Structural Calculations

PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY

515 EAST 100 SOUTH, SUITE 1200 · SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102

reaveley.com

Structural Calculations

MARK R.

HARRIS

NO.

#178779

UTAH

L

IC

E N

S E

D C

ER

TIFIED STRUCTURAL

E

N G

IN

E

E R

06/29/26

2024.0304 Southern Utah University Construction Documents

Method Studio 360 West Aspen Ave.

Salt Lake City, UT 84101 P: 801-532-4422

Mark Harris Cody Hawkes

Southern Utah University Concessions

DIVISION OF FACILITIES

CONSTRUCTION AND

MANAGEMENT

Jason Van Ausdal

09/14/2026

REVIEWED FOR CODE

COMPLIANCE

ASCE Hazards Report Address:

No Address at This Location

Standard: ASCE/SEI 7-22 Latitude: 37.675693

Risk Category: III Longitude: -113.077105

Soil Class: D - Stiff Soil Elevation: 5786.494642982783 ft

(NAVD 88)

Wind

Results:

Wind Speed 107 Vmph

10-year MRI 72 Vmph

25-year MRI 77 Vmph

50-year MRI 82 Vmph

100-year MRI 87 Vmph

300-year MRI 95 Vmph

700-year MRI 101 Vmph

1,700-year MRI 107 Vmph

3,000-year MRI 111 Vmph

10,000-year MRI 120 Vmph

100,000-year MRI 137 Vmph

1,000,000-year MRI 155 Vmph

Data Source: ASCE/SEI 7-22, Fig. 26.5-1C and Figs. CC.2-1–CC.2-4, and Section 26.5.2

Date Accessed: Mon Nov 18 2024

Page 1 of 5https://ascehazardtool.org/ Mon Nov 18 2024 https://ascehazardtool.org/

Value provided is 3-second gust wind speeds at 33 ft above ground for Exposure C Category, based on linear interpolation between contours. Wind speeds are interpolated in accordance with the 7-22 Standard. Wind speeds correspond to approximately a 3% probability of exceedance in 50 years (annual exceedance probability = 0.000588, MRI = 1,700 years). Values for 10-year MRI, 25-year MRI, 50-year MRI and 100-year MRI are Service Level wind speeds, all other wind speeds are Ultimate wind speeds.

Site is not in a hurricane-prone region as defined in ASCE/SEI 7-22 Section 26.2.

Page 2 of 5https://ascehazardtool.org/ Mon Nov 18 2024

PGA M : 0.34

SMS : 0.84

SM1 : 0.52

SDS : 0.56

SD1 : 0.34

TL : 6

SS : 0.68

S1 : 0.2

VS30 : 260

Seismic Design Category: D

Multi-Period Design Spectrum

S (g) vs T(s)a

Multi-Period MCE SpectrumR

S (g) vs T(s)a

Two-Period Design Spectrum

S (g) vs T(s)a

Two-Period MCE SpectrumR

S (g) vs T(s)a

Design Vertical Response Spectrum

Vertical ground motion data has not yet been made available by USGS.

MCE Vertical Response SpectrumR

Vertical ground motion data has not yet been made available by USGS.

Seismic

D - Stiff SoilSite Soil Class:

Results:

Page 3 of 5https://ascehazardtool.org/ Mon Nov 18 2024

Data Accessed: Mon Nov 18 2024

Date Source:

USGS Seismic Design Maps based on ASCE/SEI 7-22 and ASCE/SEI 7-22 Table 1.5-2. Additional data for site-specific ground motion procedures in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7-22 Ch. 21 are available from USGS.

Page 4 of 5https://ascehazardtool.org/ Mon Nov 18 2024

Rain

Results:

Data Source:

Date Accessed:

15-minute Precipitation Intensity: 5.46 in./h

60-minute Precipitation Intensity: 2.27 in./h

NOAA National Weather Service, Precipitation Frequency Data Server, Atlas 14 (https://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/)

Mon Nov 18 2024

The ASCE Hazard Tool is provided for your convenience, for informational purposes only, and is provided “as is” and without warranties of any kind. The location data included herein has been obtained from information developed, produced, and maintained by third party providers; or has been extrapolated from maps incorporated in the ASCE standard. While ASCE has made every effort to use data obtained from reliable sources or methodologies, ASCE does not make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability, currency, or quality of any data provided herein. Any third-party links provided by this Tool should not be construed as an endorsement, affiliation, relationship, or sponsorship of such third-party content by or from ASCE.

ASCE does not intend, nor should anyone interpret, the results provided by this Tool to replace the sound judgment of a competent professional, having knowledge and experience in the appropriate field(s) of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the contents of this Tool or the ASCE standard.

In using this Tool, you expressly assume all risks associated with your use. Under no circumstances shall ASCE or its officers, directors, employees, members, affiliates, or agents be liable to you or any other person for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages arising from or related to your use of, or reliance on, the Tool or any information obtained therein. To the fullest extent permitted by law, you agree to release and hold harmless ASCE from any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from any use of data provided by the ASCE Hazard Tool.

