APPENDIX A Geotechnical Report New Maintenance Building · 2019-02-01 · icts the site ing the site ive grasses il present. were drille Simco 280 d by A ... alysis proce eismic even

APPENDIX A

Geotechnical Report – New Maintenance Building

Preliminalive load 200 poupounds p

HISTOR

This TM wastewabuildingssubsurfa

AS

AF

KR

GO

A reviewbeing unappears young R

FIELD S

Two (2) tusing 7-iHT/HS dCorp undlocation with a m Samplingselectedsampler droppedwere rectwo blowWhere rerelativelyoperationtranspor

ary structurafor interior ands per squper lineal fo

RIC INFORM

supplemenater treatmes. The followace condition

AGEC (2007South Valley

AGEC (2008Facility”, Jun

Kleinfelder (2Reclamation

Gerhart ColeOffice and M

w of publicallndeveloped.

to be buriedRussian olive

STUDIES

test holes winch outsidedrill rig. This der subcontof each of tanufacturer

g was perfo intervals towith a 140-repeatedly

corded over w counts (incelatively sofy undisturbens from the rted to our la

al loads BCand perimet

uare foot (psot with an a

MATION

nts prior geoent facility eawing reportsns;

7), Geotechny Sewer Dist

8), Geotechne 5, 2008

2008), Geot Facility”, N

e (2013), “GMaintenance

ly available Imagery frod utilities. Pe trees, beg

were drilled fe diameter (equipment

tract to GC. he test holer-reported a

ormed at relao a depth of -pound autoover a distathe length o

crements) aft fine-graineed soil samp

upper five faboratory fo

A provided ter column lsf) and perimadditional liv

otechnical stast of this sits were review

nical Investitrict”, Septe

nical Consu

technical Invovember 5,

eotechnicale Building”, O

aerial photoom 1997 shPresent vegein to appear

for this studOD) hollow and associa Both test h

es (see Figuccuracy of 1

atively conti42 feet. Sam

omatic trip haance of 18 iof the samp

are added aned soils werples. Bulk sfeet of eachr further tes

included 24loads. Slab meter and sve load of 75

tudies compte and the ewed to prov

gation, “Promber 28, 20

ultation, “Pro

vestigation, 2008

l Study SouOctober 11,

ography, dahows a grouetation at thr in 1997 im

y on Januarstem augerated drillingholes were dre 1) were s16 feet.

inuous intermples wereammer thatnches and b

pler, 24 inchnd presentere observedsamples werh test hole. Csting and cha

4 kip dead loon grade lo

strip footings50 pounds p

pleted for SVexisting officvide addition

oposed Was007

oposed Was

“Proposed

th Valley Se2013

ating back tond disturba

he site, inclumagery and

ry 17, 2018rs and a tru

g services wdrilled to a dsurveyed wi

rvals througe collected bt operates hblow countses, in 6-inch

ed as the N , Shelby tubre taken fromCollected soaracterizing

oad and 36 oads were ss were specper lineal foo

VSD includice and mainnal informat

stewater Tre

stewater Tre

Jordan Bas

ewer Distric

o 1947, depnce travers

uding tall natflourish unt

. Test holesck-mounted

were providedepth of 42 fith a hand-h

h the upperby driving a hydraulicallys are recordh incrementvalue within

bes were pum cuttings f

oil samples wg.

kip dead plspecified to bcified to be 2ot.

ng the ntenance ion for the lo

eatment Fac

eatment

sin Water

ct – District

icts the site ing the site tive grassestil present.

s were drilled Simco 280ed by A Cacfeet. The

held GPS de

r 20 feet andsplit-spoon

y. The hammded. Blow cots. The middn our logs. ushed to colfrom drilling were

2

us be 2,000

ocal

cility

as that s and

ed 00 he

evice

d

mer is ounts dle

llect

Test holeboundartransitiondepths. T Drop conwhere thused wabase diaDCP tesat existeCBR valDCP loc

LAB TES

Laboratoorder to includedconsolid2 and illuAppendi

GEOLOG

A detailestudy (Genvironmpredomilocalizedsand, siltlikely ma

Seismic

The leveby the UBased opresentsresponse(IBC). Sparametadjusted The MCEfrom the as part oground m

es were logries betweenns between Test hole lo

ne penetromhe proposedas a USACEameter of 2st is used toent moisturelue used in ations have

STING

ory testing wfurther class index testination testingustrated in Fx B.

GY

ed discussioGerhart Colement of the pnantly fine-g

d geology ast, clay, and

apped as su

ity

el of ground S Geologican our interp

s seismic dee spectrum

Specifically, tters (USGS,d to account

E geometric2008 proba

of the Nationmotions hav

ged by a GCn different msubsurfacegs included

meter (DCP)d parking anE dual-mas0 mm, and

o evaluate te conditionspavement

e been includ

was performsify them anng (particle-g, and soil sFigure 2 and

on of the geoe, 2013). In prehistoric Lgrained soilss a young agravel depo

uch due to th

shaking expal Survey as

pretation of design paramprocedure (these value, 2018). Acfor any par

c mean peaabilistic seisnal Seismic ving a 2% ch

C engineer materials on e materials md in Appendi

) tests werend pavemenss type pene

a tip-includthe relative s and can bdesign. DCded in Table

med on selecnd evaluate -size distribustrength testd Figure 3. A

ology can bsummary, t

Lake Bonnes with interblluvial depososited in rivehe Jordan R

pected at ths part of thedata from th

meters consis(with 5% da

es were obtaceleration prticular occu

k ground acsmic hazard Hazard Ma

hance of ex

at the time the logs sh

may be gradix A.

e performed nt areas are etrometer wded-angle min-situ stre

be correlateCP test resue 1 with loca

ct soil specimtheir engine

utions and nting. LaboraAdditional la

e reviewed the site is siteville. The debedded sandsit which is er channels River that me

he site has be National She site, the sstent with th

amping) of thained from tparameters pupancy categ

cceleration (analysis pe

apping Projeceedance in

of the field should be condual or occu

at five localocated. Th

with a 17.6 measuremeength/suppoed with otheults are presations plotte

mens obtaineering propnatural moisatory test reab informatio

within Secttuated withieposits withds and gravfurther descand flood peanders eas

been expresSeismic Hazseismic site he generalizhe 2015 Intethe USGS’ wpresented ingory or seis

(PGAm) proerformed byect. This van 50 years (

studies. Linensidered apur between s

tions throughe particulapound ham

ent of 60 deort of subgrer parametesented in Aped in Figure

ned during terties. Labo

sture contenesults are taon can be fo

ion 3.1 of oun the lake b

hin this envirvels. Biek (2cribed as mplains. Thesst of the site

ssed in probzard Mappinclassificatio

zed horizonternational Bwebsite for sn the table hsmic importa

ovided in Tay the US Gelue generall(i.e., 2PE50

e designatinproximate; sampling

ghout the sitr DCP devi

mmer, a tip egrees. Therade materiers such asppendix C. 1.

the field studoratory testi

nts), bulated in Tound in

ur geotechnbed depositironment inc

2005) maps moderately so

e deposits ae.

babilistic termng Project. on is 'D'. Tabtal accelera

Building Codseismic deshave not beance factor.

able 3 is dereological Suly represent

0).

3

ng

te ice

e als

s the

dy in ing

Table

nical onal

clude the orted are

ms

ble 3 tion de sign een

rived rvey ts

Site Class

D

Liquefac

The poteand the peak groselectedacceleratriggerinfeet in Tone).

Effects oIdriss anless thanmovemepotentialwhich tecalculate SURFAC

Surface overgrowand histothe east proposed Jordan Bbounds tSouth of Surficial grubbingare desc

Type of MCAcceleratio

Risk-targete(structural

Geo-mean(geotechnic

ction

ential for liqprocedure

ound acceled from deagation with a ng analysesTH-05 are liq

of this liquefand Boulangen 1 inch. In ents will be slly affected snds to overe

ed values ar

CE CONDIT

conditions awn grasses.oric aerials. and the Jord maintenan

Basin Lane the site to thf the site is a

soils includg prior to becribed in the

Tab

CE on

MapC

Accel

ed )

- - -

- - -

n cal)

PGA

0.57

quefaction adeveloped eration (PGggregations

2 percent s indicate thquefiable (i

action wereer (2008) anan actual s

somewhat lesoils are thinestimate sure reasonab

TIONS

at the site co The site apThe site is

rdan River. nce building

bounds the he west. Easan horse co

e high plasting suitable

e EARTHWO

ble 3 Seism

pped Site Class B

eration (g)

SS S1

1.42 0.48

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

at the site wby Youd et

GA) and mos of probabiprobability

hat some of.e., have fa

e evaluated ialysis proceeismic eveness than thenly interbedusceptibility ble represen

onsist of juvppears to harelatively flaThe Jordan

g.

site to the nst of the siterral.

tic clay with for use. Ad

ORK sectio

mic Design P

Site Coef

- - - Fa

- - - 1.00

Fpga - -

1.00 - - -

was assesst al. (2001)

oment magnlistic seismof exceedaf the sand aactors of sa

in terms of iedure, verticnt, we believese calculatded betweeto liquefact

ntations of th

venile to maave not beeat with a slign River is ap

north and the is similar s

organics (rodditional detan of this TM

Parameters

fficient

Fv M

0 1.52

- - - - M

- - - -

sed using da. Seismic dnitude (M) f

mic hazard cance in 50 yand gravel lafety agains

induced setcal settlemeve that liqueted values ben dense grion. We dohe actual or

ature Russian developed

ght grade, lepproximately

he existing msurface cond

oots and graails on the r

M.

Design Ac

Multiplier PG

2/3 0.3

Multiplier PG

1.0 0.5

ata from thedemand pafor the analcurves for pyears. The layers betwst liquefactio

ttlement. Baents are calcefaction-indubecause somranular strato however brder of magn

an Olive treed based on

ess than 1 py 1,500 feet

maintenanceditions as d

ass) that wireuse of the

cceleration (g

GA SDS

38 0.95

GAM - - -

57 - - -

e test holesarameters (iyses were

peak groundresults of th

ween 5 and on less tha

ased on theculated to beuced me of the ta, a conditioelieve that tnitude.

es and our field stu

percent, towat east of the

e building escribed ab

ll require e surficial so

4

g)

SD1

0.49

- - -

- - -

s i.e.,

d he 15 n

e e

on the

udy ards

e

bove.

oils

SUBSUR

The surffeet thickpreviousgravel dewere obsexisting 42 feet. Dynamicvalues avalues osubgrade

Groundw

GroundwThese vagroundwwater waRiver tre The fieldbe near find shalContract EARTHW

General slabs, asgroundwsite prepthe propgrading s

Subgrad

Prior to istructureother de12 to 36 volume asubgradecutting efree of d Previousfrequent

RFACE CON

ficial high plak. Surficial cs studies (Geeposits withserved to bemaintenanc

c Cone Penat each locatobtained by ce typically ra

water

water was foalues are ge

water, belowas observedends in a no

d studies wetheir seasonlow groundwtor should p

WORK

site gradingsphalt concr

water and theparation prioosed structushould refle

de Preparat

mporting anes are to be leterious mainches belo

and weight)e disturbanc

edge of a bueleterious m

s experiencely fine grain

NDITIONS

astic clays iclay soils weerhart Cole,

h fines contee in a loose ce building,

etrometer (Dtion were cacorrelation aange from 2

ound and menerally con

w existing grad east of thertheast to so

ere performenal low. Excwater and re

plan on dewa

g is recommrete pavemee generally

or to the placures. In area

ect the recom

ion

nd placing filocated mu

aterials. Baow the exist

and vegetace. One ex

ucket rather material may

e at adjacened, relativel

n TH-05 anere found e, 2013). Undent generally

to very denmedium stif

DCP) testinalculated froat different d2 to 10 (see

easured bensistent withade, were me site, approouthwest di

ed in the Wicavations foelatively sofatering durin

mended to pent and consoft/weak c

cement of aas of proposmmendation

ll materials,ust be strippeased on obsing ground ation shouldxample of suthan excavay be stockpi

nt facilities inly soft, and/

d TH-06 welsewhere toderlying the y less than 1nse state. Coff to stiff clay

g was compom correlatiodepth incremAppendix C

etween 3 anh the findingmeasured tooximately 70rection.

nter where r the proposft subgrade ng construc

rovide suppncrete flatwoconsistency any fill materse concretens outlined i

areas wheed of all vegerved site csurface. Or

d be removeuch a methoating with exiled for re-us

ndicates tha/or wet. Suc

ere found to o be betwee

surficial cla15 percent. onsistent wy was found

pleted at fiveons with thements in theC).

d 5 feet belos from our 2

o be betwee00 feet, whe

groundwatesed foundatwithin the c

ction.

port for founork. Due toof near-surf

rial will be ce pavement in the follow

re pavemengetation, coconditions, trganic topso

ed using meod is using axposed teetse as applic

at in some ach subgrade

be approxien 5 and 7 feays were graThe granulith the findin

d to the max

e (5) locatioe DCP data.e top 24-inch

ow existing 2013 study

en 3.5 and 7ere a tributar

er levels cantions and utclay materia

dations, buithe presenc

rface fine-grritical to theand flatwor

wing section.

nt, concrete nstruction dhis depth shoil (>5% org

ethods that ma flat-plate ath. Strippedcable or disp

areas, the soe soils can s

mately 4.5 teet thick in oanular sandar deposits ngs under thximum depth

ons, and CB. In-situ CBhes of the

site grade. where dept

7 feet. Standry to the Jor

n be expecttilities will likal. The

ilding floor ce of shallowrained mate performanc

rk areas, site.

flatwork, andebris and ahould be at ganics by minimize attached to td organic soposed of off

oils are soften, rut,

5

to 7 our

d and

he h of

BR R

ths to ding rdan

ted to kely

w rials, ce of e

nd any least

the oils f-site.

and/or pconditionequipmeshould bdissipate

Based ofor additstabilizawithin anunderstaFigure 1

It is recosubgradgrading aunderlyinfabric to separatinsubstitutrecommthick layebe placeand otheunderlyinwithout vunyieldinmaximummoistureEngineeSubsequstructuraA-1-a maaccordan Drainage

We recopavemenavoid dewateringmoisture

Dewater

Groundwfluctuatiowere fou

pump in respns. As sucent, and avobe recognize often imp

on the Ownetional comp

ation effortsnd around tand that the.

ommended de as descrand/or strucng subgradebe placed fng/reinforcinte should beendations her of either 2

ed over the fer propertiesng subgradevibration. Tng conditionm dry densie content ner-approved uent overlyinal fill specifieaterials in 6-nce with AS

e

ommend thant/flatwork b

epositing wag adjacent toe infiltration t

ring

water was foons associaund at depth

ponse to trach, use of ligoidance of

zed that alloroves their

er’s/Projectpensation re, the projecthe footprinese facilities

that the woibed abovectural fill, a ge be gradedflat and slighng geosynthe used. Afteherein and th2-inch maxifabric. The s as definede, this first lihe material

n as based oty (MDD) in

ear optimumsubstitute s

ng lifts, up toed below the-inch lifts, co

STM D1557

at all runoff fbe conveyedater adjaceno the mainteto the found

ound within ted with pre

hs as shallow

afficking of eghter equipconcentrate

owing pumpperforman

t Engineer’selating to adct team hasnt of the buis comprom

orking platfoe. After subggeosythetic d free of rutshtly taut priohetic such aer the fabric he manufacmum particA-1-a mate

d in AASHTOft of materiashould be c

on observatn accordancm. A separatshould be plo the bottome foundationompacted to(“modified p

from the rood directly intt to the foun

enance builddation soils.

planned execipitation lew as 3 feet d

equipment pment, use oed traffic paping soils toce.

s desire to dverse sub

s proposed lding as we

mise almost

orm be congrade prepafabric shoul

s, furrows, mor to overlyins Mirafi 500is placed in

cturer’s recoular size crurial should hO M145. Toal should likecompacted tions by the e with ASTMtion fabric saced on top

m of the anyns) or pavemo 95% maxiproctor”) an

of of the maito an approndation. Weding be kept

cavation deevels and seduring our f

and producof tracked ratterns shoo rest and p

avoid Contbsurface conto construc

ell as belowthe entirety

nstructed byaration and ld be placed

mounds, andng fill placem0X or Geoten accordancommendatioushed rock have a 2-inco avoid advely be placeto either a rGeotechnicM D1557 (“m

such as Mirap of the crusy foundationment sectionimum dry de

nd at a moist

intenance bpriate storme also recomt to a minim

epths and weasonal chafield studies

ce difficult wrather than

ould be conspore pressu

tractor’s ponditions anct a workingw pavementy of the site

y first prepaprior to plac

d. It is impod the like in ment. A echnical Engce with the ons, a minimor an A-1-ach maximum

verse softened using starelatively firmcal Engineermodified proafi 140N or Gshed rock if ns (or bottomn, should beensity (MDDture conten

building, founm water collemmend that

mum to reduc

will likely expanges. Grous and these

working wheeled

sidered. It ures to

st-bid claimd subgrade

g platform t areas. Wee as shown

aring the cement of aortant that th

order for th

gineer-appro

mum 12-incha material shm particle siing of the

atic rolling m and r, or 95% octor”) and Geotechnicaused.

m of any e constructeD) in t near optim

ndations, anection systet landscape ce the risk o

erience perundwater levgroundwate

6

ms e

e in

any he he

oved

h hould ze

at a al

ed of

mum.

nd em to

of

riodic vels er

levels arthe grou

The contGroundwoptions sbase of adry). ThDewaterconditiondewatericonstrucsuccessfdewateri

Excavat

Except fowork will Temporatrench borestrain lequipmeexcavatiminimumslopes indepth ma The contslopes dsubsurfacomply aconstrucshould btrench an Structur

All fill plafill. Strucmaximumpercent; Onsite showever Structuraon a hor

re likely neand surface a

tractor shouwater levels selected. Gall excavatiois will likely ring systemsns, and subging plan det

ction. This pful experiening consulta

ions

or excavatiol be required

ary slopes aoxes shouldlateral loadsent and otheons during c

m of 5 feet an sand/graveay be const

tractor shouuring constr

ace conditionat a minimuction standabe observednd site safe

ral Fill and C

aced for the ctural fill mam size of 3-fines shouldoils are suitr, it is expec

al fill should rizontal plan

r their seasoare likely fo

uld be awarewill need to

Groundwaterons during crequire a ws should be grade softentailing how gplan should nce dewaterants if neede

on work reqd.

and/or shorind be used ws resulting frer applicableconstruction

away from thel materialstructed at 2.

uld rely uponruction subjns more fullm with the Ords for exca by qualifiedty.

