ADD 004-2024 03 08.pdf

Addendum

Addendum No.: 004 Date: 3/8/2024 Project: Clovis Community College Allied Health - Nursing Expansion Project No.: 22-4042.001

From: Dekker Perich Sabatini

To: All Prospective Bidders and Plan Holders

This Addendum forms a part of the Bid Documents and modifies the Bid Documents issued by Dekker Perich Sabatini (DPS) and dated 02/02/2024. Acknowledge receipt of this Addendum on the Bid Form. Failure to do so may subject the Bidder to disqualification. All other provisions of the Bid Documents shall remain unchanged. This Addendum contains a total of fourty-four 8 ½”x11” pages and zero 30" x 42" sheets.

1. BIDDING REQUIREMENTS:

1.1. 00 4113 – Bid Form

1.1.1. Clarify general contractor and subcontractor bonds and allowances. These are breakout costs. Base bid should include everything.

1.2. Geotechnical Report

1.2.1. Provide additional geotechnical information. See attached.

2. SPECIFICATIONS:

2.1. 01 2100 - Allowances

2.1.1. Clarify signage is to be included in the door hardware allowance.

2.2. 07 4213 – Metal Wall Panels

2.2.1. Clarify there are no metal wall panels in this project. There are metal soffit panels in

Alternate #1.

3. DRAWINGS:

3.1. LP101 – Landscape Plan Base Bid

3.1.1. Clarify there is an existing irrigation system to supply new planting.

3.2. AS100 – Site Plan

3.2.1. Clarify existing rock mulch can be stockpiled and re-used. Any new rock mulch added is to match existing.

3.3. ASD100 – Demolition Site Plan

3.3.1. Clarify that any concrete walk not on ASD100 are to be new.

All other provisions of the Contract Documents shall remain unchanged. This addendum is hereby made a part of the Contract Documents to the same extent as those provisions contained in the original documents and all itemized listings thereof.

End of Addendum

Geotechnical Report – Balfour Optical 20-06-2090 W. Wilson Street and Opal Street

Partum Solutio

Joe and Charlyn Sisler Allied Health Building Addition

417 Schepps Blvd.

Clovis, NM 88101

Centerline Engineering Project #: 23-04-1460

Report Completion Date: 6/1/2023 Prepared For: Clovis Community College

Geotechnical Report

Geotechnical Division

Sisler Allied Health Building Addition Clovis, New Mexico June 1st, 2023 Centerline Engineering & Consulting, LLC Project No. 23-04-1460

Geotechnical Report Client: Clovis Community College

Geotechnical Report Centerline Engineering Project #: 23-04-1460

Prepared for:

Clovis Community College 417 Schepps Blvd.

Clovis, NM 88101

Provided by:

TX Firm No. F-16173

8312 Upland Avenue Lubbock, TX 79424

Phone: (806) 470-8686 www.centerlineengineering.net

June 1st, 2023 http://www.centerlineengineering.net/

Client: Clovis Community College

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Overview 4

2.0 Subsurface Exploration and Investigation

2.1 Soil Borings 4

2.2 Subsurface Materials 5

2.3 Subsurface Moisture 5

2.4 Subsurface Water 6

3.0 Site Characterization

3.1 Site Geology 6

3.2 Site Overview 6

3.3 Swell Potential and Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) 7

3.4 Drainage Considerations 7

3.5 Trenching and Excavation 7

4.0 Laboratory Testing

4.1 Laboratory Tests 8

5.0 Foundation Design Criteria

5.1 Foundation Considerations 9

5.2 Slab-on-Grade Foundation Parameters 9

5.3 Lateral Design Parameters 10

6.0 Pavement Design Criteria

6.1 Considerations 11

6.2 Asphalt Pavement 11

6.3 Concrete Pavement 12

7.0 Site Preparation

7.1 Subgrade 13

7.2 Select Fill 14

7.3 Engineered Fill 14

7.4 Testing 15

8.0 Limitations

9.0 References

Appendices A – Field Conditions B – Borehole Location Map C – Borehole Logs D – Laboratory Results – Executive Summary E – Laboratory Results – Atterberg Limits Data F – Laboratory Results – Sieve Analysis Data

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Overview

An expansion to the Sisler Allied Health Building is proposed on approximately 5.32 acres on 417

Schepps Boulevard in Clovis, New Mexico. Centerline Engineering & Consulting, LLC undertook the subsurface geotechnical investigative study to provide foundation design recommendations for the project. Our scope of services included drilling and sampling 4 boreholes conducted within the footprints of the proposed structure and adjacent paved areas. The purpose of this investigation was to determine subsurface materials and conditions at the project site. Results of subsurface materials and conditions will be used in this report to recommend minimum construction criteria for the proposed foundation and site paving at the project site.

2.0 Subsurface Exploration and Investigation

2.1 Soil Borings

The site borings were completed on May 5th, 2023. Two boreholes were drilled to a depth of 20-ft and two boreholes were drilled to a depth of 5-ft. All borings were conducted within the footprint of the proposed building and adjacent paved areas. Drilling was advanced in each borehole using a track mounted direct push drilling-rig by Peterson Drilling with supervision by Centerline

Engineering staff. A map depicting approximate borehole locations and borehole logs is included in Appendix B as Drawing No. B1.0 and in Appendix C of this report.

Material samples were recovered from various depths for testing. The primary means of recovering subsurface soil samples was by the use of a 2-in OD split barrel sampler. Sampling was conducted according to ASTM D1586-18 [9], commonly known as the Standard Penetration

Test. The samples were collected in the field, placed in moisture-tight bags, and labeled for transport to our in-house geotechnical laboratory. All samples were observed by Centerline

Engineering staff, and select samples were designated for laboratory analysis. All laboratory analyses were performed by Centerline Engineering & Consulting, LLC. The Unified Soil

Classifications System (ASTM D2487-17E01) [6] was used to verify field classification of soils.

Refer to boring logs located in Appendix C of this report for lithology, sample depths, and approximate quantities.

2.2 Subsurface Materials

The material encountered in the boreholes conducted at the site can be generalized as four classifiable strata which are described in Table 2.2.1. The specific subsurface lithology encountered in each borehole is described in the borehole logs included in Appendix C of this report. Stratification boundaries on the borehole logs represent approximate locations of soil-type changes. In-situ transition between materials may be gradual.