Page 5 of 5https://ascehazardtool.org/ Mon Nov 18 2024 https://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/

DC-7

ML-1

Roof DL = 20psf

Roof SL = 24psf

Wall DL = 75psf

6'-5.1/2"

TYP

Typ roof beam w = 6.5*(20+24) = 130plf + 156plf M = 286*19.33ft^2/8 = 13.34k*ft

40ft

'-8

Ireq L/240 (SL)= 17.5in^4 Ireq L/180 (TL)= 24.0in^4

W10x12 G.F.31k*ft, Lb = 2'-0" Ixx = 53.8in^4

W8x10 sufficient, mech units not yet known, use 10x12

Mmax = PL/4 = 2.76k*6ft/4 = 4.15k*ft

V = 286*19.33/2 = 2.76k use 16" lintel minimum w/#6 T&B D use 16" jamb typ

W x1

W x1

W x1

W x1

W x1

ML-1 ML-1

ML-1 ML-1 ML-1

M L-

M

L-

MW-1

MW-1

M W

-1

M W

-1

M C-1

M C-1

M C-1

M C-1

M C-1

M C-3

M C-3

M C-1

M C-2

M C-1

M C-1

SD-2

B4

SF511

B5

SF511

TYP

6 EQ SPCS

Sds = 0.56 Ie = 1.25

W = 20psf*(40ft*20.67ft) + 2*40ft*12ft/2*75psf + 2*20.67ft*12ft/2 = 52.8k

Cs = 0.56*1.25/5 = 0.14

V = Cs*W = 7.4k max deck shear: 7.4k/(2*19.33) = 191plf okay by inspection assume all force goes into wall 1 w al l 1

7.4k/(2*8ft)*1.5/(7.625*12) = 10.1psi okay by inspection, use minimum reinf for special reinforced walls

Footings

19.33ft/2*(20psf+24psf) + 12ft*75psf = 1325plf qa = 2000psf use 2ft minimum

Reaveley Engineers 515 East 100 South

Suite 1200

SLC, UT 84102

Project Job Ref.

Section Sheet no./rev.

Calc. by

C Date

6/29/2026 Chk'd by Date App'd by Date

WIND LOADING

In accordance with ASCE7-16

Using the directional design method Tedds calculation version 2.1.19

40 ft

.7 ft

Plan

20.7 ft

16 ft

Elevation

Building data

Type of roof; Flat

Length of building; b = 40.00 ft

Width of building; d = 20.67 ft

Height to eaves; H = 16.00 ft

Height of parapet; hp = 4.00 ft

Mean height; h = 16.00 ft

General wind load requirements

Basic wind speed; V = 107.0 mph

Risk category; III

Wind directionality factor (Table 26.6-1); Kd = 0.85

Ground elevation above sea level; zgl = 5786 ft

Ground elevation factor; Ke = exp(-0.0000362 zgl/1ft) = 0.81

Exposure category (cl 26.7.3); C

Enclosure classification (cl.26.12); Enclosed buildings

Internal pressure coef +ve (Table 26.13-1); GCpi_p = 0.18

Internal pressure coef –ve (Table 26.13-1); GCpi_n = -0.18

Gust effect factor; Gf = 0.85

Minimum roof design wind load (cl.27.1.5); pmin_r = 8 psf

Minimum wall design wind load (cl.27.1.5); pmin_w = 16 psf

Topography

Topography factor not significant; Kzt = 1.0

Velocity pressure equation; q = 0.00256 Kz Kzt ´ Kd Ke V2 1psf/mph2

Velocity pressures table z (ft) Kz (Table 26.10-1) qz (psf)

9.00 0.85 17.17

16.00 0.86 17.38

20.00 0.90 18.18 building is 12ft, wind load is conservative and seismic controls design

Suite 1200

SLC, UT 84102

Project Job Ref.

Section Sheet no./rev.

Calc. by

C Date

6/29/2026 Chk'd by Date App'd by Date

Peak velocity pressure for internal pressure

Peak velocity pressure – internal (as roof press.); qi = 17.38 psf

Parapet pressures and forces

Velocity pressure at top of parapet; qp = 18.18 psf

Combined net pressure coefficient, leeward; GCpnl = -1.0

Combined net parapet pressure, leeward; ppl = qp GCpnl = -18.18 psf

Combined net pressure coefficient, windward; GCpnw = 1.5

Combined net parapet pressure, windward; ppw = qp GCpnw = 27.28 psf

Wind direction 0 deg:

Leeward parapet force; Fw,wpl_0 = ppl hp b = -2.9 kips

Windward parapet force; Fw,wpw_0 = ppw hp b = 4.4 kips

Wind direction 90 deg:

Leeward parapet force; Fw,wpl_90 = ppl hp d = -1.5 kips

Windward parapet force; Fw,wpw_90 = ppw hp d = 2.3 kips

Pressures and forces

Net pressure; p = q Gf Cpe - qi GCpi;

Net force; Fw = p Aref;

Roof load case 1 - Wind 0, GCpi 0.18, -cpe

Zone Ref.

height (ft)

Ext pressure coefficient cpe

Peak velocity pressure qp

(psf)

Net pressure p

(psf)

Area Aref

(ft2)

Net force Fw

(kips)

