B01 Attachment J02-D Geotech report 1.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

AIMRIGHT Project No. 11390722

August 17, 2022

Claremore Indian Hospital – Sitework for Modular North

Prepared for:

Claremore Indian Hospital - Indian Health Service

Construction Materials Testing • Special Inspections • Geotechnical Engineering

2120 South 130th East Avenue • Tulsa, OK 74134 • (918) 392-8431 • www.aimrighttesting.com

August 17, 2022

Claremore Indian Hospital - Indian Health Service

101 South Moore Avenue

Claremore, OK 74017

(918) 342-6020

Attn: Shawn Chopper, Director of Facilities, shawn.chopper@ihs.gov

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report | Project No. 11390722

Claremore Indian Hospital – Sitework for Modular North

101 South Moore Avenue, Claremore, OK 74017

It has been a pleasure serving you on this project. AIMRIGHT is pleased to submit this Geotechnical

Engineering Report for the proposed construction planned at the referenced site. This report presents the findings of the geotechnical exploration and presents recommendations for design for the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical consultation services for the subject project. We look forward to serving as your geotechnical engineer and construction materials testing laboratory on the remainder of this and future projects. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any concerns or questions regarding this report.

Respectfully submitted, AIMRIGHT Testing & Engineering, LLC

CA No. 5794 (exp. 6/30/24)

Justin J. Boyd Jr., P.E.

Engineering Manager jboyd@aimrighttesting.com

(918) 392-8041

08/17/22 http://www.aimrighttesting.com/ mailto:shawn.chopper@ihs.gov https://www.google.com/maps/place/36%C2%B019'00.6%22N+95%C2%B037'46.6%22W/@36.3168333,-95.6302717,442m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x0:0xaa6335469d24ab37!2zMzbCsDE4JzU1LjgiTiA5NcKwMzcnNDcuMyJX!3b1!8m2!3d36.315492!4d-95.629815!3m5!1s0x0:0xbb604ec036a1797f!7e2!8m2!3d36.3168318!4d-95.6296205 mailto:jboyd@aimrighttesting.com

G e o t e c h n i c a l E n g i n e e r i n g R e p o r t

C l a r e m o r e I n d i a n H o s p i t a l – S i t e w o r k f o r M o d u l a r N o r t h

A I M R I G H T P r o j e c t N o . 1 1 3 9 0 7 2 2

A u g u s t 1 7 , 2 0 2 2

Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 1

1.1 Description 1

1.2 Scope of Services 1

1.3 Field Exploration 2

1.4 Laboratory Testing 2

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION FINDINGS 3

2.1 Subsurface 3

2.2 Groundwater 3

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS 4

4.0 ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS 5

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6

5.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork 6

5.2 Site Drainage 7

5.3 Fill Material 8

5.4 Shallow Foundation Design 9

5.5 Shallow Foundation Construction 10

6.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING 11

7.0 LIMITATIONS 12

APPENDIX

Boring Location Plan

Boring Logs

Boring Log Key to Symbols

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Description

We understand that a new one-story modular structure will be constructed on the referenced site. The final site design has not been completed. The site is developed with existing structures, concrete surfaces, above/below grade infrastructure and grass covered areas with little trees or shrubberies. Select existing site elements will be demolished and removed from the site prior to beginning construction.

The site is generally level with minimal elevation differences across the site. Cut/fill depths have not been finalized; however, we estimate that cut/fill of approximately 6 to 30 inches will be required to reach the final site elevations.

The structure is anticipated to be mainly wood framed and supported by a concrete masonry block shallow foundation system (2 x 2 ft concrete pads). Information regarding estimated structural loading conditions was provided; and we utilized maximum column loads of 6 to 8 kip with a net allowable bearing capacity requirement of 2,000 psf in our engineering analyses.

1.2 Scope of Services

The primary purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed site development. Our Scope of Services consisted of the following:

• Drilling four (4) soil test borings (borings) to depths of approximately 10 feet.

• Performing laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the borings.

• Providing engineering analysis and preparation of this report discussing, in general, project description, our scope, exploration, testing, analysis, and recommendations.