Table 2.2.1: Soil Strata

Stratum General Approx. Depth of Stratum (feet)

Material Description

Stratum I 0-1.5 Sandy SILT (CL-ML); brown

Stratum II 1.5-8.5 Sandy LEAN CLAY (CL); brown to tan

Stratum II 8.5-18.5 Sandy SILT (CL-ML); tan to brown

Stratum III 18.5-20 (borehole termination) Sandy LEAN CLAY (CL); brown

2.3 Subsurface Moisture

Installation of a granular capillary break is recommended beneath all proposed foundations.

Further details regarding the capillary break style and installation methods are discussed in the

Foundation Recommendations section of this report.

Relative humidity in the soils below a foundation will be close to 100%. If a vapor barrier or capillary break is not installed below the foundation, this humidity can contribute moisture to a slab-on-grade concrete foundation. Moisture introduced into a foundation can cause soluble alkalis in the concrete to dissolve into solution effectively raising the pH of the concrete. Moisture induced pH levels in concrete can range as high as 10-15, while normal cured levels typically

Soil Strata range from 7-9. The impact of subsurface moisture can be reduced by the implementation of a vapor barrier or capillary break.

2.4 Subsurface Water

Groundwater was not encountered in any borehole at the time of investigation. The presence or lack of groundwater does not express or imply that a groundwater study was performed. A groundwater study is beyond the scope of this report. It should be noted that groundwater levels are subject to change based on seasonal and climatic conditions.

3.0 Site Characterization

3.1 Site Geology

Available soils maps [12] show that the predominate soil group at this site is the Acuff loam. The

Acuff group conforms to National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Hydrologic Soil Group

[13] B, typically express 0 to 1 percent slopes, and are indicative of plains landforms. Soil corrosivity of all soil groups to uncoated steel is moderate, and soil corrosivity to concrete is low.

3.2 Site Overview

At the time of the subsurface investigation, the site was characterized by an actively used building and parking lot. The proposed building addition will also extend north onto vacant property. Any pre-existing foundation systems or construction debris that are encountered during new construction should be removed entirely and over-excavated by 1-ft of depth. This includes any gravel, base material, or associated pavement structures present in areas of proposed new construction. Any excavated areas should be backfilled with select fill in accordance with the Site

Preparation section of this report. For areas of proposed construction overlapping existing natural vegetation, the contractor should ensure that all organic material is completely removed in areas of proposed construction.

Should any loose or pumping areas be observed, it is recommended that over-excavation of these areas is conducted to a depth sufficient to reach stable undisturbed material. This should then be followed by scarification and compaction in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report. Grade beams should rest on a stable stratum which has been scarified and compacted in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report.

3.3 Swell Potential and Potential Vertical Rise (PVR)

Very low amounts of soil movement (less than 0.5 inches) due to shrinkage/swelling of the subsurface material is anticipated at the site. The Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) of soils is largely a direct correlative to the nature and degree of plasticity that a given soil exhibits. Site soils were determined to be plastic with plasticity index (PI) values ranging from 6-11, and their PVR was calculated to be negligible using McDowell’s [4] initial dry soil condition and an assumed active zone of soil from 0-ft. to 15-ft. below grade.

The PVR and resulting foundation movement is affected by many factors that can influence its magnitude and rate of change. This report only provides an estimate of probable movement of the soil due to seasonal changes in moisture content. Improper drainage of surface runoff, ponding water near the foundation, broken water/sewer lines, and trees planted near the foundation are all examples of scenarios that could result in a drastic increase in PVR.

3.4 Drainage Considerations

Positive drainage is essential to the long-term stability of the structures at the site. A minimum slope of 2% away from the foundation is recommended for all areas not covered by sidewalk or pavement. Water should not be permitted to pond during construction or on the finished site.

Due to the presence of in-situ silty soils, an emphasis on maintaining a stable moisture content in the soils beneath and adjacent to the foundation during construction should be a priority.

Temporary and permanent drainage control measures should be designed and installed to ensure positive drainage away from the foundation in all phases of construction.

3.5 Trenching and Excavation

The guidelines specified by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) should be followed for all excavation activities. The OSHA Standards (29 CFR Part 1926 revised, 2017 [5]) require all trenches that exceed 5' in depth to be shored or benched appropriately unless the soil stratum is “solid” rock.

Soils encountered during site investigation are OSHA Type C soils [11]. Refer to Table 3.5.1 for

OSHA slope requirements for excavations that are less than 20 feet in depth. Trenches in excess of 20 feet in depth should be designed by a registered professional engineer.

Table 3.5.1: OSHA Maximum Allowable Slopes

Stratum Horizontal Vertical

Stable Rock Vertical 1 Type A 3/4 1 Type B 1 1 Type C 1-1/2 1

The above information is provided for temporary excavations. Any permanent trenches proposed at the site should have a minimum of 4:1 side-slopes and be lined with erosion control measures.

This report does not meet OSHA Trench Safety Plan minimum requirements.

4.0 Laboratory Testing

4.1 Laboratory Tests

Laboratory test used to determine engineering properties of the subsurface soils collected include:

• Soil Moisture Content (ASTM D2216-19) [10]

• Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318-17E01) [7]

• Hybrid Wet-Dry Sieve Analysis for gradation (ASTM D6913-17) [8]

Laboratory results are included in this report as Appendices D, E, and F. Samples not used in laboratory analysis will be retained for a maximum of 60 days unless Centerline Engineering is notified in writing prior to disposal of the samples.

OSHA Maximum Allowable Slopes

5.0 Foundation Design Criteria

5.1 Foundation Considerations

An adequately reinforced slab-on-grade foundation system is recommended, with grade beams placed as determined by the structural engineer. Spread footings should be used to support concentrated point loads and provide lateral stability where necessary. Appropriate construction joints and saw-cuts should be specified by the structural engineer to minimize cracking in the slab.

The structural engineer is responsible for providing adequate reinforcement in designs for all footings and structural elements.

Where the existing structure and proposed addition are structurally connected, the existing and proposed foundation systems should be structurally connected as well. The slabs should be connected by dowels with a minimum length of 24 inches. The existing foundation should have holes drilled and the dowels inserted and epoxied in place prior to placement of new foundation systems. Once dowels are set in the existing foundation, placement of the new foundation may begin. The dowels should extend a minimum of 12-in into both the existing and new foundation systems.

5.2 Slab-on-Grade Foundation Parameters

The frost depth for this foundation is 18 inches. All footings shall bear to a minimum depth of 2.0-

ft. below existing grade. Grade beams should be a minimum of 12-in. wide, and the dimensions of spread footings should be a minimum of 30-in. on all sides. Shallow continuous footings used for any portion of the foundation system should be structurally tied to the grade beams, spread footings, or other structural elements. The structural engineer is responsible for providing adequate reinforcement in all footings and structural elements.