A (-ve) 16.00 -1.04 17.38 -18.51 320.00 -5.92

B (-ve) 16.00 -0.79 17.38 -14.80 320.00 -4.74

C (-ve) 16.00 -0.61 17.38 -12.13 186.80 -2.27

Total vertical net force; Fw,v = -12.93 kips

Total horizontal net force; Fw,h = 0.00 kips

Walls load case 1 - Wind 0, GCpi 0.18, -cpe

Zone Ref.

height (ft)

Ext pressure coefficient cpe

Peak velocity pressure qp

(psf)

Net pressure p

(psf)

Area Aref

(ft2)

Net force Fw

(kips)

A1 9.00 0.80 17.17 8.55 360.00 3.08

A2 16.00 0.80 17.38 8.69 0.00 0.00

B 16.00 -0.50 17.38 -10.51 640.00 -6.73

C 16.00 -0.70 17.38 -13.47 330.72 -4.45

D 16.00 -0.70 17.38 -13.47 330.72 -4.45

Overall loading

Projected vertical plan area of wall; Avert_w_0 = b (H+ hp) = 800.00 ft2

Projected vertical area of roof; Avert_r_0 = 0.00 ft2

Minimum overall horizontal loading; Fw,total_min = pmin_w Avert_w_0 + pmin_r Avert_r_0 = 12.80 kips

Leeward net force; Fl = Fw,wB + Fw,wpl_0 = -9.6 kips

Windward net force; Fw = Fw,wA_1 + Fw,wA_2 + Fw,wpw_0 = 7.4 kips

Overall horizontal loading; Fw,total = max(Fw - Fl + Fw,h, Fw,total_min) = 17.1 kips

Suite 1200

SLC, UT 84102

Project Job Ref.

Section Sheet no./rev.

Calc. by

C Date

6/29/2026 Chk'd by Date App'd by Date

Roof load case 2 - Wind 0, GCpi -0.18, -1cpe

Zone Ref.

height (ft)

Ext pressure coefficient cpe

Peak velocity pressure qp

(psf)

Net pressure p

(psf)

Area Aref

(ft2)

Net force Fw

(kips)

A (+ve) 16.00 -0.18 17.38 0.47 320.00 0.15

B (+ve) 16.00 -0.18 17.38 0.47 320.00 0.15

C (+ve) 16.00 -0.18 17.38 0.47 186.80 0.09

Total vertical net force; Fw,v = 0.39 kips

Total horizontal net force; Fw,h = 0.00 kips

Walls load case 2 - Wind 0, GCpi -0.18, -1cpe

Zone Ref.

height (ft)

Ext pressure coefficient cpe

Peak velocity pressure qp

(psf)

Net pressure p

(psf)

Area Aref

(ft2)

Net force Fw

(kips)

A1 9.00 0.80 17.17 14.81 360.00 5.33

A2 16.00 0.80 17.38 14.94 0.00 0.00

B 16.00 -0.50 17.38 -4.26 640.00 -2.72

C 16.00 -0.70 17.38 -7.21 330.72 -2.38

D 16.00 -0.70 17.38 -7.21 330.72 -2.38

Overall loading

Projected vertical plan area of wall; Avert_w_0 = b (H+ hp) = 800.00 ft2

Projected vertical area of roof; Avert_r_0 = 0.00 ft2

Minimum overall horizontal loading; Fw,total_min = pmin_w Avert_w_0 + pmin_r Avert_r_0 = 12.80 kips

Leeward net force; Fl = Fw,wB + Fw,wpl_0 = -5.6 kips

Windward net force; Fw = Fw,wA_1 + Fw,wA_2 + Fw,wpw_0 = 9.7 kips

Overall horizontal loading; Fw,total = max(Fw - Fl + Fw,h, Fw,total_min) = 15.3 kips

Roof load case 3 - Wind 90, GCpi 0.18, -cpe

Zone Ref.

height (ft)

Ext pressure coefficient cpe

Peak velocity pressure qp

(psf)

Net pressure p

(psf)

Area Aref

(ft2)

Net force Fw

(kips)

A (-ve) 16.00 -0.90 17.38 -16.42 165.36 -2.72

B (-ve) 16.00 -0.90 17.38 -16.42 165.36 -2.72

C (-ve) 16.00 -0.50 17.38 -10.51 330.72 -3.48

D (-ve) 16.00 -0.30 17.38 -7.56 165.36 -1.25

Total vertical net force; Fw,v = -10.16 kips

Total horizontal net force; Fw,h = 0.00 kips

Walls load case 3 - Wind 90, GCpi 0.18, -cpe

Zone Ref.

height (ft)

Ext pressure coefficient cpe

Peak velocity pressure qp

(psf)

Net pressure p

(psf)

Area Aref

(ft2)

Net force Fw

(kips)

A1 9.00 0.80 17.17 8.55 186.03 1.59

A2 16.00 0.80 17.38 8.69 0.00 0.00

Suite 1200

SLC, UT 84102

Project Job Ref.

Section Sheet no./rev.

