Bidder Inquiry 37_S22578 Mann-Granstaff Building 7 Addition -Geotechnical Engineering Report.pdf

BAI Project Number: S22578 October 17, 2022

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Mann-Granstaff Building 7 Addition Spokane, WA

Prepared for:

David Combs, Principal AESUS Design Group

1050 E. Southern Avenue, Suite D.

Tempe, AZ 85282

Prepared by:

Budinger & Associates, Inc.

1101 N. Fancher Road Spokane Valley, WA 99212

10/17/2022

John Finnegan, PE, LHG Rex Lloyd, LG Geotechnical Engineer, Principal Professional Geologist

S22578 Mann-Granstaff Building 7 Addition – Geotechnical Engineering Report

Budinger & Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers

Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspection ii

CONTENTSCONTEXT 1

Project Considerations Location Scope Existing Information

ENCOUNTERED CONDITIONS 2

Geologic Setting Surface Conditions Subsurface Conditions Surface and Groundwater Hydrology

CONCLUSIONS 2

RECOMMENDATIONS 3

Seismic Considerations Earthwork Foundations Slab Subgrade Stormwater Drainage Additional Services

FIELD EXPLORATION 6

Test Boring Soil Samples Soil and Rock Classification Location

LABORATORY ANALYSIS 7

Index Parameters Chemical Parameters

LIMITATIONS 8

REFERENCES 9

EMBEDDED TABLES

Table 1. Seismic Design Parameters Table 2. Fill Materials Table 3. Drywell Design Outflow Rate Analysis

ATTACHED FIGURES

Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Site Plan Figure 3: Guide to Soil & Rock Descriptions Figure 4-1: Test Boring Log Figure 5: Laboratory Summary Figure 6: Grain Size Distributions Appendix: GBC - Important Information about Your Geotechnical-Engineering Report

Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers

Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspection

CONTEXT

This geotechnical engineering report (GER) presents the results of geotechnical exploration and analysis for the proposed Building 7 Addition. These services were coordinated with AESUS Design Group, represented by Orlando Gonzales, Managing Principal.

Project Considerations A new one-story, 539-square-foot mechanical room is planned at the southeast corner of Building

7. The building will be constructed using cast-in-place concrete, and slab on grade. Foundation depth will match the existing foundation, which is believed to be approximately 4 feet below existing grade.

The maximum anticipated wall load was provided by AESUS design group as 6.3 kips per lineal foot.

Location The site is in northwest Spokane on Parcel Number 26344.0001, which is north of Wellesley Avenue and west of Assembly Street. The physical address currently assigned to the site is 4815 N.

Assembly as illustrated in the Vicinity Map and Site Plan.

Scope This geotechnical study involved interpretation of subsurface soil conditions to provide conclusions addressing the suitability of the site to support proposed structures and provide geotechnical parameters required for others to design and construct. We endeavored to conduct these services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices as outlined in proposal S22578, dated June 22, 2022.

Construction inherently entails risk, and this project is not an exception. The purpose of this study is to reduce risks related to subjects in our scope to levels generally accepted for similar projects designed with the benefit of similar geotechnical study.

Existing Information In preparation of this GER, we evaluated the following geotechnical engineering reports conducted at or near the Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical complex, sorted by date:

• Gifford Consultants, Inc. “Report of Subsurface Explorations and Geotechnical Engineering Studies for the Proposed Veterans Administration Hospital Addition-Building 27, Spokane, Washington” September 27, 1996. GCI Project No. E-1747-01

• GeoEngineers, Inc. “Proposed VA Boiler Plant Replacement Project” April 29, 2016. GEI Project No. 9851-015-00

• GeoEngineers, Inc. “Proposed Intensive Outpatient Mental Health and Educational Building” August 10,2017. GEI Project No. 9851-005-01

• Budinger and Associates, Inc. “Northwest Middle School” June 15, 2020. BAI Project No.

S20181

• Budinger and Associates, Inc. “Joe Albi Rehabilitation-SPS” June 22,2020. BAI Project No. S20183

Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers

Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspection

• Budinger and Associates, Inc. “New Mental Health Outpatient and Administrative Building” May 10, 2021. BAI Project No. S20917

The subsurface conditions encountered in explorations for the reviewed reports consisted of stratified or layered alluvial sands and gravels deposited as a result of the Missoula Floods.

