B01 Attachment 11 Geotech Eval Report 2522JB014.pdf

BWS Architects i

Job No. 2522JB014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.1 Field Exploration

3.2 Laboratory Analyses

3.3 Analyses and Report

4.0 SITE CONDITIONS

4.1 Surface

4.2 Subsurface

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES AND ANALYSIS

5.1 Laboratory Tests

5.2 Field Tests

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

6.2 Design Considerations

6.3 Foundations

6.4 Lateral Design Criteria

6.5 Seismic Considerations

6.6 Conventional Slab-on-Grade Support

6.7 Drainage

6.8 Corrosivity to Concrete

6.9 Pavements

6.9.1 Pavement Analyses

7.0 EARTHWORK

7.1 General

7.2 Site Clearing

7.3 Excavation

7.4 Foundation Preparation

7.5 Slab-on-Grade Preparation

7.6 Exterior Slab Preparation

7.7 Pavement Preparation

7.8 Materials

7.9 Placement and Compaction

7.10 Compliance

BWS Architects ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

8.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

9.0 LIMITATIONS

10.0 CLOSURE

BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM .......................................................................................................... Plate 1

APPENDIX A

Definition of Terminology ............................................................................................................ A-1

Method of Classification .............................................................................................................. A-2

Boring Log Notes .......................................................................................................................... A-3

Boring Logs ........................................................................................................................ A-4 to A-9

APPENDIX B

Laboratory Tests ............................................................................................................... B-1 to B-7

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS

HIGHWAY 264, MILEPOST 388

POLACCA, ARIZONA

JOB NO. 2522JB014

1.0 PURPOSE

This report contains the results of our geotechnical evaluation for a proposed residential development to be located south of the existing Hopi Health Center located at Milepost 388 on

Highway 264 near Polacca, Arizona. The purpose of these services is to provide information and recommendations regarding:

• Subsurface conditions

• Foundation design parameters

• Slabs-on-grade

• Lateral earth pressures

• Seismic considerations

• Earthwork guidelines

• On-site pavements

• Drainage

• Corrosivity (soil to concrete)

Results of the field exploration, field tests, and laboratory testing program are presented in the

Appendices.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Based on information provided by Ms. Robin Shambach, the proposed project will consist of four, single-story duplexes with total plan areas of approximately 2,400 square feet, each. The structures are assumed to be wood frame construction with slab-on-grade floors. Maximum wall and column loads for the structures are assumed to be 2.5 kips per linear foot and 30 kips, respectively. We anticipate no extraordinary slab-on-grade criteria and that the finished floor levels will be within of 2 to 3 feet of the existing site grades. On-site pavements are assumed to be included as part of the proposed development. Should any of our information or assumptions not be correct, we request that the Client notify Western Technologies (WT) immediately.

BWS Architects 2

3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.1 Field Exploration

Six borings were drilled to depths of about 5 to 19 feet below existing site grades in the proposed building areas. The borings were at the approximate locations shown on the attached Boring Location Diagram. A field log was prepared for each boring. These logs contain visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as interpolation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final logs, included in

Appendix A, represent our interpretation of the field logs and may include modifications based on laboratory observations and tests of the field samples. The final logs describe the materials encountered, their thickness, and the locations where samples were obtained.

A field log was prepared for each boring. These logs contain visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as interpolation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final logs, included in Appendix A, represent our interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observations and tests of the field samples. The final logs describe the materials encountered, their thicknesses, and the locations where samples were obtained.

The Unified Soil Classification System was used to classify soils. The soil classification symbols appear on the boring logs and are briefly described in Appendix A. Local and regional geologic characteristics were used to estimate the seismic design criteria and liquefaction potential.

3.2 Laboratory Analyses

Laboratory analyses were performed on representative soil samples to aid in material classification and to estimate pertinent engineering properties of the on-site soils for preparation of this report. Testing was performed in general accordance with applicable standard test methods. The following tests were performed and the results are presented in Appendix B.

• Water content

• Dry density

• Compression

• Maximum density/optimum moisture

BWS Architects 3

• Remolded expansion

• Gradation

• Plasticity

• Soluble salt/sulfate/chloride content

Test results were utilized in the development of the recommendations contained in this report.

3.3 Analyses and Report

This geotechnical engineering report includes a description of the project, a discussion of the field and laboratory testing programs, a discussion of the subsurface conditions, and design recommendations as appropriate to the purpose. The scope of services for this project does not include, either specifically or by implication, any environmental assessment of the site, discovery of underground storage tanks or other underground structures, or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials or conditions. If there is concern about the potential for such contamination, other studies should be undertaken.

We are available to discuss the scope of such studies with you.

4.0 SITE CONDITIONS

4.1 Surface

At the time of our exploration, the site was undeveloped land on the existing Hopi Health

Center Campus. The site was bordered on the south and east by undeveloped land, on the north by the existing Hopi Health Center Campus that consists of one large masonry and wood frame, slab-on-grade building and associated asphalt paved parking and drive areas that all appear to be in good condition, and on the west by the existing Walpi Staff

Quarters development. The native ground surface was smooth and exhibited a very gentle, near-flat slope down to the south and east. Site surface drainage appeared to be poor by means of sheet flow to the south and east. Evidence of previous surface water ponding was observed throughout the site at the time of our field exploration. Vegetation on the site consisted of a sparse growth of native grasses and weeds.

BWS Architects 4

4.2 Subsurface

As presented on the Boring Logs, surface and subsoils extending to the full depth of exploration in Borings 1 and 6, and to a depth of about 10 feet in all other borings consisted of medium dense to dense Clayey SANDS and firm to very stiff Sandy CLAYS, both with variable amounts of gravel and medium plasticity fines. Subsoils underlying the surface and subsoils in Borings 2 through 5 that extend to the full depth of exploration consisted of medium dense to very dense, non-plastic Silty SANDS with variable amounts of gravel.

Groundwater was not encountered in any boring at the time of exploration. A detailed description of the soils encountered can be found on the boring logs in Appendix A.