Calc. by

C Date

6/29/2026 Chk'd by Date App'd by Date

Zone Ref.

height (ft)

Ext pressure coefficient cpe

Peak velocity pressure qp

(psf)

Net pressure p

(psf)

Area Aref

(ft2)

Net force Fw

(kips)

B 16.00 -0.31 17.38 -7.75 330.72 -2.56

C 16.00 -0.70 17.38 -13.47 640.00 -8.62

D 16.00 -0.70 17.38 -13.47 640.00 -8.62

Overall loading

Projected vertical plan area of wall; Avert_w_90 = d (H+ hp) = 413.40 ft2

Projected vertical area of roof; Avert_r_90 = 0.00 ft2

Minimum overall horizontal loading; Fw,total_min = pmin_w Avert_w_90 + pmin_r Avert_r_90 = 6.61 kips

Leeward net force; Fl = Fw,wB + Fw,wpl_90 = -4.1 kips

Windward net force; Fw = Fw,wA_1 + Fw,wA_2 + Fw,wpw_90 = 3.8 kips

Overall horizontal loading; Fw,total = max(Fw - Fl + Fw,h, Fw,total_min) = 7.9 kips

Roof load case 4 - Wind 90, GCpi -0.18, +cpe

Zone Ref.

height (ft)

Ext pressure coefficient cpe

Peak velocity pressure qp

(psf)

Net pressure p

(psf)

Area Aref

(ft2)

Net force Fw

(kips)

A (+ve) 16.00 -0.18 17.38 0.47 165.36 0.08

B (+ve) 16.00 -0.18 17.38 0.47 165.36 0.08

C (+ve) 16.00 -0.18 17.38 0.47 330.72 0.16

D (+ve) 16.00 -0.18 17.38 0.47 165.36 0.08

Total vertical net force; Fw,v = 0.39 kips

Total horizontal net force; Fw,h = 0.00 kips

Walls load case 4 - Wind 90, GCpi -0.18, +cpe

Zone Ref.

height (ft)

Ext pressure coefficient cpe

Peak velocity pressure qp

(psf)

Net pressure p

(psf)

Area Aref

(ft2)

Net force Fw

(kips)

A1 9.00 0.80 17.17 14.81 186.03 2.75

A2 16.00 0.80 17.38 14.94 0.00 0.00

B 16.00 -0.31 17.38 -1.49 330.72 -0.49

C 16.00 -0.70 17.38 -7.21 640.00 -4.62

D 16.00 -0.70 17.38 -7.21 640.00 -4.62

Overall loading

Projected vertical plan area of wall; Avert_w_90 = d (H+ hp) = 413.40 ft2

Projected vertical area of roof; Avert_r_90 = 0.00 ft2

Minimum overall horizontal loading; Fw,total_min = pmin_w Avert_w_90 + pmin_r Avert_r_90 = 6.61 kips

Leeward net force; Fl = Fw,wB + Fw,wpl_90 = -2.0 kips

Windward net force; Fw = Fw,wA_1 + Fw,wA_2 + Fw,wpw_90 = 5.0 kips

Overall horizontal loading; Fw,total = max(Fw - Fl + Fw,h, Fw,total_min) = 7.0 kips

472 N. 2150 W. Suite 7 | Cedar City, Utah 84721 Office: 435.586.3004 Fax: 435.586.7480 Web: www.wecinc.com

March 31, 2025

Scott Jensen

DFCM

4315 S 2700 W FL3

Taylorsville, UT 84129

Dear Scott, Watson Engineering Company, Inc. (Watson) has completed the geotechnical investigation for the above referenced project. Enclosed you will find the geotechnical report including the results of our field and laboratory investigation, engineering analysis, and recommendations for this property. The following table presents a summary of our findings.

Parameter Result Liquefaction Hazard None Landslide Hazard The site is not located in a landslide hazard area

Overexcavation Requirement Over-excavate minor structure foundations to three feet (3’) below all footings; two feet (2’) below slabs. No over-excavation required below foundations when gravel piers are used

Expansive Soils Minor Soil Salt Solubility Negligible

Concrete Placement Do not place concrete in freezing weather and blanket all concrete in cold weather

Compaction Required 95% Relative compaction Final Grade Required 5% (6 inches in 10 feet) Structural Fill Import granular structural fill

As always, if you have any questions or concerns regarding our testing, results, or recommendations please feel free to contact us.

Subject: Geotechnical Investigation SUU West Campus Upgrades 1150 West Center Street Cedar City, UT Project Number: 25-7431

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Project Information

1.2 Site Description

1.3 Geologic Conditions

1.4 Seismic Conditions

1.5 Subsoil Conditions

2 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Analysis

2.2 Site Preparation

2.3 Foundations

2.4 Lateral Pressures

2.5 Fill and Backfill

2.6 Slab on Grade

3 GENERAL DISCUSSION

4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

APPENDIX

Geotechnical Report #25-7431

Page | 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Project Information

This report provides our findings as well as our analysis and recommendations with regards to the proposed improvements to the West Campus at Southern Utah University. The improvements will be located at the sports complex, located at the southeast corner of 1150 West and Center Street in Cedar City, Utah. It is understood that the improvements will consist of a 3-story CMU block structure adjacent to the existing football stadium bleachers, and one story structures and a synthetic surface at the softball field area. Foundation loads are expected to be moderate and no special considerations regarding settlement tolerances are needed. This report is prepared assuming that the structure will be designed in accordance with the 2021 International Building Code (IBC).

