Attachment_6_-_Reference_Geotechincal_Report.pdf

GEM ENGINEERING, INC. ♦ 485 North Aviation Way ♦ Cedar City, UT 84721 Phone (435) 867-6478 ♦ Fax (435) 867-4372 www.gemengineeringinc.com gEM Engineering, Inc.

Geotechnical Investigation

Coal Creek Ware Yard Improvements Airport Road

Cedar City, Iron, Utah

Prepared For:

KMN Construction, Inc.

376 North 100 East - P.O. Box 366

Loa, Utah 84747

September 3, 2019

Report Number: RG2169

Copyright 2019 GEM Engineering, Inc.

All Rights Reserved

Refe ren ce O nly

Not for

C on str uc tio n http://www.gemengineeringinc.com

Gem ENGINEERING, INC.

485 North Aviation Way ♦ Cedar City, UT 84721

Phone (435) 867-6478 ♦ Fax (435) 867-4372 www.gemengineeringinc.com

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. i

September 3, 2019

KMN Construction, Inc.

376 North 100 East - P.O. Box 366 Loa, Utah 84747

Subject: Coal Creek Ware Yard Improvements Airport Road Cedar City, Iron, Utah

Enclosed is our geotechnical investigation report for the subject proposed steel storage structure to be constructed at the subject site in Cedar City, Utah.

The report details our field exploration and laboratory testing program and presents our analysis, opinions and recommendations for the proposed project.

We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this phase of the project and look forward to being of service as the project progresses. If you have any questions, please contact this office at your convenience.

Sincerely, GEM Engineering, Inc.

Brennan L. Stucker, E.I.T. Robert W. Corry, P.E., S.E.

Field Engineer Director of Engineering

9/3/19

Refe ren ce

C on str uc tio http://www.gemengineeringinc.com

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.2 Project Description

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING

4.0 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC CONDITIONS

4.1 Geologic Setting

4.2 Faulting

4.3 Seismicity

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 Surface Conditions

5.2 Subsurface Conditions

6.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

6.2 Construction Considerations

6.2.1 Foundation Systems

6.3 Earthwork

6.3.1 Site Preparation and Grading

6.3.2 Excavations

6.3.3 Material Volume Changes

6.3.4 Structural Fill

6.4 Foundations

6.4.1 Conventional Foundations

6.5 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade

6.6 Soil Corrosion and Weathering Considerations

6.7 Moisture Protection and Drainage

6.8 Asphaltic Concrete Pavements

7.0 CLOSURE

7.1 Limitations

7.2 Additional Services

ren ce

C on str uc tio

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. iii

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Site Plan ........................................................................................ Plate 1 Trench Log ................................................................................... Plate 2 Laboratory Test Summary .......................................................... Plate 3 Unified Soils Classification Chart ............................................... Plate 4 Overexcavation, Drainage and Moisture Protection Diagram .... Plate 5 ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation performed for a proposed steel storage structure on Airport Road in Cedar City, Iron County, Utah. The study was conducted in accordance with the client’s authorization.

The purposes of this investigation were to: (1) evaluate the general nature and engineering properties of the subsurface soils at the site; (2) identify the general site geologic conditions and (3) provide recommendations and opinions regarding general site grading and the design and construction of foundations, concrete slabs-on-grade and asphaltic concrete pavements. The investigation included a site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, representative soil sampling, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, review of existing geologic studies performed in the area and preparation of this report.

The recommendations contained in this report are subject to the limitations presented in the "Limitations" section of the report. We recommend that all individuals reading this report read the limitations section of this document.

1.2 Project Description

We understand that a proposed steel storage structure will be constructed at the location described in Cedar City, Utah. Structural loads are expected to be relatively low to moderate.

The site plan on Plate 1 shows the approximate trench location with respect to the approximate property lines and proposed structure location.