The boring logs included in this report are indicators of subsurface conditions only at the specific location and date noted. Variations from the field conditions represented by the borings may become evident during construction. If variations appear, we should be contacted to re-evaluate our recommendations.

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES AND ANALYSIS

5.1 Laboratory Tests

Laboratory test results (see Appendix B) indicate that on-site subsoils located near and below anticipated shallow foundation levels exhibit low to moderate compressibility at existing water contents. Low to high additional compression occurs when the water content is increased.

Near-surface soils are of medium plasticity. These soils exhibit moderate expansion potential when recompacted, confined by loads approximating floor loads and saturated.

Slabs-on-grade supported on recompacted on-site soils have a moderate potential for heaving if the water content of the soil increases.

5.2 Field Tests

On-site subsoils located near and below anticipated shallow foundation level exhibited low to high resistance to penetration using the ring-lined barrel sampler (ASTM D3550). The penetration resistance values also exhibited some variability between test locations and

BWS Architects 5 with depth. This represents a potential for differential movements within structures supported on existing soils in their present condition.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

Recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the project criteria described in Section 2.0 and the assumption that the soil and subsurface conditions are those disclosed by the explorations. Others may change the plans, final elevations, number and type of structures, foundation loads, and floor levels during design or construction. Substantially different subsurface conditions from those described herein may be encountered or become known. Any changes in the project criteria or subsurface conditions shall be brought to our attention in writing.

6.2 Design Considerations

The borings indicate the presence of some medium plasticity clay and clayey soils on the site. These soils will expand or swell with an increase in moisture content and shrink with a decrease in moisture content. Structures and related improvements situated on expansive clayey soils could be subject to movements if the foundation soils experience an increase in moisture content. It should be understood that if moisture penetrates expansive soils, there could be some heave and resultant cracking/distress of the proposed structures and related improvements.

6.3 Foundations

If conventional spread footings are used, they should be supported on a minimum thickness of 2 feet of lean mix (2-sack) concrete backfill. Footings should bear at least 2 feet below the lowest adjacent finished grade. Footings may be designed to impose a maximum dead plus live-load pressure of up to 2500 pounds per square foot.

We anticipate that total movement of the proposed structures, supported as recommended, should be less than 1 inch. Differential movement should be less than ¾ inch. Additional foundation movements could occur if water from any source infiltrates the foundation soils. Therefore, proper drainage should be provided in the final design

BWS Architects 6 and during construction. Finished grade is the lowest adjacent grade for perimeter footings and floor level for interior footings. The design bearing capacity applies to dead loads plus design live load conditions. Recommended minimum widths of column and wall footings are 24 inches and 16 inches, respectively. The bearing value given is a net bearing value and the weight of the concrete in the footings may be ignored. All footings, stem walls, and masonry walls should be reinforced to reduce the potential for distress caused by differential foundation movements. The use of joints at openings or other discontinuities in masonry walls is recommended.

We recommend that the geotechnical engineer or his representative observe the footing excavations before reinforcing steel and concrete are placed. It should be determined whether the soils exposed are similar to those anticipated for support of the footings. Any soft, loose or unacceptable soils should be undercut to suitable materials and backfilled with either lean mix or structural concrete.

6.4 Lateral Design Criteria

For retaining walls located above any free water surface with no surcharge loads, recommended equivalent fluid pressures and coefficients of base friction for unrestrained elements are:

• Active:

Undisturbed subsoil ........................................................................................... 38 psf/ft

Compacted granular backfill .............................................................................. 30 psf/ft

Site soils ................................................................................ not recommended for use

• Passive:

Shallow wall footings ....................................................................................... 225 psf/ft

Shallow column footings .................................................................................. 350 psf/ft

• Coefficient of base friction ..................................................................................... 0.35*

* The coefficient of base friction (soil) should be reduced to 0.25 when used in conjunction with passive pressure.

BWS Architects 7

Where the design includes restrained elements, the following equivalent fluid pressures are recommended:

• At-rest:

Undisturbed subsoil ........................................................................................... 65 psf/ft

Compacted granular backfill .............................................................................. 55 psf/ft

These lateral earth pressures are not applicable for submerged soils. We should be consulted for additional recommendations if such conditions are to be included in the design. Any surcharge from adjacent loadings must also be considered. Walls below grade should be waterproofed.

We recommend a free-draining soil layer or manufactured geocomposite material, be constructed adjacent to the back of the retaining wall. A filter may be required between the soil backfill and drainage layer. This drainage zone should help prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup. This vertical drain should be tied into a gravity drainage system at the base of the retaining wall. It is important that all backfill be properly placed and compacted. Backfill should be mechanically compacted in layers. Flooding or jetting should not be permitted. Care should be taken not to damage the walls when placing the backfill. Backfills should be inspected and tested during placement.

Fill against footings, stem walls and retaining walls should be compacted to densities specified in EARTHWORK. Medium to high plasticity clay soils should not be used as backfill against retaining walls. Compaction of each lift adjacent to walls should be accomplished with hand-operated tampers or other lightweight compactors.

Overcompaction may cause excessive lateral earth pressures which could result in wall movements.

6.5 Seismic Considerations

Structures should be designed in accordance with applicable building codes. The seismic design parameters presented in the following table, in accordance with the 2018

International Building Code and ASCE 7-16, are applicable to the project site:

BWS Architects 8

Seismic Design Parameters

International Building Code 2018, ASCE 7-16

Soil Site Class D

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2 sec period (Ss) 0.183g

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0 sec period (S1) 0.058g

Site Coefficient for 0.2 sec period (Fa) 1.6

Site Coefficient for 1.0 sec period (Fv) 2.4

Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2 sec period (SDS) 0.195g

Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0 sec period (SD1) 0.093g

The soil site class is based upon conditions identified in shallow exploratory borings and local knowledge of the subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the site. Soil conditions extending beyond the depth of our borings to a depth of 100 feet were assumed for the purposes of providing the information presented in the table. Based upon the density of the on-site soils and lack of groundwater, the potential settlement and lateral spread due to liquefaction is not a considered to be a significant concern on this site.