Select fill should be used to bring the foundation to design grade. Design grade should include a minimum 8” thick layer of select fill to serve as a capillary break. Placement of all select fill should be in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report.

Table 5.2.1: Bearing Capacity & Design Parameters

Foundation Levels (feet below ground surface) Allowable Bearing Capacity (psf)

2.0-2.5 2,500 2.5-3.0 2,750 3.0-3.5 3,000

A value of 125 pci for subgrade modulus and a value of 28 degrees may be used for the internal friction angle of the in-situ soils for design purposes. A value of 0.35 for the ultimate lateral sliding resistance coefficient may be used for design of the foundation on select fill.

If select fill is required below the foundation for leveling purposes and gradation, compaction, and testing requirements in the Site Preparation section of this report should be adhered to. The allowable bearing capacity of a foundation placed into properly compacted select fill does not change the allowable bearing capacity values listed in Table 5.2.1.

5.3 Lateral Design Parameters

Lateral earth pressures acting on any proposed retaining walls at the site will depend on multiple parameters such as: backfill material used, drainage conditions, and loading from adjacent structures. Recommended lateral earth pressures expressed as equivalent fluid pressures are presented in the table below. The pressures listed assume that positive drainage is provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure build-up behind retaining walls, and do not account for any surcharge loading of the retained soil.

Table 5.4.1: Equivalent Fluid Pressures

Stratum Passive Pressure (psf/ft) Active Pressure (psf/ft) Stratum I-IV 100 60 Select Fill 100 60

Bearing Capacity & Design Parameters

Equivalent Fluid Pressures

Retaining walls should be backfilled with an 18-in. wide layer of pea gravel for the height of the wall. Backfill behind the pea gravel should be a well-graded, non-expansive, granular fill material with a maximum particle size of 4-in. nominal. The top 3-ft of the wall height should be backfilled with a layer of cohesive soil to reduce the infiltration of surface water behind the wall. Weep holes are recommended along the bottom of the retaining wall at 10-ft. on center to assist with drainage and prevent hydrostatic pressure build-up behind the wall. Fill behind the wall should be placed in 8-in. loose lifts and compacted to 95% of the Standard Proctor +/-2% points of the optimum moisture content as determined following the method outlined in ASTM D698-12(2021) [1].

Compaction tests should be performed on each lift prior to placement of the subsequent lift.

6.0 Pavement Design Criteria

6.1 Considerations

Concrete or asphalt paving may be used to surface the area for access and parking. Concrete paving is recommended at entrances and areas that will be subject to tractor, truck, and/or dumpster traffic. The pavements may be subject to slight differential movement due to underlying silty soils. Pavement grades should be greater than 1.0% and curb and gutter grades should be greater than 0.4%. Positive drainage shall be provided to prevent water from ponding.

“Light and Medium Duty” pavement is intended for parking areas and other lightly traveled areas.

“Heavy Duty” pavement is intended for drives, loading areas, and highly used areas subject to heavier traffic loads. Light, medium, and heavy-duty pavement sections were evaluated using procedures from the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures [14]. Assumptions used in the design include: a serviceability loss of 2.5, a 90% reliability, a standard deviation of 0.40%, and a soil resilient modulus of 6,000 psi. Traffic design values used for this report are: 50,000

ESALs for light duty, 100,000 ESALs for medium duty, and 200,000 ESALs for heavy duty pavement. If site specific traffic conditions vary from these design values, contact Centerline

Engineering & Consulting, LLC for supplemental pavement designs.

6.2 Asphalt Pavement

Areas to receive asphalt pavement should have the top 6" of surface soils removed, cut to subgrade elevation, and then proof rolled. Any soft spots found during the proof rolling should be removed and filled back to grade using select fill. The top six inches of subgrade should be scarified and compacted to at least 95% Standard Proctor Density +/- 2% points of the optimum moisture content. Where additional fill is required, a select fill placed in accordance with the Select

Fill section of this report may be used. The flexible base shall be compacted to at least 97%

Standard Proctor Density +/-2% points of the optimum moisture content as determined following the method outlined in ASTM D698-12(2021) [1].

The Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete (HMAC) shall be Type D or C dense graded hot-mix asphalt meeting the requirements of TxDOT Item 341 [2]. HMAC base shall be Type A or B dense graded hot-mix asphalt meeting the requirements of TxDOT Item 341 [2]. The pavement schedule below provides options for the pavement sections based on different ESAL levels.

Table 6.2.1 HMAC over Granular Base

Pavement Component Traffic Design, ESALs 50,000 100,000 200,000

Thickness (inches) Hox Mix Asphalt Concrete (A1=0.44) 2.0 3.0 3.0

Crushed Stone Base (A2=0.18) 8.0 7.0 8.0

Table 6.2.2 Full Depth HMAC

Thickness (inches) Hox Mix Asphalt Concrete (A1=0.44) 2.0 2.5 3.0

HMAC Base (A2=0.35) 4.0 4.0 4.0

6.3 Concrete Pavement

Areas to receive concrete paving should have the top 6" of surface soil removed, cut to subgrade elevation, and then proof rolled. Any soft spots found during the proof rolling should be removed and filled back to grade using engineered fill. The top six inches of subgrade should be scarified

HMAC over Granular Base

Full Depth HMAC and compacted to at least 95% Standard Proctor Density +/- 2% points of the optimum moisture content as determined following the method outlined in ASTM D698-12(2021) [1]. Where additional fill is required, a select fill placed in accordance with the Select Fill section of this report may be used.

The concrete should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3,500 psi and an air content between 3 and 6%. Light and Medium duty concrete pavement shall be reinforced with a minimum

#4 bars at 24" centers each way. Heavy duty concrete pavement shall be reinforced with a minimum #4 bars at 18” centers each way. It is recommended that #4 bars at 12” centers each way be used in the area where the front wheels of the trash truck stop in front of the dumpster that may be located on the site. Saw cut control joints to one fourth of the total depth at a spacing not to exceed 15' each direction. Provide expansion/contraction joints at a spacing not to exceed

60' each direction. The pavement schedule below provides options for the pavement sections based on different ESAL levels and design lives.