1.2 Site Description

The improvements consist of two areas, one is a replacement of the existing concession stand located north of the west bleachers with a new 3-story block building; this area is bounded on the north by the track access road, on the south by the bleachers, on the east by the track and football field and on the west by 1150 West Street. This area is currently developed with concrete sidewalks, and the existing single story block building. There is likely some fill associated with the existing improvements. Only one (1) boring was performed in this area due to the significant amount of utilities and the limited access around the existing facilities.

The other area will consist of a new dugout building located adjacent to the softball field, the new softball field will replace the grass with artificial playing surface; this area is bounded on the north by Center Street, on the south by the soccer fields, on the east by 800 West Street and on the west by the parking lot. This area is currently vegetated with sod and some medium sized trees. The area is raised above the adjacent road and parking lots, and a sewer manhole was located near the north end of the property. There was no visual indications of former structures or mass fill onsite, although there may be some fills adjacent to the adjoining elements and in the sewer backfill. It is not known if the fill placement was tested and documented, based on the location and current use, it is likely that it was not. Based on aerial photography, it appears that former structures were located near the north end of the property, consisting of baseball field dugouts and backstop.

1.3 Geologic Conditions

Liquefaction may occur when water-saturated sandy soils are subjected to earthquake ground shaking. When soil liquefies, it loses strength and behaves as a viscous liquid (like quicksand) rather than as a solid. This can cause buildings to sink into the ground

Page | 2 or tilt, empty buried tanks to rise to the ground surface, slope failures, nearly level ground to shift laterally tens of feet (lateral spreading), surface subsidence, ground cracking, and sand blows. Liquefaction is not a concern due to groundwater levels being more than fifty feet (50’) below the surface.

Landslides are common natural hazards in Utah. They often strike without warning and can be destructive and costly. Common types of landslides in Utah are debris flows, slides, and rock falls. Many landslides are associated with rising ground-water levels due to rainfall, snowmelt, and landscape irrigation. Therefore, landslides in Utah typically move during the months of March, April, and May, although debris flows associated with intense thunderstorm rainfall are common in July. Since the site lies in the broad plane of the Cedar Valley floor, this project site does NOT appear to be located atop a Landslide, Debris Flow, or Rockfall hazard.

1.4 Seismic Conditions

From the available maps and USGS interactive GIS database, the site appears to be located within 500 feet of the Hurricane fault zone to the west. Foundations should be designed by a qualified, registered structural engineer. Based on local geology and experience in the area, a site classification of “C” should be used for the design of structures.

The seismic design parameters may be found in the following table. These values were calculated using ASCE 7-16.

Table 1.4 Spectral Response Design Parameters

SS 0.770 g S1 0.248 g SMS 0.923 g SM1 0.372 g SDS 0.616 g SD1 0.248 g

1.5 Subsoil Conditions

The subsoils at the site consist of interbedded layers of lean clay and clayey sand supported on silty sand and clayey gravel to the termination of the borings at a depth of 11.5 feet to 31.5 feet below grade. The soil was visually classified as ‘dry to moist’ to ‘moist’. Groundwater was not encountered.

Undisturbed samples were collected as well as bulk samples throughout the expected depths of earthwork impact. Testing indicates that in-situ densities are on the order of 94 to 111 pcf. Moisture contents of the upper native soils are approximately 7 to 16 percent. Atterberg Limit tests indicate the soil has a liquid limit of 20 to 28, plasticity

Page | 3 indices ranged from 3 to 11. Response to wetting tests experienced eleven (11) percent collapse due to saturation at expected foundation loads. Swell testing indicated an expansion of three percent (3%) on material compacted to 91 percent of the maximum dry density at a moisture content at one percent (1%) above optimum.

Modified proctor testing (ASTM D1557) indicates a maximum dry density of 126.2 pcf at a moisture content of 10.3 percent.

The liquid limit is the moisture content at which a soil begins to flow like a liquid. The plastic limit is the moisture content at which a soil can be deformed without crumbling. The plasticity index is the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit. It is a measure of the percentage and type of clay that is in the soil.

2 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Analysis

The soil is sufficient to support the smaller proposed structures on shallow spread footings with a slab on grade subject to remedial earthwork. Larger buildings with heavier loads will require soil improvement in order to adequately support the loading of the structure.

Field and laboratory testing indicates that the native material is of very low density and will likely collapse if subjected to moisture infiltration. It is recommended that the spread footings be supported by structural fill. Depending on access and the size of the structure and equipment, it may be easier to over-excavate the entire footprint of the structure. Structural fill shall extend at least three feet (3’) below the bottom of footing elevation (both exterior and interior footings), or three feet (3’) below existing grades, whichever is deeper. Structural fill should extend horizontally at least five feet (5’) beyond the edge of the foundations. Structural fill shall consist of imported pit-run or road base material. Placing structural fill below the footings is an option for lighter loaded structures, but the foundation sizes are limited, which will reduce the allowable loads on the soils. See the Foundations section (2.3) for maximum sizing and loading information.