Compaction

support of say consist ofinches and d have a liqable for use

cted that little

be placed ie. Lift thick

onal low. Grllowing runo

e that dewao be loweredr levels shouconstruction

well points ordesigned to

ning. We regroundwatebe prepared

ring for similed.

uired for uti

ng may be nwhere approrom the soil e loads; andn. Stockpilehe top of sho above lowe0 Horizonta

n his own mect to his paly exposed dOccupationaavations andd personnel

n

structures, ff reasonablyfines (minuuid limit less

e as structure of the ons

in maximumkness should

roundwater off and/or we

tering will bed dependinguld be main

n (i.e. all conr diversion co prevent m

ecommend tr will be botd by an engar projects.

lity trenches

needed for cpriate. Trenmass, grou

d care shoule and excavoring elemeered groundal to 1.0 Vert

methods to darticular conduring consal Safety and any other . The Cont

flatwork or py graded gras No. 200 ss than 20 anral fill as lonsite soils will

m 10-inch liftd be decrea

r levels as shet years.

e needed dg upon the f

ntained a minnstruction shchannels wit

migration of fthe contractth managedgineer or hyd

We can pr

s, we anticip

constructionnch boxes shundwater, suld be taken

vated materients or tempdwater levelrtical (2.0H:1

determine annstruction prstruction. Allnd Health Adapplicable s

tractor is ulti

pavements, anular imposieve size) cnd a plasticg as they m do so.

ts (prior to cased to 6-inc

hallow as 1

uring constfoundation ainimum of 2 hould be peth collectionfiner materiator be requird and monitodrogeologisrovide recom

pate minima

n. Proper shhould be deurcharge froto maintain ials should bporary slopels and less t1.0V) or flatt

nd maintainrocedures al excavationdministratiostandards. Aimately resp

should conort materialscontent less city index lesmeet this req

compaction)ches in area

to 2 feet be

ruction. and excavatfeet below rformed in t

n points. als, quick red to submored during st with mmendation

al excavation

horing and esigned to om construcstability of

be kept a es. Temporathan 15 feetter.

n safe and stand to thosens should n’s (OSHA)All excavatioponsible for

nsist of strucs with a

than 20 ss than 7. quirement;

) and compaas where lig

7

elow

tion the the

mit a

ns for

n

ction

ary t in

table e

) ons

ctural

acted ghter

compactand exteaccordancompactpercent foundatio Importedgrading pgeotechnhas been FOUNDA

We underelativelygroundwcontinuoacceptabstructurasquare foto the thi

The mininches foexposedbelow thextend lathicknes The termimposedof foundacalculatinthe eleva The net loading cexcavatiassess tdebris, a Foundatexperienover a di

tion equipmerior flatworknce with AStion. BackfillMDD (ASTMon walls to m

d fill materiaprior to imponical enginen properly p

ATIONS

erstand thaty rigid and qwater and coous footing wble bearing.al fill may beoot (psf) for ickness of th

imum recomor isolated sd to the full ee lowest adaterally a ms.

m “net” bearid by a structation and bang bearing lation of the

allowable bconditions sons be obsehat foundat

and are suita

tions designnce total settistance of 2

ent is used.k should be STM D1557 l around fouM D1557). minimize the

als should beorting. Prioeer to note tprepared.

t the proposquite susceponsistency owill need to Spread an

e designed fr dead plus lhe working

mmended fospread footineffects of frodjacent final inimum of o

ing pressureure and thaackfill up to loads. For afloor or bas

earing pressuch as tranerved by a gion exposurable for foun

ned and contlements of 5 feet.

. Soils in cocompactedand at a mo

undation waSmall compe potential f

e approved r to placing hat unsuitab

sed buildingsptible to diffeof fine-grainebear on a mnd continuoufor a net allolive load conplatform an

ooting widthngs and a most should begrade. Stru

one foot bey

e refers to that imposed b

the lowest aa buried struin bottom.

sure may besient wind ageotechnicares are free ndations.

structed usi1-inch or le

ompacted fild to 95 perceoisture cont

alls, as requipaction equifor wall dam

by the Geofill, excavatble material

s are masonerential settled near-surf

minimum of 2us footings owable bearnditions. Thd fill require

is 24 inchemaximum foe establishectural fill pla

yond the edg

he differencby any overladjacent finaucture, the l

e increasedand seismical professionfrom loose

ing these reess and diffe

lls beneath aent maximutent near thaired, shouldipment shou

mage and de

otechnical Etions shoulds have bee

nry box typelement. Duerface soils, c24 inches obearing on ring pressurhis amount oed to reach f

es for continooting width ed at a minimaced beneages of the fo

ce between lying soil. Tal grade nelowest adjac

d (typically bc loads. Wenal prior to cor disturbed

ecommendaerential settle

all footings, um dry densat considere

d be compaculd be usedeflections.

ngineer resd be observen removed

e structurese to the shaconventionaof structural a minimum re of 2,500 pof structurafinal grade.

uous wall foof 5.0 feet. mum depth th the footinootings for e

the gross pThis means ted not be incent final gr

by one-third)e recommenconcrete plad material, o

ations are exements less

slabs-on-gsity (MDD) ined optimumcted to 90 d near

ponsible fored by the and subgra

s that are llow

al spread anfill to providof 24 inche

pounds per l fill is in add

ootings, 36 All foundatiof 30 inche

ngs should each foot of

pressure that the wei

ncluded wherade is typic

) for tempornd that all foacement to organic mat

xpected to s than ½-inc

8

rade, n for

r site

ade

nd e

es of

dition

ons es

f fill

ight en cally

rary oting

terial,

ch

LATERA

Lateral ecomputepressureno movestrength earth preburied depressureto resist of the strLateral e

For seismthe Monothrust proto the stathe dynathe wall coefficieHydrostaapplicabpressureminimum

Lateral foresisted footing a

SOIL CO

Corrosiobuilding.building conventi

AL EARTH P

earth loads aed using thees are geneement/rotatioof the soils

essures for septh of the ees adjacent structure mructure elemearth pressu

mic analyseonobe-Okaoduced by gatic pressuramic horizonheight from nts shown iatic pressure

ble. Over-coes developem depths of

orces imposby the deve

and the supp

Materia

CompactStructura(flat grou

ORROSION

on testing wa Testing frosuggests thonal Type I/

PRESSURE

acting on ree earth pressrally assumon. Elemenand backfilstructures. element is uto granular ovement. S

ment is geneures have be

es, the activebe pseudo-sground motre to determntal thrust mthe base. Un the table aes and surc

ompaction bed from soilsfoundation

sed upon coelopment of porting soils

Table 4 La

al

MoisUni

Weig(pcf

ted l Fill nd)

125

as not perfom the adjac

he surficial c/II cement m

ES

etaining strucsure coefficied for burie

nts that can l behind a wA moveme

usually conssoils. Pass

Structure moerally assoceen provide

e earth presstatic approion. The resine total pre

may be treateUnless indicassume horcharge loadibehind wallss subject to fembedmen

onventional passive ea

s.

ateral Earth

st it ght f)

ActiveStatic

5 0.28

ormed undecent site, froclay soil is nomay be used

ctures undeients listed i

ed structural move or de

wall can be dnt or rotatiosidered to besive lateral eovement of

ciated with fued for sloping

ssure coefficoach and onsulting dynaessures on ted as a triancated otherwrizontal backngs should

s should be afrost or hea

nt, should us

foundationsrth pressure

Pressure D

Earth P

e c At-Re

0.38

r the scope om the existiot susceptibd for concre

er static andin Table 4. elements th

eflect sufficiedesigned as

on equal to ae required t

earth pressuat least 2 p

ull passive lag and flat gr

cient providenly accountsamic thrust pthe wall. Thngle with thewise, the latkfill and vertbe added toavoided. R

ave, or othersually be ne

s due to wines and frictio

Design Para

ressure Coe

est Passi

8 3.54

of services ing maintenble to concreete.

d seismic co”At-rest” lathat are desiently to devessuming “acabout 0.1 peto develop laures are genpercent of thateral earth round cond

ed in the tabs for the dynpressure shohe pressuree point of apteral earth prtical wall faco lateral ear

Resistive pasrwise aboveeglected in d

nd or seismion between

meters

efficient

iveSeismActiv

4 0.1

for the newnance buildinete sulfate a

onditions materal earth igned for littelop the ctive” lateralercent of theateral earth nerally assuhe buried de

pressures. itions.

ble is basednamic horizoould be add

e distributionpplication at

pressure ce conditionrth pressuressive earth e prescribeddesign.

c forces man the base o

mic ve

6

w maintenanng and officattack and

9

ay be

tle or

l e

umed epth

d on ontal ded n of t 1/3

ns. es as

d

ay be of the

nce ce

Fine-gracorrosiveproposedzones wdesigner PAVEME

We undeextendinpavemendesign tetruck/traiOn this bpavemenleast 3.5of subbaworking subbase

We notedisturbedinstallatiomaterialsrecommso.

All subgrcourse aCity of BspecificaCBR val25. The maximum

LIMITAT

Assessmlaboratormanner conditionimmedia This docsufficient

ained surfacee” to “extremd constructi

will require cor.

ENT

erstand thatng to the bount is to be aeam, we hailer and a sabasis and asnt maintena

5 inches of hase (structurplatform thic

e thickness.

e that at leasd ground/anon of the wos are suitabendations, a

rade preparand subbaseBluffdale speation 32 12 1ue of 70, anasphalt sho

m density.

TIONS

ments and rery test data of constructns are foundately so that

cument was t information

e soils do remely corrosion, steel anorrosion pro

t a parking aundaries of

asphalt. Trave assumedanitation vehssuming a nance, we rechot-mix asphral fill) be usckness min

st some of thnd or fill. Weorking platfole for use asalthough it is

ration and pe) should coecifications, 16. Additionnd the granuould be com

ecommendaprovided totion. If the pd later that awe can ma

prepared sn for other p

esult in resisve” (Roberg

nd cast-iron otection. Cor

area is plannthe site, as ffic loading d a traffic mhicle and upnominal 20-ycommend thhalt over 10sed. In referus 12 inche

he proposede recommenorm to impros untreated s expected

avement seonform to thand Americnally, untreaular subbase

mpacted to a

ations preseo us as well project’s desare differentake revisions

solely for theparties or us

stivity valuesge, 1999). Belements lorrosion prote

ned along thillustrated ininformation

mix of staff vep to 8 daily tyear designhat a minimuinches of u

rence to thees may be co

d parking arnd that thesove pavemebase coursthat relative

ection matere recomme

can Public Wated base coe should poa minimum o

ented in thisas our undesign or mant from thoses as necess

e use of the ses.

s that suggeBased on ouocated withiection shou

he perimeten Figure 1. is limited, behicles, a wtrips by a 54n life with regum paveme

untreated bae working plaonsidered a

rea appearsse materialsent performase so long aely little, if an

rials (plant mendations prWorks Assocourse shoul

ossess a minof 96% of th

s document erstanding onner of conse described, sary.

addressee

est soils areur understann water tab

uld be evalua

er of the struWe unders

but based oweekly visit b4-kip GVW vgularly perfoent section case course, atform, the

as contributi

s to be locats be removeance. Remoas the meet ny, of the m

mix asphalt,resented in tciation (APWld possess animum CBRhe Marshall

are based oof the projecstruction cha

we should

and may no

e “highly nding of the le fluctuatioated by the

ucture, genestand that thn input from

by one CDLvacuum trucormed consisting oover 14 incdifference oing to the

ted over ed prior to oved and nathe followinaterial will d

untreated bthis documeWA) a minimum R value of (50 blow)

on field andct’s design aanges, or if be notified

ot contain

10

n

erally he m the

-type ck.

of at ches of the

ative g

do

base ent,

and

We reprein a manprofessioor implieresponsi FIGURE

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 TABLES

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 APPEND

AppendiAppendiAppendiAppendi

REFERE

Biek, R. Counties Internatio Roberge United S

https:// United S

Calcula

esent that onner consistonal consult

ed, and no wibility for the

S

Site aGrain

Atterb

S

Test HLab TSeismLatera

DICES

x A Test Hx B Laborx C DCP x D Geote

Gerha

ENCES

(2005). Geos, Utah. Uta

onal Buildin

e, P.R. (1999

States Geolo/geohazards

States Geoloator. http://e

our services ent with thetants under

warranty or ge accuracy o

and Field Lo Size Analy

berg Limits

Hole LocatioTest Resultsmic Design Pal Earth Pre

Hole Logs aratory Test RTest Resultechnical Stuart Cole 201

ologic Map ah Geologica

g Code, (20

9) Handboo

ogical Surves.usgs.gov/d

ogical Surveearthquake.

are performe level of car

similar circuguarantee isof informatio

ocations Maysis

on s Parametersessure Desig

and Key to SResults ts udy – SVSD13

of the Jordaal Survey M

015), Interna

ok of Corros

ey [USGS]. deaggint/20

ey [USGS]. .usgs.gov/h

med within thre and skill oumstances. s included oon provided

p

gn Paramet

Soil Symbols

D District Off

an Narrows Map 208

ational Code

sion Enginee

(2013), 200008/

(2014), Javazards/desi

he limitationordinarily ex No other r

or intended. by others.

ters

s

fice and Ma

Quadrangle

e Council, P

ering, McGr

08 Interactiv

va Ground Mignmaps/grd

ns prescribexercised by representatio We do not

intenance B

e, Salt Lake

Published M

raw Hill, N.Y

ve Deaggreg

Motion Paradmotion.php

ed by our Clother on, expresst assume

Building –

e and Utah

May 30, 2014

Y.

gations.

ameter p.

11

ient,

sed

4

Figur

res

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community

!R

!R

!R

!R

!R

!A

!ATH-06

TH-05

DCP-05

DCP-04

DCP-03

DCP-02DCP-01

LEGEND!A Test Hole!R DCP

Pavement LimitsNew MaintenanceBuilding

SVSD New Maintenance BuildingFigure 1

0 50 10025Feet

SITE AND FIELD STUDIES LOCATION MAP

J:\PR

OJEC

TS\B

owen

Coll

ins\13

GCI32

0_So

uthVa

lleyS

ewerD

istric

t-Offic

eBuil

ding\D

rawing

s\ArcG

IS\W

ork\Fi

gure

1 Fiel

d Stud

ies Lo

catio

n Map

.mxd

, 5/2/

2018

8:42

:03 AM

±

EXISTING MAINTENANCE BUILDING

100 10 1 0.1Grain size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

finer

by w

eig

ht

[20

]

12-in 5-in 4-in 3-in 1.5-in 3/4-in 3/8-in No.4 No.10 No.20 No.40 No.60 No.100 No.200

COBBLEScoarse

GRAVELfine coarse medium

SANDfine

FINES

TH-05 at 10-12 ft

TH-05 at 15-17 ft

TH-05 at 20-22 ft

TH-05 at 30-32 ft

TH-05 at 35-37 ft

TH-06 at 10-12 ft

TH-06 at 15-17 ft

TH-06 at 20-22 ft

TH-06 at 25-27 ft

TH-06 at 35-37 ft

SVSD New Maintenance Building (13GCI320:2) Figure 2

Grain-Size Analysis

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Liquid limit, LL (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50P

lasticity index,

PI

(%)

Low Plasticity Medium Plasticity High Plasticity Very High Plasticity

CL-ML

CL

ML

CH

MH

10 20 30 40 50 60

PL (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PI (%

)

CI=0.4

CI=0.6

CI=0.8

CI=1.0

(slightly clayey SILT)

(clayey SILT)

(very silty CLAY)

(silty CLAY)

(CLAY)

TH-05 at 2.5-4.5 ft

TH-05 at 35-37 ft

TH-06 at 2-4 ft

TH-06 at 35-37 ft

SVSD New Maintenance Building (13GCI320:2)

Casagrande's Plasticity Chart (Atterberg Limits)

Figure 3

U Line A Line

Appe

ndix A Test Hole Loogs

Ele

vatio

n,fe

et

4362

4357

4352

4347

4342

4337

Dep

th,

feet

5

10

15

20

25

30

Samples

Type

Num

ber

ST-01

SPT-01

SPT-02

SPT-03

SPT-04

SPT-05

SPT-06

SPT-07

SPT-08

Sam

plin

g R

esis

tanc

e

5-4-4-78

6-11-13-1224

6-6-12-1318

1-5-12-1217

6-8-12-1220

5-9-12-1421

11-13-17-1630

15-30-24-2154

Rec

over

y,in

ches

16

4

7

8

8

10

10

8

10

Gra

phic

Log

Material Description

CLAY, with sand - medium stiff, moist, dark brown to light gray, high plasticity, fine-grained sand, frequent organics (roots) (CH)

GRAVEL, sandy, with clay - loose to medium dense, moist to wet, gray to dark gray, coarse- to fine-grained gravel, fine- to coarse-grained sand, subangular particles (GP-GC)

- 2-inch thick clay seam, light gray to gray, moderate plasticity

- increasing fine-grained sand content

SAND, with gravel, some silt - medium dense, moist to wet, gray to light gray, well-graded sand, fine-grained gravel, subangular particles (SW)

GRAVEL, sandy, some silt - medium dense to very dense, moist to wet, light brown to light gray, coarse-grained gravel, well-graded sand, subangular to subrounded particles (GP-GM)

Field Notes

Water added to auger to minimize heave. Approximately 8 inches of heave.