Table 6.3.1 Concrete over Subgrade

Thickness (inches) Concrete 4.0 5.0 6.0

Compacted Subgrade 6.0 6.0 6.0

7.0 Site Preparation

7.1 Subgrade

Remove the top 6-in. of surface soils, any deleterious or organic material, and in-situ soils as necessary to bring the finished floor elevation to design grade. The top 6-in. of subgrade material should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 95% of the Standard Proctor

Density +/- 2% of optimum moisture content as determined following the method outlined in ASTM

D698-12(2021) [1]. Any soft or pumping areas should be excavated and filled using select fill.

Concrete over Subgrade

Where existing slopes exceed ten horizontal to one vertical, the cross slope should be benched to provide a minimum of 6' bench width.

7.2 Select Fill

Select fill should consist of non-granular, cohesive soil, free of vegetation, organic material, debris, and rocks greater than 4 inches in maximum. Select fill should fall within USCS classifications for either SC or CL with a plasticity index between 6 and 18.

Select fill should be installed in lifts not to exceed 8-in. in depth and compacted to at least 95% of the Standard Proctor Density +/- 2% of optimum moisture content as determined following the method outlined in ASTM D698-12(2021) [1].

7.3 Engineered Fill

Engineered fill must be a non-granular, cohesive soil, free of vegetation, organic material, debris, and rocks greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension, have a liquid limit of less than 40, and a plasticity index between 6 and 14. The engineered fill must meet the following percent retained on sieve requirements:

• 2-1/2" - 0-5%,

• No. 4 – 25-50%,

• No. 40 - 50-85% or obtain approval from the Geotechnical Engineer of Record.

Engineered fill should be installed in lifts not to exceed 8-in. in depth and compacted to at least

95% of the Standard Proctor Density +/- 2% of optimum moisture content as determined following the method outlined in ASTM D698-12(2021) [1]. TXDOT Item 247 [3], Type A, Grade 2 flexible base will be accepted as engineered fill. Blended materials utilized as engineered fill must meet the above listed specifications and must be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. If blended material is approved for use at the site, the contractor must blend the material prior to placing, and have one stockpile for the entire project. Continuous blending of material throughout the duration of the project is not acceptable.

7.4 Testing

Test results of the engineered or select fill must be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer of

Record for approval prior to initiating project construction. A testing agency should be retained to verify the compaction and moisture content of flexible base, engineered or select fill, and subgrade at the site. To confirm the compaction of the subgrade, engineered or select fill, and base we recommend the more stringent of three density tests for each lift placed or one density test for every 2,000 square feet of foundation area for each lift placed. The Standard Proctor

Density shall be determined following the method outlined in ASTM D698-12(2021) [1].

8.0 Limitations

The recommendations presented in this report are based upon the information obtained from the borings performed at the site and from other information discussed in this report. This report is based upon the findings from the borings performed and may not identify all subsurface variations which exist across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If significant variations appear, contact Centerline Engineering & Consulting, LLC to further access the design criteria and the recommendations contained within this report.

The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials or conditions. Appropriate investigations should be performed if the owner is concerned or has reason to require environmental assessments.

No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are made, the recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Centerline

Engineering & Consulting, LLC reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

9.0 References

1. (2012). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using

Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)) (ASTM D698-12(2021)) [Review of Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3))]. ASTM International.

https://www.astm.org/d0698-12r21.html

2. (2014). Dense-Graded Hot-Mix Asphalt (Item 341) [Review of Dense-Graded Hot-Mix Asphalt]. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).

https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/specs/2014/standard/s341.pdf?msclkid=e5f048d3b5af11eca8cb228d46 a44f9b

3. (2014). Flexible Base (Item 247) [Review of Flexible Base]. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/specs/2014/standard/s247.pdf?msclkid=2a5411f7b5b011ec9b1b6d919 210d046

4. (1956). McDowell, C., Herner, R. C., & Wooltorton, F. L. Interrelationship of Load, Volume Change, and Layer Thicknesses of Soils to the Behavior of Engineering Structures. In Highway Research Board Proceedings (Vol. 35).

5. (2017). Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 1926 Subpart P, Excavations, Sloping and Benching (29 CFR Part 1926) [Review of Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 1926 Subpart P, Excavations, Sloping and Benching]. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926SubpartPAppB

6. (2017). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) (ASTM D2487-17e1) [Review of Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System)].

ASTM International. https://www.astm.org/d2487-17e01.html

7. (2017). Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index ofSoils (ASTM D4318-17e1) [Review of Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils]. ASTM International. https://www.astm.org/d4318- 17e01.html

8. (2017). Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis (ASTM D6913/D6913M-17) [Review of Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis]. ASTM International.

https://www.astm.org/d6913_d6913m-17.html https://www.astm.org/d0698-12r21.html https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/specs/2014/standard/s341.pdf?msclkid=e5f048d3b5af11eca8cb228d46a44f9b https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/specs/2014/standard/s341.pdf?msclkid=e5f048d3b5af11eca8cb228d46a44f9b https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/specs/2014/standard/s341.pdf?msclkid=e5f048d3b5af11eca8cb228d46a44f9b https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/specs/2014/standard/s247.pdf?msclkid=2a5411f7b5b011ec9b1b6d919210d046 https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/specs/2014/standard/s247.pdf?msclkid=2a5411f7b5b011ec9b1b6d919210d046 https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/specs/2014/standard/s247.pdf?msclkid=2a5411f7b5b011ec9b1b6d919210d046 https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926SubpartPAppB https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926SubpartPAppB https://www.astm.org/d2487-17e01.html https://www.astm.org/d4318-17e01.html https://www.astm.org/d4318-17e01.html https://www.astm.org/d6913_d6913m-17.html

9. (2019). Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (ASTM D1586/D1586M-18) [Review of Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils]. ASTM International.

https://www.astm.org/d1586_d1586m-18.html

10. (2019). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass (ASTM D2216-19) [Review of Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass]. ASTM International. https://www.astm.org/d2216-19.html

11. (2020). Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 1926 Subpart P, Excavations, Sloping and Benching (29 CFR Part 1926) [Review of Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 1926 Subpart P, Excavations, Soil Classification]. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926SubpartPAppA

12. (2022). Web Soil Survey [Review of Web Soil Survey]. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

13. (2022). Hydrologic Soil Groups | NRCS Soils. Usda.gov.

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/office/ssr12/tr/?cid=nrcs14 4p2_027279

14. (1993). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures. AASHTO.

https://www.astm.org/d1586_d1586m-18.html https://www.astm.org/d2216-19.html https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926SubpartPAppA https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926SubpartPAppA https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/office/ssr12/tr/?cid=nrcs144p2_027279 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/office/ssr12/tr/?cid=nrcs144p2_027279

Appendix A Field Conditions

Field Conditions Summary – As observed during field exploration activities

• The site is currently an actively used building and parking lot. The proposed building addition will also extend north onto vacant property.

