 2 foot removal can include the thickness of the aggregate base course section below asphaltic pavement. Fill below pavement should be placed in loose lifts of 8 inches thick or less, moisture treated within 2 percent of optimum, and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density. Our representative should be called to check density and moisture content during placement. Additional specifications for moisture treated subgrade are included in Appendix B. GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL 1 T PROJECT NO. GSO5679-125 51G505679.500112542. Repor1s;G505679 125 R1,dac 7 020000 - 10 Foundation Backfill Backfill will be required between foundation walls and the excavation face. Proper placement and compaction of foundation backfill is important to reduce infiltration of surface water and settlement of backfill. Ground surface settlement of more than 1 percent of the backfill thickness is common adjacent to foundation walls. Backfill will settle. Any improvements placed on backfill should be designed for movement. Properly compacted sand backfill may settle about 1/2 to 1 percent of the fill depth. Structures placed over backfill zones will need to be designed to accommodate differential movement with respect to the building. The on-site soils are generally suitable for reuse as backfill provided they are substantially free of debris, organics, and other deleterious material. Soil particles larger than 3 inches in diameter should not be used for backfill. If imported fill for general use is necessary, it should consist of sand having a maximum particle size of 2 inches, less than 50 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, a liquid limit less than 30 and plasticity index less than 15. Potential fill materials should be submitted to our office for testing and approval prior to import. Backfill should be placed in loose lifts of approximately 10 -inch thickness or Tess, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted. Thickness of lifts will likely need to be about 6 inches if there are small confined areas of backfill, which limit the size and weight of compaction equipment. The backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698). Moisture content and density of the backfill should be checked during placement by a representative of our firm. Observation of the compaction procedure is necessary. Testing without observation can lead to undesirable performance. The structural engineer should consider the need for temporary bracing of foundation walls during backfill placement. GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL I T PROJECT NO. GS05674-125 5:1G505579.000112512. ReporisIGS05673 i25 R1.doc 8 020000 - 11 STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS Our subsurface information indicates that the natural gravel with cobbles and boulders will likely be encountered at the majority of the planned foundation elevations. A conceptual cross-section is shown on Figure 4. Some areas of the excavation may not expose the natural gravel. Clay or silt soils encountered in the excavation bottom should be removed and replaced with densely compacted granular structural fill. Prior to forming for concrete, we recommend soaking the excavation bottom with water. The soaked excavation bottom should be left overnight then soaked again the next day and compacted to at least 98 percents of standard Proctor maximum dry density. A positive alternative to reduce the potential for movement of footing foundation is to overexcavate 5 feet below the foundation and floors, moisture treat the soil to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compact the moisture treated soils to at least 98 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density. We can assess the merits of this procedure further based on conditions exposed during excavation. We recommend that contract documents provide an alternative for this over -excavation. It is likely the process would generate significant rock. The structure may be supported on footing foundations. A mat foundation is an alternative which would reduce the potential for movement. Completed foundation excavations should be observed by our representative to confirm that conditions are appropriate for the foundation as designed. Foundations should be designed and constructed using the following criteria. Footings on Natural Gravel 1. Footings supported on the undisturbed, natural gravel or densely compacted structural fill should be designed for a maximum allowable soil pressure of 4,000 psf. Clay or silt soil exposed at footing grades should be removed and replaced with densely compacted fill. Soils loosened during excavation or the forming process for the footings should be removed or re -compacted prior to placing concrete. This GRANO RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL, 1 T PROJECT NO. GS05679-125 S:5GSO5679.0001125 2_ Repor s4GS0.5679 125 R1.doc 9 020000 - 12 pressure can be increased 33 percent for short -duration live load combination such as from wind and earthquake. It is likely that removal of cobble and boulders at the base of the excavation will create an irregular surface. If irregular depressions develop as a result of boulder removal, they can be filled with densely compacted Class 6 aggregate base course or the on-site gravel soils, provided any 3 -inch plus materials are removed. 