6.6 Conventional Slab-on-Grade Support

Slabs-on-grade should be supported on a minimum thickness of 1.5 feet of properly placed and compacted, imported, low expansive, engineered fill. For design of interior slabs-on-grade, we recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for the on-site soils and 225 pci for imported fill material, based on a

30-inch diameter plate. The slab subgrade should be prepared by the procedures outlined in this report. A minimum 4-inch thick layer of base course should be provided beneath all slabs to help prevent capillary rise and a damp slab. The use of vapor retarders is desirable for any slab-on-grade where the floor will be covered by products using water-based adhesives, wood, vinyl backed carpet, impermeable floor coatings (urethane, epoxy, acrylic terrazzo, etc.) or where the floor will be in contact with moisture sensitive equipment or product. When used, the design and installation should be in accordance with the guidance provided in ACI 302.1R and 302.2R. Final determination on the use of a vapor retarder should be left to the slab designer.

All concrete placement and curing operations should follow the American Concrete

Institute manual recommendations. Improper curing techniques and/or high slump

(water-cement ratio) could cause excessive shrinkage, cracking or curling. The plastic

BWS Architects 9 properties of the concrete should be documented at the time of placement and specimens should also be prepared for strength testing to verify compliance with project specifications. Concrete slabs should be allowed to cure adequately before placing vinyl or other moisture sensitive floor covering.

6.7 Drainage

The major cause of soil-related foundation and slab-on-ground problems is moisture increase in soils below structures. Properly functioning conventional foundations and floor slabs-on-ground require appropriately constructed and maintained site drainage conditions. Therefore, it is extremely important that positive drainage be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the structures. It is also important that proper planning and control of landscape and irrigation practices be performed.

Infiltration of water into utility or foundation excavations must be prevented during construction. Backfill against footings, exterior walls, and in utility and sprinkler line trenches should be well compacted and free of all construction debris to minimize the possibility of moisture infiltration. If utility line trenches are backfilled with a granular material, then a clay or concrete plug should be placed in the trench adjacent to the structures to prevent water from following the trench back under the structures.

In areas where sidewalks, patios or driveways do not immediately adjoin the structures, protective slopes should be provided with an outfall of about 5 percent for at least 10 feet from perimeter walls. Scuppers and drain pipes should be designed to provide drainage away from the structures for a minimum distance of 10 feet. Planters or other surface features that could retain water adjacent to the structures should be avoided if at all possible. If planters and/or landscaping are adjacent to or near the structures, there will be a greater potential for moisture infiltration, soil movement and structure distress.

As a minimum, we recommend the following:

• Grades should slope away from the structures.

• Planters should slope away from the structures and should not pond water. Drains should be installed in enclosed planters to facilitate flow out of the planters.

• Only shallow rooted landscaping should be used.

BWS Architects 10

• Watering should be kept to a minimum. Irrigation systems should be situated on the far side of any planting and away from the structures to minimize infiltration beneath foundations from possible leaks.

• Trees should be planted no closer than a distance equal to three-quarters of their mature height or 15 feet, whichever is greater.

It should be understood that these recommendations will help minimize the potential for soil movement and resulting distress, but will not eliminate this potential.

6.8 Corrosivity to Concrete

Chemical testing was still in progress at the time of this report. The results will be presented in an addendum to this report as soon as the testing is completed.

6.9 Pavements

Based on existing subgrade conditions, the following pavement sections are recommended for the areas indicated:

Traffic Area Asphalt Concrete (in.) Base Course (in.)

Passenger car parking/drives

(low traffic frequency) 3 8

Major access drives

(high traffic frequency) 4 7

Bituminous surfacing should be constructed of dense-graded, central plant-mix, asphalt concrete. Base course and asphalt concrete should conform with Navajo County specifications.

Material and compaction requirements should conform to the recommendations presented under EARTHWORK. The gradient of paved surfaces should ensure positive drainage. Water should not pond in areas directly adjoining paved sections. The native subgrade soils will soften and lose stability if subjected to conditions which result in an increase in water content.

BWS Architects 11

Due to the high static loads imposed by parked trucks in loading and unloading areas and at dumpster locations, we recommend that a rigid pavement section be considered for these areas. A minimum 6-inch thick concrete pavement over 4 inches of aggregate base course material is recommended.

6.9.1 Pavement Analyses

The recommended pavement sections are based on the following conditions. This firm should be contacted if any of these conditions change so that revised recommendations can be provided, if necessary.

a. A correlated R-value of 14 for the on-site soils which corresponds to a resilient modulus of approximately 5300 pounds per square inch. Any required fills should be constructed using on-site or imported materials with subgrade support characteristics equal to or greater than the subgrade soils in the area being filled.

b. Structural coefficients of 0.40 for asphalt concrete and 0.12 for aggregate base course material.

c. A present serviceability index of 4.5, a terminal serviceability index of 2.5, an overall standard deviation of 0.35, a reliability factor of 85 percent, a drainage coefficient of 0.85, a seasonal variation factor of 2.4, and a design life of 20 years.

d. A total 18-kip equivalent single axle load (ESAL) of 25,000 for the passenger car parking areas and 50,000 for the major access drive areas.

7.0 EARTHWORK

7.1 General

The conclusions contained in this report for the proposed construction are contingent upon compliance with recommendations presented in this section. Any excavating, trenching, or disturbance that occurs after completion of the earthwork must be backfilled, compacted and tested in accordance with the recommendations contained herein. It is not reasonable to rely upon our conclusions and recommendations if any future unobserved and untested trenching, earthwork activities or backfilling occurs.

BWS Architects 12

7.2 Site Clearing

Strip and remove all vegetation, debris, and any other deleterious materials from the structure and pavement areas. The structure area is defined as that area within the footprint plus 5 feet beyond the perimeter of that footprint. All exposed surfaces should be free of mounds and depressions that could prevent uniform compaction.