• The surface soils are generally silty sand. These soil conditions may hinder mobilization of some types of construction equipment during rain events that saturate the soils.

• Groundwater was not present at the site.

• No rock was encountered in the borehole conducted at the site.

• Site soils encountered are not anticipated to be suitable for use as select fill.

Appendix B Borehole Location Map

BH-1

BOREHOLE LOCATION

MAP

Sisler Allied Health

Building Addi!on

417 Schepps Blvd

Clovis, New Mexico 88101

Centerline Engineering

8312 Upland Avenue

Lubbock, TX 79424

F-20354

Drawing No.

B1.0

Sheet 1 of 1

Date: 5/22/2023

Project: 23-04-1460

0 25’ 50’ 100’

BH-2

BH-3

BH-4

Appendix C Borehole Logs

BORING AND WELL LOG LEGEND

SURFACE

ASPHALT

CONCRETE

FILL

TOPSOIL

AIR

ICE

USCS

BEDROCK

WATER

Non-USCS Gravel Sand Silt

Clay Boulders Cobbles Peastone

Wood Peat Saprolite Ash Waste

GR

EN

SS

SH

CO

DP

ID

Well/Boring Completion Cap Riser Screen

Backfill

Sample Type Grab Encore

NOTES:

generated using LogitEasy.com

Client:

Project:

Address:

Clovis Community College

23-04-1460

417 Schepps Blvd., Clovis, NM

Page:

B-1

Drilling Start Date:

Drilling End Date:

Drilling Company:

Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Driller:

Logged By:

5/5/2023

5/5/2023

Peterson Drilling

Direct Push

Geoprobe 7822 DT

Warren

AJR

Boring Depth (ft):

Boring Diameter (in):

Sampling Method(s):

DTW During Drilling (ft):

DTW After Drilling (ft):

Ground Surface Elev. (ft):

Location (Lat, Long):

2.00

Split Spoon

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

D

EP

TH

(f t)

LI

TH

O

LO

G Y

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

BO

R

IN

G

C O M

PL

ET

IO

N

COLLECT

Sa m pl e Ty pe

Ti m e

Bl ow

C ou nt s

R ec ov er y (ft

N V al ue

R Q D

% SOIL/ROCK VISUAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS

D

EP

TH

(f t)

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

(0.00') Sandy SILT (ML); brown

(1.50') Lean CLAY with sand (CL); brown

(8.50') Sandy SILT (ML); tan

(13.50') Sandy SILT (ML); tan

(18.50') Sandy lean CLAY (CL); tan

(1.5') Moisture - 13.59%, PI - 8

(8.5') Moisture - 12.22%, PI - 7

(13.5') Moisture - 11.98%, PI -

(18.5') Moisture - N/A, PI - 11 generated using LogitEasy.com

Client:

Project:

Address:

Clovis Community College

23-04-1460

417 Schepps Blvd., Clovis, NM

Page:

B-2

Drilling Start Date:

Drilling End Date:

Drilling Company:

Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Driller:

Logged By:

5/5/2023

5/5/2023

Peterson Drilling

Direct Push

Geoprobe 7822 DT

Warren

AJR

Boring Depth (ft):

Boring Diameter (in):

Sampling Method(s):

DTW During Drilling (ft):

DTW After Drilling (ft):

Ground Surface Elev. (ft):

Location (Lat, Long):

2.00

Split Spoon

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

D

EP

TH

(f t)

LI

TH

O

LO

G Y

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

BO

R

IN

G

C O M

PL

ET

IO

N

COLLECT

Sa m pl e Ty pe

Ti m e

Bl ow

C ou nt s

R ec ov er y (ft

N V al ue

R Q D

% SOIL/ROCK VISUAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS

D

EP

TH

(f t)

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

(0.00') Sandy SILT (ML); brown

(1.50') Sandy lean CLAY (CL); brown

(3.50') Sandy lean CLAY (CL); tan

(8.50') Sandy SILT (ML); tan

(18.50') Sandy lean CLAY (CL); brown

(3.5') Moisture - 4.81%, PI - 9 generated using LogitEasy.com

Client:

Project:

Address:

Clovis Community College

23-04-1460

417 Schepps Blvd., Clovis, NM

Page:

B-3

Drilling Start Date:

Drilling End Date:

Drilling Company:

Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Driller:

Logged By:

5/5/2023

5/5/2023

Peterson Drilling

Direct Push

Geoprobe 7822 DT

Warren

AJR

Boring Depth (ft):

Boring Diameter (in):

Sampling Method(s):

DTW During Drilling (ft):

DTW After Drilling (ft):

Ground Surface Elev. (ft):

Location (Lat, Long):

2.00

Split Spoon

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

D

EP

TH

(f t)

LI

TH

O

LO

G Y

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

BO

R

IN

G

C O M

PL

ET

IO

N

COLLECT

Sa m pl e Ty pe

Ti m e

Bl ow

C ou nt s

R ec ov er y (ft

N V al ue

R Q D

% SOIL/ROCK VISUAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS

D

EP

TH

(f t)

SS

SS

SS

1.50

1.50

1.50

(0.00') Sandy SILT (ML); brown

(1.50') Sandy lean CLAY (CL); brown

(5.00') Boring terminated

(1.5') Moisture - 8.06%, PI - N/A generated using LogitEasy.com

Client:

Project:

Address:

Clovis Community College

23-04-1460

417 Schepps Blvd., Clovis, NM

Page:

B-4

Drilling Start Date:

Drilling End Date:

Drilling Company:

Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Driller:

Logged By:

5/5/2023

5/5/2023

Peterson Drilling

Direct Push

Geoprobe 7822 DT

Warren

AJR

Boring Depth (ft):

Boring Diameter (in):

Sampling Method(s):

DTW During Drilling (ft):

DTW After Drilling (ft):

Ground Surface Elev. (ft):

Location (Lat, Long):

2.00

Split Spoon

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

D

EP

TH

(f t)

LI

TH

O

LO

G Y

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

BO

R

IN

G

C O M

PL

ET

IO

N

COLLECT

Sa m pl e Ty pe

Ti m e

Bl ow

C ou nt s

R ec ov er y (ft

N V al ue

R Q D

% SOIL/ROCK VISUAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS

D

EP

TH

(f t)