2. For lateral load resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.50 can be used between cast -in-place footings and the natural gravel. This assumes ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain. 3. Continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches. Foundations for isolated columns should have minimum dimensions of 24 inches by 24 inches. Larger sizes may be required, depending upon foundation Toads. 4. Grade beams and foundation walls should be well reinforced, top and bottom. We recommend reinforcement sufficient to span an unsupported distance of at least 10 feet. Reinforcement should be designed by the structural engineer. 5. The soils under exterior footings should be protected from freezing. We recommend the bottom of footings be constructed ata depth of at least 36 inches below finished exterior grades. Mat Foundation 1. We anticipate construction of a mat foundation would be bottomed at about elevation 5472 feet. 2. We anticipate that the total applied Toad averaged across the entire mat will be 2,000 psf or less. To develop design for reinforcement patterns at locations of isolated Toads or along foundation wall (line loads) we suggest assuming an allowable soil pressure of 4,000 psf at the base of the mat. 3. The excavation process will likely encounter boulders and cobbles and could be relatively rough at the end of the primary excavation. Areas of clay soil at the bottom of the excavation should be removed. If irregular depressions develop as a result of boulder removal, they can be filled with densely compacted Class 6 aggregate base course or the on-site gravel soils, provided any 3 -inch plus materials are removed. GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL I T PROJECT NO. G505679-125 S:iG S05679.0 0 011 2 512. Reports1GS05679 125 RI .doc 10 020000 - 13 4. The mat may need to be subdivided into numerous sub -sections to allow placement of reasonable volumes of concrete when constructing the foundation. We suggest that these areas be determined during the design stage to develop specific water -stop details and to avoid cold joints in areas of concentrated load or areas where there would be large load differentials. This is recommended to help reduce potential leakage problems at the cold joints. 5. When analyzing sliding characteristics of the foundation to resist lateral Toads, we recommend using a coefficient of friction between the foundation and the soil of 0.50. 6. Finite element analytical programs will likely be used to proportion reinforcement in the mat. Soil is modeled as a "spring constant" when using this type of analysis. We believe a suitable design value for the coefficient of subgrade reaction (spring constant) is 250 pci. 7. Utilities which penetrate the mat foundation (if any) will need to be detailed so that movement of the mat is not transferred to the utility line. The mat foundation and utility pipe penetration need to be able to move separately. SEISMIC DESIGN Based on our subsurface information, the natural gravels at the site result in a site Class C for design of the building to resist the effects of earthquake motions. We do not believe the upper clays will be considered in the structural analysis of seismic affects. Our experience indicates that correlations with standard penetration resistance tests and undrained shear strength usually result in conservative estimates of shear wave velocity. BASEMENT AND SLAB -ON -GRADE We judge the risk of poor performance of a slab -on -grade lower floor is low at this site provided the clay or silty soils are removed from below the slab. We recommend the following precautions. 