ENCOUNTERED CONDITIONS

Geologic Setting Geologic mapping of this area shows Pleistocene glacial flood-gravel deposits (Qfcg) resulting from numerous Glacial Lake Missoula outburst flood events. The floods scoured away pre-existing rock and sedimentary formations in the Spokane River channel and deposited coarse sediments;

ultimately leading to the formation of the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. These flood deposits consist of boulders, cobbles, gravels, and sands with varying amounts of silt.

Surface Conditions The site consisted of the Mann-Grandstaff VA campus. The existing campus is composed of numerous buildings, paved surfaces, and landscaped areas. The new structure is proposed at the southeast corner of building 7. The location consisted of concrete sidewalks and grass landscaping.

Topography at the building footprint was nearly level.

Subsurface Conditions Conditions encountered in the explorations are described in the Test Boring Log in accordance with methods described in Field Exploration. The subsurface materials were differentiated based on characteristics relevant to this project.

In general, the site soils consisted of existing fill beginning at the ground surface to 4.3 feet. The existing fill consisted of silty gravel with sand and organics as sod in the upper 6 inches. The condition was very loose. Beneath existing fill, sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel was encountered in medium-dense condition to greater than 21 feet below ground surface (BGS).

Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Surface water was not observed on site. Surface exposure of the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer is observable approximately 2,700 feet to the south in the Spokane River channel at an elevation of approximately 1,640 feet, which is greater than 250 feet lower in elevation than the ground surface at the site. Ground water was not encountered during explorations. Local well logs obtained through the Washington State Department of Ecology website show groundwater levels beginning at depths greater than 230 feet BGS in the vicinity of the site.

CONCLUSIONS

• The site is underlain by greater than 21 feet of medium-dense granular soils.

• Use of shallow spread footings is considered feasible for foundation support.

• Existing fill was encountered in very-loose condition beginning at the ground surface and extending to 4.25 feet BGS.

Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers

Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspection

• Existing fill poses settlement risks to slabs and footings. Fortunately, existing fill was encountered to depths close to anticipated foundation subgrade elevation. Removal and replacement of existing fill with compacted structural fill or extending footings to sand will provide suitable bearing.

• Infiltration of stormwater using bio-infiltration swales and drywells is feasible.

• Existing fill may be suitable for reuse as structural fill but will likely require processing and elevated fines percentages (percent passing the #200 sieve) may hamper earthwork due to cause moisture-sensitivity.

• Sand is suitable for reuse as structural fill; oversized particles are not anticipated.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations presented throughout this chapter are intended to provide economically feasible criteria at normally accepted risk levels. More conservative design parameters can be used if lower risks are preferred. Specifically, the design should incorporate the following recommendations concerning site preparation, earthwork, foundation support, drainage, and pavement sections.

Seismic Considerations The recommended seismic site class designation is Site Class D “stiff soil.” Spectral response acceleration parameters, adjusted for Site Class D*, were calculated using USGS, Seismic Design Web Services through the Applied Technology Council website (ATC, 2020). The values of predicted earthquake ground motion for short period structural elements (0.2 second spectral response acceleration, Ss) and for long period structural elements (1.0 second spectral response acceleration, S1) are provided in the table below. The design parameters (SDS and SD1) are equal to ⅔ of the maximum earthquake spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM1).

Table 1. Seismic design parameters Site

Class Latitude Longitude PGA Ss S1 SDS SD1

D 47.703 -117.478 0.137g 0.307g 0.112g 0.318g 0.177g *Code Reference: ASCE 7-16, Risk Category IV

The site modified peak ground acceleration (PGAM) is 0.21g. Due to the absence of shallow groundwater, the liquefaction potential is considered very low.

Earthwork Excavation. Excavation will be required to establish foundation grades. Vegetation and other non-soil materials should be removed from the building footprint so that mineral soil lacking concentrated organics is exposed. Excavated sand may be stockpiled for re-use as structural fill.

Excavated existing fill is not suitable for reuse as structural fill, however, is suitable for use in landscaping areas.

Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers

Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspection

Temporary Slopes. Due to varying construction methods and conditions, temporary cuts should be the responsibility of the contractor. The overburden soils are consistent with Type C materials per WISHA excavation criteria. WISHA specifies a maximum inclination of 1½ horizontal to 1 vertical (1½ H:1V) in the temporary condition for Type C.

Preparation of surfaces to receive fill. For preparation of the site, we recommend removing existing fill and organics. Surfaces to receive fill and backfill should be excavated nearly level (8 percent maximum slope), brought to near optimum moisture (plus or minus 2 percent) if necessary, and compacted in-place to at least 92 percent of maximum dry unit weight. For structural fill, sand will be suitable for re-use, however we recommend removing particles larger than 4 inches by screening.

Protection of subgrade. Following compaction of subgrade, protect surfaces from degradation during inclement weather. Protection measures include erosion control maintenance, preventing tracking soil and rock offsite, and preventing driving on wet subgrade soil. Reduce frost penetration in freezing weather by leaving surfaces of soil un-compacted if left for an extended duration. Prevent frost penetration in freezing weather by placing a temporary loose, insulating layer of soil on top, such as overnight.

Fill material. The encountered sand is generally suitable for re-use as structural fill provided that deleterious items (anthropogenic debris, organics, over-sized materials, etc.) and particles larger than 4 inches are removed prior to re-use. Soils exhibiting high fines percentages (greater than 15 percent passing the US #200), such as existing fill, should not be used for structural fill as they are moisture sensitive and may be difficult to compact in wet conditions.

If imported fill is used, it should consist of the following:

Table 2. Fill Materials Fill Type Description

General General borrow materials to be used for landscaping.

Structural Well-graded sands and gravels with less than 15 percent fines. Maximum particle size of 4 inches or 1/3 the lift height, whichever is less.

Maximum unit weight. Determine maximum unit weight and optimum moisture contents for fill material in accordance with the Modified Proctor Method ASTM D-1557.

Fill Placement. Place fill in lifts of thickness suited to the compaction equipment. Compact structural fill to at least 92 percent of maximum dry unit weight for footing subgrades; compact to 92 percent also for slab and pavement subgrades, except within the top 24 inches of subgrade where compaction should be increased to 95 percent. The maximum allowable lift thickness should be selected based on the compaction equipment. Do not place fill in a frozen condition or on uncompacted frozen subgrade.

Verification and application. These earthwork recommendations apply to structural fill, backfill against footings, and backfill of utility trenches. Retain a qualified earthwork technician present during fill and backfill operations to observe and test each lift of fill. Frequency of testing should be 2 tests per lift. A representative of the Geotechnical Engineer is best suited to provide such testing.

Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers

Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspection

Foundations We recommend founding the proposed structure on conventional spread footings bearing on firm, unyielding sand or compacted structural fill placed on top of sand. Do not place footings on existing fill. The foundation subgrades should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight.

Size footings using a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 4,500 pounds per square foot.

Minimum footing widths are 24 inches for column footings and 18 inches for wall footings.

Minimum recommended foundation frost embedment depth is 24 inches for heated structures. The anticipated maximum total and differential settlements for footings constructed as recommended above are 1- and 1/2-inch, respectively.

Slab Subgrade For buildings supported on spread footings, conventional slab-on-grade floors can be used. The slabs should be founded on sand or approved, compacted structural fill placed on sand. Slab-on-grade floors should not be founded on existing fill, uncompacted structural fill, organic soil or disturbed native soils. To minimize moisture transfer through the concrete, the slabs should be underlain by a capillary break material, consisting of at least 6 inches of clean, free-draining, granular material that meets the following gradation:

Sieve Opening Percent Passing 1 inch 100 5/8 inch 0 to 100 #4 < 20 #200 < 3

A vapor barrier consisting of reinforced, durable, impermeable geosynthetic such as Stego Wrap should be included between the slab and the capillary break. A qualified concrete expert should be consulted if a vapor retardant admix is to be used in the concrete slab as a vapor barrier alternative.

Lateral Earth Pressures Retaining and basement walls should be designed to resist loads with the following soil pressures:

Soil Type Soil Unit

Weight

Equivalent Fluid Pressure

(pcf)

Concrete Coefficient of Friction

(pcf) Active At Rest Passive (deg) Native Soil 120 40 60 360 0.37 Sand and Gravel Import Fill

125 35 53 460 0.40

These values are for level back slopes with no surcharge. The designer must ask for modified criteria if the ground slopes or there are surcharge loads. The upper 12 inches should not be considered in design for lateral loads. These values are also based on properly compacted backfill and will be substantially reduced when unit weights are less than those recommended in Earthwork.