Refe ren ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 2

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

The subsurface soil conditions were explored by excavating, 1 exploratory trench to a depth of approximately 10 feet below the existing site grade. The approximate location of this exploration is shown on Plate 1. Soils and subsurface conditions encountered in the exploration were classified, logged and recorded at the time of excavation by our field professional. The results of the exploration are presented on the enclosed Plate 2. A key to soil symbols and terms is found on Plate 4.

ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 3

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Representative soil samples from the exploration were tested in the laboratory to verify the field classifications and to evaluate other pertinent engineering characteristics. The soil samples were tested for solubility, Atterberg limits and maximum density. Results are presented on Plate 3.

ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 4

4.0 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC CONDITIONS

4.1 Geologic Setting

The Cedar Valley lies along the border between the Basin and Range and the Colorado

Plateau physiographic provinces. Structurally, parts of the valley and the eastern upland represent a zone of transition between the two provinces, with some structural features of both. A small area of thrust faults is present in the southwest, but the valley is characterized by normal fault-block structure common to the Basin and Range Province.

The uplands east of the valley have been elevated by displacement along the Hurricane fault zone. The fault zone is several miles wide and includes several structural units separated by major normal faults trending northward to northeastward. East of the fault zone, rock strata dip gently eastward; gently inclined strata characterize much of the

Colorado Plateau Province (Geology of Eastern Iron County, Utah, Utah Geological and

Mineralogical Survey, Bulletin No. 37, 1950). More locally the Fiddlers Canyon area lies upon alluvial fan deposits. The alluvial deposits consist of material ranging from Permian age Kaibab Formation up through Tertiary age Claron Formation and basalt flow debris of Quaternary age (GEM Engineering, field investigation.).

The geologic units exposed in the area attain a maximum total thickness of more than

16,000 feet. The oldest formation exposed is the Kaibab Limestone of Permian age.

Formations overlying the Kaibab Limestone span geologic periods from Triassic through

Tertiary. Igneous laccoliths of Tertiary age intrude formations west of Cedar City Valley.

Deposits of alluvium, as valley fill, with some interbedded lava flows attain thicknesses of more than 1,000 feet in the Cedar City Valley (Bjorklund and others, 1977). Alluvial deposits, placed as valley fill derived from the adjacent hills and upland areas, range in size from clay to boulders. As the streams enter the valley and lose velocity with decreasing gradient, alluvial materials are deposited. Coarser material is deposited in the higher valley areas and progressively finer material is deposited toward the valley bottoms. Stream discharge and amounts are irregular and vary over a wide range.

(Technical Publication No. 60, State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, 1978).

ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 5

4.2 Faulting

The Cedar Valley lies within a zone of pronounced seismic activity. The Hurricane Fault

Zone, a prominent north-south trending fault zone with suspected Quaternary displacement, extends through the eastern portion of Cedar City. This zone of fracture is about 200 miles long within which the displacement of the sedimentary beds ranges from

1,500 feet to as much as 8,000 feet (Geological and Mineralogical Survey, Bulletin No.

37, 1950).

4.3 Seismicity

The following seismic design values, in accordance with the requirements of the 2018

International Building Code (IBC), shall be used for the design of the structures at the site:

Soil site class = D

Ground motion coefficient for 0.2 second period Ss = 0.752

Ground motion coefficient for 1.0 second period S1 = 0.242

Site amplification factor at 0.2 second Fa = 1.199

Site amplification factor at 1.0 second Fv = see 11.4.8

Peak ground acceleration PGA = 0.33

Seismic Design Category SDC = see 11.4.8

Seismic response coefficient Cs = (See Note 1)

Note 1: A site-specific ground motion hazard analysis was NOT completed for this location. Therefore, in accordance with ASCE 7-16 section 11.4.8 exception 2, the seismic response coefficient Cs shall be determined by Eq.

(12.8-2) for values of T ≤ 1.5 Ts and taken as equal to 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Eq. (12.8-3) for TL ≥ T > 1.5 Ts or Eq.

(12.8-4) for T > TL.