1. Slabs should be placed directly on the exposed subsoils or properly moisture conditioned, compacted fill. The 2003 International Building Code (IBC) requires a vapor retarder be placed between base course or GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL 1T PROJECT NO. GS05679-125 S:GS05679.000112S 2. Reports\GS06679 S25 Ri.doc 11 020000 - 14 subgrade soils and the concrete slab -on -grade floor. The merits of installation of a vapor retarder below floor slabs depend on the sensitivity of floor coverings and building use to moisture. A properly installed vapor retarder (10 mil minimum) is more beneficial below concrete slab -on -grade floors where floor coverings, painted floor surfaces, or products stored on the floor will be sensitive to moisture. The vapor retarder is most effective when concrete is placed directly on top of it, rather than placing a sand or gravel leveling course between the vapor retarder and the floor slab. Placement of concrete on the vapor retarder may increase the risk of shrinkage cracking and curling. Use of concrete with reduced shrinkage characteristics including minimized water content, maximized coarse aggregate content, and reasonably low slump will reduce the risk of shrinkage cracking and curling. Considerations and recommendations for the installation of vapor retarders below concrete slabs are outlined in Section 3.2.3 of the 2006 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 302, "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction (ACI 302.R-96)". 2. Conventional slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing members with a slip joint that allows free vertical movement of the slabs. 3. Underslab plumbing should be thoroughly pressure tested during construction for Teaks and be provided with flexible couplings. Gas and waterlines leading to slab -supported appliances should be constructed with flexibility. 4. interior partition walls can be supported on the slab. If any non -load bearing masonry walls are planned, they can be supported on a thickened slab. 5, Plumbing and utilities that pass through slabs should be isolated from the slabs. 6. Exterior flatwork can be doweled into foundations at this site to help avoid damage due to backfill settlement. 7. Frequent control joints should be provided in conventional slabs -on - grade to reduce problems associated with shrinkage cracking and curling. Panels that are approximately square generally perform better than rectangular areas. We suggest an additional joint about 3 feet away from and parallel to foundation walls. GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL 1T PROJECT NO. GS05679-125 S:4GS05679.000025i2. Reports4G505579 125 R1.dot 12 020000 - 15 BELOW -GRADE WALLS We understand the below -grade walls at the east side will retain about 15 feet of soil. Basement andlor foundation walls and grade beams that extend below grade should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures where backfill is not present to about the same extent on both sides of the wall. Many factors affect the value of the design lateral earth pressure. These factors include, but are not limited to, the type, compaction, slope and drainage of the backfill, and the rigidity of the wall against rotation and deflection. For a very rigid wall where negligible or very little deflection will occur, an "at -rest" lateral earth pressure should be used in design. For walls that can deflect or rotate 0.5 to 1 percent of the wall height (depending upon the backfill types), lower "active" lateral earth pressures are appropriate. Our experience indicates basement walls can deflect or rotate slightly under normal design Toads, and that this deflection typically does not affect the structural integrity of the walls. Thus, the earth pressure on the walls will likely be between the "active" and "at -rest" conditions. If on-site soils are used as backfill and the backfill is not saturated, we recommend design of basement walls at this site using an equivalent fluid density of at least 50 pcf, This value assumes deflection; some minor cracking of walls may occur. If very little wall deflection is desired, a higher design value (60 pcf) is appropriate. The structural engineer should consider the need for temporary bracing during backfill placement. FOUNDATION DRAIN To reduce the likelihood water pressure will develop outside foundation walls and the risk of accumulation of water at basement level; we recommend a foundation drain around the entire below -grade perimeter. The provision of drain will not eliminate slab movement or prevent moist conditions. The drain should consist of a 4 -inch diameter, perforated or slotted pipe encased in free -draining gravel. The drain GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL 1 T PROJECT NO. GS05679-125 S:5G505679.000112512. Reports5GSD5679125 R1.doc 13 020000 - 16 should lead to a gravity outlet. A typical foundation drain detail is presented on Figure 5. SURFACE DRAINAGE Performance of foundations, slab -on -grade, exterior concrete flatwork, and pavement is influenced by the moisture conditions existing within the foundation or subgrade soils. Overall surface drainage should be designed to provide rapid runoff of surface water away from the proposed building and off of pavements. Roof drain outlets should discharge beyond backfill zones or into appropriate sewer outlets. Landscaped areas should be planned to reduce