Stormwater Drainage We recommend grading surfaces to allow positive drainage away from structures and pavements.

Roof and parking lot runoff should be collected and disposed of such that water is not allowed to accumulate near the structure or pavements.

Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers

Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspection

Gradation analysis was used to estimate permeability based on fines percentages from representative soil samples in accordance with the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM), Appendix 4A – Spokane 200 Method. The results are summarized in the table below.

Table 3. Drywell Design Outflow Rate Analysis

Boring

ID

Sample Depth

(ft)

Fines

Hydraulic Conductivity

(in/hr)1

Normalized Outflow

Rate (cfs/ft)2

Safety Factor3

Factored Outflow Rate

(cfs)4

Factored Outflow Rate

(cfs)4 Infiltration Feasibility

Type 1 H=6

Type 2 H=10

B-1 4-6 6.1 30 0.057 2.0 0.17 0.28 limited B-1 9-11 4.8 48 0.084 1.3 0.39 0.65 good

1. in/hr - inches per hour (in3/in2/hr)

2. cfs/ft - cubic feet per second per foot

3. Safety Factors from SRSM, Table 4A-1

4. cfs - cubic feet per second

We recommend using single- and double-depth drywells, in conjunction with bio-infiltration swales (grassed percolation areas), sized at maximum design outflow rates of 0.2 and 0.3 cfs, respectively.

Full-scale testing of completed drywells may enable the use of higher values.

Additional Services Effective geotechnical services involve cooperation with the owner, designer, and constructor as follows:

1. Preliminary study to assist in planning and to economically adapt the project to its geologic environment;

2. Soil exploration and analysis to characterize subsurface conditions and recommend design criteria;

3. Consultation with the designer to adapt the specific design to the site in accordance with the recommendations;

4. Construction observation to verify the conditions encountered and to make recommendations for modifications, as necessary; and,

5. Construction material testing, quality control, and special inspection.

This report satisfies Item 2 of the 5-phase endeavor. We are eager to provide assistance with design and construction as appropriate to assist in completing a safe and economical project.

FIELD EXPLORATION

The fieldwork was conducted by professional geologist Rex Lloyd, LG, under the supervision of geotechnical engineer John Finnegan, PE, on August 30,2022. The field activities generally consisted of the following:

• Reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area;

• Logging subsurface conditions in 1 test boring;

• Obtaining split-spoon samples of the encountered soils.

Results are presented in Figures.

Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers

Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspection

Test Boring Air Rotary Drilling, ASTM D5782. Borings were drilled with a track-mounted Geoprobe 7822DT by the air rotary method utilizing 4.5-inch outside diameter casing. The air rotary method involves circulating air through a specially designed pilot bit that engages with a casing bit during drilling but disengages upon reversal of rotation to allow retrieval of the drill stem at desired sampling depths.

Soil Samples Samples collected during boring operations were obtained by driving split-spoon samplers through the open end of the temporary boring casing.

Standard Penetration Tests - ASTM D 1586. To obtain samples of soil, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were conducted by driving a 2-inch outside diameter split-spoon sampler with a 140-pound hammer actuated by an automatic hammer to provide a test of penetration resistance. The resulting blow count for each foot of sampler advancement, representing uncorrected N-values, is presented in the Test Boring Log. The energy ratio is much higher with the automatic hammer compared to the reference cathead/rope system.

3-Inch Split Spoon Samples (3” SS) – ASTM D 3550. Split-spoon samples were obtained with a 3.0-inch outside by 2.4-inch inside diameter split-spoon sampler similar to the 2-inch SPT sampler.

Blow counts with the 3” SS do not represent SPT N-values since the end are of the 3” SS is approximately twice that of the standard sampler. A correction factor of 0.56 was used to correlate SPT N-values for the 3” SS.