7.3 Excavation

We anticipate that excavations into the site soils for shallow foundations and utility trenches for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional equipment.

On-site soils may pump or become unworkable at high water contents. Workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. Over-excavation of wet zones and replacement with drier granular materials may be necessary. The use of lightweight excavation and compaction equipment may be required to minimize subgrade pumping.

7.4 Foundation Preparation

In footing areas remove existing soils to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the footing (depth

D in the diagram to the right). Removal should extend straight down along the sides of the footing. Replace the removed soils with properly consolidated, lean mix

(2-sack) concrete backfill material.

7.5 Slab-on-Grade Preparation

Slabs-on-grade should be founded on a minimum thickness of 1.5 feet of imported, low expansive, engineered fill material. Remove native soils, as necessary, to a minimum depth of 1.5 feet below the bottom of the slab (depth D in the diagram below). Following the removal, scarify, moisten or dry as required, and compact all subgrade soils to a minimum depth of 8 inches. Replace the removed soils with properly compacted, imported, low to non-expansive, engineered fill material. The aggregate base course below the slab may be included as part of the low to non-expansive engineered fill.

BWS Architects 13

The subgrade preparation should be accomplished in a manner that will result in uniform water contents and densities after compaction.

7.6 Exterior Slab Preparation

Some of the soils on this site have the potential to expand and shrink with changes in moisture content. In addition, frost penetration in the upper soils may cause surface heaving. Therefore, relatively lightweight exterior concrete flatwork such as sidewalks and patios may experience movements resulting in cracking or vertical offsets. To reduce the potential for damage, we recommend:

• Use of fill with low expansion potential

• Use of fill with low to negligible frost susceptibility

• Placement of effective control joints on relatively close centers

• Moisture-density control during placement of subbase fills

• Provision for adequate drainage in areas adjoining the slabs

• Use of designs which allow vertical movement between the exterior slabs and adjoining structural elements

It should be understood that these recommendations will help reduce the potential for soil movement and resulting distress, but will not eliminate this potential. Furthermore, the use of municipal specifications and details may not mitigate the potential for movements of the expansive or frost susceptible on-site soils.

BWS Architects 14

7.7 Pavement Preparation

Prior to placement of fill and/or pavement materials, the exposed subgrade soils should be proof-rolled and observed by the geotechnical engineer or his qualified representative to verify that stable subgrade conditions exist. Any loose, soft, disturbed, or otherwise unsuitable materials should be over-excavated and replaced with engineered fill. The subgrade should then be scarified, moisture conditioned as required, and recompacted for a minimum depth of 8 inches.

7.8 Materials

a. Clean on-site soils with low expansive potentials and maximum dimension of 6 inches or imported materials may be used as fill material for the following:

• Pavement areas

• Backfill

• Landscape areas

b. On-site clay and clayey soils are not recommended for use beneath conventional exterior slabs-on-grade or as backfill below slabs. Imported, low expansive, engineered fill should be used in these areas.

c. Frozen soils should not be used as fill or backfill.

d. Imported soils should conform to the following:

• Gradation (ASTM C136): percent finer by weight

6"

4" .......................................................................................................................... 85-100

¾” .......................................................................................................................... 70-100

No. 4 Sieve ............................................................................................................ 50-100

No. 200 Sieve .................................................................................................... 40 (max)

BWS Architects 15

• Maximum expansive potential (%)1 ........................................................................... 1.5

• Maximum soluble sulfates (%) ................................................................................. 0.10

e. Base course should conform to Navajo County, Current Edition specifications.

7.9 Placement and Compaction

a. Place and compact fill in horizontal lifts, using equipment and procedures that will produce recommended water contents and densities throughout the lift.

b. Uncompacted lift thickness should not exceed 8 inches.

c. Materials should be compacted to the following:

Minimum Percent

Material Compaction (ASTM D698)

• On-site soil, reworked:

Below slabs-on-grade

Pavement areas

• On-site soil, fill:

Landscape areas

• Imported soil, fill:

Below slabs-on-grade

• Aggregate base:

Below slabs-on-grade

Pavement areas

Measured on a sample compacted to approximately 95 percent of the ASTM D698 maximum dry density at about 3 percent below optimum water content. The sample is confined under a 100 psf surcharge and submerged.

BWS Architects 16

Minimum Percent

Material Compaction (ASTM D698)

• Backfill:

Structural

` Nonstructural

d. On-site soils should be compacted with a moisture content in the range of 1 percent below to 3 percent above optimum. Imported soils with low expansive potential and aggregate base course materials should be compacted with a moisture content in the range of 3 percent below to 3 percent above optimum.

7.10 Compliance

Recommendations for foundations, slabs-on-grade and pavements supported on compacted fills or prepared subgrade depend upon compliance with the EARTHWORK recommendations. To assess compliance, observation and testing should be performed under the direction of a WT geotechnical engineer. Please contact us to provide these observation and testing services.

8.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that a sufficient schedule of tests and observations will be performed during construction to verify compliance.

At a minimum, these tests and observations should be comprised of the following:

Observations and testing during site preparation and earthwork, Observation of foundation excavations, and

Consultation as may be required during construction.

Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the best way to verify compliance and to help you manage the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

BWS Architects 17

9.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared assuming the project criteria described in 2.0 PROJECT

DESCRIPTION. If changes in the project criteria occur, or if different subsurface conditions are encountered or become known, the conclusions and recommendations presented herein shall become invalid. In any such event, WT should be contacted in order to assess the effect that such variations may have on our conclusions and recommendations. If WT is not retained for the construction observation and testing services to determine compliance with this report, our professional responsibility is accordingly limited.

The recommendations presented are based entirely upon data derived from a limited number of samples obtained from widely spaced explorations. The attached logs are indicators of subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and times noted. This report assumes the uniformity of the geology and soil structure between explorations, however variations can and often do exist. Whenever any deviation, difference, or change is encountered or becomes known, WT should be contacted.

This report is for the exclusive benefit of our client alone. There are no intended third-party beneficiaries of our contract with the client or this report, and nothing contained in the contract or this report shall create any express or implied contractual or any other relationship with, or claim or cause of action for, any third party against WT.