the amount of moisture applied to the ground surface adjacent to the building. Backfill around foundation walls should be moistened and compacted as outlined in the report. PAVEMENT The near -surface soils below this site have the potential for settlement or expansion when wetted. The clay or silt soils classify as A-6 or A-7-5 with the AASHTO classification system and had group indices of 5 to 12. Recommendations for moisture treatment of the subgrade soils in the Pavement Suberade section should be followed For our pavement design, we used an R -value of 15 for the subgrade soils. We expect relatively lightly loaded pavements except in truck turning and loading areas. We used an Estimated Daily Load Application (EDLA) of 10 for parking areas and 20 for access drives. If the anticipated traffic loads are considerably different than those assumed, we should be informed so that we can review our recommendations. Based on our calculations, we recommend the following minimum pavement sections. GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL I T PROJECT NO. GS05679-125 S:4GS05675.000412512. ReporislGS05679 125 R1,doc 14 020000 - 17 Pavement Classification Asphaltic* Concrete + Base Course with Fabric Portland Cement Concrete Automobile Parking 3" + 6" 5"" Access Drives 4" + 8" 6" * A geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 600X, or equivalent, is recommended between the clay or silt soils and base course. We are available to discuss the merits of the fabric based on soil conditions, and conditions found during subgrade preparation. Our experience indicates problems with asphalt pavements can occur in areas where heavy trucks drive and turn at low speeds. in areas of concentrated loading and turning movements by heavy trucks, such as entrances and dumpster pads, we recommend Portland cement concrete pavement. We recommend 6 -inch or thicker portland cement concrete pads be constructed at areas where trucks will stop or turn. The concrete pads should be Targe enough to accommodate the entire truck. The design of a pavement system is as much a function of the quality of the paving materials and construction as the support characteristics of the subgrade. The quality of each construction material is reflected by the strength coefficient used in the pavement design calculations. If the pavement system is constructed of interior material, then the life and serviceability of the pavement will be substantially reduced. We have included construction guidelines for flexible and rigid pavements in Appendix B and a typical maintenance program for pavements in Appendix C. Design of asphaltic concrete assumes a strength coefficient of 0.40. Asphaltic concrete should be relatively impermeable to moisture and designed with crushed aggregates that have a minimum of 80 percent of the aggregate retained on the No. 4 sieve. Routine maintenance, such as sealing and repair of cracks and overlays at 5 to 7 -year intervals, are necessary to achieve Tong -term performance of an asphalt system. We recommend application of a rejuvenating sealant such as fog seal after GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL 1 T PROJECT NO. GS05679-125 S:YGS05679.000112512. RepartsyGS05679 125 R1.dac 15 020000 - 18 the first year. Deferring maintenance usually results in accelerated deterioration leading to higher future maintenance costs. Our rigid pavement design is based on a modulus of rupture of 650 psi for portland cement concrete. We recommend concrete contain a minimum of 610 pounds of cement per cubic yard and between 5 and 7 percent entrained air. A mix design should be prepared for this project using the aggregate and cement that will be used during construction. Control joints should separate concrete pavements into panels as recommended by ACI. No de-icing salts should be used on paving concrete for at least one year after placement. A primary cause of early pavement deterioration is water infiltration into the pavement system. The addition of moisture usually results in softening of base course and subgrade and the eventual failure of the pavement. We recommend drainage be designed for rapid removal of surface runoff from pavement surfaces. Final grading should be carefully controlled so that design cross -slope is maintained and low spots in the subgrade which could trap water are eliminated. Portland cement concrete drainage pans with subsurface drains should be considered in areas where water will be flowing across pavement surfaces. EARTH RETAINING WALLS We understand that earth retaining walls will be constructed. We consider boulder walls (or boulder faced slopes) to be landscaping features with little capacity to resist lateral earth loads and movements. We recommend other types of earth retaining systems, such as mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) structures