Buildings requiring higher load resistance capacities should be founded on improved soils or deep foundations. This report assumes that rammed aggregate piers will be used to improve the soils to an adequate depth to support the proposed heavier loaded structures. The design of the aggregate piers is performed by the installation contractor. While they will also determine the allowable bearing capacities, typically a bearing capacity of 5,000 psf is allowed.

Structures should be supported on a single foundation system. If a structure has any foundations that require the soil improvement, the improvement shall be performed

Page | 4 for the entire structure. Placing a portion of a single structure on improved soils, and a portion of the same structure on structural fill is not permitted. This will significantly increase the risk of differential settlement and structural damage.

The native silty soils are capable of significant amounts of hydro-collapse. It will be imperative that the site be graded to remove water away from the structures and pavement. If onsite storm water management is used, the infiltration area should be far enough away from structures and pavement so as to reduce the likelihood of increasing the moisture content of the subgrade soils. Pavement should bear on at least two feet (2’) of re-compacted native material, two feet (2’) of non-collapsible import fill, or a combination of both. Collapse requires both increase in moisture and load; two feet (2’) will provide sufficient load reduction in the native soils so as to reduce collapse potential under the pavement to reasonable levels, with expected moisture contents in the soil.

It is understood that artificial turf may be installed as part of this project. Typically the manufacturer has specifications which must be met concerning the subgrade material;

Watson has not been provided the specifications. It is recommended that after excavation for the turf, sand, and drainage system, the subgrade be scarified eight inches (8”), moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum, and recompacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Once the turf specifications have been provided to Watson, an addendum may be provided to this report if necessary.

Groundwater was not encountered during the investigation. It is expected that excavation operations will be able to utilize standard equipment, however the excavation contractor should make his own conclusions.

The native soils are low in density; as such, shrinkage on the order of 35% may be expected. Generally, 25% to 30% shrinkage loss is expected in this area, and overall, this may be a more realistic estimate.

2.2 Site Preparation

The existing vegetation should be cleared along with large root systems. Any debris and loose soils should be removed in their entirety. As the fields slope to the west, the subgrade soils at TP-1 (the western most test pit) had a significant amount of moisture.

This may dry out naturally prior to construction. If not it may require processing to dry the soil to a workable moisture content. Footing excavations should be deepened to account for the over-excavation requirement.

Precautions should be taken during and after construction to eliminate saturation of foundation soils. All drainage and grading next to the structure foundation shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of section 1804.3 of the 2021 IBC.

Over-wetting the soils prior to or during construction may result in softening and pumping causing equipment mobility problems and difficulty in achieving compaction. Saturation of the soils after construction may cause distress to the

Page | 5 foundations and flatwork. Positive drainage should be established away from the exterior walls of the structures. Positive grade is defined by having a minimum drainage slope in landscaped areas of six inches (6”) for a minimum distance of ten feet (10’) away from the foundation of the structure (five percent (5%)) and in hard surface pavement areas, two inches (2”) for a minimum distance of eight feet (8’) away from the structure (two percent (2%)). This positive grade shall be maintained throughout the life of the structure to minimize the amount of moisture infiltrating the soils against the concrete foundation wall, and that a minimum of six inches (6”) of separation from the top of the concrete foundation wall to any landscaping be maintained. Watering adjacent to the structure should be eliminated and properly maintained to prevent over-watering. Roof runoff and other sources of moisture should not be allowed to infiltrate the soils in the vicinity of, or upslope from the structure. Special care should be taken to properly channel roof runoff and other sources of moisture. This may require other solutions than just site grading.

Prior to placing fills, the excavation bottoms should be scarified to a depth of eight inches (8”), moisture conditioned to within two percent (2%) of optimum, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). Backfill should be placed as specified in the Fill and Backfill section (2.5) of this report. Once excavation is complete and prior to backfilling, it is recommended that a representative of Watson visit the site and ensure that the subgrade meets the requirements set forth herein.

Pavement areas should be compacted in a similar manner. Any import fill should comply with the requirements as specified in the Fill and Backfill section (2.5) of this report. Any offsite paving should meet city minimum pavement thickness and aggregate base thickness. The excavation bottom should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and re-compacted as recommended above.

2.3 Foundations

It is recommended that foundations bear on structural fill or improved soils. The foundation should bear at least 10 inches below the bottom of slab, and at least 30 inches below grade for frost protection. If site preparation is carried out as specified herein an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf may be used for design. This bearing capacity may be increased 1/3 for wind, seismic, and other transient loads of a short duration. Footings should be a minimum of 20 inches wide. In order to limit settlement, isolated and continuous footings should be limited in width to six feet (6’), and three feet (3’), respectively.

It is recommended that a representative of Watson observe the excavations, once complete to ensure adequate bearing stratum. Re-compacted materials should be tested to ensure they meet the requirements herein. Total settlement is estimated to

Page | 6 be on the order of ½ to 1 inch with differential settlement less than half of the total settlement for shallow spread footings.

These bearing capacities rely on the dry strength of the native soils. Increased moisture could cause the foundations to settle. It is therefore imperative that proper grades be established and runoff controlled to limit moisture infiltration within ten feet (10’) of the structure. The roof drains should discharge at least ten feet (10’) away from the structure. Irrigation should be kept at a minimum within ten feet (10’) of the structure in order to prevent additional moisture increases to the supporting soils.