Soil and Rock Classification Field descriptions of soils and rock were completed in accordance with the current version of the Washington State Department of Transportation, Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM), M 46-03, except that fines (silt and clay) were described in accordance with ASTM D 2487. Whereas, the GDM uses the terms ‘silty’ and ‘clayey’ to describe a very broad range of fines from 10 to 49 percent; ASTM D 2487 uses those terms for percentages greater than 12 and the term ‘with’ for fines ranging from 5 to 12 percent, which is typically necessary to describe variations relevant to soil permeability per the SRSM. A key to the descriptions is provided in Guide to Soil and Rock Descriptions.

Location Horizontal & vertical control. The Site Plan was produced from measured offsets from existing site features at the time of exploration.

Elevations presented in the Test Boring Log are relative to the finished floor elevation at the southeast doorway, assigned an elevation of 100 feet. Horizontal and vertical locations can be considered accurate to within 5- and 1-foot, respectively, relative to the information provided.

LABORATORY ANALYSIS

Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples of the soils encountered to provide data used in our assessment of soil characteristics.

Tests were conducted, where practical, in accordance with nationally recognized standards (ASTM, Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers

Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspection

AASHTO, etc.), which are intended to model in-situ soil conditions and behavior. The results are presented in Figures.

Index Parameters Moisture content – ASTM D2216. Moisture contents were determined by direct weight proportion (weight of water/weight of dry soil) determined by drying soil samples in an oven until reaching constant weight.

Gradation – ASTM D6913. Gradation analysis was performed by the mechanical sieve method.

The mechanical sieve method is utilized to determine particle size distribution based upon the dry weight of sample passing through sieves of varying mesh sizes. The results of gradation are provided in Grain Size Distribution Results.

Atterberg Limits – ASTM D4318. Atterberg limits describe the properties of the fine-grained constituents of a soil by relating the water content to the plastic and liquid limits of engineering behavior. As the water content increases, the state of the soil changes from a brittle solid to a plastic solid and then to a viscous liquid.

The liquid limit (LL) is the water content above which the soil tends to behave as a viscous liquid.

Similarly, the plastic limit (PL) is defined as the water content below which the soil tends to behave as a brittle solid. The plasticity index describes the range of water content over which a soil is plastic and is derived by subtracting the PL from the LL. The soil is classified as “non-plastic” if rolling a 1/8-inch bead is not possible at any water content.

Chemical Parameters pH – AASHTO T289. The quantified measurement of soil pH (acidity = pH <7) and minimum resistivity are useful variables in determining the potential corrosivity of the soil. Certain clayey soils contain excess acidity that attacks concrete, iron, and buried utilities.

LIMITATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based upon the results of field explorations and laboratory testing results. They are predicated upon our understanding of the project, its design, and its location as defined in by the client. We endeavored to conduct this study in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this area.

This GER presents our professional interpretation of exploration data developed, which we believe meets the standards of the geotechnical profession in this area; we make no other warranties, express or implied. Attached is a document titled “Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report,” which we recommend you review carefully to better understand the context within which these services were completed.

Unless test locations are specified by others or limited by accessibility, the scope of analysis is intended to develop data from a representative portion of the site. However, the areas tested are discreet. Interpolation between these discreet locations is made for illustrative purposes only but should be expected to vary. If a greater level of detail is desired, the client should request an increased scope of exploration.

Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers

Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspection

REFERENCES

American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017, ASCE Standard 7-16.

Applied Technology Council (ATC), Hazards by Location, Seismic Loads Application. Available online at https://hazards.atcouncil.org/#/

ASTM International, 2011, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes, D 2487-11.

International Code Council, 2018, International Building Code.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey, 2019, Available online at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm

Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM), 2008.

USGS, 2017, Spokane Northwest 7.5 Minute Quadrangle.

Washington State Department of Ecology, 2019, Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SMMEW, 2019).

Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WSDNR), 2004, Geologic Map of the Spokane Northwest 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Spokane County, Washington, OFR 2004-3.

Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, (WSDNR), 2004, OPEN FILE REPORT 2004-20, Liquefaction Susceptibility and Site Class Maps of Washington State, By County, Sheet 63 of 78.

WSDNR, 2018, Washington State Geologic Society. Washington State Interactive Map. Available online at https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2022, Geotechnical Design Manual

(GDM).