This report is valid for the earlier of one year from the date of issuance, a change in circumstances, or discovered variations. After expiration, no person or entity shall rely on this report without the express written authorization of WT.

10.0 CLOSURE

We prepared this report as an aid to the designers of the proposed project. The comments, statements, recommendations and conclusions set forth in this report reflect the opinions of the authors. These opinions are based upon data obtained at the location of the explorations, and from laboratory tests. Work on your project was performed in accordance with generally accepted standards and practices utilized by professionals providing similar services in this locality. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.

Approximate Test Boring Location

Not to Scale

HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS

Boring Location Diagram

Western Technologies Inc.

Job No.: 2522JB014 Plate: 1

Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity The recommended maximum contact stress developed at the interface of the foundation element and the supporting material.

Backfill A specified material placed and compacted in a confined area.

Base Course A layer of specified aggregate material placed on a subgrade or subbase.

Base Course Grade Top of base course.

Bench A horizontal surface in a sloped deposit.

Caisson/Drilled Shaft A concrete foundation element cast in a circular excavation which may have an enlarged base (or belled caisson).

Concrete Slabs‐On‐Grade A concrete surface layer cast directly upon base course, subbase or subgrade.

Crushed Rock Base Course A base course composed of crushed rock of a specified gradation.

Differential Settlement Unequal settlement between or within foundation elements of a structure.

Engineered Fill Specified soil or aggregate material placed and compacted to specified density and/or moisture conditions under observations of a representative of a soil engineer.

Existing Fill Materials deposited through the action of man prior to exploration of the site.

Existing Grade The ground surface at the time of field exploration.

Expansive Potential The potential of a soil to expand (increase in volume) due to absorption of moisture.

Fill Materials deposited by the actions of man.

Finished Grade The final grade created as a part of the project.

Gravel Base Course A base course composed of naturally occurring gravel with a specified gradation.

Heave Upward movement.

Native Grade The naturally occurring ground surface.

Native Soil Naturally occurring on‐site soil.

Rock A natural aggregate of mineral grains connected by strong and permanent cohesive forces. Usually requires drilling, wedging, blasting or other methods of extraordinary force for excavation.

Sand and Gravel Base Course A base course of sand and gravel of a specified gradation.

Sand Base Course A base course composed primarily of sand of a specified gradation.

Scarify To mechanically loosen soil or break down existing soil structure.

Settlement Downward movement.

Soil Any unconsolidated material composed of discrete solid particles, derived from the physical and/or chemical disintegration of vegetable or mineral matter, which can be separated by gentle mechanical means such as agitation in water.

Strip To remove from present location.

Subbase A layer of specified material placed to form a layer between the subgrade and base course.

Subbase Grade Top of subbase.

Subgrade Prepared native soil surface.

DEFINITION OF TERMINOLOGY

PLATE

A‐1

81WTI

091614

COARSE‐GRAINED SOILS

LESS THAN 50% FINES

FINE‐GRAINED SOILS

MORE THAN 50% FINES

GROUP

SYMBOLS

DESCRIPTION MAJOR

DIVISIONS

GROUP

SYMBOLS

DESCRIPTION MAJOR

DIVISIONS

GW

WELL‐GRADED GRAVEL OR WELL‐GRADED

GRAVEL WITH SAND, LESS THAN 5% FINES

GRAVELS

MORE THAN

HALF

OF COARSE

FRACTION

IS LARGER THAN

NO. 4

SIEVE SIZE

ML

SILT, SILT WITH SAND OR GRAVEL, SANDY SILT, OR

GRAVELLY SILT SILTS

AND

CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT

LESS

THAN 50

GP

POORLY‐GRADED GRAVEL OR POORLY‐GRADED

GRAVEL WITH SAND, LESS THAN 5% FINES CL

LEAN CLAY OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,

SANDY CLAY, OR GRAVELLY CLAY

GM

SILTY GRAVEL OR SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND,

MORE THAN 12% FINES OL

ORGANIC SILT OR ORGANIC CLAY OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY

GC

CLAYEY GRAVEL OR CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH

SAND, MORE THAN 12% FINES MH

ELASTIC SILT, SANDY ELASTIC SILT, OR GRAVELLY

ELASTIC SILT SILTS

AND

CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT

MORE

THAN 50

SW

WELL‐GRADED SAND OR WELL‐GRADED SAND

WITH GRAVEL, LESS THAN 5% FINES SANDS

MORE THAN

HALF

OF COARSE

FRACTION

IS SMALLER

THAN

NO. 4

SIEVE SIZE

CH

FAT CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, SANDY FAT CLAY, OR

GRAVELLY FAT CLAY

SP

POORLY‐GRADED SAND OR POORLY‐GRADED

SAND WITH GRAVEL, LESS THAN 5% FINES OH

ORGANIC SILT OR ORGANIC CLAY OF HIGH

PLASTICITY

SM

SILTY SAND OR SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL,

MORE THAN 12% FINES

PT PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

HIGHLY

ORGANIC

SOILS SC

CLAYEY SAND OR CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL,

MORE THAN 12% FINES

NOTE: Coarse‐grained soils receive dual symbols if they NOTE: Fine‐grained soils may receive dual classification contain 5% to 12% fines (e.g., SW‐SM, GP‐GC). based upon plasticity characteristics (e.g. CL‐ML).

SOIL SIZES CONSISTENCY

COMPONENT SIZE RANGE CLAYS & SILTS BLOWS PER FOOT

BOULDERS Above 12 in. VERY SOFT

SOFT

FIRM

STIFF

VERY STIFF

HARD

0 – 2 3 – 4 5 – 8 9 – 15 16 – 30

OVER 30

COBBLES 3 in. – 12 in.

GRAVEL

Coarse Fine

No. 4 – 3 in.

¾ in. – 3 in.

No. 4 – ¾ in.