It is the opinion of GEM Engineering, Inc. that based on the soils encountered at the exploratory excavations and the ground water depth the potential for liquefaction at this site is low.

Refe ren ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 6

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 Surface Conditions

As stated previously the site is located on Airport Road in Cedar City, Iron County, Utah, as shown on Plate 1. At the time of our investigation of the proposed building site it was found to be flat and cleared of native vegetation and had existing structures to the northeast. The site was bordered on the north, east and south by commercial properties and on the west by Airport Road.

5.2 Subsurface Conditions

The on site soils encountered in the excavation generally consisted of dense to very dense light brown to brown sandy well-graded gravel which extended to the bottom of the exploratory trench approximately 10 feet below the existing site grade.

Numerous factors contribute to fluctuations in groundwater levels and locations. The evaluation of these factors was beyond the scope of this study. However, groundwater was not encountered during the exploration. The soils were in a slightly moist condition throughout the depths explored.

The encountered subsurface conditions are described in detail on the enclosed trench log, Plate 2. Due to the nature and depositional characteristics of the native soils, care should be taken in extrapolating subsurface conditions beyond the exploration location.

The laboratory tests results indicated that the on-site soils exhibited a relatively low solubility, low plasticity and a low collapse potential.

ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 7

6.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

Based on our investigation it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable for the proposed construction provided that the recommendations contained in this report are followed.

The following sections of this report present our recommendations to reduce the potential for structural damage. They contain specific opinions and recommendations concerning construction considerations, site preparation and grading, structural fill, foundation design, retaining walls, concrete slabs-on-grade, soil corrosion, moisture protection and structural pavement sections.

One of the most critical recommendations to follow in order to reduce potential for structural damage is to set the finished floor slab elevations high enough to facilitate proper drainage away from the structure.

6.2 Construction Considerations

6.2.1 Foundation Systems

After excavation and compaction are completed, the structures can be supported by conventional strip and/or spread footings founded on properly placed and compacted structural fill.

6.3 Earthwork

6.3.1 Site Preparation and Grading

Within the areas to be graded, existing vegetation, loose soils, and debris, should be removed and hauled off the site. Any undocumented fill soils, and soft, loose, collapsible and/or disturbed native soils should be excavated to expose competent, dense or medium dense granular soils.

Refe ren ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 8

It is anticipated that competent medium dense granular soils will be encountered at footing depth. A GEM Engineering representative should observe the excavation to verify that competent granular soils have been reached, that the competent granular soils extend at least 2 feet below the bottom of footing elevation and that no additional overexcavation is required. If additional overexcavation is required the width of overexcavation should extend laterally beyond the edges of the footing, at each side, at least a distance equal to the depth of overexcavation. In no case shall the total width of excavtion be less than the footing width plus 2 times the depth of overexcavation. (width of O.X. + ftg width

+ width of O.X.)

Slabs-on-grade, exterior concrete flatwork, and pavements should be supported by a zone of properly placed and compacted structural fill. Excavations shall extend laterally at least 2 feet beyond exterior flatwork and pavement areas. Excavations may be terminated if competent, medium dense native soils are encountered.

If loose, soft or pumping soils are encountered at the bottom of the excavations, stabilization and/or additional overexcavation will be required prior to the placement of structural fill. Overexcavations may be terminated if competent, medium-dense granular soils are encountered. A GEM Engineering representative should observe excavation and determine if it is acceptable to terminate the excavation or reduce the overexcavation depth.

The majority of on-site soils, free of organics and debris, should be suitable for reuse as structural fill. If using on-site soils for backfill or structural fill a shrinkage factor of up to 10 percent can be expected.

Following excavation of the unsuitable soils as described above, a representative of this office should observe the excavation bottoms prior to the continuance of grading to verify that unsuitable materials have been removed and that competent

Refe ren ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 9 soils have been exposed. The native soils exposed after excavation should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content for granular soils and slightly above optimum for fine-grained soils, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density for granular soils and 85 percent of the maximum dry density for fine grained soils as determined by ASTM D1557. The site should then be brought to the proper grade with structural fill as described in the Structural Fill section.