Gravel fragment in sampler shoe

Gravel fragment in sampler shoe

Project: SVSD - New Maintenance Building

Project Location: South Valley Sewer District - Bluffdale

Project Number: 13GCI320:2

LOG OF TEST HOLE TH-05

Sheet 1 of 2

Date(s)Drilled 01/17/2018 to 01/17/2018 Logged By TQH Checked By RTC

DrillingMethod HSA Drill Bit

Size/Type 7-in. HSA: 3.25-in. I.D. Total DepthDrilled (feet) 42.0

Drill RigType Simco 2800 HT Drilling

Contractor A Cache Corp. (Jesse) Hammer Weight/Drop (lbs/in.) Automatic (SPT)

Apparent Groundwater Depth (feet) 5 Latitude /

Longitude 40.49930 , -111.92425 Ground SurfaceElevation (feet) 4367.0 (Approx.)

Comments Test HoleBackfill Cuttings Elevation

Datum NAVD88

Ele

vatio

n,fe

et

4332

4327

4322

4317

4312

4307

Dep

th,

feet

35

40

45

50

55

60

Samples

Type

Num

ber

SPT-09

SPT-10

SPT-11

Sam

plin

g R

esis

tanc

e

12-15-18-2033

4-5-10-615

1-3-10-1213

Rec

over

y,in

ches

10

20

20

Gra

phic

Log


- increasing coarse-grained gravel content

CLAY, with sand - stiff, moist, light gray to gray, low plasticity, fine-grained sand, homogenous (CL)

Bottom of Hole at 42 feet

Field Notes





Sheet 2 of 2





Contractor A Cache Corp. (Jesse) Hammer Weight/Drop (lbs/in.) Automatic (SPT)




Datum NAVD88

Ele

vatio

n,fe

et

4362

4357

4352

4347

4342

4337

Dep

th,

feet

5

10

15

20

25

30

Samples

Type

Num

ber

GB-01

ST-01

SPT-01

SPT-02

SPT-03

SPT-04

SPT-05

SPT-06

SPT-07

Sam

plin

g R

esis

tanc

e

0-0-0-00

4-9-16-1425

6-9-9-1518

17-10-11-1021

7-11-11-1222

8-10-16-1926

9-20-20-2340

Rec

over

y,in

ches

18

18

8

10

8

8

8

8

Gra

phic

Log


CLAY, with sand - medium stiff, moist, dark brown to light gray, high plasticity. fine-grained sand, and frequent organics (roots) (CH)

- trace organics (roots)

GRAVEL, sandy, some clay - medium dense, moist, gray to brown, fine-grained gravel, medium- to coarse-grained sand, subangular particles (GP-GC)

- increasing coarse-grained gravel content

GRAVEL, sandy, some silt - medium dense, moist to wet, light gray, fine-grained gravel, coarse-grained sand, subangular particles (GP)

GRAVEL, with sand, some silt - medium dense to dense, moist to wet, light gray to brown, oxidation stains, coarse- to fine-grained gravel and fine- to coarse-grained sand, subangular particles (GP-GM)

Field Notes

Water added to auger to minimize heave. Approximately 5 inches of heave.Water added to auger to minimize heave. Approximately 4 inches of heave.







Sheet 1 of 2





Contractor A Cache. Corp. (Jesse) Hammer Weight/Drop (lbs/in.) Automatic (SPT)




Datum NAVD88

Ele

vatio

n,fe

et

4332

4327

4322

4317

4312

4307

Dep

th,

feet

35

40

45

50

55

60

Samples

Type

Num

ber

SPT-08

SPT-09

SPT-10

Sam

plin

g R

esis

tanc

e

13-14-5-519

2-4-5-89

1-4-5-49

Rec

over

y,in

ches

4

18

14

Gra

phic

Log


GRAVEL, with sand, some silt - medium dense to dense, moist to wet, light gray to brown, oxidation stains, coarse- to fine-grained gravel and fine- to coarse-grained sand, subangular particles (GP-GM)CLAY, with sand - stiff, moist, light gray to gray, low to medium plasticity, fine-grained sand, homogenous (CL)

Bottom of Hole at 42 feet

Field Notes





Sheet 2 of 2





Contractor A Cache. Corp. (Jesse) Hammer Weight/Drop (lbs/in.) Automatic (SPT)




Datum NAVD88

Appe

ndix B Laboratory Test Resuults

One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils

After ASTM D2435 and USBR 5700Project: South Valley Sewer District TH/TP/Sample: TH-05

No: 13GCI320:2 Depth: 2.5-4.5 ft (~3.5)

Location: Salt Lake County, Utah Laboratory sample description: dark gray - dark olive gray

Date: USCS classification: not requested

Tested by: zmg Sample type: Rel. undisturbed, Shelby Tube

Reduced by: zmg Inundation stress (psf): 100, beginning

Checked by: bp Swell pressure (psf): 209

Comments: coarse sand and fine gravel present Test method: B

Preparation procedure: trimmed

Phase Relationships Vertical Stress - Deformation Results

Initial Final

Vert.

stress

(psf)

Corr.

Dial, dfc a (in) Hc

b (in)

Vert.

strain, ev

Load

duration

(min)

t-90

(min) Hdr (in)

Cv

(ft^2/day)

Height, H (in) 1.0000 0.8898 e Seating 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0

Height, H (cm) 2.540 2.260 100 0.0001 0.9999 0.0001 107

Dia., D (in) 2.500 2.500 400 0.0022 0.9978 0.0022 110

Dia., D (cm) 6.350 6.350 800 0.0063 0.9937 0.0063 120 6.2 0.49786 0.34

Wt. rings + wet soil (g) 367.77 361.39 1,600 0.0153 0.9847 0.0153 414 6.2 0.49458 0.33

Wt. rings (g) 217.67 217.67 3,200 0.0306 0.9694 0.0306 324 6.2 0.48851 0.32

Wet soil + tare (g) 735.26 289.87 6,400 0.0560 0.9440 0.0560 223 19.8 0.47834 0.10

Dry soil + tare (g) 615.84 258.89 12,800 0.0906 0.9094 0.0906 273 25.0 0.46335 0.07

Tare (g) 116.97 146.35 25,600 0.1255 0.8745 0.1255 184 25.0 0.44597 0.07

Moisture cont., w (%) 23.9 27.5 51,200 0.1663 0.8337 0.1663 480 31.5 0.42704 0.05

Gs, assumed 2.70 2.70 25,600 0.1630 0.8370 0.1630 120

Mass total (g) 150.1 143.7 6,400 0.1493 0.8507 0.1493 236

Mass of solids (g) 121.1 121.1 1,600 0.1289 0.8711 0.1289 480

Volume (cm^3) 80.4 71.6 400 0.1102 0.8898 0.1102 794

Vol. of water (cm^3) 29.0 22.6

Vol. of solids (cm^3) 44.9 44.9

Vol. of voids (cm^3) 35.6 26.7

Vol. of air (cm^3) 6.6 4.1

Area, A (cm^2) 31.7 31.7

Ht. solids, Hs (cm) 1.416 1.416

Void ratio, e 0.793 0.596

Porosity, n 0.442 0.373

Vol.moisture, T 0.360 0.316

Saturation, S (%) 81 85

Dry density (gm/cm^3) 1.506 1.692

Wet unit wt., gm (pcf) 116.5 134.7

Dry unit wt., gd (pcf) 94.0 105.6

Data Interpretation Summary

Casagrande (1936) Strain Energy Method (after Becker et al. 1987)

Preconsolidation stress, s'p (psf) 5,800 Preconsolidation stress, s'p (psf) 5,800

Compression ratio, CR 0.14

Recompression ratio, RR 0.02

Notes: a Dfc = end of increment deformation corrected for machine, porous stone, and filter paper deformationb Hc = height at end of consolidation of each vert. stressc Hdr = height at 50 consolidation computed from D90 using sq-root time methodd Cv computed from Taylor (1948) aquare root of time method (note 1 in^2/min = 10 ft^2/day)

J:\PROJECTS\Bowen Collins\13GCI320_SouthValleySewerDistrict-OfficeBuilding\Data\LabData\Phase 2\[CON+TR_TH-05@3,5ft.xlsm]ConInt

26-Jan-18



No: 13GCI320:2 Depth: 2.5-4.5 ft (~3.5)

Data Interpretation - Casagrande (1936) Method

Preconsolidation stress, s'p (psf) 5,800



s'p

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

100 1000 10000

Str

ain

(

H/H

)

Effective consolidation stress, s'v (psf)

0.01

0.1

1

100 1000 10000

Cv (

ft^2

/day)




No: 13GCI320:2 Depth: 2.5-4.5 ft (~3.5)

Data Interpretation - Strain Energy Method (after Becker et al. 1987)


s'p0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

SE

(lb

-ft/ft

^3)

Stress (psf)

s'p

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

SE

(lb

-ft/ft

^3)

Stress (psf)



No: 13GCI320:2 Depth: 2-4 ft (~3.5)

Location: Salt Lake County, Utah Laboratory sample description: dark gray - gray


Tested by: zmg Sample type: Rel. undisturbed, Shelby Tube

Reduced by: zmg Inundation stress (psf): 100, beginning

Checked by: bp Swell pressure (psf): 288

Comments: organics present Test method: B



Initial Final

Vert.

stress

(psf)

Corr.

Dial, dfc a (in) Hc

b (in)

Vert.

strain, ev

Load

duration

(min)

t-90

(min) Hdr (in)

Cv

(ft^2/day)

Height, H (in) 1.0000 0.8719 e Seating 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0

Height, H (cm) 2.540 2.215 100 0.0001 0.9999 0.0001 24

Dia., D (in) 2.500 2.500 800 0.0113 0.9887 0.0113 131 12.6 0.49714 0.16

Dia., D (cm) 6.350 6.350 1,600 0.0250 0.9750 0.0250 278 7.9 0.49093 0.25

Wt. rings + wet soil (g) 362.95 356.20 3,200 0.0501 0.9499 0.0501 480 39.9 0.48122 0.05

Wt. rings (g) 216.89 216.89 6,400 0.0822 0.9178 0.0822 469 39.8 0.46692 0.05

Wet soil + tare (g) 756.01 284.24 12,800 0.1181 0.8819 0.1181 480 63.1 0.44992 0.03

Dry soil + tare (g) 613.55 253.86 25,600 0.1550 0.8450 0.1550 480 63.1 0.43171 0.02

Tare (g) 172.74 145.26 51,200 0.1891 0.8109 0.1891 291 63.1 0.41398 0.02

Moisture cont., w (%) 32.3 28.0 25,600 0.1862 0.8138 0.1862 96

Gs, assumed 2.70 2.70 6,400 0.1687 0.8313 0.1687 212

Mass total (g) 146.1 139.3 1,600 0.1472 0.8528 0.1472 360

Mass of solids (g) 110.4 110.4 400 0.1281 0.8719 0.1281 501

Volume (cm^3) 80.4 70.1

Vol. of water (cm^3) 35.7 28.9



Vol. of air (cm^3) 3.9 0.3

Area, A (cm^2) 31.7 31.7

Ht. solids, Hs (cm) 1.291 1.291


Porosity, n 0.492 0.417






Data Interpretation Summary

Casagrande (1936) Strain Energy Method (after Becker et al. 1987)

Preconsolidation stress, s'p (psf) 2,400 Preconsolidation stress, s'p (psf) 2,500



Notes: a Dfc = end of increment deformation corrected for machine, porous stone, and filter paper deformationb Hc = height at end of consolidation of each vert. stressc Hdr = height at 50 consolidation computed from D90 using sq-root time methodd Cv computed from Taylor (1948) aquare root of time method (note 1 in^2/min = 10 ft^2/day)

J:\PROJECTS\Bowen Collins\13GCI320_SouthValleySewerDistrict-OfficeBuilding\Data\LabData\Phase 2\[CON+TR_TH-06@3,5ft.xlsm]ConInt

26-Jan-18



No: 13GCI320:2 Depth: 2-4 ft (~3.5)

Data Interpretation - Casagrande (1936) Method




s'p

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

100 1000 10000

Str

ain

(

H/H

)


0.01

0.1

1

100 1000 10000

Cv (

ft^2

/day)




No: 13GCI320:2 Depth: 2-4 ft (~3.5)

Data Interpretation - Strain Energy Method (after Becker et al. 1987)


s'p0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

SE

(lb

-ft/ft

^3)

Stress (psf)

s'p

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

SE

(lb

-ft/ft

^3)

Stress (psf)

Triaxial Test - Unconsolidated Sheared Undrained (UU)After ASTM D2850 and USBR 5745

Project: South Valley Sewer District TH/TP/Sample: TH-06

No: 13GCI320:2 Depth: 2-4 ft (~3)

Location: Salt Lake County, Utah Laboratory sample description: dark gray-dark olive gray

Date: 09-Feb-18 USCS classification: not requested

Tested by: zmg Sample type: shelby tube

Reduced by: zmg

Checked by: mgs

Test Number S1 at 2.1 psi

0o 5.749

120o 5.750

240o 5.755

Avg. height, Havg (in) 5.751

Avg. height, Havg (cm) 14.608top 2.827

mid 2.823

bot 2.837

Avg. dia., Davg (in) 2.828

Avg. dia., Davg (cm) 7.182

Avg. area, Aavg (in^2) 6.279

Avg. area, Aavg (cm^2) 40.510

Wt. rings + wet soil (g) 1098.28

Wt. rings (g) 0.00

Volume, Vo (in^3) 36.1

Vo (cm^3) 591.8

Vo (ft^3) 0.0209

Wet soil + tare (g) 1210.06

Dry soil + tare (g) 912.89

Tare (g) 116.98

Moisture content, w (%) 37.3Gs, assumed 2.70

Mass total (g) 1098.3

Mass of solids (g) 799.7

Volume (cm^3) 591.8

Volume of water (cm^3) 298.6

Volume of solids (cm^3) 296.2

Volume of voids (cm^3) 295.6

Volume of air (cm^3) -3.0

Void ratio, e 0.998

Porosity, n 0.500

Volumetric moisture, T 0.505

Saturation, S (%) c 101.01

Dry density (gm/cm^3) 1.351

Moist unit wt., gm (pcf) 115.9

Dry unit wt., gd (pcf) 84.4

Confining stress, s3 (psi) 2.1 Photo/Sketch at Failure Comments:

Strain rate (%/hr) 60.00 roots present

Strain rate (%/min) 1.00 gravel present

Membrane correction Yes

Strain at failure, ef (%) 13.55

Time to failure, tf (min) 13.5

Peak shear stress, (s1-s3)/2 (psi) 4.36

Peak shear stress, (s1-s3)/2 (psf) 628

Peak deviator stress, s1-s3 (psi) 8.73

J:\PROJECTS\Bowen Collins\13GCI320_SouthValleySewerDistrict-OfficeBuilding\Data\LabData\Phase 2\[TX_UU-SVSD.xlsx]1

Sample dia., D (in)

Unit w

eig

ht data

Mois

ture

Phase R

ela

tionship

sR

esu

lts

Sample ht., H (in)

13.55, 4.36

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Shear

str

ess, q=

(s1-s

3)/

2 (

psi)

Axial strain (%)

1/1

Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil after ASTM D698 / D1557

Project: South Valley Sewer District TH/TP/Sample: TH-06

No: 13GCI320:2 Depth: 0-2 ftDate: 02-Feb-18 Location: Location

Tested by: mgs Comments:

Reduced by: mgs

Reviewed by: zmg

Test Summary

Laboratory sample description: dk. o. gray-dk. BWN

Method: ASTM D1557 B Engineering Classification: Not requested

Mold volume (ft3): 0.0333 As-received moisture content (%): Not requested

Preparation method: Moist

Optimum moisture content (%): 28.3 Rammer: Manual

Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): 92.8 Rock Correction: No

Point Number -6 -9 -12 -15 -18

Wt. mold + wet soil (g) 5942.2 5951.3 6017.2 6027.4 5771.4

Wt. mold (g) 4249.79 4249.79 4249.79 4249.79 4249.79

Moist unit wt., gd (pcf) 111.9 112.5 116.9 117.6 100.6

Wet soil + tare (g) 602.54 529.83 996.08 583.12 933.73

Dry soil + tare (g) 476.69 429.69 867.83 488.87 843.29

Tare (g) 116.95 117.49 440.87 145.25 440.82

Moisture content, w (%) 35.0 32.1 30.0 27.4 22.5

Dry unit wt., gd (pcf) 82.9 85.2 89.9 92.3 82.2

J:\PROJECTS\Bowen Collins\13GCI320_SouthValleySewerDistrict-OfficeBuilding\Data\LabData\Phase 2\[Proctor-SVSD.xlsx]1