SAND

Coarse

Medium Fine

No. 200 – No. 4

No. 10 – No. 4

No. 40 – No. 10 No. 200 – No. 40

RELATIVE DENSITY

SANDS & GRAVELS BLOWS PER FOOT

VERY LOOSE

LOOSE

MEDIUM DENSE

DENSE

VERY DENSE

0 – 4 5 – 10 11 – 30 31 – 50 OVER 50 Fines (Silt or Clay) Below No. 200

NOTE: Only sizes smaller than three inches are used to classify soils

NOTE: Number of blows using 140‐pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2‐inch‐OD

(1⅜‐inch ID) split‐barrel sampler (ASTM D1586).

PLASTICITY OF FINE GRAINED SOILS DEFINITION OF WATER CONTENT

PLASTICITY INDEX TERM DRY

SLIGHTLY DAMP

DAMP

MOIST

WET

SATURATED

1 – 7

8 – 20

Over 20

NON‐PLASTIC

LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

METHOD OF CLASSIFICATION

A‐2

81 WTI

090414

The number shown in "BORING NO." refers to the approximate location of the same number indicated on the "Boring Location Diagram" as positioned in the field by pacing or measurement from property lines and/or existing features.

"DRILLING TYPE" refers to the exploratory equipment used in the boring wherein HSA = hollow stem auger, and the dimension presented is the outside diameter of the HSA used.

"R" in “BLOW COUNTS" refers to a 3-inch outside diameter ring-lined split barrel sampler driven into the ground with a 140 pound drop-hammer dropped 30 inches repeatedly until a penetration of 12 inches is achieved or until refusal. The number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches is defined as the “R” blow count. The “R” blow count requires an engineered conversion to an equivalent SPT N-Value. Refusal to penetration is considered more than 50 blows per foot. A double vertical line within the symbol indicates no sample recovery. A circle within the symbol indicates sample disturbance.

"SAMPLE TYPE" refers to the form of sample recovery, in which R = Ring-lined sample and G = Grab sample.

"DRY DENSITY (LBS/CU FT)" refers to the laboratory-determined dry density in pounds per cubic foot.

"WATER (MOISTURE) CONTENT” (% of Dry Wt.) refers to the laboratory-determined water content in percent using the standard test method ASTM D2216.

"USCS" refers to the “Unified Soil Classification System” Group Symbol for the soil type as defined by ASTM D2487 and D2488. The soils were classified visually in the field, and where appropriate, classifications were modified by visual examination of samples in the laboratory and/or by appropriate tests.

These notes and boring logs are intended for use in conjunction with the purposes of our services defined in the text. Boring log data should not be construed as part of the construction plans nor as defining construction conditions.

Boring logs depict our interpretations of subsurface conditions at the locations and on the date(s) noted. Variations in subsurface conditions and characteristics may occur between borings. Groundwater levels may fluctuate due to seasonal variations and other factors.

The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent our interpretation of the approximate boundary between soil or rock types based upon visual field classification at the boring location. The transition between materials is approximate and may be more or less gradual than indicated.

BORING LOG NOTES

PLATE

A-3

©81WTI

091614

SC

101 48

Clayey SAND; some gravel, tan, dense, slightly damp

Boring Stopped at 5 Feet

G

R8.7

ELEVATION:

D

EP

T H

FE

ET

Not Determined

DATE DRILLED:

S A

M

PL

E

FIELD ENGINEER: C. Senior

T H

IS

S

U M

M A

R Y

A

PP

LI

ES

O N

LY

A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N A

N D

A T T

H E

T

IM

E O

F

LO

G G

IN

G

C

O N

D

IT

IO

N

S M

A Y

D

IF

FE

R A

T O

T H

ER

See Location Diagram

(L B S /C

U F

T

A-4

PROJECT: HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS

BORING LOG

B

LO

W S /F

T

S A

M

PL

E T Y

PE

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES: Groundwater Not Encountered

M O

IS

T U

R E

C O

N T

EN

T

EQUIPMENT TYPE: CME-75

WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2400 Huntington Drive

Flagstaff, AZ 86004-8934

DRILLING TYPE: 7"HSA

CA-

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

RING SAMPLE

CALIFORNIA MODIFIED SAMPLER

GRAB SAMPLE

BUCKET SAMPLE

PROJECT NO.: 2522JB014

G-

G R A

PH

IC

PLATE

2-2-22

O

F D

R Y

W T

B-

U S C

S

R-

LOCATION:

N-

LO

C

A T

IO

N S A

N D

M A

Y C

H A

N G

E A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N W

IT

H

T

IM

E.

D

A T A

P R

ES

EN

T

ED

IS

A

S

IM

PL

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

BORING NO. 1

D R Y

D

EN

S

Y

CL

SM

50/7"

50/11"

Sandy Lean CLAY; light brown, stiff to hard, damp

Silty SAND; some gravel, tan, medium dense to very dense, slightly damp

Boring Stopped at 19 Feet

G

R

R

R

G

R

R

12.8

13.0

4.3

3.3

2.3

ELEVATION:

D

EP

T H

FE

ET

Not Determined

DATE DRILLED:

S A

M

PL

E

FIELD ENGINEER: C. Senior

T H

IS

S

U M

M A

R Y

A

PP

LI

ES

O N

LY

A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N A

N D

A T T

H E

T

IM

E O

F

LO

G G

IN

G

C

O N

D

IT

IO

N

S M

A Y

D

IF

FE

R A

T O

T H

ER

See Location Diagram

(L B S /C

U F

T

A-5

PROJECT: HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS

BORING LOG

B

LO

W S /F

T

S A

M

PL

E T Y

PE

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES: Groundwater Not Encountered

M O

IS

T U

R E

C O

N T

EN

T

EQUIPMENT TYPE: CME-75

WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2400 Huntington Drive

Flagstaff, AZ 86004-8934

DRILLING TYPE: 7"HSA

CA-

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

RING SAMPLE

CALIFORNIA MODIFIED SAMPLER

GRAB SAMPLE

BUCKET SAMPLE

PROJECT NO.: 2522JB014

G-

G R A

PH

IC

PLATE

2-2-22

O

F D

R Y

W T

B-

U S C

S

R-

LOCATION:

N-

LO

C

A T

IO

N S A

N D

M A

Y C

H A

N G

E A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N W

E.