Subgrade materials supporting slabs-on-grade, exterior concrete flatwork, and pavements should be kept moist and not be allowed to dry out and crack. If the subgrade has been disturbed or dried out prior to placement of aggregate base, the exposed soils should be moisture-conditioned and recompacted as outlined in the

Structural Fill section of this report.

We recommend that a GEM Engineering representative be allowed to review the grading plans when prepared to evaluate their compatibility with the recommendations of this report.

6.3.2 Excavations

The majority of the soils encountered in our explorations should be excavatable with conventional earthwork equipment. It is also possible that soft pumping soils may be encountered. Pumping soils will need to be stabilized prior to placing of structural fill. Safety of construction personnel is the responsibility of the

Contractor.

6.3.3 Material Volume Changes

There will be shrinkage losses when excavating and compacting the on-site soils.

An estimated average shrinkage factor of 10 percent is applicable for the loose to medium-dense near-surface native soils. A subsidence factor of 0.1 should be used in all areas where the surficial soils are scarified and recompacted to a depth of 6 inches.

Refe ren ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 10

6.3.4 Structural Fill

All fill placed for the support of slabs-on-grade, exterior concrete flatwork, and pavements should be structural fill. Structural fill may consist of approved excavated on-site or imported fill materials. Structural fill should have a swell potential less than 4 percent under a 60 psf surcharge, have a solubility of less than 3 percent, be free of organics, salts, or inert materials larger than 4 inches nominal size, and be similar in gradation to the on-site soils.

Structural fill should be placed in maximum eight-inch loose lifts and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer.

Soils in compacted fills should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 for fine grained soils and

95 percent for granular soils. The moisture content should be within 2 percent of optimum for granular soils and at least 2 percent above optimum for fine-grained soils. Any imported fill materials should be approved prior to importing. Also, prior to placing any fill, the excavations should be observed by a GEM

Engineering representative to observe that unsuitable materials have been removed.

6.4 Foundations

6.4.1 Conventional Foundations

General: Conventional shallow foundations consisting of strip and/or spread footings can be utilized for the support of the proposed building provided that overexcavation is completed in accordance with the requirements and recommendations of this report as described in the Earthwork section.

For frost protection the bottom of exterior conventional spread and strip footings shall be at least 30 inches below the lowest adjacent final compacted subgrade.

Refe ren ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 11

Foundations for structures constructed on soils, prepared in accordance with the recommendations and requirements of this report, may be designed for an allowable net bearing pressure of 2500 psf. This bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for load combinations containing seismic or wind loads.

Prior to constructing the foundations, the footing excavations should be observed by a GEM Engineering representative to confirm that the soil preparation has been completed in accordance with the requirements and recommendations of this report.

Settlement: Foundations established in accordance with the recommendations and requirements of this report are estimated to subject to 1 ½” or less of settlement if the soils beneath the overexcavation or piering do not become moistened. Estimated differential settlement could be on the order of ½ the total settlement.

Lateral Earth Pressures: The following lateral earth pressure equivalent fluid densities shall be used in the design of the structure.

Properly Compacted On-Site Soils Active Pressure 32 pcf

At Rest Pressure 50 pcf

Passive Pressure 367 pcf

Equivalent fluid densities presented above assume that there will be no build-up of hydrostatic pressure. Any surcharge from adjacent structures or traffic loads should be added to this pressure. When passive pressure is used for resistance to lateral loads the top one foot of soil should be neglected. The maximum allowable passive pressure for lateral load resistance should not exceed 1,600 psf.

ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 12

The seismic lateral earth pressure coefficient (kh) is 0.12.

Lateral Load Resistance: Horizontal loads acting on foundations will be resisted by friction acting at the base of foundations and/or passive earth pressures acting against the side of footings and concrete walls. If design makes use of passive earth pressures, it is important that a GEM Engineering representative be present during backfill placement.