ZAVL Gs = 2.6ZAVL Gs = 2.7

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Dry

un

it w

eig

ht

(pcf)

Moisture content (%)

Maximum dry unit weight andoptimum moisture content

Data

Appe

ndix C DDCP Test Resuults

DCP Test Summary

Project Name: SVSD New Maintenance Building


Location ID: DCP‐01

Location: Bountiful, UT

Date:

Kleyn, 1975Smith & Pratt, 1983Wu, 1987Livneh, 1987Harison, 1989Ese et al, 1994Webster Combined, 1992 & 1994Average

Note: CBR values based on in‐situ conditions

February 8, 2018

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

1143

1 10 100

Depth (in

)

Depth (mm)

CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

1143

0 25 50 75 100

Depth (in

)

Depth (mm)

Penetration Resistance (mm/blow)= DCP Index

DCP Test Summary





Date:



February 8, 2018

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

1 10 100

Depth (in

)

Depth (mm)

CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

0 25 50 75 100

Depth (in

)

Depth (mm)


DCP Test Summary





Date:



February 8, 2018

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

1143

1 10 100

Depth (in

)

Depth (mm)

CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

1143

0 25 50 75 100

Depth (in

)

Depth (mm)


DCP Test Summary





Date:



February 8, 2018

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

1143

1 10 100

Depth (in

)

Depth (mm)

CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

1143

0 25 50 75 100

Depth (in

)

Depth (mm)


DCP Test Summary





Date:



February 8, 2018

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

1 10 100

Depth (in

)

Depth (mm)

CBR

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

0 25 50 75 100

Depth (in

)

Depth (mm)


Appe

ndix D Previious Geotechnical Stuudy

Geotechnical Study South Valley Sewer District - District Office and Maintenance Building

Prepared for Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. October 11, 2013

GCI project number: 13GCI320

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SVSD - District Office and Maintenance Building

TOC-1

1. SECTION 1 ONE Introduction .............................................................. 1-1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................... 1-1 1.2 PREVIOUS DESIGN DOCUMENTS ............................................ 1-1 1.3 PURPOSE, AUTHORIZATION, AND WORK SCOPE ................. 1-1

2. SECTION 2 TWO Methods of Study..................................................... 2-1

2.1 GENERAL .................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 FIELD STUDIES .......................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Cone Penetration Testing .................................................. 2-1 2.2.2 Test Hole Drilling and Sampling ........................................ 2-2 2.2.3 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing ............................... 2-2

2.3 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................ 2-3

3. SECTION 3 THREE Site Conditions..................................................... 3-1

3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING .............................................. 3-1 3.2 SEISMICITY AND SEISMIC EFFECTS ....................................... 3-1 3.3 LIQUEFACTION ........................................................................... 3-2 3.4 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS .................................................... 3-3

3.4.1 Surface Conditions ............................................................ 3-3 3.4.2 Subsurface Conditions ...................................................... 3-3 3.4.3 Groundwater ...................................................................... 3-4

4. SECTION 4 FOUR Analyses and Design Recommendations ............ 4-1

4.1 GENERAL .................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 EARTHWORK .............................................................................. 4-1

4.2.1 General.............................................................................. 4-1 4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation ....................................................... 4-2

4.2.2.1 Removal of Topsoil and Organics ....................... 4-2 4.2.2.2 Fine-Grained Subgrade ....................................... 4-2 4.2.2.3 Granular Subgrade .............................................. 4-3

4.2.3 Dewatering ........................................................................ 4-3 4.2.4 Excavation ......................................................................... 4-4 4.2.5 Structural Fill and Compaction .......................................... 4-4 4.2.6 Drainage ............................................................................ 4-5

4.3 Foundations ................................................................................. 4-5 4.3.1 General.............................................................................. 4-5 4.3.2 Conventional Spread Foundations .................................... 4-6

4.4 Lateral earth pressures ................................................................ 4-7 4.5 soil corrosion and reactivity .......................................................... 4-8 4.6 PAVEMENT SECTION ................................................................ 4-8

4.6.1 General.............................................................................. 4-8 4.6.2 Pavement Design and Materials ........................................ 4-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS


TOC-2

5. SECTION 5 FIVE Conclusion ............................................................... 5-1

5.1 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ............................................................ 5-1 5.2 LIMITATIONS............................................................................... 5-1 5.3 CLOSURE .................................................................................... 5-1

6. SECTION 6 SIX References .................................................................. 6-1

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Exploration Point Data

Table 2-2 Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Table 3-1 Seismic Design Parameters

Table 4-1 Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map

Figure 1-2 Site and Exploration Location Map

Figure 2-1 Grain Size Distribution Curves (TH-01 and TH-02)

Figure 2-2 Grain Size Distribution Curves (TH-03 and TH-04)

Figure 2-3 Atterberg Limits Test Results / Plasticity Chart

Figure 3-1 Liquefaction Potential Map

List of Appendices

Appendix A Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Logs

Appendix B Test Hole Logs / Legend to Soil Descriptions

Appendix C Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Summaries

Appendix D Interpretative Laboratory Test Results

SECTIONONE Introduction


1-1

1. SECT ION 1 ONE Introduction

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

We understand that South Valley Sewer District is proposing to construct new facilities on undeveloped land just north of Bangerter Highway and west of the Jordan River near 1300 West and Jordan Basin Lane (see vicinity map shown as Figure 1-1 and site plan shown as Figure 1-2). The proposed facilities will include:

• Office Building

• Maintenance Building

• At-Grade Parking Areas We understand that the office building is an approximately 19,000 square feet, two-story masonry box structure. The maintenance building is an approximately 25,000 square feet, single-story masonry box structure. Neither of the structures have basements. The at-grade parking areas will be constructed using typical asphalt concrete pavement sections. We also understand that minimal site grading will occur at the site.

1.2 PREVIOUS DESIGN DOCUMENTS

Geotechnical engineering studies were previously completed at the South Valley Sewer District facility approximately ½ mile north east of this site by Applied Geotechnical Engineering Consultants, Inc. (AGEC) and Kleinfelder. Bowen Collins and Associates, Inc. (BCA) provided the following geotechnical engineering studies for our review:

• AGEC (2007). Geotechnical Investigation, “Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility South Valley Sewer District”, September 28, 2007.

• AGEC (2008). Geotechnical Consultation, “Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility”, June 5, 2008.

• Kleinfelder (2008). Geotechnical Investigation, “Proposed Jordan Basin Water Reclamation Facility”, November 5, 2008.

These documents and data were evaluated and used as reference to supplement our sutdies, where appropriate.

1.3 PURPOSE, AUTHORIZATION, AND WORK SCOPE

This report presents the results of geotechnical studies performed by Gerhart Cole, Inc. (GCI), together with geotechnical design recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed facilities.

The scope of work performed is based on our proposal to BCA dated May 31, 2013 and includes the following completed tasks:

• Task 1.0 Field Studies

• Task 2.0 Laboratory Studies

• Task 3.0 Geotechnical Analysis, Design Recommendations and Report

§̈¦15

§̈¦15

¬«68

¬«68

��154

��154

��140

¬«71

¬«71

Draper

Bluffdale

Riverton

Herriman

Lehi

Figure 1-1

0 1,500 3,000750

FeetSVSD - District Office and Maintenance Buildings

Project Location Map

J:\

PR

OJE

CT

S\2

01

3\1

3G

CI3

20

_S

ou

thV

alle

yS

ew

erD

istr

ict-

Offic

eB

uild

ing

\Dra

win

gs\A

rcG

IS\W

ork

\Ba

se

_M

ap

.mxd

, 1

0/3

/20

13

4:1

2:3

3 P

M

LEGEND

Project Location

Municipalities

±

!A

!A

!A

!A !A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A

Jordan Basin Lane

1300 W

est

13920 South

Bangerter Highway

TH-04TH-03

TH-02 TH-01

DCP-06

DCP-05DCP-04

DCP-03

DCP-02

DCP-01

CPT-02

CPT-01

LEGEND

!A Test Hole Locations

!A CPT Sounding Locations

!A Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Locations

SVSD - District Office and Maintenance Buildings

Figure 1-2

0 150 30075

Feet

Site and Exploration Plan

J:\

PR

OJE

CT

S\2

01

3\1

3G

CI3

20

_S

ou

thV

alle

yS

ew

erD

istr

ict-

Off

ice

Bu

ildin

g\D

raw

ing

s\A

rcG

IS\W

ork

\Site

an

d E

xp

lora

tio

n P

lan

.mxd

, 1

0/3

/20

13

4:1

1:2

6 P

M

±

Basemap provided by Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc.

SECTIONTWO Methods of Study


2-1

2. SECT ION 2 TW O Methods of Study

2.1 GENERAL

A combination of test holes drilled using hollow stem auger techniques and cone penetration testing (CPT) was used to study subsurface conditions at the site between September 11 and September 17, 2013. The cone penetration test (CPT) soundings were selected for this project because CPTs are faster; less expensive; provide nearly continuous data with depth; and when coupled with test holes, help optimize sampling.

The originally proposed drilling, sampling, and testing of soils in shallow auger holes beneath future parking areas was omitted in favor of conducting Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing. By omitting the shallow auger holes we were able to complete more DCP testing to assess near surface conditions with greater density across the site.

At the time of our field studies, the corners of proposed buildings, as well as the center of at-grade parking areas, were physically located in the field by a surveyor provided by BCA. Consequently, test holes and CPT soundings were located within the footprints of the proposed buildings and DCP tests were located within future parking areas. Test locations were collected using a hand-held Garmin GPS device; suggesting that the actual locations may vary up to 33 feet, according to the accuracy reported for the device.

2.2 FIELD STUDIES

2.2.1 Cone Penetration Testing

Cone penetration testing (CPT) was performed on this project using truck-mounted equipment, and a 10-cm2 piezocone with a tip net area ratio of 0.80. This equipment and associated operating services were provided by Bedke Geotechnical Field Services of Draper, Utah under subcontract to GCI. The depths of the CPT soundings ranged from approximately 34.5 to 42.5 feet. CPT-01 and CPT-02 were advanced using the truck-mounted equipment. Both CPT soundings were terminated due to refusal in the granular materials at depth. Two pore-pressure dissipation tests were also performed; however the data collected during the pore-pressure dissipation test at CPT-02 was suspect and is not included with this report. The locations of the CPTs are plotted in Figure 1-2 with additional information provided in Table 2-1.

The primary benefit of cone penetration testing is that it provides a near continuous measurement of penetration resistance within a soil profile. This ability, coupled with other measurements made by the cone, helps delineate stratigraphy more precisely than with traditional test hole methods. Unfortunately, the CPT does not provide a soil sample. Consequently, test holes (from which samples can be recovered) and CPTs were used in combination with each other on this project.

The CPT results are presented in Appendix A. When interpreting soil type from CPT results, it is important to recognize that the soil behavior type (SBT) shown on the logs is determined by correlation, and actual soil types may vary.



2-2

2.2.2 Test Hole Drilling and Sampling

Four (4) test holes were drilled for this study. Test holes were drilled using 8-inch outside diameter (O.D.) hollow stem augers and a truck-mounted CME 75 drilling rig. This equipment and associated drilling services were provided by Bedke Geotechnical Field Services of Draper, Utah under subcontract to GCI. The depths of the test holes ranged from approximately 27 to 52 feet. The locations of the test holes are shown in Figure 1-2 with additional information summarized in Table 2-1.

Test holes were logged and observed by a licensed engineer. Material descriptions were developed by observing samples retrieved, drilling behavior, and cuttings obtained during drilling processes. Soils were classified following Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D-2488 procedures. Laboratory test results were used to supplement field descriptions and adjustments were made to field logs where appropriate.

Sampling was performed at regular intervals with either thin-walled Shelby tubes or a standard penetration split-spoon (2-in OD, 1-3/8-in ID) being used. Due to the predominantly granular soil conditions, Shelby tube sampling was limited to fine-grained soil layers identified in the CPT soundings. While recent measurements were not available, the auto-hammer assembly of the particular type of drill rig used typically has an energy efficiency in the range of 80 to 85%. The number of hammer blows required to advance the sampler in 6-inch increments was recorded in the field, with the sum of the second and third 6-inch intervals constituting the SPT blowcount or “N-value.” Summary logs of test holes are found in Appendix B along with a legend of soil descriptions.

2.2.3 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing

The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) is a field instrument designed to provide a rapid measurement of the thickness, depth and in-situ strength of subgrade materials. The conventional approach to evaluating strength and stiffness properties of subgrade soils involves test hole drilling and sampling, bulk sampling and laboratory testing to evaluate soil strength parameters such as the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) or Modulus of Rigidity (MR). The advantages of using the DCP in lieu of conventional approaches include low cost of operation, speed and ease of operation, continuous measurement of penetration resistance up to typical depths of 36 inches, and identification of weak zones in subgrade materials. The DCP test is conducted by driving a steel rod with a cone-shaped tip using either a single mass (10.1 lb) or dual mass (17.6 lb) hammer dropped from a height of 22.6 inches. The cone penetration depth is then measured at selected penetration or hammer drop intervals and recorded.

DCP testing was conducted by a GCI field engineer at six (6) locations for this study in general accordance with ASTM D6951, Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications. Penetration measured in inches per blow was used to calculate the DCP index, which is based on the average penetration depth resulting from one blow of the 17.6 lb hammer. Several authors have presented methods and equations that correlate the DCP index values to CBR values



2-3

(Wu and Sargand, 2007). These empirical correlations were used to calculate average CBR values by depth for in-situ subgrade materials at the project site. DCP test summaries for each of the six test locations are presented in Appendix C.

It should be understood that the DCP test is intended to evaluate the in-situ strength of subgrade materials. In other words, the DCP test measures the strength of the subgrade materials at in-situ moisture and density conditions. As such, the CBR values calculated from field measurements will not typically correlate with the laboratory or “soaked” CBR of the same material. However, by completing DCP tests at several locations across the project site it is possible to identify variability in subgrade conditions and to identify areas with weaker subgrade materials.

2.3 LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing was performed on select soil specimens obtained during the field exploration in order to further classify them and evaluate their engineering properties. Laboratory testing generally consisted of:

1. ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. 2. ASTM D2216 Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water

(Moisture) Content of Soil, Rock, and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures 3. ASTM D4318 Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity

Index of Soils 4. ASTM D 2435 Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensions Consolidation

Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading 5. ASTM D698 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics

of Soil Using Standard Effort 6. ASTM D1883 Standard Test Method for CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of

Laboratory-Compacted Soils

Additional laboratory testing was performed to evaluate corrosion potential, including pH, soluble sulfates, soluble chlorides and multi-point resistivity. Laboratory test results are summarized in Table 2-2, and graphically in Figure 2-1 through Figure 2-3, with additional interpretative data (such as consolidation curves, standard proctor, CBR and corrosion potential) presented in Appendix D.

Exploration

Point

Date

Advanced /

TestedLongitude

aLatitude

a

Total

depth

(ft)

Water

depth

(ft) b

Water

depth

(ft) c

Drilling / In-situ Test Method Comments

TH-01 9/16/13 40.49941 -111.92530 52.0 7.0 - Hollow Stem Auger



TH-04 9/17/13 40.49914 -111.92789 42.0 4.0 3.5 Hollow Stem Auger Piezometer Installed

CPT-01 9/13/13 40.49955 -111.92542 42.5 -3.0 e

- Cone Penetration Testing CPT refusal at 42.5 feet

CPT-02 9/13/13 40.49916 -111.92751 34.5 N/M d

- Cone Penetration Testing CPT refusal at 34.5 feet

DCP-01 9/11/13 40.49893 -111.92771 3.0 N/M - Dynamic Cone Penetrometer






Notes: a: Longitude and Latitude data collected using a hand-held Garmin GPS device

b: Groundwater depth measured or estimated at time of drilling.

c: Groundwater depth measured in piezometer on 9/20/13

d: N/M = Not Measured

e: Groundwater depth from pore dissipation test, indicates pressures in excess of hydrostatic condition

Table 2-1 Exploration Point DataSVSD - District Office and Maintenance Building

Test H

ole

Depth

(ft)

LL (

%)

PL (

%)

PI (%

)

Cohesiv

e Index, C

I

Liq

uid

ity Index, LI

GR

AV

EL

(No.4

- 3

")

coars

e G

RA

VE

L

(3/4

-3")

fine G

RA

VE

L

(No.4

-3/4

")

SA

ND

(No.2

00-N

o.4

)

coars

e S

AN

D

(No.1

0-N

o.4

)

mediu

m S

AN

D

(No.4

0-N

o.1

0)

fine S

AN

D

(No.2

00-N

o.4

0)

FIN

ES

(<N

o.2

00)

1.5

-in (

37.5

mm

)

3/4

-in (

19 m

m)

3/8

-in (

9.5

mm

)

No.4

(4.7

5 m

m)

No.1

0 (

2 m

m)

No.2

0 (

0.8

5 m

m)

No.4

0 (

0.4

25 m

m)

No.6

0 (

0.2

5 m

m)

No.1

00 (

0.1

5 m

m)

No.2

00 (

0.0

75 m

m)