D

A T A

P R

ES

EN

T

ED

IS

A

S

IM

PL

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

BORING NO. 2

D R Y

D

EN

S

SC

Clayey Sand; light brown, medium dense, slightly damp

Silty SAND; some gravel, light brown, medium dense to dense, slightly damp

Boring Stopped at 19 Feet

G

R

R

R

R

R

9.5

4.9

3.8

2.4

1.5

ELEVATION:

D

EP

T H

FE

ET

Not Determined

DATE DRILLED:

S A

M

PL

E

FIELD ENGINEER: C. Senior

T H

IS

S

U M

M A

R Y

A

PP

LI

ES

O N

LY

A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N A

N D

A T T

H E

T

IM

E O

F

LO

G G

IN

G

C

O N

D

IT

IO

N

S M

A Y

D

IF

FE

R A

T O

T H

ER

See Location Diagram

(L B S /C

U F

T

A-6

PROJECT: HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS

BORING LOG

B

LO

W S /F

T

S A

M

PL

E T Y

PE

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES: Groundwater Not Encountered

M O

IS

T U

R E

C O

N T

EN

T

EQUIPMENT TYPE: CME-75

WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2400 Huntington Drive

Flagstaff, AZ 86004-8934

DRILLING TYPE: 7"HSA

CA-

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

RING SAMPLE

CALIFORNIA MODIFIED SAMPLER

GRAB SAMPLE

BUCKET SAMPLE

PROJECT NO.: 2522JB014

G-

G R A

PH

IC

PLATE

2-2-22

O

F D

R Y

W T

B-

U S C

S

R-

LOCATION:

N-

LO

C

A T

IO

N S A

N D

M A

Y C

H A

N G

E A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N W

E.

D

A T A

P R

ES

EN

T

ED

IS

A

S

IM

PL

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

BORING NO. 3

D R Y

D

EN

S

50/10"

Sandy Lean CLAY; light brown, firm to very stiff, slightly damp

Silty SAND; some gravel, tan, very dense to dense, slightly damp

Boring Stopped at 19 Feet

G

R

R

R

R

R

4.8

3.0

8.0

1.9

1.9

ELEVATION:

D

EP

T H

FE

ET

Not Determined

DATE DRILLED:

S A

M

PL

E

FIELD ENGINEER: C. Senior

T H

IS

S

U M

M A

R Y

A

PP

LI

ES

O N

LY

A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N A

N D

A T T

H E

T

IM

E O

F

LO

G G

IN

G

C

O N

D

IT

IO

N

S M

A Y

D

IF

FE

R A

T O

T H

ER

See Location Diagram

(L B S /C

U F

T

A-7

PROJECT: HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS

BORING LOG

B

LO

W S /F

T

S A

M

PL

E T Y

PE

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES: Groundwater Not Encountered

M O

IS

T U

R E

C O

N T

EN

T

EQUIPMENT TYPE: CME-75

WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2400 Huntington Drive

Flagstaff, AZ 86004-8934

DRILLING TYPE: 7"HSA

CA-

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

RING SAMPLE

CALIFORNIA MODIFIED SAMPLER

GRAB SAMPLE

BUCKET SAMPLE

PROJECT NO.: 2522JB014

G-

G R A

PH

IC

PLATE

2-2-22

O

F D

R Y

W T

B-

U S C

S

R-

LOCATION:

N-

LO

C

A T

IO

N S A

N D

M A

Y C

H A

N G

E A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N W

E.

D

A T A

P R

ES

EN

T

ED

IS

A

S

IM

PL

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

BORING NO. 4

D R Y

D

EN

S

Sandy Lean CLAY; light brown, very stiff, slightly damp

Silty SAND; some gravel, tan, dense to medium dense, slightly damp

Boring Stopped at 19 Feet

G

R

R

R

R

R

6.7

5.3

8.7

3.5

2.4

ELEVATION:

D

EP

T H

FE

ET

Not Determined

DATE DRILLED:

S A

M

PL

E

FIELD ENGINEER: C. Senior

T H

IS

S

U M

M A

R Y

A

PP

LI

ES

O N

LY

A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N A

N D

A T T

H E

T

IM

E O

F

LO

G G

IN

G

C

O N

D

IT

IO

N

S M

A Y

D

IF

FE

R A

T O

T H

ER

See Location Diagram

(L B S /C

U F

T

A-8

PROJECT: HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS

BORING LOG

B

LO

W S /F

T

S A

M

PL

E T Y

PE

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES: Groundwater Not Encountered

M O

IS

T U

R E

C O

N T

EN

T

EQUIPMENT TYPE: CME-75

WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2400 Huntington Drive

Flagstaff, AZ 86004-8934

DRILLING TYPE: 7"HSA

CA-

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

RING SAMPLE

CALIFORNIA MODIFIED SAMPLER

GRAB SAMPLE

BUCKET SAMPLE

PROJECT NO.: 2522JB014

G-

G R A

PH

IC

PLATE

2-2-22

O

F D

R Y

W T

B-

U S C

S

R-

LOCATION:

N-

LO

C

A T

IO

N S A

N D

M A

Y C

H A

N G

E A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N W

E.