2.4 Lateral Pressures

The following lateral pressures may be utilized for the proposed construction:

o Active Pressures (Unrestrained walls) 35 psf/ft o At-Rest Pressures (Restrained walls) 60 psf/ft o Passive Pressures

Continuous Footings 300 psf/ft

Spread Footings or Drilled Piers 350 psf/ft o Coefficient of Friction with passive pressure 0.35 without passive pressure 0.45

All backfill must be compacted to at least 95 percent (ASTM D1557) to mobilize these passive pressures at low strain. Expansive soils should not be used as retaining wall or basement wall backfill, except as a surface seal to limit moisture infiltration.

The expansive pressures could greatly increase the active pressures.

2.5 Fill and Backfill

Native material is suitable for use as general grading and structural fill below slabs and pavement. Structural fill below foundations shall consist of imported pit-run or road base material.

All fill placed for the support of footings shall consist of at least three feet (3’) of structural fill, depending on the foundation option selected. Fill placed for slabs-on-grade and exterior concrete flatwork should consist of at least two feet (2’) of structural fill. Pavement (concrete, asphalt, gravel roads, drives, and parking areas) should consist of two feet (2’) of structural fill. Structural fill shall consist of native material or approved imported low plasticity soils (having a remolded swell potential less than 4% under a 60 psf surcharge). Structural fill should have a solubility of less than 3%, be free of vegetation and debris, and contain no inert materials larger than four inches (4”) in nominal size, and at least 20% passing the #200 sieve. Structural fill below footings shall consist of imported pit-run or road base material.

Page | 7

Structural fill should be placed in maximum eight inch (8”) loose lifts and be compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Structural fills shall be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557. The moisture content should be within ±2% of optimum for granular soils and 0% to 2% above optimum for fine grained soils, however this is only a guide to assist earth work contractors. Any pumping areas of soil shall be excavated and removed from the excavation. Any imported fill materials should be approved prior to importing. Prior to placing any fill, the excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer to observe that unsuitable materials have been removed and that it has been compacted to a suitable density. During earthwork placement the soils shall be inspected according to the requirements contained in IBC 1705.6.

2.6 Slab on Grade

All exterior slabs adjacent to the structure should be tied into the structural foundation with #4 rebar extending from the foundation into the exterior slab at least twelve inches (12”). Stem walls should be tied into interior slabs on grade with #4 rebar placed so that it extends fully into the stem wall and a minimum of approximately 40 bar diameters into the slab. Type 1L concrete should be used for all footings or wherever concrete will come into direct contact with the onsite soils.

Concrete slabs-on-grade and exterior concrete flatwork shall be supported by a four inch (4”) layer of compacted gravel overlying a zone of properly placed and compacted structural fill. The layer of compacted gravel shall consist of Type II Aggregate Base or Type I pit-run gravel.

All concrete slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage.

Additionally, all concrete slabs should be reinforced and poured with Type 1L concrete. The steel reinforcement in floor slabs should be doweled into the foundation to aid in resistance of the contraction/expansion potential. We recommend that concrete floor slabs be reinforced as recommended by the Structural Engineer. Reinforcement should be installed at mid-height in the slab unless directed otherwise by the Structural Engineer.

Special precautions must be taken during the placement and curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (greater than 4”) of the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could lead to excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs. We recommend that all concrete placement and curing operations be performed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual R318-19. In addition, we recommend concrete placement be in accordance with ACI standard 306.1: Standard Specification for Cold Weather Concreting; ACI standard 306R: Cold Weather Concreting; ACI standard 305.1:

Specification for Hot Weather Concreting; and, ACI standard 305R: Hot Weather Concreting.

Page | 8

3 GENERAL DISCUSSION

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the addressee and their authorized agents. This report is not intended for use by others and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites not named herein. This report is valid only until the governing jurisdiction recognizes a new building code. If this occurs prior to construction, then Watson should be consulted for updated recommendations.

Watson structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clientele; each study and prepared report is unique and prepared solely for the specific client project site(s).

No other party may rely on our products or services unless Watson agrees, in writing, to allow such use. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in the area the work was performed at the time this report was prepared.

You may NOT rely on this report if such report was:

Not prepared for you Not prepared for your project Not prepared for the specific site explored Completed before important project changes were made Function of proposed structure has changed Evaluation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure has changed Composition of the design team has changed Project ownership has changed Not paid for in full

No warranty is implied or can be expected with this report. Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on a limited number of field and subsurface observations. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Watson’s professional judgment was applied to a limited number of field observations and laboratory analyses. The recommendations put forward in this report result from a very limited number of observations; such limited observations were constrained by budget.

Watson’s conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. A greater degree of accuracy for those observations, interpretations, and conclusions offered may be increased by increasing the number of observation points for comparative analysis.

Hazardous materials or environmental contamination discovered at the site during or as a result of field observations or subsurface exploration do not fall within the scope

Page | 9 of services for this investigation. Watson Engineering Company, Inc., cannot, and will not, be held liable for any such discovery or the spoils left by such discovery. Such hazardous materials are and remain the liability of the property owner.