The friction force acting along the base of footings founded on suitable foundation soils may be calculated using a coefficient of friction of 0.40.

Lateral loads acting on buried utility lines may be resisted by thrust blocks reacting against undisturbed native soil or properly placed and compacted structural fill. The passive lateral earth pressure equivalent fluid density and coefficient of friction, previously listed, may be used for thrust block design.

6.5 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade

Satisfactory support for concrete slabs-on-grade and exterior concrete flatwork may be provided by a 6 inch layer of compacted gravel overlying properly placed and compacted structural fill as recommended in the Site Grading section of this report. The layer of compacted gravel may consist of road base or pit-run gravel with a 2-inch maximum particle size and not more than 12% fines passing the No. 200 sieve. The gravel layer should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by

ASTM D1557.

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

Reinforcement requirements shall be provided by the Structural Engineer. Reinforcement should be installed at the mid-height of the slab unless directed otherwise by the

Structural Engineer.

ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 13

Special precautions must be taken during the placement and curing of all concrete slabs.

Excessive slump (high water-cement ratio) of the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could lead to excessive shrinkage, cracking or curling in the slabs. All concrete placement and curing operations shall be performed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual.

6.6 Soil Corrosion and Weathering Considerations

Based on similar studies performed in the area, the on-site soils contain salts in sufficient concentration to be considered corrosive to both concrete and metal. Therefore, all concrete in contact with the on-site soils and used in stem walls should contain Type V or equivalent sulfate-resistant cement, and should be placed with a maximum four inch slump. Furthermore concrete shall meet requirements specified in Tables 19.3.1.1 &

19.3.2.1 of ACI 318-14 for severe sulfate exposure. Special protection to buried metal pipes and water lines should be considered for long term performance of these underground utilities. Consideration should be given to cathodic protection of buried metal pipes, or to the use of PVC pipe where permitted by local building codes.

6.7 Moisture Protection and Drainage

It is imperative that precautions are taken during and after construction to eliminate, or at least minimize, wetting of foundation soils. Drainage and grading shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of section 1804.4 of the 2018 International Building

Code (IBC). Positive drainage shall be established away from the exterior walls of the structure. The required minimum slope is five percent (5%) in landscape areas and two percent (2%) in pavement areas, for a minimum distance of 10 feet from the structure.

Roof runoff and other sources of moisture should not be allowed to infiltrate the soils in the vicinity of, or upslope from, the structure. No roof moisture should infiltrate the soils beneath the foundations.

All utility trenches leading into the structures should be backfilled with compacted non-pervious fill. Special care should be taken during installation of sub floor sewer and water lines to reduce the possibility of future subsurface saturation.

Refe ren ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 14

Landscape watering adjacent to the structure should be eliminated. As an additional protection a concrete slab could be placed around the structure to facilitate drainage away from the structure as described above. Any planters adjacent to the structure should have sealed bottoms. It is recommended that desert landscaping techniques be utilized.

6.8 Asphaltic Concrete Pavements

Asphaltic concrete pavement sections were developed for non-dedicated areas. In developing our recommendations, we have assumed that: (1) a minimum of 6 inches of

Type 1 gravel (3-inch minus pit run) will be provided beneath the pavement section; (2) a

Traffic Index value of 6.5 for automobile traffic and parking areas is appropriate; and (3) an R-value of 65 is representative of recompacted native soils. The following table presents the minimum recommended structural pavement sections:

Asphaltic Concrete Pavements

Traffic Condition

Assumed Traffic Index

(T.I.)

Asphalt Thickness

(in)

Road Base Thickness

(in)

Compacted Type 1 Gravel

(in)

Light Traffic/Parking

6.5 2.5 6 6

Asphalt and aggregate base material should conform to local requirements. All base material should be compacted to at least (95%) of the maximum dry density (ASTM

D1557). Asphalt should be compacted to minimum of (96%) of the Marshall maximum density. Asphaltic concrete and base materials should be tested prior to delivery to the site and during placement to determine conformance with the project specifications.