TH-01 2.5-4.5 16 790 / 8.0 / 194

TH-01 5-7 30 47 21 26 1.2 0.3

TH-01 10-12 13 57 15 42 39 17 13 9 5 100 85 61 44 27 18 14 10 8 5

TH-01 15-17 15 42 18 24 51 14 22 15 7 100 82 69 58 44 32 22 15 11 7

TH-01 25-26.5 15

TH-01 32.5-34.5 31 86 113 28 21 7 0.3 1.4 Consolidation w/ time rates

TH-01 45-46.5 9

TH-01 50-52 23

TH-02 2.5-4.5 29 0.0

TH-02 5-7 25 0.0 6 0 6 81 8 19 55 14 100 100 99 95 87 79 68 48 25 14

TH-02 10-12 10 54 15 39 39 17 13 9 7 100 85 67 46 29 20 16 13 10 7

TH-02 15-17 10 48 9 39 48 21 19 8 4 100 91 71 52 31 18 12 9 7 4

TH-02 25-27 12

TH-03 2.5-4.5 19 37 20 17 0.9 0.0

TH-03 5-7 17 38 0 38 47 28 13 6 15 100 100 88 62 34 23 21 20 18 15

TH-03 10-12 10

TH-03 15-17 10 58 15 43 37 13 14 10 5 100 85 60 42 29 21 15 11 8 5

TH-03 25-26.5 12

TH-04 2.5-4.5 11 2100 / 8.0 / 69

TH-04 5-7 14 38 0 38 58 30 21 7 4 100 100 87 62 32 16 11 8 6 4

TH-04 10-12 14 44 8 36 49 17 17 15 7 100 92 75 56 39 28 22 17 11 7

TH-04 20-21.5 14 34 5 29 59 20 19 20 7 100 95 83 66 46 34 26 19 12 7

TH-04 30-31.5 12

TH-04 35-35.5 14

TH-04 40-42 13 26 18 8 0.4 -0.7

DCP-04 1-2.5 48 36 12 0.3 86.4 29.9 8.2

Other Tests

(Interpretative Data

in Appendix)Resis

tivity (

ohm

-cm

) /

pH

/ W

SS

(ppm

)

Ma

xim

um

dry

un

it w

eig

ht,

γd

-ma

x

(pcf)

Op

tim

um

mo

istu

re c

on

ten

t, w

op

t

(%)

Ca

lifo

rnia

be

ari

ng

ra

tio

, C

BR

(%

)

Table 2-2 Summary of Laboratory Test Results

SVSD - District Office and Maintenance Buildings

Mois

ture

conte

nt (

%)

Atterberg Limits a

Dry

unit w

eig

ht (p

cf)

Grain-Size Analysis (Percent Finer)

Mois

t / S

at. u

nit w

eig

ht (p

cf)

Grain-Size

100 10 1 0.1Grain size (mm) [40]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent finer by weight [20]


COBBLEScoarse


SANDfine

FINES

TH-01 at 10-12

TH-01 at 15-17

TH-02 at 5-7

TH-02 at 10-12

TH-02 at 15-17

SVSD - District Office and Maintenance Buildings (13GCI320) Figure 2-1

Grain-Size Distribution Curves

100 10 1 0.1Grain size (mm) [40]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent finer by weight [20]


COBBLEScoarse


SANDfine

FINES

TH-03 at 5-7

TH-03 at 15-17

TH-04 at 5-7

TH-04 at 10-12

TH-04 at 20-21.5


Grain-Size Distribution Curves

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Liquid limit, LL (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60P

lasticity in

de

x,

PI

(%)

Low Plasticity Medium Plasticity High Plasticity Very High Plasticity

CL-ML

CL

ML

CH

MH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

PL (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PI (%

)

CI=0.2

CI=0.4

CI=0.6

CI=0.8

CI=1.0

(SILT)

(slightly clayey SILT)

(clayey SILT)

(very silty CLAY)

(silty CLAY)

(CLAY)

TH-01 at 5-7

TH-01 at 32.5-34.5

TH-03 at 2.5-4.5

TH-04 at 40-42

DCP-04 at 1-2.5


Casagrande's Plasticity Chart (Atterberg Limits)

U Line A Line

SECTIONTHREE Site Conditions


3-1

3. SECT ION 3 THR EE Site Conditions

3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING

The project site is located within the Basin and Range Physiographic Province, near the western slope of the Wasatch Mountain Range in the Salt Lake Valley. The Basin and Range is characterized by a series of alternating generally north-south trending, normal-faulted, narrow mountain ranges and semi-arid to arid alluvial/pluvial valleys formed as a result of tectonic extension believed to have initiated during Early Miocene time (approximately 17 million years ago) and continues during present time. A large portion of the Basin and Range Province, including the project area, is part of a system of watersheds topographically restricted from draining into the ocean. Instead, drainage and groundwater accumulates within lakes and playas in the valley bottoms until it evaporates. Dissolved salts tend to become concentrated in these areas. The Great Salt Lake, located approximately twenty miles northwest of the project site, was formed by such processes.

The elevation of the Great Salt Lake fluctuates in response to climactic conditions. During pre-historic times, the Salt Lake Valley was largely filled by the ancestral Lake Bonneville which stabilized at several “stands” or “benches” between the Great Salt Lake’s current elevation of approximately 4,200 feet above sea level and Lake Bonneville’s peak elevation of approximately 5,100 feet above sea level (reached about 14,500 years ago during the Pleistocene Epoch). During Lake Bonneville’s existence, finer grained lacustrine materials were deposited within the lake with typically coarser alluvial and fluvial soils intruding from the margins. These processes were a continuation of similar ones occurring during even older antecedent lake cycles within the basin.

3.2 SEISMICITY AND SEISMIC EFFECTS

The Salt Lake Valley is located within the Intermountain Seismic Belt (ISB), one of the most seismically active areas in the interior western U.S. Earthquakes of moment magnitude 7 and greater have occurred repeatedly along the nearby Wasatch Fault and there are numerous active (i.e., Quaternary) faults close enough to appreciably affect the site. The nearest mapped active fault is the Salt Lake Segment of the Wasatch Fault located approximately 4.6 miles to the east of the site (USGS, 2006). The fault is believed to have an average recurrence interval of about 1,300 years with a characteristic magnitude of 7.1.

We understand the project and facilities will be designed following procedures of the 2012 International Building Code [IBC] (ICC, 2012) for seismic structural design. Table 3-1 identifies seismic design parameters consistent with the provisions of this design standard. The acceleration parameters presented in the table have not been adjusted to account for any particular occupancy category or seismic importance factor. All acceleration parameters are based on 5% damping.

The MCE geometric mean peak ground acceleration (PGA) provided in the table is derived from the 2008 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis performed by the US Geological Survey as part of the National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. This value generally represents ground motions having a 2% chance of exceedance in 50 years



3-2

(i.e., 2PE50). For deterministic-based analyses which require definition of a single “most representative” earthquake, modal values from a deaggregation of the probabilistic ground motion are commonly used. For a 2PE50 hazard level, the modal magnitude and distance pair (where distance is the closest site-to-source distance) associated with the peak ground acceleration is approximately 7.00 and 5.9 km (USGS, 2012).

Given the relatively large seismic ground motions anticipated at the site together with the shallow water table, liquefaction is a potential concern for this site. Results of our liquefaction analyses are presented in Section 3.3. The effects of seismic ground shaking on other geotechnical considerations such as lateral earth pressure and settlement are incorporated into the various design recommendations presented in Section 4.

3.3 LIQUEFACTION

A major concern for seismically active areas is the impact of liquefied foundation soils on structures. Christensen and Shaw (2008) indicate that the site is located in an area mapped as having a “high” potential for liquefaction, as presented in Figure 3-1. The potential for liquefaction at the site was evaluated by AGEC in their geotechnical report dated September 28, 2007. Based on their analyses, AGEC concluded that the subsurface conditions found to the depths investigated (up to maximum depth of 50.5 feet) have a “very low” to “low” potential for liquefaction. They also estimated total settlement due to liquefaction to be on the order of 1 inch if liquefaction were to occur in saturated sand layers, with differential settlement estimated to be less than half the estimated total settlement. Kleinfelder did not evaluate the potential for liquefaction in their geotechnical report dated November 5, 2008, but instead referenced the AGEC report.

The potential for liquefaction at the site was assessed using data from the CPTs and the procedure developed by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) and using data from the SPTs and the procedure developed by Youd et al. (2001). Seismic demand parameters (i.e., peak ground acceleration (PGA) and moment magnitude (M) for the analyses were selected from deaggregations of probabilistic seismic hazard curves for peak ground acceleration with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, as described in Section 3.2. The results of the triggering analyses indicate that some of the sand and gravel layers between 5 and 10 feet in TH-02 and TH-03 and between 10 and 15 feet in TH-04 are liquefiable (i.e., have factors of safety against liquefaction less than one) at this IBC-compatible hazard level.

Effects of this liquefaction were evaluated in terms of induced settlement. Based on the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) analysis procedure, vertical settlements are calculated to be less than 3/4 inch. In an actual seismic event, we believe that liquefaction-induced movements will be somewhat less than these calculated values because some of the potentially affected soils are thinly interbedded between dense granular strata, a condition which tends to overestimate their susceptibility to liquefaction. We do however believe that the calculated values are reasonable representations of the actual order of magnitude.



3-3

3.4 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

A plan of the site showing the proposed facilities as well as the locations of test holes and CPT soundings is provided in Figure 1-2. Details of the field exploration performed at this site are presented in Section 2.2 and in Appendices A, B and C. Details of the laboratory testing of materials from this site are presented in Section 2.3 and Appendix D.

3.4.1 Surface Conditions

The site is located about 1,700 feet to the west of the Jordan River. The site is generally flat within the vicinity of the proposed structures and parking areas, though the general topography of the land surrounding the South Valley Sewer District facility trends gently downward to the east. The site is bounded to the north by Jordan Basin Lane, to the west by 1300 West and existing residential development, to the south by existing residential development, and to the east by undeveloped land. A wetland area with standing water traverses the site between the proposed office and maintenance buildings.

The site is undeveloped, with thick, uncultivated vegetation covering the existing ground surface. Numerous Russian Olive trees are located across the approximate southern two-thirds of the project site. Based on available aerial photography, the northern one-third of the site appears to have been cleared of vegetation and trees during grading and construction of Jordan Basin Lane. It further appears that an existing structure was removed from the vicinity of the north parking area for construction of the proposed office building.

Existing geologic mapping (Biek, 2005) indicates that native surficial soils are principally young alluvial deposits of Holocene to Upper Pleistocene age, with stream-terrace deposits also of Holocene to Upper Pleistocene age at the western margin of the site. The young alluvial deposits are characterized as moderately sorted sand, silt, clay, and pebble to boulder gravel deposited in river channels and flood plains; incised by active stream channels, and locally include small alluvial-fan and colluvial deposits. The stream-terrace deposits are characterized as moderately to well sorted sand, silt, clay and pebble to boulder gravel that forms level to gently sloping terraces incised by modern streams.

3.4.2 Subsurface Conditions

Materials found during our field studies are generally similar to those indicated by the geologic mapping. In general, the subsurface soils appear to be fairly continuous across the site. The near-surface soils generally consist of clay topsoil to depths of between 1 and 2 feet. Beneath the topsoil, a layer of medium stiff clay was found that is fairly consistent across the site to depths of about 5 to 7 feet, having been observed in all test holes except TH-04. Beneath the clay deposits, granular deposits generally consisting of interbedded loose to very dense sands and gravels were found to the maximum depths explored of 52 feet. Loose granular zones are infrequent across the site with the larger majority of the granular deposits in a medium dense to dense state. Granular materials were generally well-graded, with fines contents ranging from 4 to 15



3-4

percent in the tested samples. A deeper deposit of medium stiff to stiff silty clay was observed in TH-01 and CPT-01, at the eastern side of the proposed maintenance building, at depths between about 30 to 40 feet. In addition, a deeper deposit of hard clay was found in TH-04 at a depth of 40 feet that extended below the maximum depths studied in that area.

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer testing was completed at six (6) locations. CBR values at each location were calculated from results of DCP testing. In-situ CBR values ranged from 4.0 to 8.0, with an average value of 6.0, and showed general consistency across the project site. An in-situ CBR value of 29.0 was obtained in DCP-02, but this higher than average value is attributed to the fact that this DCP test was located near Jordan Basin Lane and may be in an area that was disturbed or graded during construction of the roadway. Laboratory tests, on the other hand, indicate a CBR value of 8.0. As described in Section 2.2.3, it should be understood that the DCP test is intended to evaluate the in-situ strength of subgrade materials. In other words, the DCP test measures the strength of the subgrade materials at in-situ moisture and density conditions. As such, the CBR values calculated from field measurements will not typically correlate with the laboratory or “soaked” CBR of the same material.

3.4.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was found at depths ranging from about 3-1/2 feet to 7 feet when measured between the time of drilling and 3 days after completion of field studies (see Table 2-1). A slotted PVC pipe was installed in test hole TH-04 to facilitate measurement of groundwater levels. Heaving/flowing conditions were noted in all Test Holes except TH-02, as evidenced by material flowing into the augers. The pore pressure dissipation test performed as part of the CPT soundings (see Appendix A) indicate that some minor seepage pressures (i.e., pressures in excess of hydrostatic condition based on the ground water surface) exist at depth, with estimated excess head on the order of 3 feet at a depth of 41 feet.

Groundwater levels do fluctuate seasonally and given that our field studies were completed during fall, we would expect groundwater levels to be near their seasonal low. Standing water was observed in the wetland area that traverses the site between the proposed office and maintenance buildings. It appears that the standing water is there year round and has been for some time. We believe that localized seeps and/or springs are feeding this wetland feature with contributions coming from surface infiltration to the west and upward flow from granular layers beneath as suggested by the minor seepage pressures. It is likely that additional seeps and wet/soft subgrade areas will be found during construction when subgrades are exposed. Recommendations for addressing localized seepage areas will be discussed in Section 4.

Site

Class PGA SS S1 Fpga Fa Fv PGA SDS SD1

Risk-targeted

(structural) 1 - 1.42 0.48 - 1.00 1.52 - 0.95 0.49

Geo-mean

(geotechnical)0.57 - - 1.00 - - 0.38 - -

Notes: 1. Mapped long-period transition period (TL) is 8 sec.

2. Design acceleration parameters include site coefficients and 2/3 multiplier to reduce

MCE-level motions to design-level motions. In analyses such as liquefaction

triggering and slope stability, the 2/3 multiplier should typically not be used.

Table 3-1 Site Specific Spectral Acceleration Values SVSD - District Office and Maintenance Buildings

D

Type of MCE

Acceleration

Mapped Site Class B

Acceleration Parameter (g)

Site

Coefficient

Design Acceleration

Parameter (g) 2

§̈¦15

§̈¦15

¬«68

¬«68

��154

��154

��140

¬«71

¬«71

Figure 3-1

0 1,500 3,000750

FeetSVSD - District Office and Maintenance Buildings

Liquefaction Potential Map

J:\

PR

OJE

CT

S\2

01

3\1

3G

CI3

20

_S

ou

thV

alle

yS

ew

erD

istr

ict-

Offic

eB

uild

ing

\Dra

win

gs\A

rcG

IS\W

ork

\Liq

ue

factio

n P

ote

ntia

l M

ap

.mxd

, 1

0/8

/20

13

9:5

4:4

3 A

M

LEGEND

Project Location

LiquefactionPotential

Very Low

Moderate

High

±

Reference: Christensen, G.E. and Shaw, L.M. (2008)

SECTION FOUR ANALYSES AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS


4-1

4. SECT ION 4 FOUR Analyses and D esign R ecommendations

4.1 GENERAL

The purpose of this study is to provide geotechnical data such that options for construction of the proposed improvements can be evaluated. An important consideration in preparing our recommendations is the general consistency of the near-surface fine-grained materials, in conjunction with the shallow groundwater, which increases the potential for settlement. Based on our understanding of proposed construction at the project site, the following analyses were performed:

• General Earthwork

• Excavation stability

• Bearing capacity of foundation soils

• Foundation settlement

• Lateral earth pressures against foundations

• Preliminary corrosion and sulfate attack assessment

4.2 EARTHWORK

4.2.1 General

General site grading is recommended to provide support for foundations, building floor slabs, asphalt concrete pavement and concrete flatwork. Due to the presence of shallow groundwater and the consistency of near-surface fine-grained materials, we have provided several options are presented for support of the proposed structures and improvements depending on site grading plans.

For building foundations, two options are suitable to provide required support depending on the overall site grading needs.

• Option 1 - includes complete removal of fine-grained material beneath spread and continuous footings so foundations bear on native granular gravels material as presented in Section 4.2.2.3 and Section 4.3.2. An advantage to this first method is increased bearing capacity, though the tradeoff will be an increase in the volume and cost of required earthwork.

• Option 2 - includes overexcavation and replacement of fine-grained materials with a minimum of 24 inches of structural fill below the bottom of footings as presented in Section 4.2.2.2 and Section 4.3.2. When compared to the first method, the second method provides lower bearing capacity but a decrease in the volume and cost of required earthwork.

For building floor slabs, two methods are suitable to provide the required support.

• Option 1 - remove and replace at least 12 inches of the fine-grained materials with structural fill below the building floor slabs. Additional care will have to be taken with this method to minimize disturbance of the fine-grained materials. If the fine-grained materials are disturbed, or if soft materials are encountered during excavation, additional subgrade preparation such as overexcavation and replacement and/or stabilization will be required.



4-2

• Option 2 - completely remove and replace all of the fine fine-grained materials with properly placed and compacted structural fill from below building slab areas. The tradeoff for this second method when compared to the first method is an increase in the volume and cost of required earthwork. Additional subgrade recommendations for these two methods are discussed in Section 4.2.2.2 and Section 4.2.2.3.

For asphalt concrete pavement and concrete flatwork areas, we anticipate minimal site grading will be required during construction. Care must be taken during excavation and grading of these areas to minimize disturbance of subgrade materials as presented in Section 4.2.2.2.