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2022, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction.

https://hazards.atcouncil.org/#/ https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/ moist, brown, loose wet, very loose moist, grey, loose medium dense loose medium dense dry, dense no free groundwater observed

(54%)

(29%)

(46%)

(72%)

(67%)

(63%)

(54%)

SILTY GRAVEL with Sand, coarse to fine, angular to subrounded organics as sod and fine roots in upper 6 inches (FILL)

SAND, medium, angular to subrounded, occasional fine gravel, stratified with zones of sand with silt and sand with gravel (Native)

12-feet: Gravel increases

18.5-feet: silt increases

End of Boring @ 21 ft

(0-5-5-5)

(3-1-0-0)

(3-3-5-5)

(8-7-7)

(5-5-5-5)

(11-7-6-6)

(14-15-14-16) near SE corner of Building 7 sodSurface:

S O

IL

L

O G

Elevation:

Type of Drill:

Project: Mann-Grandstaff VAMC Building 7 Addition

Location: Spokane, WA

Number: S22578

TEST BORING 1

98 ft R. Lloyd

ATTERBERG LIMITS

LLPL

WATER CONTENT

8-30-22 Budinger & Assoc., Inc.

Geoprobe 7822DT Drill, Automatic SPT Hammer

D E

P T

H

APPROX. SPT N-VALUE USING 3" SAMPLER

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

Date of Boring:

FIGURE 4-1

Location:

STANDARD PEN TEST, N-VALUE (OBSERVED)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 air rotary overburden system, 4.5 in O.D. casing

Size of hole:

S A

M P

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

R Q

D

S P

T N

R

E C

O V

E R

Y

(B lo w s p er

BORING LOGS

Logged by:

M O

IS

T

U R

E

C O

LO

R

C

O N

D

IT

IO

N

L O

G S

W

IT

H O

U T

W E

L L

W

IT

H T

E S

T S

S

.G

P J

B U

D

IN

G E

R .G

D T

/1

/2

S22578 Mann-Grandstaff Building 7 Addition - Laboratory Summary

UNITS METHOD

LABORATORY NUMBER 22-6177 22-6178

SAMPLE SOURCE B-1 B-1

STRATUM

DEPTH TOP feet 4 9 BOTTOM feet 6 11

MOISTURE CONTENT % ASTM D2216 4.9 5.6

pH AASHTO T289 7.9

UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION ASTM D2487 SP

SIEVE ANALYSIS ASTM D6913

3" S 1 1/2" % I 1" 100 100 E 3/4" P 90 97 V 1/2" A 83 96 E 3/8" S 79 94

#4 S 65 90 S #10 I 36 78 I #16 N 20 50 Z #30 G 12 14 E #40 11 10

#100 8 6 #200 6.1 4.8

SOIL MECHANICS

LABORATORY SUMMARY

Budinger & Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers

Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspection

Figure 5

0.0010.010.1110100

%GravelD10

41 3/4 1/23/8

%Sand %Silt %Clay

Specimen Identification

Specimen Identification

PI Cc

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

COBBLES

GRAVEL SAND

SILT OR CLAY

LL PL

13.74

3.35

35.3

10.1

2.17

1.08

Classification

58.6

85.1

4.128

1.425

25.4

25.4

1.641

0.81

D100 D60 fine

D30

4.0

9.0

0.3

0.425

10 20 coarse fine coarse medium

6 146 8 100 1403 2 200

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

4.0

9.0

Cu

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

6.1

4.8

POORLY GRADED SAND(SP)

30 40 501.5

Project: Mann-Grandstaff VAMC Building 7 Addition

Location: Spokane, WA

Number: S22578

G R

A

IN

S

IZ

E W

O F

IG

U

R E

S

8.

G

P J

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

.G D

T

/7 /2

Figure 6

Geotechnical-Engineering Report

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one

— not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.

Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report that was:

• not prepared for you;

• not prepared for your project;

• not prepared for the specific site explored; or

• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect:

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;

• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure;

• the composition of the design team; or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;

man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Confirmation-dependent recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s confirmation-dependent recommendations if that engineer does not perform the geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the recommendations’ applicability.

A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design-team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly

Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

problems. Confront that risk by having your geo technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.

To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited;

encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/ or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.

To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold-prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;

none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.

Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member geotechnical engineer for more information.

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org

Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.