or reinforced concrete retaining walls at this site. If boulder walls are desired, they should be constructed as a rock buttress. A recommended rock wall schedule is shown on Figure 6. GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL 1 7 PROJECT NO. GS05679-125 S1GS05679.000112512. Reports1GS05674 125 Rt.doc 16 020000 - 19 MSE Structures MSE structures consist of a reinforced soil zone comprised of horizontal layers of backfill and geogrid reinforcement. The reinforced zone essentially acts like a gravity wall structure to retain soils. This type of system is well-suited for the construction of fill embankments. Design is dependent on specific material properties of the geogrid reinforcement and wall facing. We can provide designs for MSE structures. Reinforced Concrete Walls Reinforced concrete retaining walls that are attached to the building should be constructed on the same foundation system that is used for the building. Retaining wall foundations shall be designed with criteria presented in the FOUNDATIONS section. Retaining walls which can rotate should be designed to resist "active" lateral earth pressures calculated using an equivalent fluid density of at least 40 pcf. Retaining walls with reinforcement that is tied into building foundation walls, that are not free to rotate, should be designed using an equivalent fluid density of at least 50 pcf. These pressures do not include allowances for sloping backfill or hydrostatic pressures. Backfill behind retaining walls and in front of retaining wall footings should be placed and compacted as outlined in the Foundation Backfill section. Drains are required to control hydrostatic pressures behind retaining walls. A typical earth retaining wall drain detail is shown on Figure 7. The drains should lead to positive gravity outlets or be provided with weep holes. CONCRETE Concrete in contact with soil can be subject to sulfate attack. We measured water soluble sulfate concentrations of 0.00 to 0.02 percent at this site. These values indicate the soils exhibit negligible water-soluble sulfate concentration and indicate GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL 1 T PROJECT NO. 6505679.125 S:1G565675.606112542. Reports1G5u5579 125 R1.doc 17 020000 - 20 Class 0 exposure to sulfate attack for concrete in contact with the subsoils, according to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Guide To Durable Concrete (ACI 201.2R-01). For this level of sulfate concentration, ACI indicates any type of cement can be used for concrete in contact with the subsoils. Superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of highly permeable concrete, even though sulfate levels are relatively low. To control this risk and to resist freeze -thaw deterioration, the water-to- cementitious material ratio should not exceed 0.50 for concrete in contact with soils that are likely to stay moist. Concrete should have a total air content of 6 percent ± 1.5 percent. DESIGN CONSULTATION AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Grand River Hospital District and your design team. The information, conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based upon the considerations of many factors including, but not limited to, the type of structure proposed, the configuration of the structure, the geologic setting, and the subsurface conditions encountered. The conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are not valid for use by others. It is recommended that CTL 1 Thompson, Inc. be retained to provide general review of the construction plans. Our firm should be retained to provide geotechnical engineering and material testing during construction. The purpose is to observe the construction with respect to the geotechnical design concepts, specifications or recommendations, and to facilitate design changes in areas where the subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. If another firm provides construction observation and testing services, they must assume the responsibility to assess conditions exposed, and identify measures which are necessary to respond to conditions which are not consistent with this report. GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL j T PROJECT NO. GS05679.125 S:4GS055T9.000112512, ReportsYG505679 125 R1.doc 18 020000 - 21 GEOTECHN1CAL RISK The concept of risk is an important aspect of any geotechnical evaluation. The primary reason for this is that the analytical methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. The analytical tools which geotechnical engineers use are generally empirical and must be tempered by engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions or recommendations presented in arty geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free and, more importantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and the proposed structure will perform as desired or intended. The recommendations constitute those measures that are necessary to help the structure perform satisfactorily. The designer, builder, and currentifuture owners must understand this concept of risk, as it is they who must decide what is an acceptable level of risk for the proposed construction on the site. CONSTRUCTION MONITORING This project will involve many activities which should be monitored during the construction phase by our firm. Construction observation and testing will be required for earthwork, concrete, steel and masonry construction. When building plans are further developed and the construction schedule and quantities are defined, we can work with the design team and contractor to develop an appropriate scope of services and budget for construction observation and testing. LIMITATIONS Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated by our borings will occur. The recommendations contained in this report were developed based on development plans at the time of our investigation. We should participate in design team meetings as plans become more detailed, so that we can provide geotechnical engineering input. GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL 1 T PROJECT NO, GS05679-125 5:1G505679.DDOS12512. Reports4G505679 125 Rtdoc 19 020000 - 22 This investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by geotechnical engineers currently practicing under similar conditions in the locality of this project. No warranty, express or implied, is made. If we can be of further service In discussing the contents of this report, please call. Very Truly Yours CTL 1 THOMPSON, INq. r i+ Craig A. 3Jr r, P.E. Project M-Apag~r Reviewed by: E0,,$O wl� cvvti� Ronald M. McOmber, P.E., D.GE Chairman & CEO CAS:RMM:cd cc: via email to dst©venspcirhd.ory, matt sci-denver.com; and darren.Iaging(a)davispartnership.ccom GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT I3f TTLE,MENT MOB CTL T PROJECT NO GS05579•125 S 1CSOS679 COCit2S7 i7cper/005-95679 12S 171 doz 20 020000 - 23 G505679_12 10/02/12 (RW SCALE: 1"= 100' NOTE: Locations of exploratory borings are approximate. Grand Hirer Hospital District Battlement Meal Mab Protect No. 0805679-125 Vicinity Map SCALE: I'm 10,000' Locations of Exploratory Borings 020000 - 24 Fl0. 1 Elevation In Feet -- 5490 -- 5485 MEM -- 5480 MINN --- 5475 elms 5470 �--- 5465 r- - 5460 TH-1 EL=5486 TH-2 EL=54 A E RIME - 5455 Project No. G505679-125 TH-8 EL -5487 :26/12 32/12 5490 5485 5480 5475 m 0 3 5470 5465 5460 5455 020000-2 19. 2 LEGEND: r Sandy clay "topsoil". gyratory boring was drilled on ;r 4, 2012 with 4—inch diameter, 11 auger and a track—mounted Clay, sandy or silt, sd slightly moist to dry, of the exploratory borings are ate. Elevations of the exploratory Gravel in a clay—silt ire based on a level survey using very dense, slightly rOnhole rim with an elevation of brown. (GM, GC) feet above mean sea level. Basalt boulder ground water was found In our ry boring at the time of drilling. gyratory boring is subject to the rns, limitations and conclusions tied in this report. Project No. G505679-125 020000 - 211B. 3 - 0000zo Battlement Mesa MOB West -East Conceptual Cross Section a ) 5.53 C 5.52 Q. 5.51 (1) 5.50 5.49 5.48 5.47 ..,...... 5.46 -. Plan elevation (feet) (x Lower level floor -5474 5.45 5.44 5.43 Battlement MOB Clay Natural Gravel 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 Project No. GS05679-125 Distance (feet) Figure 4 SLOPE PER REPORT BELOW -GRADE WALL SLOPE PER OSHA BACKFlLL ATTACH PLASTIC SHEETING TO FOUNDATION WALL SLIP JOINT COVER ENTIRE WIDTH OF GRAVEL WITH NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (MIRAFA 140N OR EQUIVALENT). ROOFING FELT IS AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. , "•;►�,:. fir' Ta DRIJN 2" MINIMUM FOOTING OR PAD 8" MINIMUM OR BEYOND 1:1 SLOPE FROM BOTTOM OF FOOTING (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) 4 -INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED RIGID DRAIN PIPE. THE PIPE SHOULD BE PLACED IN A TRENCH WITH A SLOPE OF AT LEAST 1/8 -INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN. ENCASE PIPE IN 1/2" TO 1-1/2" WASHED GRAVEL EXTEND GRAVEL LATERALLY TO FOOTING AND AT LEAST 1/2 HEIGHT OF FOOTING. FILL ENTIRE TRENCH WITH GRAVEL. NOTE: THE BOTTOM OF THE DRAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST 2 INCHES BELOW BOTTOM OF FOOTING AT THE HIGHEST POINT AND SLOPE DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. Grand Enver Hospital District Batttem©nt Masa MOB Project No. GS05579-125 Exterior Foundation Wall Drain 020000 28 Fig. 5 TABLE A RECOMMENDED ROCK WALL SCHEDULE WALL HEIGHT, Ha (ABOVE GRADE) WALL BACKFILL SLOPE WALL BASE WIDTH,(Wb WALL TOP WIDTH, Wt WALL EMBEDMENT DEPTH He 4 