An additional consideration during general site grading is the location of the structure removed from the parking lot area north of the proposed office building. It is unknown whether the building foundations were completely removed, whether portions of the foundation remain in place, whether fill was properly placed and compacted to backfill building or foundation areas during demolition, and what type of fill material may have been used. All foundation elements, previously disturbed native materials and fill materials, if found, should be removed and replaced with properly placed and compacted structural fill.

4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation

4.2.2.1 Removal of Topsoil and Organics

Prior to importing and placing fill materials, the site must be stripped of all organic topsoil, vegetation, debris and any other deleterious materials. Based on observed site conditions, this depth should be at least 12 to 24 inches below the existing ground surface. Organic topsoil and vegetation should be removed using methods that minimize subgrade disturbance. An example of one such method is using a flat-plate attached to the cutting edge of a bucket rather than excavating with exposed teeth. Stripped organic soils free of excessive deleterious material may be stockpiled for re-use as applicable or disposed of off-site.

4.2.2.2 Fine-Grained Subgrade

Subgrade soils throughout most of the project area consist of fine-grained clay materials. Due to the presence of groundwater at depths as shallow as 2 to 3 feet, these materials are saturated within a few feet below the existing ground surface and will be sensitive (i.e., lose strength) when disturbed. As a result, compaction of these subgrade soils is not recommended as it will typically “pump” the soils and disturb them further.

Fine-grained subgrade soils should be prepared by excavating to the final subgrade level (removing topsoil and organics as discussed in Section 4.2.2.1) using methods that minimize subgrade disturbance. One such example is using a flat-plate attached to the cutting edge of a bucket rather than excavating with exposed teeth. In building areas where the option to use fine-grained materials to support floor slabs is selected, the fine-grained subgrade soils should be removed to depths of at least 12 inches below



4-3

floor slabs and replaced with structural fill. Exposed areas should then be proof-rolled with heavy rubber-tired equipment such as a loaded scraper or front-end loader.

If the fine-grained subgrade soils are disturbed, or if soft subgrade zones are encountered during excavation and proof-rolling, additional subgrade preparation such as overexcavation and replacement with structural fill and/or stabilization will be required. Stabilization efforts may also require the use of a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 500X or approved equivalent, a geogrid such as a Tensar TriAx TX140 or approved equivalent, or other approved stabilization methods. The type and extent of stabilization should be evaluated by GCI, as required, during the course of construction to provide the most economical solution. Once subgrade preparation is complete, the site can be brought to final grade.

Fine-grained subgrade soils should not be used for direct support of foundations, but should be completely removed to expose native granular subgrade materials or removed and replaced with a minimum of 24 inches structural fill.

4.2.2.3 Granular Subgrade

Depending upon the method of construction selected for support of the foundations and building floor slabs, excavations through the near-surface fine-grained soils will expose granular subgrade soils. The granular subgrade soils throughout most of the project consist of clayey sand, gravel and clayey gravel. Due to the observed depths of the granular subgrade materials in relation to the groundwater levels, these materials are saturated and will require dewatering and proper moisture conditioning. The contractor should be aware that proper moisture conditioning may require additional effort and/or equipment. Existing oversized granular materials greater than 3 inches in diameter, where found, should be completely removed to depths of at least 12 inches beneath foundations and building floor slabs and replaced with structural fill. Exposed areas should then be proof-rolled with heavy rubber-tired equipment such as a loaded scraper or front-end loader. Any soft or loose areas identified during this process should be compacted, removed and replaced, or stabilized. Once subgrade preparation is complete, the site can be brought to final grade.

Care should be taken during construction to ensure that foundations bear entirely on native granular material or compacted structural fill. Failure to do so could result in differential or isolated settlements across the buildings in excess of our design recommendations.

4.2.3 Dewatering

Groundwater was found within planned excavation depths and will likely experience periodic fluctuations associated with precipitation levels and seasonal changes. As presented in Section 3.4, groundwater levels were found at depths as shallow as 3-1/2 feet during our field studies and these groundwater levels are likely near their seasonal low. Groundwater levels as shallow as 1 to 2 feet below the ground surface are likely following runoff and/or wet years.

The contractor should be aware that dewatering will be needed during construction. Groundwater levels will need to be lowered depending upon the foundation and



4-4

excavation options selected. Groundwater levels should be maintained a minimum of 2 feet below the base of all excavations during construction (i.e. all construction should be performed in the dry). This will likely require a well points or diversion channels with collection points. Dewatering systems should be designed to prevent migration of finer materials, quick conditions, and subgrade softening. We recommend the contractor be required to submit a dewatering plan detailing how groundwater will be both managed and monitored during construction. This plan should be prepared by an engineer or hydrogeologist with successful experience dewatering for similar projects. We can provide recommendations for dewatering consultants if needed.

4.2.4 Excavation

The options selected for support of proposed building foundations and slabs-on-grade, as presented in Section 4.2.1 will dictate the amount of excavation work required for this project. Based on soil conditions observed during our field studies, excavation for complete removal of fine grained materials beneath building foundations and slabs-on-grade could extend to depths ranging from 3 to 7 feet to reach native granular materials. Except for additional excavation work required for utility trenches, we anticipate minimal excavation work will be required beyond proposed building areas.

Temporary slopes and/or shoring may be needed for construction. Proper shoring and trench boxes should be used where appropriate. Shoring trench boxes should be designed to restrain lateral loads resulting from the soil mass, groundwater, surcharge from construction equipment and other applicable loads; and care should be taken to maintain stability of excavations during construction. Stockpile and excavated materials should be kept a minimum of 5 feet away from the top of shoring elements or temporary slopes. Temporary slopes in sand/gravel materials above groundwater levels and less than 15 feet in depth may be constructed at 2.0 Horizontal to 1.0 Vertical (2.0H:1.0V) or flatter.

Temporary shoring/trench boxes and/or significantly flatter slopes should be used when dewatering cannot achieve the 2 feet minimum. These areas should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a qualified geotechnical engineer during construction.

The contractor should rely upon his own methods to determine and maintain safe and stable slopes during construction subject to his particular construction procedures and to those subsurface conditions more fully exposed during construction. All excavations should comply at a minimum with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) construction standards, as well as applicable Owner, state and local regulations. All excavations should be observed by qualified personnel. The Contractor is ultimately responsible for excavation, trench and site safety.

4.2.5 Structural Fill and Compaction

All fill placed for the support of structures, flatwork or pavements, should consist of structural fill. Structural fill may consist of reasonably graded granular import materials with a maximum size of 3-inches and fines (minus No. 200 sieve size) content less than 25 percent; fines should have a liquid limit less than 20 and a plasticity index less than 7.



4-5

Structural fill should be placed in maximum 10-inch lifts (prior to compaction) and compacted on a horizontal plane. Lift thickness should be decreased to 6-inches in areas where lighter compaction equipment is used. Soils in compacted fills beneath all footings, slabs-on-grade, and exterior flatwork should be compacted to 95 percent maximum dry density (MDD) in accordance with ASTM D1557 and at a moisture content near that considered optimum for compaction. Backfill around foundation walls, as required, should be compacted to 90 percent MDD (ASTM D1557). Small compaction equipment should be used near foundation walls to minimize the potential for wall damage and deflections.

Imported fill materials should be approved by the geotechnical engineer responsible for site grading prior to importing. Prior to placing fill, excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to note that unsuitable materials have been removed and subgrade has been properly prepared.

4.2.6 Drainage

Grading should be planned and executed to provide positive surface drainage away from structures, pavements, pavement base courses and subbases, embankments and other fills, wherever possible both during construction and afterward. We generally recommend using a minimum surface slope of one percent for pavements and two percent for graded earth surfaces. Where it is not possible to provide positive drainage, other appropriate measures should be utilized. These measures include ditches, subsurface drains, commercially available drainage devices, and relatively impervious soil or synthetic caps.

Given the shallow groundwater and minor artesian pressures we observed at the site we believe there is a potential for localized springs and seeps to be exposed during construction and site preparation activities. Any exposed seepage / spring features should be covered with a seepage collection system which should include a gravel drain and/or perforated pipe wrapped with a filter fabric (Mirifi 140N or approved equivalent) to minimize fines migration. The seepage collection system should be connected into storm drain features. If such areas are exposed during construction the geotechnical engineer should be notified to observe these areas.

4.3 FOUNDATIONS

4.3.1 General

Preliminary building loads were provided to us by BCA include: a) maximum uniform loads of 4.5 kips per lineal foot (klf) dead load and 2.0 klf live load, and b) maximum point loads of 81 kips dead load and 63 kips live load.

We understand that the proposed buildings are masonry box type structures that are brittle and very susceptible to differential settlement. BCA has indicated that mat foundations for the proposed buildings are possible, but that the preferred solution is overexcavation of existing soils and/or improvement of bearing materials to provide uniform support.



4-6

In order to provide uniform bearing support, we recommend that each footing be completely founded on either native granular soil of the same type or a minimum of 24 inches of structural fill.

Though recommendations are not included with this report, a third method for support of the building foundations could be the use of ground improvement methodologies such as aggregate piers or stone columns. One advantage of this type of soil improvement is the increased densification of the subsurface granular materials with a subsequent decrease in liquefaction and seismic settlement potential. Recommendations associated with such ground improvement technologies can be provided, if requested.

4.3.2 Conventional Spread Foundations

As presented in Section 4.2.2.3, given the shallow groundwater and consistency of fine-grained near-surface soils, conventional spread and continuous footing depths will either need to extend to bear on native granular materials or to bear on a minimum of 24 inches of structural fill to provide acceptable bearing.

• Native granular gravels - spread and continuous footings bearing on native granular gravels may be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live load conditions.

• Structural fill - spread and continuous footings bearing on a minimum of 24 inches of structural fill may be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live load conditions.

These recommendations assume that dead loads will not exceed 80 kips for column loads and 4 kips/ft for wall loads. The minimum recommended footing width is 18 inches for continuous wall footings and 24 inches for isolated spread footings. All foundations exposed to the full effects of frost should be established at a minimum depth of 30 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Structural fill placed beneath the footings should extend laterally a minimum of one foot beyond the edges of the footings for each foot of fill thickness.

The term “net” bearing pressure refers to the difference between the gross pressure imposed by a structure and that imposed by any overlying soil. This means that the weight of foundation and backfill up to the lowest adjacent final grade need not be included when calculating bearing loads. For a buried structure, the lowest adjacent final grade is typically the elevation of the floor or basin bottom.

The net allowable bearing pressure may be increased (typically by one-third) for temporary loading conditions such as transient wind and seismic loads. Each footing should be completely founded on either all native granular soil of the same type or all structural fill of the same type. We recommend that all footing excavations be observed by a geotechnical professional prior to concrete placement to assess that foundation exposures are free from loose or disturbed material, organic material, debris, and are suitable for foundations.

Foundations designed and constructed using these recommendations are expected to experience total settlements of 1-inch or less and differential settlements less than ½-inch over a distance of 25 feet.



4-7

4.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Lateral earth pressures on retaining/shoring structures under static and seismic conditions may be computed using the earth pressure coefficients listed in Table 4-1. Buoyant unit weights should be used below design water elevations and hydrostatic pressures should be added to these values. We recommend both drained and undrained lateral earth pressures be used to evaluate/design retaining/shoring structures, and all designs should address global stability.

”At-rest” lateral earth pressures are generally assumed for buried structural elements that are designed for little or no movement/rotation. Elements that can move or deflect sufficiently to develop the strength of the soils and backfill behind a wall can be designed assuming “active” lateral earth pressures for structures. A movement or rotation equal to about 0.1 percent of the buried depth of the element is usually considered to be required to develop lateral earth pressures adjacent to sands and gravels and about 1 percent of the buried depth for elements adjacent to clay soils. Passive lateral earth pressures are generally assumed to resist structure movement. Structures movements of at least 2 percent of the buried depth of the structure element are generally associated with full passive lateral earth pressures. About 50 percent of full passive pressure is developed at movements corresponding to about 0.5 percent of the buried depths.

For seismic analyses, the active earth pressure coefficient provided in the table is based on the Mononobe-Okabe pseudo-static approach and only accounts for the dynamic horizontal thrust produced by ground motion. The resulting dynamic thrust pressure should be added to the static pressure to determine total pressures on the wall. The pressure distribution of the dynamic horizontal thrust may be treated as a triangle with the point of application at 1/2 the wall height from the base. Seismic active earth pressures were computed using the design PGA values (See Table 3-1) reduced by 50%.

Lateral earth pressure coefficients presented in Table 4-1 assume horizontal backfill and vertical wall face conditions. Hydrostatic pressures and surcharge loadings should be added to lateral earth pressures as applicable. Over-compaction behind walls should be avoided. Resisting passive earth pressures developed from soils subject to frost or heave, or otherwise above prescribed minimum depths of embedment, should usually be neglected in design.

Lateral forces imposed upon conventional foundations due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by the development of passive earth pressures and friction between the base of the footing and the supporting soils. In determining lateral sliding resistance for foundations bearing on compacted native granular soils, an ultimate friction factor of 0.50 is recommended. When bearing on structural fill, an ultimate friction factor of 0.65 is recommended. Being ultimate values, these values should be considered as representing the maximum resistance to sliding before displacement occurs (i.e., they contain no inherent factor of safety against sliding).



4-8

4.5 SOIL CORROSION AND REACTIVITY

Laboratory test results suggest the relative risk of concrete sulfate attack appears to be negligible to moderate based on concentrations of water-soluble sulfates of 69 to 194 ppm. A conventional Type I/II cement may be used for concrete in contact with the site soils.

Resistivity values of 790 and 2100 ohm-cm were measured under saturated conditions suggesting the soils are “highly corrosive” to “extremely corrosive” (Roberge, 1999). A recent study by Decker et al. (2008) on several exhumed steel sections 34-38 years old suggest critical zones for corrosion include a) the water table fluctuation zone and b) subsurface zones where two adjacent soil zones exhibit large differences in resistivity, pH, moisture, aeration, and cation/anion concentrations. Based on our understanding of the proposed construction, structures will be located within water table fluctuation zones. As such we recommend the designer address corrosion potential of steel and cast-iron elements in contact with native soils.

4.6 PAVEMENT SECTION

4.6.1 General

This section provides recommendations for an asphalt pavement section for parking and driveway areas adjacent to the proposed office and maintenance buildings. We understand that minimal site grading will be required for construction of the pavement section. All subgrade preparation, fill materials, placement and compaction for asphalt paved areas should conform to recommendations presented in Section 4.2 of this report.

4.6.2 Pavement Design and Materials

Unfortunately, a site-specific traffic loading for the parking and driveway areas was not available prior to the preparation of this report. Such data is essential for design methodologies such as the widely used 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Procedure. As a result, we have adopted the minimum asphalt pavement and base course thicknesses required by the City of Bluffdale: 3 inches of asphalt pavement overlying 8 inches of base course. Based on back-calculated Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) of about 108,000 with a CBR value of 8.0, we believe that this pavement section should provide adequate service over a nominal design life of 20 years. Premature distress and/or failure of the pavement should be expected if a disproportionate number of heavier vehicles (such as those with tandem tires or more than 2 axles, garbage trucks, semi-trucks with or without trailers, and construction equipment) use the pavement areas.

The plant mix asphalt and 1-1/2 inch minus base course materials should conform to current Utah Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (UDOT, 2012). Additionally, the base course should possess a minimum resilient modulus value of 27,000 psi, and be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 (modified proctor). A minimum of one nuclear density/moisture test shall be conducted on each lift at a frequency of one test per 1,000



4-9

square feet to verify that base course material has been properly compacted. Any fill that does not meet the compaction requirement should be re-worked and re-compacted as necessary and re-tested. Following compaction and approval, soils should be protected from saturation, softening, loosening, ponded water, and freezing prior to placement of pavements. Any soils that experience these conditions should be re-worked, re-compacted, and re-tested as necessary to ensure proper compaction.

All asphalt should be compacted to a minimum of 96% of the Marshall (50 blow) maximum density. Field and laboratory testing should be performed to determine whether applicable requirements have been met.

It is important that pavement grade be set to provide positive drainage to suitable drainage structures. A desirable slope for drainage in paved areas is typically one to two percent.

Active At-Rest Passive

Seismic

Active

Structural Fill 130 68 36 - 0.26 0.42 3.85 0.19

Native Clay / Silt 120 58 27 - 0.38 0.55 2.67 0.22

Native Silty Gravel /

Clayey Gravel125 63 34 - 0.28 0.44 3.54 0.20

SVSD - District Office and Maintenance BuildingsTable 4-1 Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters

a Buoyant unit weights should be used below design water elevations and hydrostatic pressures added to these values.

b Earth pressures for structures should be designed for both drained and undrained conditions.

Undrained

shear

strength

(Su) b

Material

Unit

Weight

(pcf)

Buoyant

Unit

Weight

(pcf) a

Drained

friction

angle

(deg)

Earth Pressure Coefficient

SECTION FIVE CONCLUSION


5-1

5. SECT ION 5 F IVE Conclusion

5.1 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

The recommendations contained in this document are based on the assumption that an adequate program of testing and observation will be performed during construction to verify compliance with, and correct implementation of, the recommendations. Such testing and observation to be performed or overseen by the Geotechnical Engineer include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

• Observation and testing of site preparation, earthwork, and structural fill placement activities.

• Consultation as may be required during construction.

We also recommend that we review project plans and specifications to verify compatibility with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Given the challenging site conditions including soft subgrade and shallow groundwater we recommend our involvement through the earthwork portions of the project. Additional information concerning the scope and cost of these services can be obtained from our office.