SS

SS

SS

1.50

1.50

1.50

(0.00') Sandy SILT (ML); brown

(1.50') Sandy lean CLAY (CL); brown

(5.00') Boring terminated

(0.0') Moisture - 11.06%, PI - 6

Appendix D Laboratory Results – Executive Summary

Project Number:

Client Name:

Project Name: Sisler Allied Health Building Addition, Clovis, NM Field Collection Date:

Depth Plastic Liquid Plasticity Group BGS Limit Limit Index Symbol

Sheet 1 of 1

Sandy lean clay

13.59

Sandy lean clay

Lean clay with sandCL82517

21 6 Sandy silt

12.22 13 20 7 CL-ML Sandy silt

Sandy silt

N/A 16 27

5/5/2023

Borehole In Situ Group

Moisture Content Name

Executive Summary

Centerline Engineering & Consulting, LLC: 8312 Upland Ave., Lubbock, TX 79424 23-04-1460 Report Date: 6/1/2023

Clovis Community College Test Date(s): 5/5/2023 - 5/23/2023

1.5' - 3'1

CL-ML0' - 1.5'4

2 3.5' - 5' 124.81 21 9 CL

1511.06

18.5' - 20'1

1 13.5' - 15' 11.98 16 22 6 CL-ML

11 CL

8.5' - 10'1

Technician Name Technical Responsibility Signature Position

Anton Reed, EIT, GIT Laboratory ManagerTaylor Newton, PG, REP

Appendix E Laboratory Results – Atterberg Limits Data

Project Name: Sisler Allied Health Building Addition, Clovis, NM Field Collection Date:

Borehole Number:

Sample Depth:

Var. Units

N blows 17 27 35

--- --- 110 32 26 16 MC (g) 14.025 13.501 13.533 13.549

MCMS (g) 23.398 30.706 26.504 25.659 MCDS (g) 21.825 26.154 23.243 22.729 MS (g) 7.800 12.653 9.710 9.180 MW (g) 1.573 4.552 3.261 2.930 w (%) 16.782 26.457 25.141 24.195

Technician Name Technical Responsibility Signature Position

Graphical LL Interpolation: 25.432

Additional Remarks:

Anton Reed, EIT, GIT Taylor Newton, PG, REP Laboratory Manager

Moisture Content (%): 13.591

One Point LL Calculation:

25.200

LL = w n (N/25) 0.121

Plastic Limit (PL or w P ): 17 Plasticity Index (PI): 9

USCS Fines Classification: CL

Pore Water Mass 3.453

Water Content 13.591

Liquid Limit (LL or w L ): 25

Can + Soil Mass (Wet) 38.967

Can + Soil Mass (Dry) 35.514

Soil Mass 21.953

Number of Blows

Can Number 53

Empty Can Tare 13.561

TEST

MOISTURE CONTENT

PLASTIC

LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

Variable

NO

1 2 3

1 Sample Receipt Date: 5/5/2023

1.5 - 3 BGS Sample Air-Dried Mass (g): 534.6

Atterberg Limits Data Sheet

ASTM D4318-17

Centerline Engineering & Consulting, LLC: 8312 Upland Ave., Lubbock, TX 79424 23-04-1460 Report Date: 6/1/2023

Clovis Community College Test Date(s): 5/5/2023 - 5/23/2023

5/5/2023 y = -3.1ln(x) + 35.27 R² = 0.9956

10 100

W a te r

C o n te n t

Number of Blows (N)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

P la s ti ci ty

I n d ex

P

I)

Liquid Limit (LL or wL)

MH

CL-ML

A LineU Line

ML

CH

CL

Project Name: Sisler Allied Health Building Addition, Clovis, NM Field Collection Date:

Borehole Number:

Sample Depth:

Var. Units

N blows 14 25 33

--- --- 18A 93 81 19 MC (g) 14.071 13.500 13.516 13.526

MCMS (g) 26.059 30.970 28.027 28.335 MCDS (g) 24.441 27.247 25.115 25.464 MS (g) 10.370 13.747 11.599 11.938 MW (g) 1.618 3.723 2.912 2.871 w (%) 13.497 21.311 20.068 19.387

Atterberg Limits Data Sheet

ASTM D4318-17

Centerline Engineering & Consulting, LLC: 8312 Upland Ave., Lubbock, TX 79424 23-04-1460 Report Date: 6/1/2023

Clovis Community College Test Date(s): 5/5/2023 - 5/23/2023

5/5/2023

1 Sample Receipt Date: 5/5/2023

8.5 - 10 BGS Sample Air-Dried Mass (g): 576.4

TEST

MOISTURE CONTENT

PLASTIC

LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

Variable

NO

1 2 3

Number of Blows

Can Number 85

Empty Can Tare 13.621

Can + Soil Mass (Wet) 41.699

Can + Soil Mass (Dry) 38.267

Soil Mass 24.646

Pore Water Mass 3.432

Water Content 12.223

Liquid Limit (LL or w L ): 20

LL = w n (N/25) 0.121

Plastic Limit (PL or w P ): 13 Plasticity Index (PI): 7

USCS Fines Classification: CL-ML

Technician Name Technical Responsibility Signature Position

Graphical LL Interpolation: 20.153

Additional Remarks:

Anton Reed, EIT, GIT Taylor Newton, PG, REP Laboratory Manager

Moisture Content (%): 12.223

One Point LL Calculation:

20.049 y = -2.229ln(x) + 27.204 R² = 0.9989

10 100

W a te r

C o n te n t

Number of Blows (N)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

P la s ti ci ty

I n d ex

P

I)

Liquid Limit (LL or wL)

MH

CL-ML

A LineU Line

ML

Project Name: Sisler Allied Health Building Addition, Clovis, NM Field Collection Date:

Borehole Number:

Sample Depth:

Var. Units

N blows 16 21 26

--- --- 34A 17A 100 23 MC (g) 13.985 13.968 13.963 13.537

MCMS (g) 25.832 32.817 30.570 27.464 MCDS (g) 23.979 28.404 26.883 24.425 MS (g) 9.994 14.436 12.920 10.888 MW (g) 1.853 4.413 3.687 3.039 w (%) 15.641 23.412 22.201 21.821

Atterberg Limits Data Sheet

ASTM D4318-17

Centerline Engineering & Consulting, LLC: 8312 Upland Ave., Lubbock, TX 79424 23-04-1460 Report Date: 6/1/2023