LEVEL 4 2 2 4 4:1 5 2 2 3 LEVEL 3 1.5 2 3 4:1 3.5 2 2 2.5 LEVEL 2.5 1.5 1 2.5 4:1 3 1.5 1.5 r 2 LEVEL 2 1 , 1 2 4:1 2 1 1 1 LEVEL 1 1 0.5 — 1 4:1 1 1 0.5 COVER GRAVEL WITH MIRAFH 140N OR EQUIVALENT ENCASE PIPE IN WASHED CONCRETE AGGREGATE (ASTM C33, NO. 57 OR NO. 67) COMPACTED ON—SITE CLAY SOIL Wt COMPACTED ON—SITE CLAY SOIL 1 Wb 3 OR 4—INCH PERFORATED DRAIN RIGID PIPE. PIPE SHOULD BE PLACED IN TRENCH WITH SLOPE RANGING BETWEEN 1/8—INCH AND 1/4—INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN. DISCHARGE TO POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. Grand River Hospital District Battlement Mena MOB Protect No. GS05679-125 Recommended Rock Wall Schedule 020000 - 29 Fig. 6 SLOPE PER OSHA 10 BACKFILL WITH CLAYEY SOIL. BACKFILL ON-SITE MATERIALS 12" MIN. 2' PROVIDE DRAINAGE MATERIAL CONSISTING OF MIRADRAIN 0200N OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT, OR GRAVEL LAYER CONSISTING OF WASHED CONCRETE AGGREGATE (ASTM C33. NO. 57 OR NO. 67). RETAINING WALL WEEP HOLES. SPACED 10 FEET ON -CENTER REINFORCING STEEL PER STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. Grand River Hospital District Battlement Mesa MOB GROUND SURFAC OR PAVEMENT Project No. GS05679-125 SCREEN OR COARSE GRAVEL OVER HOLE »--�- FOOTING OR OTHER TYPE FOUNDATION Typical Earth Retaining Wall Drain 020000 F. 7 APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS GRANO RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT BATTLEMENT MOB CTL IT PROJECT NO. GS05679.125 5:Y G505679.000%12542. RepoAs1GS05679 125 R1.doc 020000 - 31 COMPRESSION % EXPANSION 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 -2 -3 •4 -5 -6 -7 -B 0.1 ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) From TH 3 AT 4 FEET Grand River Hospital District Grand River Hospital District Battlement MOB PROJECT NO. GS05679-125 S:4G$115679.000412546. Cates4Swek1 G505679.125.xIs 1,0 10 100 DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 74 PCF MOISTURE CONTENT= 17.2 Swell Consolidation Test Results 020000 - 32 FIG. A- 1 COMPRESSION % EXPANSION 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -a EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING 0.1 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSP Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) From TH 6 AT 4 FEET Grand River Hospital District Grand River Hospital District Battlement MOB PROJECT NO. GS05679-125 S:1GS05679.000112516. CalcslSwell GS05679-125.xls 10 10 DRY UNIT WEIGHT= MOISTURE CONTENT= 100 94 PCP 6.3 % Swell Consolidation Test Results 020000 - 33 FIG. A - 2 COMPRESSION °I° EXPANSION -a EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 105 PCF From TH 7 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT= 7.7 % Grand River Hospital District Grand River Hospital District Battlement MOB PROJECT NO. G505679.125 S:lGS05679.6094125%. CaIc54Swell GS65679.125.xIs Swell Consolidation Test Results 020000 - 34 FIG. A - 3 Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CO From TH -1 AT 6"-5 FEET GRAVEL 2 % SAND SILT & CLAY 84 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX 14 % 32 % 14 % HYDROMETER ANALYSIS [ SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 20 HR. 7 NR TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN. 15 MIN, 60 MIN. 19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 '40 '30 '16 '10 '8 '4 3.1' 3/4' 1W 3" 5"8" a" 100 0 I �n 90 _ -...._..........— to - u- o o m p p n o o C a < 0 PERCENT RETAINED 80 1,7 70 ia i 60 .. E'- CC I- 59 59 50 tx 4t 0- � U cc A0 30 80 _. • A.005tA.005 20 100 •001 0.002 .019 .037 .074 .149 297 .590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 15,1 36.1 76'2 127 200 0.42 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT -PLASTIC( SANDS GRAVEL (PLASTIC) (NON 1 Fi11E MEDIUM COARSE 10 8 LL . p .001 0.002 .005 .009 .0 9 .037 .074 .149 .297 .590 1 1 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 35.1 76 2 121 200 0.52 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT SANDS GRAVEL (PLASTIC) (NON -PLASTIC) FINE I MEDIUM COARSE FINE -1 COARSE ['COBBLES Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CO From TH -1 AT 6"-5 FEET GRAVEL 2 % SAND SILT & CLAY 84 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX 14 % 32 % 14 % Sample of CLAY, SANDY ICL) From TI -1- 5 AT 6"-5 FEET Grand River Hospital Districl Grand River Hospital District Battlemenl MOB PROJECT NO. GS05679-125 S:4GS05679.0000 2516. Cates\Gradation GS05679-125 GRAVEL 0 % SAND SILT & CLAY 94 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX Gradation Test Results 6°/o 30 % 14 °/n FIG. A-4 020000 - 35 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS [ SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR. 7 HR. TIME HEADINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPEN/NOS 45 MIN, 15 MIN. 55 MIN. 10 