It is important that parking area grades be set to provide positive drainage to suitable drainage structures. A desirable slope for drainage in paved areas is two percent.

Refe ren ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 15

7.0 CLOSURE

7.1 Limitations

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

This report was prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standard of practice at the time the report was written. Although some potential geologic hazards may be identified in this Geotechnical Investigation Report, this is NOT a Geologic Hazards

Report and should not be regarded as such. No warranty, express or implied, is made. It is the Client's responsibility to see that all parties to the project, including the Designer, Contractor, Subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the

Contractor's option and risk. GEM Engineering will not accept the responsibility for damage caused by the uncontrolled action of water at the site.

7.2 Additional Services

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

ce

C on str uc

RG2169 GEM ENGINEERING, INC. Page 16

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

· Observations of footing excavations

· Consultation as may be required during construction

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

ce

C on str uc

GEM ENGINEERING, INC.

Appendix A ce

C on str uc

Key:

SITE PLAN

Notes: PROJECT: Coal Creek Ware Yard Improvements

GEM Plate: Approximate Trench Location Airport Road, Cedar City, Utah Plan: Not to Scale Client: KMN Construction, Inc. 1 Report No: RG2169 ENGINEERING, INC.

N

T-1

Ai rp or t R oa d

Refe ren ce

C on str uc

Trench No. 1 Sheet 1 of 1 D ep th

(f t)

S am pl e

U

SC

S Sy m bo l 2

Sample: Drive Sample Bag Sample Bucket Sample

1)

2) 4

3)

5)

TRENCH LOG

Location: See Site Plan Elevation: Not Measured Date

Excavated:

8/19/2019

T es ts 1 Soil Description

(Additional comments below)

C ol or

R el at iv e

M oi st ur e

D en sit y

C em en ta tio n

M ax s ize

P ar tic le

Sol, P At, M

- Sandy Well-Graded Gravel Light Brown SM D -- C

Brown VD to to

Bottom @ 10'

W = Weak cementation, M = Moderate cementation, S = Strong cementation None noted

At = Atterberg, M = Moisture, Sol = Solubility, E = Expansion, C = Consol, P = Proctor, CS =Coarse Sieve Notes:

See Plate for explanation of Unified Soil Classification System Groundwater:

D = Dry, SM = Slightly Moist, M = Moist, VM = Very Moist, W = Wet Not encountered

ENGINEERING, INC.

GW

Coal Creek Ware Yard Improvements PROJECT: GEM Plate:Airport Road, Cedar City, Utah Client: KMN Construction, Inc. 2 Report No: RG2169

6) B=Boulder, C= Cobble, CG=Coarse Gravel (3" - 3/4"), FG=Fine Gravel (3/4" - 1/4"), CS=Coarse Sand (#10-#4), MS=Medium Sand (#40 - #10), FS=Fine Sand (#200 - #40), F=Fines

4) Coarse Grain: VL = Very Loose, L = Loose, MD = Medium Dense, D = Dense, VD = Very Dense Fine Grain: VSF = Very Soft, SF = Soft, MS = Medium Stiff, S = Stiff, VS = Very Stiff, H = Hard Caving of side walls:

Refe ren ce

C on str uc

Key:

LABORATORY TESTS SUMMARY Sheet

T re nc h

B or in g No

S am pl e

D ep th (f t)

U

CS

C S ym bo l Soil Description

F ie ld

M oi st ur e

F ie ld D ry D en sit y (p cf

So lu bi lit y

) Fine Sieve

H lb

D ry

D en sit y

Op tim um M oi st ur e

#4 #10 #40 #200

Atterberg Limits Expansion Net Percent Consolidation

Modified Proctor

% Passing

L iq ui d

L im it

P la st ic

L im it

P la st ici ty In de x

L oa d

NPT-1 4' GW Sandy Well-Graded Gravel 2.0 --lb

142.5 4.0NP NP -- -- -- --0.1 44.9 34.6 19.4 3.6

KMN Construction, Inc. 3 Report No: RG2169 ENGINEERING, INC.