Clovis Community College Test Date(s): 5/5/2023 - 5/23/2023

5/5/2023

1 Sample Receipt Date: 5/5/2023

13.5 - 15 BGS Sample Air-Dried Mass (g): 864.5

TEST

MOISTURE CONTENT

PLASTIC

LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

Variable

NO

1 2 3

Number of Blows

Can Number 90

Empty Can Tare 13.461

Can + Soil Mass (Wet) 35.75

Can + Soil Mass (Dry) 33.079

Soil Mass 19.618

Pore Water Mass 2.671

Water Content 11.983

Liquid Limit (LL or w L ): 22

LL = w n (N/25) 0.121

Plastic Limit (PL or w P ): 16 Plasticity Index (PI): 6

USCS Fines Classification: CL-ML

Technician Name Technical Responsibility Signature Position

Graphical LL Interpolation: 21.842

Additional Remarks:

Anton Reed, EIT, GIT Taylor Newton, PG, REP Laboratory Manager

Moisture Content (%): 11.983

One Point LL Calculation:

20.674 y = -3.33ln(x) + 32.553 R² = 0.951

10 100

W a te r

C o n te n t

Number of Blows (N)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

P la s ti ci ty

I n d ex

P

I)

Liquid Limit (LL or wL)

MH

CL-ML

A LineU Line

ML

Project Name: Sisler Allied Health Building Addition, Clovis, NM Field Collection Date:

Borehole Number:

Sample Depth:

Var. Units

N blows 18 21 31

--- --- 25A 104 5 4 MC (g) 14.173 13.925 13.538 13.603

MCMS (g) 27.212 29.788 29.757 28.263 MCDS (g) 25.072 25.250 25.302 24.354 MS (g) 10.899 11.325 11.764 10.751 MW (g) 2.140 4.538 4.455 3.909 w (%) 16.412 28.607 27.468 26.664

Atterberg Limits Data Sheet

ASTM D4318-17

Centerline Engineering & Consulting, LLC: 8312 Upland Ave., Lubbock, TX 79424 23-04-1460 Report Date: 6/1/2023

Clovis Community College Test Date(s): 5/5/2023 - 5/23/2023

5/5/2023

1 Sample Receipt Date: 5/5/2023

18.5 - 20 BGS Sample Air-Dried Mass (g): 491.0

TEST

MOISTURE CONTENT

PLASTIC

LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

Variable

NO

1 2 3

Number of Blows

Can Number N/A

Empty Can Tare N/A

Can + Soil Mass (Wet) N/A

Can + Soil Mass (Dry) N/A

Soil Mass N/A

Pore Water Mass N/A

Water Content N/A

Liquid Limit (LL or w L ): 27

LL = w n (N/25) 0.121

Plastic Limit (PL or w P ): 16 Plasticity Index (PI): 11

USCS Fines Classification: CL

Technician Name Technical Responsibility Signature Position

Graphical LL Interpolation: 27.360

Additional Remarks:

Anton Reed, EIT, GIT Taylor Newton, PG, REP Laboratory Manager

Moisture Content (%): N/A

One Point LL Calculation:

27.368 y = -3.28ln(x) + 37.824 R² = 0.8859

10 100

W a te r

C o n te n t

Number of Blows (N)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

P la s ti ci ty

I n d ex

P

I)

Liquid Limit (LL or wL)

MH

CL-ML

A LineU Line

ML

Project Name: Sisler Allied Health Building Addition, Clovis, NM Field Collection Date:

Borehole Number:

Sample Depth:

Var. Units

N blows 15 20 35

--- --- 14A 73 36 6 MC (g) 13.956 13.412 13.538 13.543

MCMS (g) 25.080 30.719 30.393 29.783 MCDS (g) 23.711 26.805 26.797 26.417 MS (g) 9.755 13.393 13.259 12.874 MW (g) 1.369 3.914 3.596 3.366 w (%) 12.307 22.615 21.335 20.727

Atterberg Limits Data Sheet

ASTM D4318-17

Centerline Engineering & Consulting, LLC: 8312 Upland Ave., Lubbock, TX 79424 23-04-1460 Report Date: 6/1/2023

Clovis Community College Test Date(s): 5/5/2023 - 5/23/2023

5/5/2023

2 Sample Receipt Date: 5/5/2023

3.5 - 5 BGS Sample Air-Dried Mass (g): 500.5

TEST

MOISTURE CONTENT

PLASTIC

LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

Variable

NO

1 2 3

Number of Blows

Can Number 110

Empty Can Tare 14.029

Can + Soil Mass (Wet) 50.932

Can + Soil Mass (Dry) 49.158

Soil Mass 35.129

Pore Water Mass 1.774

Water Content 4.807

Liquid Limit (LL or w L ): 21

LL = w n (N/25) 0.121

Plastic Limit (PL or w P ): 12 Plasticity Index (PI): 9

USCS Fines Classification: CL

Technician Name Technical Responsibility Signature Position

Graphical LL Interpolation: 21.422

Additional Remarks:

Anton Reed, EIT, GIT Taylor Newton, PG, REP Laboratory Manager

Moisture Content (%): 4.807

One Point LL Calculation:

21.588 y = -2.073ln(x) + 27.957 R² = 0.8584

10 100

W a te r

C o n te n t

Number of Blows (N)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

P la s ti ci ty

I n d ex

P

I)

Liquid Limit (LL or wL)

MH

CL-ML

A LineU Line

ML

Project Name: Sisler Allied Health Building Addition, Clovis, NM Field Collection Date:

Borehole Number:

Sample Depth:

Var. Units

N blows 15 21 27

--- --- 49A 37A 19A 12A MC (g) 13.999 13.924 14.064 13.964

MCMS (g) 24.318 28.946 28.503 30.025 MCDS (g) 22.734 25.524 25.395 26.647 MS (g) 8.735 11.600 11.331 12.683 MW (g) 1.584 3.422 3.108 3.378 w (%) 15.350 22.780 21.525 21.032

Atterberg Limits Data Sheet

ASTM D4318-17

Centerline Engineering & Consulting, LLC: 8312 Upland Ave., Lubbock, TX 79424 23-04-1460 Report Date: 6/1/2023