The Boring Location Plan, Boring Logs, and other supporting data are presented in the Appendices to this report. Our Scope of Services did not include a survey of boring locations and elevations, rock coring, quantity estimates, preparation of plans or specifications, or the identification and evaluation of environmental aspects of the project site.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.315652,-95.6282674,3a,82.3y,252.83h,88.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjlyVGbs_wksTPcJ8IUrjIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

1.3 Field Exploration

AIMRIGHT located the borings in the field by making measurements from known existing site features. No claim is made as to the accuracy of the locations shown on the Boring Location Plan, and they should be considered approximate.

The borings were advanced using an ATV-mounted drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer and 6-inch diameter augers. Representative soil samples were obtained using a standard 2-inch outside diameter split-barrel sampler in general compliance with the Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) method of the

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1586 standard to evaluate the consistency and general engineering properties of the subsurface soils.

The number of blows required to drive the split-barrel sampler three (3) consecutive 6-inch increments is recorded, and the blows of the last two 6-inch increments are added to obtain the SPT N-value in blows per foot (bpf) representing the penetration resistance of the soil. At regular intervals within the borings, split-spoon samples were visually classified based on texture and plasticity.

During the drilling process, all encounters with groundwater, if any, were recorded. Upon completion of drilling, all borings were backfilled per OWRB requirements.

1.4 Laboratory Testing

The samples obtained from the geotechnical exploration were transported to the AIMRIGHT laboratory where representative samples were selected for testing. Testing consisted of Atterberg limits, sieve analysis, and moisture content in general accordance with the ASTM testing procedures.

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION FINDINGS

2.1 Subsurface

The subsurface conditions illustrated in the table below represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the boring data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments.

The transitions between soil strata are usually less distinct than shown on the Boring Logs.

Stratum

General Depth

Interval General

Description of Conditions

Surface 3 inches organic laden soils (topsoil) sampled as silty sand/sandy silt with organics and root matter

Existing Fill 0.2 to 6 feet stiff to very stiff, lean clay with varying amounts of clay, silt, sand, and sandstone, concrete fragments

Native Soils 3.5 to 10 feet stiff to very stiff, lean, lean-to-fat, fat clay with varying amounts of clay, silt, sand, and sandstone fragments

2.2 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered during or at the completion of drilling in any of the borings. Water traveling through soil and rock is often unpredictable and may be present at shallow depths. Due to the seasonal changes in groundwater and the unpredictable nature of groundwater paths, groundwater levels will fluctuate. As such, groundwater levels at other times of the year may be different than those described in this report.

Generally, the highest groundwater levels occur in late winter and early spring and the lowest levels in late summer and fall. Therefore, it is necessary during construction to be observant for groundwater seepage in excavations to assess the situation and make necessary changes. Where applicable, the contractor should determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of construction.

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS

Laboratory tests were conducted on selected samples in general accordance with ASTM standards. The laboratory testing performed for this project consisted of Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318), Moisture Content

(ASTM D2216), and Sieve Analysis – No. 200 Sieve Wash Method (ASTM D1140) testing. The test results are presented on the Boring Logs and are summarized in the table below.

Boring No.

Sample Depth

Interval

(ft)

In-place Moisture Content

Finer than

No. 200 Sieve

Atterberg Limits

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

B-1 1.5 to 3 11.1 85.5 37 19 18

B-2 3.5 to 5 21.0 93.4 53 18 35

B-3 3.5 to 5 17.1 76.4 38 17 21

B-4 0 to 1.5 13.4 68.8 34 19 15

4.0 ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The following recommendations are based on our observations at the site, interpretation and analysis of the field and laboratory data obtained during this exploration, assumed loads, and our experience with previous exploration and testing with similar projects. Soil penetration data have been used to estimate an allowable bearing pressure and associated settlement using established correlations. Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations may vary from those encountered.

If structure location, loadings, or elevations are changed, we request that we be advised so that we may re-evaluate our recommendations. In the event changes are made in the proposed design/construction plans, the recommendations presented in this report shall not be considered valid unless reviewed by

AIMIRIGHT and modified or verified in writing.