MiN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN- `200 '100 '50 '40 '30 '16 '10 '8 -4 3!8" 314` 13" 3 5"6' 6' ion PERCENT PASSING 0 J. O 0 0 O 0 0 C 1 20 30 S 40 r„ CC I- 59 59 � U cc 80 • A.005tA.005 _ 100 •001 0.002 .019 .037 .074 .149 297 .590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 15,1 36.1 76'2 127 200 0.42 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT -PLASTIC( SANDS GRAVEL (PLASTIC) (NON 1 Fi11E MEDIUM COARSE FINE 1 COARSE COBBLES Sample of CLAY, SANDY ICL) From TI -1- 5 AT 6"-5 FEET Grand River Hospital Districl Grand River Hospital District Battlemenl MOB PROJECT NO. GS05679-125 S:4GS05679.0000 2516. Cates\Gradation GS05679-125 GRAVEL 0 % SAND SILT & CLAY 94 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX Gradation Test Results 6°/o 30 % 14 °/n FIG. A-4 020000 - 35 Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) From TH - 8 AT 8"-5 FEET GRAVEL 2 % SAND SILT & CLAY s© % LIQUID LIMIT PLAST/CITY INDEX l HYDROMETER ANALYSIS 1 SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR 7 HR. TIME READINGS U.S, STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60 MiN. 19 MIN. 4 h IN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 '40 '30 '16 '10 8 '4 318' 314" 11,c' 3' 5'6" 6" inn 0 PERCENT PASSING Dac m © w O, O 0 9 n O 1 10 T 20 en 40 iu �— K 50 U ir 50 a 90 - -' .J .. .590 .. - . , . , . --. x001 0.007 005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .14'9 .297 1. 9 2.0 2.38 4,70 9.52 19 1 36.1 76 2 427 200 0.42 152 DIAMETER QF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 100 .001 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .0.:7 .074 .149 .297 .590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.9 36 1 76.2 127 200 0.42 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL TO S1LT SANDS GRAVEL FINE I MEDIUM COARSE FINE 1 COARSE (COBBLES CLAY (PLASTIC} (NON -PLASTIC) FINE 1 MEDIUM 1 COARSE FINE i COARSE J COBBLES Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) From TH - 8 AT 8"-5 FEET GRAVEL 2 % SAND SILT & CLAY s© % LIQUID LIMIT PLAST/CITY INDEX Sample of From Grand River Hospital District Grand Ryer Hospital District Battlement MOB PROJECT NO. GS05679.125 S:\GS05679.000\ 125\6, Calcs\Grada6or, GS05679-125 GRAVEL .................... . SILT & CLAY PLASTICITY INDEX % SAND % LIQUID LIMIT Gradation Test Results 9/a FIG. A- 5 020000 - 36 1 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR. 7 HR. TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SER>ES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60 MIN. 19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 '4D '30 '16 "10 '8 "4 31S" 3/4" 1Y," 3' 5" 6' 8'0 inn PERCENT PASS/NG j q A O o < R U O 4 mo a3 0 A 8 o a p O O Q d O PERCENT RETAINED .590 x001 0.007 005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .14'9 .297 1. 9 2.0 2.38 4,70 9.52 19 1 36.1 76 2 427 200 0.42 152 DIAMETER QF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY (PLASTIC> TO SILT (NDN-PLASTiC) SANDS GRAVEL FINE I MEDIUM COARSE FINE 1 COARSE (COBBLES Sample of From Grand River Hospital District Grand Ryer Hospital District Battlement MOB PROJECT NO. GS05679.125 S:\GS05679.000\ 125\6, Calcs\Grada6or, GS05679-125 GRAVEL .................... . SILT & CLAY PLASTICITY INDEX % SAND % LIQUID LIMIT Gradation Test Results 9/a FIG. A- 5 020000 - 36 LE - OOOOZD Dry Density (pcf) 135 125 115 105 95 85 75 65 0.0 Piot of M -D Data Overlayed on Proposed Collapse -Susceptibility Boundaries Low to no co lapse potential Low to moderate collapse potential • Moderate to high collap e potential T I TT - 5.0 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 Moisture Content (%) Note: proposed collapse -susceptibility boundaries estimated from "Engineering Geology 14, Collapsible Soils in Colorado" Colorado Geologic Survey, 2008. Figure 4-13 Grand River Hospital District Battlement MOB Grand River Hospital District PROJECT NO, GS05679-125 Fig. A - 6 aE - 0000zo TABLE A - I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING PROJECT NO. GS05679-125 BORING DEPTH (FEET) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) ATTERBERG LIMITS SWELL (%) PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (%) SOLUBLE SULFATES , (%) DESCRIPTION LIQUID LIMIT (%) PLASTICITY INDEX (%) TH-1 6"-5' 3,5 32 14 84 0.02 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TI -1-.2 4 12.7 43 11 SILT, SANDY (ML) TH-3 4 17.2 74 -0.1 CLAY, SLIGHTLY SANDY (CL) TH-3 9 5.1 27 8 GRAVEL, CLAYEY (GC) TH-5 6"-S' 3.4 30 14 94 0.00 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-6 4 6.3 94 0.6 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-7 4 7.7 105 4.3 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-8 6"-5' 4.0 31 13 1 80 0.00 CLAY, SANDY (CL) SWELL MEASURED WITH 500 PSF APPLIED PRESSURE, OR ESTIMATED IN-SITU OVERBURDEN PRESSURE. NEGATIVE VALUE INDICATES COMPRESSION. Page 1 of 1