D

A T A

P R

ES

EN

T

ED

IS

A

S

IM

PL

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

BORING NO. 5

D R Y

D

EN

S

98 21

Sandy Lean CLAY; some gravel, light brown/tan, very stiff, slightly damp

Boring Stopped at 5 Feet

G

R7.6

ELEVATION:

D

EP

T H

FE

ET

Not Determined

DATE DRILLED:

S A

M

PL

E

FIELD ENGINEER: C. Senior

T H

IS

S

U M

M A

R Y

A

PP

LI

ES

O N

LY

A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N A

N D

A T T

H E

T

IM

E O

F

LO

G G

IN

G

C

O N

D

IT

IO

N

S M

A Y

D

IF

FE

R A

T O

T H

ER

See Location Diagram

(L B S /C

U F

T

A-9

PROJECT: HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS

BORING LOG

B

LO

W S /F

T

S A

M

PL

E T Y

PE

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES: Groundwater Not Encountered

M O

IS

T U

R E

C O

N T

EN

T

EQUIPMENT TYPE: CME-75

WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2400 Huntington Drive

Flagstaff, AZ 86004-8934

DRILLING TYPE: 7"HSA

CA-

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

RING SAMPLE

CALIFORNIA MODIFIED SAMPLER

GRAB SAMPLE

BUCKET SAMPLE

PROJECT NO.: 2522JB014

G-

G R A

PH

IC

PLATE

2-2-22

O

F D

R Y

W T

B-

U S C

S

R-

LOCATION:

N-

LO

C

A T

IO

N S A

N D

M A

Y C

H A

N G

E A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N W

E.

D

A T A

P R

ES

EN

T

ED

IS

A

S

IM

PL

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

BORING NO. 6

D R Y

D

EN

S

FLG-Soil Properties v2.1

Boring No.

Depth (ft)

USCS

Class.

Particle Size Distribution (%) Passing by Weight

Atterberg Limits

Laboratory Compaction Characteristics

Remarks 3” ¾” #4 #10 #40 #200 2μ LL PI

Dry Density

(pcf)

Optimum Moisture

Method

1 0-5 SC 100 93 91 87 41.3 27 15 2

3 0-5 SC 100 98 47.6 24 11 2

5 0-5 CL 100 97 55.9 29 15 2

NOTE: NP = Non-plastic μ = microns (2μ = 0.002mm)

REMARKS

Classification / Particle Size / Moisture-Density Relationship

1. Visual

2. Laboratory Tested

3. Minus #200 Only

4. Test Method ASTM D698/AASHTO T99

5. Test Method ASTM D1557/AASHTO T180

6. From the ADOT Family of Curves

PROJECT: HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS

B-1

JOB NO.: 2522JB014

SOIL PROPERTIES

FLG-Soil Properties v2.3

No.

Depth (ft.)

USCS

Class.

Initial Dry Density (pcf)

Initial Water Content (%)

Laboratory Compaction Characteristics Expansion Properties Plasticity Soluble Remarks

Dry Density(pcf)

Optimum Moisture(%) Method Surcharge

(ksf) Expansion

LL PI Salts

(ppm) Sulfate (ppm)

5 0-5 CL 104.1 11.9 109.1 15.5 A 0.1 2.4 1,2,3

Notes: Initial Dry Density and Initial Water Content are remolded.

Remarks

1. Compacted density (approx. 95% of ASTM D698 max. density at moisture content slightly below optimum.)

2. Submerged to approximate saturation.

3. Test Method ASTM D698/AASHTO T99

4. Test Method ASTM D1557/AASHTO T180

5. From the ADOT Family of Curves

PROJECT: HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS PLATE

B-2 JOB NO.: 2522JB014

FLG-Soil Properties v2.3

No.

Depth (ft.)

USCS

Class.

Initial Dry

Density (pcf)

Initial Water

Content

Compression Properties Expansion Properties Plasticity Soluble

Remarks Surcharge

(ksf)

Total Compression (%) Surcharge

(ksf) Expansion

LL PI Salts

(ppm) Sulfates (ppm)

Chlorides (ppm) In-Situ After

Saturation

3 0-5 SC -- -- -- 4

Notes: Initial Dry Density and Initial Water Content are in-situ values unless otherwise noted.

NP = Non-Plastic Remarks

1. Compacted density (approx. 95% of ASTM D698 max. density at moisture content slightly below optimum.)

2. Submerged to approximate saturation.

3. Slight rebound after saturation.

4. Testing in progress.

PROJECT: HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS PLATE

B-3 JOB NO.: 2522JB014

COMPRESSION TEST REPORT

P e rc e n t S tr a in

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Applied Pressure - ksf

0.1 1 10

Water Added

Natural Dry Dens.

LL PI

Sp. Overburden eo

Swell Press. Clpse.

CrSat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (ksf) (ksf)

43.5 % 12.8 % 92.8 2.65 0.782 0.6

SANDY LEAN CLAY CL

2522JB014 BWS ARCHITECTS

HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS

B-4

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source: RING SAMPLES Depth: 2-3 FEET Sample No.: BORING 2

Western Technologies, Inc.

Flagstaff, AZ Figure e rc e n t S tr a in

Applied Pressure - ksf

0.1 1 10

Water Added

Natural Dry Dens.

LL PI

Sp. Overburden eo

Swell Press. Clpse.

CrSat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (ksf) (ksf)

21.8 % 9.5 % 76.9 2.65 1.152 7.1

CLAYEY SAND SC

2522JB014 BWS ARCHITECTS

HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS

B-5

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source: RING SAMPLES Depth: 2-3 FEET Sample No.: BORING 3 e rc e n t S tr a in

Applied Pressure - ksf

0.1 1 10

Water Added

Natural Dry Dens.

LL PI

Sp. Overburden eo

Swell Press. Clpse.

CrSat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (ksf) (ksf)

13.9 % 4.8 % 86.3 2.65 0.917 10.4

SANDY LEAN CLAY CL

2522JB014 BWS ARCHITECTS

HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS

B-6

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source: RING SAMPLES Depth: 2-3 FEET Sample No.: BORING 4 e rc e n t S tr a in

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Applied Pressure - ksf

0.1 1 10

Water Added

Natural Dry Dens.

LL PI

Sp. Overburden eo

Swell Press. Clpse.

CrSat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (ksf) (ksf)

11.8 % 3.0 % 98.3 2.65 0.683 3.3

SANDY LEAN CLAY CL

2522JB014 BWS ARCHITECTS

HOPI HEALTH STAFF QUARTERS

B-7

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source: RING SAMPLES Depth: 5-6 FEET Sample No.: BORING 4