Determination of an appropriate foundation system for a given structure is dependent on the proposed structural loads, soil conditions, and construction constraints such as proximity to other structures, etc. The subsurface exploration aids the geotechnical engineer in determining the soil stratum appropriate for structural support. This determination includes considerations regarding both allowable bearing pressure and compressibility of the soil strata. In addition, since the method of construction greatly affects the soils intended for structural support, consideration must be given to the implementation of suitable methods of site preparation, fill compaction, and other aspects of construction.

Existing fill is present in the borings at just below the surface and extending down to depths of approximately

3.5 to 6 feet. The existing fill is generally comprised of stiff to very stiff, lean clay with varying amounts of clay, silt, sand, and sandstone, concrete fragments. The N-values within the existing fill ranged from 11 to

23 bpf and generally, properly compacted fill will exhibit consistent N-values of more than 10 bpf.

Construction monitoring/testing documentation of the fill placement was not provided. Due to the limited testing performed and the wide spacing of the borings, the possibility of variable density fill material in other areas of the site cannot be completely ruled out.

In conclusion, it is our opinion that the existing fill conditions are considered suitable for satisfactory long-term support of the proposed structure. It is noted that whereas our borings may provide a reasonable assessment of the historic fill conditions, placing a structure on uncontrolled fill material represents some risk of unpredictable differential settlements beyond acceptable limits. However, provided the recommendations outlined in this report are followed throughout the design and construction phases of this project, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the planned development and such risk is significantly minimized. A concrete slab-on-ground in conjunction with a shallow foundation design may be utilized to support the structure. It is imperative that all exposed foundation subgrades should be re-compacted, observed, evaluated, and verified for the design soil bearing pressure by the geotechnical engineer after excavation and prior to concrete placement.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork

Before proceeding with construction, AIMRIGHT recommends conducting a pre-grading meeting to discuss recommendations as outlined in this report. Where appropriate, existing utilities beneath the construction footprints should be properly abandoned; or, should be removed and backfilled with properly compacted engineered fill as outlined in this report.

Any existing structures, pavements, topsoil/vegetation, moderately to highly plastic clay, wet, soft, or loose soils and any other deleterious non-soil materials should be removed to a minimum distance of 5 and 2 feet beyond the structure footprints.

Upon completion of required excavations, proof-rolling of the subgrade with a 20 to 30-ton loaded truck or other pneumatic-tired vehicle of similar size and weight should then be performed. Proof-rolling should be performed during a time of good weather and not while the site is wet, frozen, or severely desiccated. The proof-rolling observation is an opportunity for the geotechnical engineer to locate inconsistencies intermediate of our boring locations in the existing subgrade.

All unsuitable materials observed during the evaluation and proof-rolling operations should be over-excavated and replaced with compacted fill or stabilized in place. The possible need for, and extent of over-excavation and/or in-place stabilization required can best be determined by the geotechnical engineer at that time.

The upper 8 inches of the existing subgrade in construction areas shall then be scarified, moisture-conditioned and re-compacted to at least ninety-five percent (95%) of the maximum dry density and within

±2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content as determined by a Standard Proctor (ASTM D698).

The moisture content and compaction shall be maintained prior to beginning any fill or aggregate placement and/or construction.

At the time of the investigation, the site soils were generally moist. If dry weather conditions exist prior to and during construction, the near surface soils may need moisture-conditioning to sufficiently enable adequate scarifying and compaction. However, if wet conditions exist at the time of construction, then care shall be taken to assure proper surface water drainage. If these soils do get wet, they must be dried or treated prior to further compaction efforts.

5.2 Site Drainage

An important aspect to consider during development of this site is surface water control. During the initiation of grading operations, we recommend that the grading contractor take those steps necessary to enhance surface flow and promote rapid clearing of rainfall and runoff water following rain events.

It should be incumbent on the contractor to maintain favorable site drainage during construction to minimize deterioration of otherwise stable subgrades.

Permanent positive drainage should be provided around the perimeter of the structures to minimize moisture infiltration into the foundation and/or subgrade soils. We recommend landscaped areas adjacent to the structures be provided with a fall of at least 6 inches for the first 10 feet outward from the structure areas.