Do not over-rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included herein;

these recommendations are not final as they were formed, as explained above, from a limited number of observation points and a limited number of laboratory tests.

Watson’s recommendations may only be ‘finalized’ by our personnel directly observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. Watson cannot and will not assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations contained herein if Watson does not perform construction observation and testing services.

The recommendations contained in this report are based on the field explorations, laboratory tests, and our understanding of the proposed construction. The subsurface data used in the preparation of this report were obtained from the explorations made for this investigation. It is possible that variations in the soil and groundwater conditions could exist between the points explored. The nature and extent of variations may not be evident until construction occurs. If any conditions are encountered at this site which are different from those described in this report, our firm should be immediately notified so that we may make any necessary revisions to recommendations contained in this report. In addition, if the scope of the proposed construction changes from that described in this report, our firm should also be notified.

It is the Client's responsibility to see that all parties to the project, including the Designer, Contractor, Subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety.

The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the Contractor's option and risk.

This report is valid for 18 months from the below signed date, or the next code change, whichever comes first. If construction has not commenced prior to expiration of this report, Watson should be contacted to review and provide an update addendum to this report.

4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be made during the construction to verify compliance with these recommendations. These tests and observations should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

Page | 10

Observations and testing during site preparation, earthwork and structural fill placement.

Observation of footing excavations.

Consultation as may be required during construction.

We also recommend that project plans and specifications be reviewed by us to verify compatibility with our conclusions and recommendations. Additional information concerning the scope and cost of these services can be obtained from our office.

Respectfully Submitted, Brian J. Amos, P.E. Tim G. Watson, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer President/Principal

3/31/2025 Mar. 31, 2025

APPENDIX

BORING LOCATION PLAN

BORING LOGS

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONS

GRAIN SIZE DISTIBUTION

CONSOLIDATION TEST (RESPONSE TO WETTING)

SWELL TEST DATA

KEY TO SYMBOLS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY RESULTS

20 Gage PLB™-36 Grade 50 Uniform Allowable Load Table, ASD (psf)

For End Lapped Deck

36/7/ 4 Connection Pattern to Supports with Support Member A572 GR50 Hilti X‑HSN 24 PAF 0.125 ≤ t₂ (in.) ≤ 0.375

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ Outward ‑ or ‑

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Inward

PLB‑36 Roof Deck

⟶ 2.00 ⟵ ⟶ 4.00 ⟵ End Bearing (in.) Interior Bearing (in.)

Inward Uniform Allowable Load Table, ASD (psf) Span Span 6'‑0" 6'‑6" 7'‑0" 7'‑6" 8'‑0" 8'‑6" 9'‑0" 9'‑6"

1 Wn/Ω 127 109 94 82 72 64 57 51 L/240 66 52 42 34 28 23 20 17

2 Wn/Ω 130 111 96 84 73 65 58 52 L/240 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 71 59 50 43

3 Wn/Ω 162 138 119 104 92 81 72 65 L/240 132 104 83 68 56 47 39 33

Outward (Uplift) Uniform Allowable Load Table, ASD (psf) Span Span 6'‑0" 6'‑6" 7'‑0" 7'‑6" 8'‑0" 8'‑6" 9'‑0" 9'‑6"

Wn/Ω 131 112 97 84 74 66 58 52 Rn/Ω 169 156 145 135 127 119 113 107 L/240 70 55 44 36 30 25 21 18

Wn/Ω 126 108 93 81 71 63 56 51 Rn/Ω 77 71 66 62 58 55 52 49 L/240 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 47 40

Wn/Ω 157 134 116 101 89 79 70 63 Rn/Ω 88 81 75 70 66 62 59 56 L/240 ‑ ‑ ‑ 64 53 44 37 32

Steel Deck Properties t Design Fy wdd Id+ Id‑ Se+ Se‑ Mn+/Ω Mn‑/Ω Vn/Ω in ksi psf in.⁴/ft in.⁴/ft in.³/ft in.³/ft lbs‑ft/ft lbs‑ft/ft lbs/ft

0.0359 50 2.30 0.219 0.231 0.230 0.237 574 592 3220

Where: W ≤ Wn/Ω W = Required strength of the governing ASD load combination Wn/Ω = Allowable strength governed by the steel deck

Rn/Ω = Allowable strength governed by connection tension

Bare Deck Uniform Load V1.0.7 in accordance with: Date: 1/27/2025 AISI S100‑16 (2020) w/ S2‑20

IAPMO UES ER‑0423

IAPMO UES ER‑2018

NOTICE: Design defects that could cause injury or death may result from relying on the information in this document without independent verification by a qualified professional. The information in this document is provided “AS IS”. Nucor Corporation and its affiliates expressly disclaim: (i) any and all representations, warranties and conditions and (ii) all liability arising out of or related to this document and the information in it.

GF-11

ASD CMU LINTEL DESIGN

IBC 2003 & ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02

w w w w

D r = r

D

Special Inspection Provided (Required for new construction)

© Reaveley Engineers

Masonry Wall/Pier - Strength Design

IBC - ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 402

f e f

D f

D f

D f

D D D d d