Clovis Community College Test Date(s): 5/5/2023 - 5/23/2023

5/5/2023

4 Sample Receipt Date: 5/5/2023

0 - 1.5 BGS Sample Air-Dried Mass (g): 428.4

TEST

MOISTURE CONTENT

PLASTIC

LIMIT

LIQUID LIMIT

Variable

NO

1 2 3

Number of Blows

Can Number 56A

Empty Can Tare 14.055

Can + Soil Mass (Wet) 35.805

Can + Soil Mass (Dry) 33.399

Soil Mass 19.344

Pore Water Mass 2.406

Water Content 11.062

Liquid Limit (LL or w L ): 21

LL = w n (N/25) 0.121

Plastic Limit (PL or w P ): 15 Plasticity Index (PI): 6

USCS Fines Classification: CL-ML

Technician Name Technical Responsibility Signature Position

Graphical LL Interpolation: 21.197

Additional Remarks:

Anton Reed, EIT, GIT Taylor Newton, PG, REP Laboratory Manager

Moisture Content (%): 11.062

One Point LL Calculation:

21.229 y = -3.015ln(x) + 30.872 R² = 0.9736

10 100

W a te r

C o n te n t

Number of Blows (N)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

P la s ti ci ty

I n d ex

P

I)

Liquid Limit (LL or wL)

MH

CL-ML

A LineU Line

ML

Appendix F Laboratory Results – Sieve Analysis Data

Project Name: Sisler Allied Health Building Addition, Clovis, NM Field Collection Date:

Borehole Number:

Sample Depth:

Standard mm.

#4 4.750

#10 2.000

#20 0.850

#40 0.425

#60 0.250

#100 0.150

#200 0.075

Pan < 0.075 71.3

4 4.75 100

10 2 100

20 0.85 100

40 0.425 100

60 0.25 100

100 0.15 100

200 0.075 100

11 0.7 71.4 D10 0.01

0.2 27.6 5.7 D30 0.03

0.1 28.4 1.5 D60 0.06

Additional Remarks:

Technician Name Technical Responsibility Signature Position

% Coarse Sand (#10) % Total Sand CC

USCS Classification: CL, Lean clay with sand

Anton Reed, EIT, GIT Taylor Newton, PG, REP Laboratory Manager

TOTAL: 534.9 100.1

% Medium Sand (#40) % Silt and/or Clay

% Gravel (#4) % Fine Sand (#200) CU

Max. Grain Size (mm)

28.7 5.4 7.6 92.4

112.6 21.1 28.7 71.3

381.7 71.4 % Passing #200 Sieve:

1.2 0.2 0.6 99.4

2.7 0.5 1.1 98.9

6.0 1.1 2.2 97.8 per Sieve per Sieve Cumulative

1.2 0.2 0.2 99.8

0.8 0.1 0.4 99.6

1 Sample Receipt Date: 5/5/2023

1.5 - 3 BGS Sample Air-Dried Mass (g): 534.6

Sieve Size Retained Mass (g) % Retained % Retained % Passing

Sieve Analysis Data Sheet ASTM D6913 - Method A

Centerline Engineering & Consulting, LLC: 8312 Upland Ave., Lubbock, TX 79424

23-04-1460 Report Date: 6/1/2023

Clovis Community College Test Date(s): 5/5/2023 - 5/23/2023

5/5/2023

0.0100.1001.00010.000

P a s s in g

Grain Size (mm)

#4 #10 #40 #200

GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT/CLAY

#100#60#20

Project Name: Sisler Allied Health Building Addition, Clovis, NM Field Collection Date:

Borehole Number:

Sample Depth:

Standard mm.

#4 4.750

#10 2.000

#20 0.850

#40 0.425

#60 0.250

#100 0.150

#200 0.075

Pan < 0.075 68.8

4 4.75 100

10 2 100

20 0.85 100

40 0.425 100

60 0.25 100

100 0.15 100

200 0.075 100

10 3.7 68.7 D10 0.01

1.2 24.4 5.9 D30 0.03

1.9 30.0 1.5 D60 0.07

Additional Remarks:

Technician Name Technical Responsibility Signature Position

% Coarse Sand (#10) % Total Sand CC

USCS Classification: CL-ML, Sandy silt

Anton Reed, EIT, GIT Taylor Newton, PG, REP Laboratory Manager

Max. Grain Size (mm) % Medium Sand (#40) % Silt and/or Clay

% Gravel (#4) % Fine Sand (#200) CU

396.2 68.7 % Passing #200 Sieve:

TOTAL: 576.2 100.0

31.0 5.4 14.2 85.8

98.0 17.0 31.2 68.8

9.9 1.7 6.8 93.2

11.8 2.0 8.8 91.2

10.7 1.9 3.1 96.9

11.5 2.0 5.1 94.9 per Sieve per Sieve Cumulative

7.1 1.2 1.2 98.8

8.5 - 10 BGS Sample Air-Dried Mass (g): 576.4

Sieve Size Retained Mass (g) % Retained % Retained % Passing

5/5/2023

1 Sample Receipt Date: 5/5/2023

Sieve Analysis Data Sheet ASTM D6913 - Method A

Centerline Engineering & Consulting, LLC: 8312 Upland Ave., Lubbock, TX 79424

23-04-1460 Report Date: 6/1/2023

Clovis Community College Test Date(s): 5/5/2023 - 5/23/2023

0.0100.1001.00010.000

P a s s in g

Grain Size (mm)

#4 #10 #40 #200

Project Name: Sisler Allied Health Building Addition, Clovis, NM Field Collection Date:

Borehole Number:

Sample Depth:

Standard mm.

#4 4.750

#10 2.000

#20 0.850

#40 0.425

#60 0.250

#100 0.150

#200 0.075

Pan < 0.075 64.6

4 4.75 100

10 2 100

20 0.85 100

40 0.425 100

60 0.25 100

100 0.15 100

200 0.075 100

12 3.8 64.8 D10 0.01

0.9 28.7 5.8 D30 0.04

2.0 34.5 1.5 D60 0.07

Additional Remarks:

Technician Name Technical Responsibility Signature Position

% Coarse Sand (#10) % Total Sand CC

USCS Classification: CL-ML, Sandy silt

Anton Reed, EIT, GIT Taylor Newton, PG, REP Laboratory Manager

Max. Grain Size (mm) % Medium Sand (#40) % Silt and/or Clay

% Gravel (#4) % Fine Sand (#200) CU

559.8 64.8 % Passing #200 Sieve:

TOTAL: 866.0 100.2

51.0 5.9 14.7 85.3

179.3 20.7 35.4 64.6

14.6 1.7 6.7 93.3

18.0 2.1 8.8 91.2

17.3 2.0 2.9 97.1

17.9 2.1 5.0 95.0 per Sieve per Sieve…