All grades must provide effective drainage away from the structures during and after construction. Water permitted to pond next to the structures can result in unacceptable differential floor slab movements and cracked slabs and/or walls.

After construction and landscaping, AIMRIGHT recommends verifying final grades to document that effective drainage has been achieved. Grades around the structures should also be periodically inspected and adjusted as necessary, as part of the structure’s maintenance program.

Sprinkler mains and spray heads should be located a minimum of 5 feet away from the structure lines.

Low-volume, drip style landscaped irrigation should not be used near the structures.

Roof runoff should be collected in drains or gutters. Roof drains and downspouts should be discharged onto pavements which slope away from the structures or downspouts should be extended a minimum of

10 feet away from the structures.

5.3 Fill Material

A sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade.

All fill material in structural areas (including utility backfill) should be placed in continuous, horizontal lifts having a maximum pre-compacted thickness of 9 inches. Aggregate base should have a maximum pre-compacted thickness of 6 inches; and fill compacted with hand-held or smaller-sized equipment having a maximum pre-compacted thickness of 4 to 6 inches.

Fill slopes placed over existing slopes should be adequately benched or keyed into the existing slopes so that fill is not placed and/or compacted on a sloping subgrade or vertical wall excavation. The benches will help facilitate compaction, reduce the potential for high differential settlements over short distances, and increase the overall global stability of the constructed fill.

Each lift should be compacted to at least ninety-five percent (95%) of the maximum dry density and within

±2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content as determined by a Standard Proctor (ASTM D698), unless noted otherwise and maintained throughout construction activities.

A minimum of two (2) field tests to determine in-place density and moisture content should be performed per lift for each 2,000 sf within structural footprints.

Engineered fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris, exhibit a maximum plasticity index (PI) of 18, maximum liquid limit (LL) of 40, and contain a maximum rock size of

1.5 inches.

Native soils or existing fill could be used as fill; whereby, upon re-use, the soils meet the requirements for engineered fill as stated in this report. AIMRIGHT recommends conducting additional soil sampling and laboratory testing of any excavated or cut native soils to determine characteristics and stabilization requirements prior to beginning any fill placement.

5.4 Shallow Foundation Design

The project structural engineer should determine the final foundation sizes based on the actual design loads, building code requirements, and other structural considerations. Structure foundations may be designed utilizing the following parameters.

Maximum Structural Loads Wall N/A

Column 6 to 8 kip

Bearing Material approved engineered fill, existing fill, or native soils

Net Allowable Bearing Pressure1 (FS ≥ 3.0) 2,000 psf

Coefficient of Sliding Friction2, µ 0.25 to 0.35

Total Unit Weight2, γ 105 to 115 pcf

Angle of Friction2, ø 5°

Rankine Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient2, Kp 1.19

Minimum Footing Embedment3 24 inches

Minimum Footing Width Wall 18 inches

Column 30 inches

Estimated Maximum Settlement4 Total ≤ ½ inch

Differential ≤ ½ inch

Earthquake Loads Site Class5 D

1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is based on foundations within approved bearing materials and is the pressure more than the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation.

2. Range of values provided for soil types encountered at the site and/or anticipated import material that are prepared in accordance with this report are illustrated, however, actual parameters are dependent on bearing material placed and/or exposed during construction. Values are provided for guidance and should only be utilized by experienced engineers and designers. Exclude total passive pressure resistance within 2 feet of the adjacent lowest final site elevation.

3. Minimum depth applies to both perimeter footings and foundations in unheated areas. Minimum depth will provide frost protection and reduce the potential for moisture variation below the bearing level.

Interior foundations should extend at least 12 inches below the final adjacent subgrade to provide minimum confinement.

4. The magnitude of the settlements will be highly influenced by the variation in excavation requirements across the structure footprint, the distribution of loads, and the variability of underlying soils.

5. 2015 International Building Code (IBC) Section 16, a weighted average of the soil penetration resistance conditions recorded (limited N-value of 100 bpf) and estimated for the upper 100 feet of the site was calculated.