5.2 LIMITATIONS

The assessments and recommendations presented in this document are based on limited field studies and laboratory testing, as well as our understanding of the project’s design and manner of construction. Subsurface conditions are inherently variable. It is important that we observe subsurface materials and conditions exposed at the site during construction, thereby taking advantage of opportunities to recognize potentially differing site conditions and reduce the risk of unanticipated and/or adverse outcomes. If the project’s design or manner of construction changes, or if conditions are found that are different from those described, we should be notified immediately so that we can make revisions as necessary. We should also review project plans and specifications for compatibility with our assessments and recommendations. Additional information regarding such services can be obtained from our office.

We represent that our services are performed within the limitations prescribed by our Client, in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other professional consultants under similar circumstances. No other representation, expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended. This document may not contain sufficient information for other parties or uses. The use of information contained in this document for bidding purposes is not intended and done at the Contractor's option and risk. We do not assume responsibility for the accuracy of information provided by others.

5.3 CLOSURE

This document, “Geotechnical Study – South Valley Sewer District - District Office and Maintenance Building” dated October 11, 2013, together with associated Tables, Figures, and Appendices, was prepared by Gerhart Cole, Inc., for the use of Bowen

SECTION FIVE CONCLUSION


5-2

Collins and Associates, Inc. relative to its work on the South Valley Sewer District - District Office and Maintenance Building project.

SECTION SIX REFERENCES


6-1

6. SECT ION 6 SIX References

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO]. (1993). Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.

Biek, R. (2005). Geologic Map of the Jordan Narrows Quadrangle, Salt Lake and Utah Counties, Utah. Utah Geological Survey Map 208.

Christenson, G.E. and Shaw, L.M. (2008). Liquefaction Special Studies Areas, Wasatch Front and Nearby Areas, Utah. Supplement Map to Utah Geological Survey Circular 106, Utah Geological Survey.

Decker, J.B., Rollins, K.M., and Ellsworth, J.C. (2008). Corrosion Rate Evaluation and Prediction for Piles Based on Long-Term Field Performance. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, March 2008, pp. 341-351.

Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008). Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Monograph (MNO)-12. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

Roberge, P.R. (1999). Handbook of Corrosion Engineering, McGraw Hill, N.Y.

United States Geologic Survey [USGS]. (2006). U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program Quaternary faults Web Mapping Application, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/qfaults/map.php, accessed: September 2013.

United States Geologic Survey [USGS]. (2012). 2008 Interactive Deaggregations (Beta), https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/, accessed: September 2013.

Utah Department of Transportation [UDOT]. (2008). 2012 Pavement Management and Pavement Design Manual. November 1998, Updated March 2008.

Wu, S. and Sargand, S. (2007). Use of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Subgrade and Base Acceptance, Ohio Department of Transportation State Job Number 14817(0), United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Report Number FHWA/ODOT-2007/01, April 2007.

Youd. T.L. et al. (2001). Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October 2001, pp. 817-833.

Appendix A Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Logs

Electronic Filename: S713S1301C.ECP

Sleeve Friction

fs

(tsf)

1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8

Sep. 13, 2013

Bedke GFS

42.5 ftMaximum Reaction Force

South Valley Sewer District Admin Building

(Bluffdale,Utah)

Total Depth:

Termination Criteria:

Date:

Estimated Water Depth:

Rig/Operator:

Project Number :13GCI320

Page 1 of 1

Pore Pressure

u2

(ft)

-60 80 220 360

7 ftCone Size:

Tip Resistance

qt

(tsf)

200 400 600 800

Depth

(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Friction Ratio

Rf

(%)

2 4 6 8

CP

T R

EP

OR

T -

ST

AN

DA

RD

WIT

H L

EG

EN

D G

C

SV

SD

_C

PT

_L

OG

S.G

PJ

CP

T V

3.0

.GD

T

9/2

3/1

3

40.49955-111.92542

Latitude:

Longitude:

Elevation:

Depth

(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

*overconsolidated or cemented

SBT Material Graphics

1 - Sensitive, Fine Grained

Soils

2 - Organic Soils, Peats

3 - Clays-Clay to Silty Clay

4 - Silt Mixtures-Clay Silt to

Silty Clay

5 - Sand Mixtures-Silty Sand

to Sandy Silt

6 - Sands-Clean Sand to

Silty Sand

7 - Gravelly Sand to Sand

8 - Very Stiff Clay to Clayey

Sand

9 - Very Stiff Fine Grained

Soils

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SBT Fr NormalizedMAI = 1(1990)

u0

-24 -8 8 24u2

(ft)

80604020qt

(tsf)

<<

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>

>>>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>

>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Cone Penetration Test CPT-01

Electronic Filename: S713S1302C.ECP

Sleeve Friction

fs

(tsf)

1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8

Sep. 13, 2013

Bedke GFS

34.5 ftMaximum Reaction Force

South Valley Sewer District Admin Building

(Bluffdale,Utah)

Total Depth:

Termination Criteria:

Date:

Estimated Water Depth:

Rig/Operator:

Project Number :13GCI320

Page 1 of 1

Pore Pressure

u2

(ft)

-60 80 220 360

4.5 ftCone Size:

Tip Resistance

qt

(tsf)

200 400 600 800

Depth

(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Friction Ratio

Rf

(%)

2 4 6 8

CP

T R

EP

OR

T -

ST

AN

DA

RD

WIT

H L

EG

EN

D G

C

SV

SD

_C

PT

_L

OG

S.G

PJ

CP

T V

3.0

.GD

T

9/2

3/1

3

40.49916-111.92751

Latitude:

Longitude:

Elevation:

Depth

(ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

*overconsolidated or cemented

SBT Material Graphics

1 - Sensitive, Fine Grained

Soils

2 - Organic Soils, Peats

3 - Clays-Clay to Silty Clay

4 - Silt Mixtures-Clay Silt to

Silty Clay

5 - Sand Mixtures-Silty Sand

to Sandy Silt

6 - Sands-Clean Sand to

Silty Sand

7 - Gravelly Sand to Sand

8 - Very Stiff Clay to Clayey

Sand

9 - Very Stiff Fine Grained

Soils

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SBT Fr NormalizedMAI = 1(1990)

u0

-24 -8 8 24u2

(ft)

80604020qt

(tsf)

>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Cone Penetration Test CPT-02

Appendix B Test Hole Logs / Legend to Soil Descriptions

0-2-4-4[6]

1-2-2-4[4]

3-9-14-17[23]

4-11-12-13[23]

7-16-16-20[32]

12-22-27[49]

18-34-24[58]

- change in tip of sampler

- flowing sands, added waterto auger

- flowing sands, added waterto auger, blow counts notvalid

SPT-1

SPT-2

SPT-3

SPT-4

SPT-5

SPT-6

SPT-7

CLAY, with sand, with roots, moist, dark brown, topsoil, (CL)

CLAY, medium stiff, with roots, moist to wet, light gray, (CL)

GRAVEL, medium dense, fine to coarse grained, subrounded, with sand, withclay, wet, gray, (GW-GC)

SAND, dense to very dense, fine to coarse grained, with silt, with gravel, wet,light brown, (SW-SM)

- grades to gray

22

18

8

10

14

12

18

ElevationDatum

DrillingContractor

DrillingMethod HSA

B. Conder

Total DepthDrilled (feet)

Drill BitSize/Type

Drill RigType

9/16/13

Cuttings

52.0 feet

Logged By Checked ByDate(s)Drilled

Comments

Ground SurfaceElevation (feet)

CME 75

8-in HSA; 4.25-in ID

Bedke Geotechnical F.S.

ApparentGroundwater Depth

Test HoleBackfill

Hammer Weight/Drop(lbs/in.) Automatic trip hammer

7

FIELD NOTES

Ele

va

tio

n,

fee

t

De

pth

,fe

et

SAMPLES

Sa

mp

ling

Re

sis

tan

ce

Typ

e

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Nu

mb

er

Re

co

ve

ry,

inch

es

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Project Location: Near 1300 West and Jordan Basin Lane

Log of Test Hole TH-01Project: SVSD - District Office and Maintenance Bldgs.

Sheet 1 of 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Project Number: 13GCI320

SO

IL T

ES

T H

OL

E

SV

SD

_T

H_

LO

GS

.GP

J

GE

RH

AR

T.G

DT

1

0/3

/13

12-6-8-6[14]

1-2-3-3[5]

2-4-8-22[12]

8-21-32[53]

4-12-35-37[47]

- change in sampler

SPT-8

SH-9

SPT-10

SPT-11

SPT-12

SPT-13

SILTY CLAY, medium stiff to stiff, sandy, trace gravel, wet, light olive brown,(CL-ML)

SAND, medium dense, clayey, fine to medium grained, with gravel, wet, lightbrown, (SC)

SAND, very dense, fine to coarse grained, with gravel, wet, brown, (SW)

SAND, dense, clayey, fine grained, some gravel, wet, brown, (SC)

Bottom of Test Hole at 52 feet.

12

24

24

22

12

20

FIELD NOTES

Ele

va

tio

n,

fee

t

De

pth

,fe

et

SAMPLES

Sa

mp

ling

Re

sis

tan

ce

Typ

e


Nu

mb

er

Re

co

ve

ry,

inch

es

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Sheet 2 of 2

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65


SO

IL T

ES

T H

OL

E

SV

SD

_T

H_

LO

GS

.GP

J

GE

RH

AR

T.G

DT

1

0/3

/13

2-2-2-3[4]

1-3-3-4[6]

5-8-9-9[17]

9-9-9-9[18]

10-9-10-10[19]

14-16-20-18[36]

16-14-13-18[27]

SPT-1

SPT-2

SPT-3

SPT-4

SPT-5

SPT-6

SPT-7

CLAY, sandy, with sand, with roots, moist, dark brown, topsoil, (CL)

CLAY, medium stiff, with sand, moist, light gray to gray, (CL)

SAND, loose, clayey, fine to coarse grained, moist to wet, gray, (SC)

GRAVEL, medium dense, fine to coarse grained, subrounded, with clay, withsand, wet, gray, (GW-GC)

GRAVEL, medium dense to dense, fine to coarse grained, subrounded, withsand, wet, light gray, (GW)


24

18

18

8

14

ElevationDatum

DrillingContractor

DrillingMethod HSA

B. Conder


Drill BitSize/Type

Drill RigType

9/16/13

Cuttings

27.0 feet


Comments


CME 75




Test HoleBackfill


7

FIELD NOTES

Ele

va

tio

n,

fee

t

De

pth

,fe

et

SAMPLES

Sa

mp

ling

Re

sis

tan

ce

Typ

e


Nu

mb

er

Re

co

ve

ry,

inch

es

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


SO

IL T

ES

T H

OL

E

SV

SD

_T

H_

LO

GS

.GP

J

GE

RH

AR

T.G

DT

1

0/3

/13

2-2-2-3[4]

3-4-6-8[10]

6-9-10-12[19]

4-10-11-13[21]

7-10-13-15[23]

11-24-31-21[55]

5-20-25[45]


SPT-1

SPT-2

SPT-3

SPT-4

SPT-5

SPT-6

SPT-7


CLAY, medium stiff, sandy, trace gravel, moist, light brown, (CL)

SAND, medium dense, clayey, fine to coarse grained, with gravel, wet, lightbrown, (SC)

GRAVEL, medium dense to very dense, fine to coarse grained, subrounded,with silt, with sand, wet, light greyish brown, (GW-GM)

Bottom of Test Hole at 26.5 feet.

15

12

12

15

12

10

7

ElevationDatum

DrillingContractor

DrillingMethod HSA

B. Conder


Drill BitSize/Type

Drill RigType

9/16/13

Cuttings

26.5 feet


Comments


CME 75




Test HoleBackfill


3.5

FIELD NOTES

Ele

va

tio

n,

fee

t

De

pth

,fe

et

SAMPLES

Sa

mp

ling

Re

sis

tan

ce

Typ

e


Nu

mb

er

Re

co

ve

ry,

inch

es

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


SO

IL T

ES

T H

OL

E

SV

SD

_T

H_

LO

GS

.GP

J

GE

RH

AR

T.G

DT

1

0/3

/13

9-11-10-7[21]

7-8-8-7[16]

8-10-12-13[22]

8-8-7-11[15]

18-20-30[50]

15-16-16[32]

34-29-23[52]



- harder drilling at 29.0 feet

SPT-1

SPT-2

SPT-3

SPT-4

SPT-5

SPT-6

SPT-7


GRAVEL, medium dense, clayey, fine grained, subangular, with sand, moistto wet, light brown, (GC)

SAND, medium dense, fine to coarse grained, with gravel, wet, light greyishbrown, (SW)

SAND, medium dense, fine to coarse grained, with clay, with gravel, wet, lightgreyish brown, (SW-SC)

SAND, dense to very dense, fine to coarse grained, with silt, with gravel, wet,light greyish brown, (SW-SM)

14

14

14

10

10

11

ElevationDatum

DrillingContractor

DrillingMethod HSA

B. Conder


Drill BitSize/Type

Drill RigType

9/17/13

Cuttings

42.0 feet


Comments


CME 75




Test HoleBackfill


3.5

FIELD NOTES

Ele

va

tio

n,

fee

t

De

pth

,fe

et

SAMPLES

Sa

mp

ling

Re

sis

tan

ce

Typ

e


Nu

mb

er

Re

co

ve

ry,

inch

es

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Sheet 1 of 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


SO

IL T

ES

T H

OL

E

SV

SD

_T

H_

LO

GS

.GP

J

GE

RH

AR

T.G

DT

1

0/3

/13

20-21-29[50]

36-50/3"[R]

16-19-12-12[31]

SPT-8

SPT-9

SPT-10

SAND, very dense, silty, fine to medium grained, with gravel, wet, lightgreyish brown, (SM)

CLAY, hard, sandy, with gravel, wet, brown, (CL)


9

8

20

FIELD NOTES

Ele

va

tio

n,

fee

t

De

pth

,fe

et

SAMPLES

Sa

mp

ling

Re

sis

tan

ce

Typ

e


Nu

mb

er

Re

co

ve

ry,

inch

es

Gra

ph

ic L

og



Sheet 2 of 2

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65


SO

IL T

ES

T H

OL

E

SV

SD

_T

H_

LO

GS

.GP

J

GE

RH

AR

T.G

DT

1

0/3

/13

Other Material Symbols Sample Types

Boulders / Cobbles COBBLESBOULDERS

Liquid limit (%)

Plasticity Chart

Criteria1/16" to 1/2"1/2" to 12"<= 1 per ft. thickness> 1 per ft. thickness

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

CL

ML

OL

CH

MH

OH

> 50% (by volume) particles > 3"

Topsoil

Boulders (>12"); Cobbles (>3" and <12")

Pla

stic

ityin

dex

(%)

Stratification

SPT

<4

4-10

10-30

30-50

>50 Description

Boulder

Cobble

Coarse Gravel

Fine Gravel

Coarse Sand

Medium Sand

Fine Sand

Criteria

>12" : larger than a basketball

3-12" : larger than a grapefruit

3/4-3" : larger than a grape

No.4-3/4" : larger than a pea

No.10-4 : larger than rock salt grain

No.40-4 : larger than window screen opening

No.200-40 : larger than a sugar grain

Descriptors for Particle Size

Descriptios for Particle AngularityDescriptionAngularSubangularSubroundedRounded

CriteriaSharp edges, rel. plane sides, unpolished surfaceSimilar to angular, but with rounded edgesNearly plane sides, well-rounded corners & edgesSmoothly curved sides and no edges

Abbreviated Soil Classification Symbols (after ASTM D2488 X.5)

Prefix Suffixs = sandy s = with sandg = gravelly g = with gravel

c = with cobblesb = with boulders

Abbreviated system for supplementary presentations when completedescription is referenced. Examples:

Group Symbol and Full Name AbbreviatedSandy Lean CLAY (CL) s(CL)Poorly Graded SAND with silt and gravel (SP-SM)gPoorly Graded GRAVEL with sand, cobbles, (GP)scband boulders (GP)Gravelly SILT with sand and cobbles (ML) g(ML)sc

General Notes:1) Strata graphic lines on the logs represent approximate boundaries.2) No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil conditions

between points explored and sample locations.3) Logs represent soil conditions observed at the point of exploration

on the date indicated.4) Visual methods were used to classify the materials in general

accordance with the Unified Soils Classification Systems; actualdesignations based on laboratory methods may vary.