Notes: Coal Creek Ware Yard Improvements PROJECT: GEM Plate:NP = Non Plastic, -- indicates no test performed Airport Road, Cedar City, Utah Atterberg Limits are for classification of fine-grained and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils

Client:

Refe ren ce

C on str uc

COARSE

GRAINED SOILS

50% or more is retained

(larger than) the No.

200 sieve.

Gravels Clean Gravels GW

THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

Major Division Symbol Color Typical Group Names

Well graded gravels, gravel sand mixtures, little or no fines

More than 50 % of coarse part is larger than the No. 4 sieve.

Less than 5% fines GP Poorly graded gravels/gravel sand mixtures

Gravels with Fines GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures

Sands Clean Sands SW Well graded sands, gravely sands, little or no fines

SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

More than 12% fines

More than 12% fines GC Clayey gravels, gravel-clay-sand mixtures

SC Clayey sands, sand clay mixtures

FINE GRAINED

SOILS

50% or more passes (smaller than) the No.

200 sieve.

Silts and Clays Liquid Limit less than 50

ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with low plasticity

CL-ML

More than 50 % of coarse part is smaller than the No. 4 sieve.

Less than 5% fines SP Poorly graded sands or gravely sands, little or no fines

Sands w/ Fines

Inorganic clay-silt mixture and very fine sand, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with low plasticity.

CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravely clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays

OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity

Silts and Clays Liquid Limit 50 or more

MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts

CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays

OH Organic clays or medium to high plasticity, organic silts

Highly Organic Soils PT Peat and other highly organic silts

PLASTICITY CHART

RG2169 ENGINEERING, INC.

Coal Creek Ware Yard Improvements PROJECT: GEM Plate:Airport Road, Cedar City, Utah Client: KMN Construction, Inc. 4 Report No:

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

Pl as tic ity

I nd ex

PI

Liquid Limit (LL)

CL-ML

ML

ML or OL

MH or OH

CH

CL

"A" LineRefe ren ce

C on str uc

The width of overexcavation is equal to 5ft past the edge of ftg or equal to the depth of overexcavtion which is

GREATER.

OVEREXCAVATION, DRAINAGE AND

MOISTURE PROTECTION DIAGRAM

Basement Foundation The depth of overexcavation shall extend from the bottom of the footing or existing site grade whichever is

GREATER.

In some casses GEM Engineering may approve a width of lateral overexcavation less than 5'-0" but it shall never be less than the required depth of overexcavation.

The total width of overexcavation is euqal to the width of the footing plus 2x the width of lateral overexcavation.

Drainage and gradation shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of section 1804.4 of the 2018 IBC.

Refer to geotechnical report for additional drainage & grading requirements & recommendations.

Slab-On-Grade Foundation

PROJECT: Coal Creek Ware Yard Improvements

GEM Plate:Airport Road, Cedar City, Utah Client: KMN Construction, Inc. 5 Report No: RG2169 ENGINEERING, INC.

Hardscaped areas: 4 2% slope for 10'-0" required

(2 1/2" of fall over 10')

Compacted Structural Fill

Exterior flat work or pavement

Direct roof drainage away from foundation in accordance with

1804.4 (2018 IBC)

Final grading

Landscaped areas: 4 5% slope for 10'-0" required

(6" of fall over 10')

Depth of overexcavation

0 ft

0 ft

Width of overexcavation 2

0 ft

Width of overexcavation 2

Footing 0 ft

Depth of 1 overexcavation

Total width of Native soil

0 ft0 ft

Footing Width 0 ft

Depth of 1 overexcavation

Total width of overexcavation 3

Width of overexcavation 2

Width of overexcavation 2

Refe ren ce

C on str uc