Dr (%)

0-15

15-35

35-65

65-85

85-100

ModifiersEst. (%)

<5

5-12

>12

Description

Trace

Some

With

Asphalt

Auger Cuttings California Sampler

Continuous sampler Rock Core

Grab Sample Modified CaliforniaSampler

No Recovery Other (see remarks)

Shelby Tube Piston Sampler (ShelbyTube)

Standard PenetrationTest (SPT) Split Spoon

Cont. Sample Vane Shear

Major Soil Divisions

>50% of coarsefraction retainedon No. 4 Sieve

SILTS and CLAYS

liquid limit < 50

FIN

E-G

RA

INE

DS

OIL

S>5

0%P

assi

ngN

o.20

0S

ieve

CO

AR

SE

-GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

>50%

reta

ined

onN

o.20

0si

eve

>50% of coarsefraction passingthe No. 4 sieve

SILTS and CLAYS

liquid limit < 50

1) CF > 30%: + Sandy/Gravelly2) CF = 15-30% + with sand/gravel

Inorganic

Organic

1) CF > 30%: + Sandy/Gravelly2) CF = 15-30% + with sand/gravel

Inorganic

Organic

OH & MH

DescriptionSeamLayerOccasionalFrequent

MC

<6

6-15

15-42

42-72

>72

Clean GRAVELS(little or no fines)

GRAVELS with fines(appreciable amount of fines)

SANDS with fines(appreciable amount of fines)

Clean SANDS(little or no fines)

Typical Names

GRAVELS

MaterialTypes

SANDS

Group Symboland Legend

Primarily Organic Matter; Organic Odor PEATPT

Well-Graded GRAVEL, GRAVEL-sand mixtures, few fines

Poorly-Graded GRAVEL, GRAVEL-sand mixtures, few fines

Silty GRAVEL, GRAVEL-sand silt mixtures

Clayey GRAVEL, GRAVEL-sand clay mixtures

Well-Graded SAND, SAND-gravel mixtures, few fines

Poorly-Graded SAND, SAND-gravel mixtures, few fines

Silty SAND, SAND-silt mixtures

Clayey SAND, SAND-clay mixtures

Lean CLAY, Gravelly/Sandy CLAY, low to med. plasticity

SILT, Gravelly/Sandy SILT, no to slight plasticity

Organic CLAY or SILT

Fat CLAY, Gravelly/Sandy Fat CLAY, high plasticity

Elastic SILT, Gravelly/Sandy Elastic SILT, low to high plasticity

Organic CLAY or SILT

Highly orgainc soils

CL

CH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 1200

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Concrete

Fill

Bedrock

"A" LINE

CL-ML

Consistency

very soft

soft

med. stiff

stiff

very stiff

hard

Descriptors for Coarse Grained Soils

Descriptors for Fine Grained Soils

Apparent Density

very loose

loose

med. dense

dense

very dense

SPT

<2

2-4

4-8

8-15

15-30

>30

MC

<2

2-4

4-10

10-19

19-37

>37

CAL

<2

2-5

5-11

11-22

22-45

>45

SPT - Standard split spoon (SPT): 2" OD, 1.375" IDMC - Modified California: 2.5" OD, 1.875" IDCAL - California: 3" OD, 2.375" ID

CAL

<8

8-20

20-56

56-96

>96

Apparent water level Measured water level

Descriptors for Moisture

Su (psf)

< 250

250-500

500-1000

1000-2000

2000-4000

>4000

Criteria

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, usually soil is below water table

Description

Dry

Moist

Wet

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

Legend to Soil Descriptions

Appendix C Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Summaries

DCP Test Summary

Project Name: South Valley Sewer District - Office Building


Location ID: DCP-01

Location: Office Building - South Parking Lot

Date:

No. of

Blows

Accumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Soil Type

Type of

Hammer

(lbs)

0 0 CL 10.1

1 27.94 CL 10.1

2 58.42 CL 10.1

3 93.98 CL 10.1

4 127 CL 10.1

5 154.94 CL 10.1

7 187.96 CL 10.1

6 215.9 CL 10.1

6 248.92 CL 10.1

4 274.32 CL 10.1

4 304.8 CL 10.1

3 337.82 CL 10.1

3 373.38 CL 10.1

2 406.4 CL 10.1

2 439.42 CL 10.1

2 469.9 CL 10.1

2 518.16 CL 10.1

1 561.34 CL 10.1

1 635 CL 10.1

1 701.04 CL 10.1

1 744.22 CL 10.1

1 789.94 CL 10.1

1 820.42 CL 10.1

1 845.82 CL 10.1

1 871.22 CL 10.1

1 899.16 CL 10.1

1 922.02 CL 10.1

Kleyn, 1975

Smith & Pratt, 1983

Wu, 1987

Livneh, 1987

Harison, 1989

Ese et al, 1994

Webster Combined, 1992 & 1994

Average

Note: CBR values based on in-situ conditions

September 11, 2013

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

1 10 100

De

pth

(in)

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR

DCP Test Summary



Location ID: DCP-02

Location: Maintenance Building - North Driveway Area

Date:

No. of

Blows

Accumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Soil Type

Type of

Hammer

(lbs)

0 0 CL 10.1

10 30.48 CL 10.1

10 60.96 CL 10.1

10 91.44 CL 10.1

15 127 CL 10.1

15 160.02 CL 10.1

20 187.96 CL 10.1

20 218.44 CL 10.1

20 246.38 CL 10.1

20 271.78 CL 10.1

20 299.72 CL 10.1

25 325.12 CL 10.1

10 358.14 CL 10.1

10 386.08 CL 10.1

10 416.56 CL 10.1

5 441.96 CL 10.1

5 474.98 CL 10.1

5 502.92 CL 10.1

5 538.48 CL 10.1

5 579.12 CL 10.1

5 619.76 CL 10.1

5 652.78 CL 10.1

5 685.8 CL 10.1

5 716.28 CL 10.1

5 746.76 CL 10.1

5 779.78 CL 10.1

5 815.34 CL 10.1

5 848.36 CL 10.1

5 878.84 CL 10.1

8 924.56 CL 10.1

Kleyn, 1975

Smith & Pratt, 1983

Wu, 1987

Livneh, 1987

Harison, 1989

Ese et al, 1994


Average


September 13, 2013

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

1 10 100

De

pth

(in)

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR

DCP Test Summary



Location ID: DCP-03

Location: Maintenance Building - South Parking Lot

Date:

No. of

Blows

Accumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Soil Type

Type of

Hammer

(lbs)

0 0 CL 10.1

1 33.02 CL 10.1

1 60.96 CL 10.1

1 91.44 CL 10.1

1 116.84 CL 10.1

2 165.1 CL 10.1

1 193.04 CL 10.1

1 223.52 CL 10.1

1 254 CL 10.1

1 284.48 CL 10.1

1 320.04 CL 10.1

1 355.6 CL 10.1

1 383.54 CL 10.1

1 408.94 CL 10.1

1 434.34 CL 10.1

1 459.74 CL 10.1

2 497.84 CL 10.1

2 530.86 CL 10.1

2 568.96 CL 10.1

2 604.52 CL 10.1

2 637.54 CL 10.1

2 670.56 CL 10.1

2 701.04 CL 10.1

2 731.52 CL 10.1

2 759.46 CL 10.1

2 784.86 CL 10.1

2 810.26 CL 10.1

3 845.82 CL 10.1

3 876.3 CL 10.1

3 904.24 CL 10.1

4 939.8 CL 10.1

Kleyn, 1975

Smith & Pratt, 1983

Wu, 1987

Livneh, 1987

Harison, 1989

Ese et al, 1994


Average


September 13, 2013

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

1 10 100

De

pth

(in)

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR

DCP Test Summary



Location ID: DCP-04

Location: Office Building - North Parking Lot

Date:

No. of

Blows

Accumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Soil Type

Type of

Hammer

(lbs)

0 0 CL 10.1

2 33.02 CL 10.1

2 60.96 CL 10.1

2 83.82 CL 10.1

2 111.76 CL 10.1

2 165.1 CL 10.1

1 213.36 CL 10.1

1 256.54 CL 10.1

1 294.64 CL 10.1

1 330.2 CL 10.1

1 358.14 CL 10.1

2 396.24 CL 10.1

2 434.34 CL 10.1

2 480.06 CL 10.1

2 528.32 CL 10.1

2 563.88 CL 10.1

2 599.44 CL 10.1

2 640.08 CL 10.1

2 683.26 CL 10.1

2 718.82 CL 10.1

2 756.92 CL 10.1

2 792.48 CL 10.1

2 822.96 CL 10.1

2 850.9 CL 10.1

2 876.3 CL 10.1

2 901.7 CL 10.1

Kleyn, 1975

Smith & Pratt, 1983

Wu, 1987

Livneh, 1987

Harison, 1989

Ese et al, 1994


Average


September 11, 2013

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

1 10 100

De

pth

(in)

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR

DCP Test Summary



Location ID: DCP-05

Location: Maintenance Building - West Parking Lot

Date:

No. of

Blows

Accumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Soil Type

Type of

Hammer

(lbs)

0 0 CL 10.1

2 38.1 CL 10.1

5 78.74 CL 10.1

7 116.84 CL 10.1

6 142.24 CL 10.1

6 167.64 CL 10.1

5 195.58 CL 10.1

4 220.98 CL 10.1

4 246.38 CL 10.1

3 271.78 CL 10.1

3 299.72 CL 10.1

3 327.66 CL 10.1

3 358.14 CL 10.1

3 393.7 CL 10.1

2 421.64 CL 10.1

2 454.66 CL 10.1

2 487.68 CL 10.1

2 538.48 CL 10.1

2 581.66 CL 10.1

2 617.22 CL 10.1

2 650.24 CL 10.1

2 688.34 CL 10.1

2 744.22 CL 10.1

1 779.78 CL 10.1

1 810.26 CL 10.1

1 835.66 CL 10.1

2 873.76 CL 10.1

2 911.86 CL 10.1

Kleyn, 1975

Smith & Pratt, 1983

Wu, 1987

Livneh, 1987

Harison, 1989

Ese et al, 1994


Average


September 11, 2013

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

1 10 100

De

pth

(in)

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR

DCP Test Summary



Location ID: DCP-06

Location: Office Building - West Parking Lot

Date:

No. of

Blows

Accumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Soil Type

Type of

Hammer

(lbs)

0 0 CL 10.1

1 48.26 CL 10.1

2 76.2 CL 10.1

3 106.68 CL 10.1

3 137.16 CL 10.1

3 167.64 CL 10.1

3 193.04 CL 10.1

3 220.98 CL 10.1

3 246.38 CL 10.1

4 279.4 CL 10.1

3 312.42 CL 10.1

2 340.36 CL 10.1

2 370.84 CL 10.1

2 401.32 CL 10.1

2 444.5 CL 10.1

1 474.98 CL 10.1

2 505.46 CL 10.1

1 546.1 CL 10.1

1 591.82 CL 10.1

1 622.3 CL 10.1

1 650.24 CL 10.1

2 695.96 CL 10.1

2 741.68 CL 10.1

2 779.78 CL 10.1

2 810.26 CL 10.1

2 845.82 CL 10.1

2 881.38 CL 10.1

3 922.02 CL 10.1

Kleyn, 1975

Smith & Pratt, 1983

Wu, 1987

Livneh, 1987

Harison, 1989

Ese et al, 1994


Average


September 13, 2013

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

1016

1 10 100

De

pth

(in)

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR

Appendix D Interpretative Laboratory Test Results


After ASTM D2435 and USBR 5700Project: South Valley Sewer District Office Building TH/TP/Sample: TH-01

No: 13GCI320 Depth: 32.5-34.5 ft

Location: Bluffdale, UT Sample description: Sandy Brown Clay


Tested by: dab Sample type: Rel. undisturbed, Shelby Tube

Reduced by: dab Inundation stress (psf): 100, beginning

Checked by: bcc Swell pressure (psf): 54

Comments: Test method: B



Initial Final

Vert.

stress

(psf)

Corr.

Dial, dfc a (in) Hc

b (in)

Vert.

strain, ev

Void

ratio, e

Load

duration

(min)

Height, H (in) 1.0000 0.8426 Seating 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.9520 0

Height, H (cm) 2.540 2.140 100 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.9521 38

Dia., D (in) 2.500 2.500 200 0.0033 0.9967 0.0033 0.9455 240

Dia., D (cm) 6.350 6.350 400 0.0055 0.9945 0.0055 0.9413 240

Wt. rings + wet soil (g) 359.94 352.06 800 0.0086 0.9914 0.0086 0.9352 240

Wt. rings (g) 214.49 214.49 1,600 0.0116 0.9884 0.0116 0.9294 72

Wet soil + tare (g) 397.80 3,200 0.0178 0.9822 0.0178 0.9173 52

Dry soil + tare (g) 338.31 6,400 0.0332 0.9668 0.0332 0.8873 108

Tare (g) 144.71 12,800 0.0679 0.9321 0.0679 0.8194 101

Moisture cont., w (%) 30.7 23.6 25,600 0.1172 0.8828 0.1172 0.7233 106

Gs, assumed 2.70 2.70 51,200 0.1758 0.8242 0.1758 0.6089 720

Mass total (g) 145.5 137.6 25,600 0.1748 0.8252 0.1748 0.6108 120

Mass of solids (g) 111.3 111.3 6,400 0.1691 0.8309 0.1691 0.6219 120

Volume (cm^3) 80.4 67.8 1,600 0.1620 0.8380 0.1620 0.6359 95

Vol. of water (cm^3) 34.2 26.3 400 0.1574 0.8426 0.1574 0.6447 130



Vol. of air (cm^3) 5.0 0.3

Area, A (cm^2) 31.7 31.7

Ht. solids, Hs (cm) 1.301 1.301


Porosity, n 0.488 0.392






Notes:a Dfc = end of increment deformation corrected for machine, porous stone, and filter paper deformationb Hc = height at end of consolidation of each vert. stress

J:\PROJECTS\2013\13GCI320_SouthValleySewerDistrict-OfficeBuilding\Data\LabData\[CON_Sig1-v02_TH-01at34.xlsm]ConNoInt

18-Sep-13


After ASTM D2435 and USBR 5700Project: South Valley Sewer District Office Building TH/TP/Sample: TH-01

No: 13GCI320 Depth: 32.5-34.5 ft

-0.0500

0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Str

ain

(∆

H/H

)


Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil (ASTM D698 / D1557) IGES 2004, 2013

Project: Boring No.:No: Sample:

Location: Depth:Date: Sample Description:

By: Engineering Classification:As-received water content (%):

Method: Preparation method:Mold Id. Rammer:

Mold volume (ft3): Rock Correction: No

Optimum water content (%): 29.9Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): 86.4

Point Number -2% -4% -6% -10% -12% -14% -16% -18%Wt. Sample + Mold (g) 10202.5 10255.5 10323.1 10381.6 10360.0 10260.2 10168.7 10078.5

Wt. of Mold (g) 6532.7 6532.7 6532.7 6532.7 6532.7 6532.7 6532.7 6532.7Wet Unit Wt., m (pcf) 107.6 109.2 111.2 112.9 112.3 109.3 106.7 104.0

Wet Soil + Tare (g) 1154.15 851.59 1178.82 1271.97 1104.51 999.39 929.03 1136.11Dry Soil + Tare (g) 932.57 676.62 929.41 1035.35 901.27 833.55 778.70 967.37

Tare (g) 393.09 214.17 221.93 328.09 221.96 226.61 190.08 273.26Water Content, w (%) 41.1 37.8 35.3 33.5 29.9 27.3 25.5 24.3Dry Unit Wt., d (pcf) 76.3 79.2 82.2 84.6 86.4 85.9 85.0 83.7

Entered by:___________

Reviewed:___________ Z:\PROJECTS\M00265_Gerhart_Consultants\128_SVSD_Office\[PROCTORv2.xls]1

Mechanical-sector faceMoistASTM D698 C

M00265-128 (13GCI320)South Valley Sewer District-Office Building

ETNot requested

Gerhart Cole, Inc. TH-04A 1.0-2.5'Brown siltNot requested

9/30/2013

0.0752Inc 7

Maximum dry unit weight = 86.4 (pcf)

ZAVL Gs = 2.6

ZAVL Gs = 2.7

75

80

85

90

95

20 25 30 35 40 45Water content (%)

Dry

uni

t wei

ght (

pcf)

Maximum dry unit weight andoptimum water content

California Bearing Ratio(ASTM D 1883) IGES 2004, 2013

Project: Boring No.:Number: Sample:Location: Depth:

Date: Original Method:By: Engineering Classification:

86.4 Condition of Sample:29.9 Scalp and Replace:

100.28.29.5

As Compacted Data Before AfterMold Id. CBR-7 Wet Soil + Tare (g) 865.70 976.90

10506.2 Dry Soil + Tare (g) 735.50 819.936687.5 299.60 288.4086.6 29.9 29.5

Average Top 1 in.10641.1 Wet Soil + Tare (g) 1490.94 587.0485.0 Dry Soil + Tare (g) 1184.24 481.64

Tare (g) 223.54 222.27Water Content (%) 31.9 40.6

Zero load (lb) = 0

Area of Piston (in2) = 3.0

Penetration Raw Load Piston Stress Std. Stress

(in.) (lb) (psi) (psi)

0.000 0 0

0.025 22 7

0.050 51 17

0.075 84 28

0.100 130 44 1000

0.125 188 63 1125

0.150 249 83 1250

0.175 310 104 1375

0.200 362 121 1500

0.300 491 164 1900

0.400 600 201 2300

0.500 685 229 2600

Entered By:___________

Reviewed:___________ Z:\PROJECTS\M00265_Gerhart_Consultants\128_SVSD_Office\[CBRv3.xls]1

969/27/201310/1/2013 0.61114:41 Soaking Period (hr)

Penetration Data

1.8150

Wt. of Mold + Sample (g)

Swell (%)Date Time

0.528Dial Surcharge (psf)

15:10

Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

SoakedNot requested

Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf):Optimum Water Content (%): No

ASTM D698 C

Swell Data

Wt. of Mold + Sample (g)

0.2 in. Corrected CBR (%):

Relative Compaction (%):0.1 in. Corrected CBR (%):

After Soaking Data

Tare (g)Water Content (%)

Gerhart Cole, IncM00265-128 (13GCI320)South Valley Sewer District-Office Building

TH-04A 1.0-2.5'

Wt. of Mold (g)Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

10/2/2013JDF

0

50

100

150

200

250

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50

Penetration (in)

Stre

ss o

n pi

ston

(psi

)

Load Penetration Curve

0.1 in. Corrected CBR

0.2 in. Corrected CBR

Documents

APPENDIX A Geotechnical Report New Maintenance Building · 2019-02-01 · icts the site ing the site ive grasses il present. were drille Simco 280 d by A ... alysis proce eismic even