5.5 Shallow Foundation Construction

All exposed foundation subgrades should be re-compacted, observed, evaluated, and verified for the design soil bearing pressure by the geotechnical engineer after excavation and prior to concrete placement. This evaluation should include, as a minimum, Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing at the planned bearing elevations at intervals of no less than 35 feet and extending to depths of at least 3 feet below the bearing elevations.

If unsuitable material is encountered during foundation bearing grade testing and inspections (DCP

Testing), foundations should; 1) extend deeper to a more suitable bearing material and bear directly on this material; 2) extend deeper to a more suitable bearing material and backfill with lean concrete to the designed bottom of footing elevation (see Figure 1); 3) extend deeper to a more suitable bearing material and backfilled with engineered fill (see Figure 2). If option 3 is selected, the over-excavation should extend laterally a minimum of 2/3 of the total depth of excavation.

Figure 1 Figure 2

Note: Figures are shown for convenience and excavations shall be conducted with appropriate safety requirements.

Foundation excavations must be maintained in a drained/de-watered condition throughout the foundation construction process and water should not be allowed to pond in any excavation. Excavations for footings should be made in such a way as to provide bearing surfaces that are firm and free of loose, soft, wet, or otherwise disturbed soils. Foundations should be concreted as soon as practical after they are excavated, and concrete should also not be placed on frozen or saturated subgrades.

If the foundation excavations must remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, it is recommended that a 2 to 4-inch-thick “mud mat” of lean concrete with a minimum compressive strength of 1,500 psi be placed on the bearing soils before placing the reinforcing steel to minimize damage to the bearing surface from weather or construction activities.

ENGINEERED

FILL

6.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

We recommend that all earthwork construction be monitored by an experienced engineering technician of

AIMRIGHT. Monitoring should include site preparation, subgrade earthwork, engineered fill earthwork, structure foundation systems, conventional and/or structural slabs.

Monitoring will allow AIMRIGHT to confirm the soil conditions on site and evaluate the recommendations presented within this report. If at the time of construction, our recommendations are inappropriate for the project, monitoring will allow us to remediate the recommendations at that time to better serve the project.

Monitoring during construction will also allow for the testing of all construction materials for the project. This includes but is not limited to:

✓ subgrade inspection and density testing,

✓ structural area fill placement density testing,

✓ foundation bearing grade observations and testing,

✓ structural and reinforcing steel inspection,

✓ concrete testing, and

✓ asphaltic concrete testing, as applicable.

We recommend that AIMRIGHT be retained to provide these services based upon our current familiarity with the project subsurface conditions, and the provided intent of the geotechnical recommendations pertaining to the proposed development.

7.0 LIMITATIONS

The recommendations provided are based in part on project information provided to us and they only apply to the specific project and site discussed in this report. If our statements or assumptions concerning the location and design of this project contain incorrect information, or if additional information is available, you should convey the correct or additional information to us and retain us to review our recommendations. We can then modify our recommendations if they are inappropriate for the proposed project.

Regardless of the thoroughness of the geotechnical exploration, there is always a possibility that subsurface conditions will be different from those at a specific boring location and that conditions will not be as anticipated by the designers or contractors. In addition, the construction process may itself alter soil conditions. Therefore, experienced geotechnical personnel should observe and document the construction procedures used and the conditions encountered. Unanticipated conditions and inadequate procedures should be reported to the design team along with timely recommendations to solve the problems created.

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report were derived in accordance with standard geotechnical engineering practices and no other warranty is expressed or implied.

BORING LOCATION PLAN

PROJECT NO.: 11390722 PROJECT: Claremore Indian Hospital – Sitework for Modular North

SOURCE: Aerial Imagery/Provided Layout CLIENT: Claremore Indian Hospital – Indian Health Service

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS

TOPSOIL - 3 inches 0.25

LEAN CLAY w/ trace sand, sandstone, concrete fragments (FILL) very stiff, dark brown, moist

LEAN CLAY w/ trace sand, sandstone fragments very stiff, dark gray, moist

LEAN CLAY w/ trace sand, sandstone fragments very stiff, dark grayish brown mottled light brown, moist

Boring terminated at 10 ft.

CL

11.1 85.5 37 19 18

PROJECT: Claremore Indian Hospital - Sitework for Modular North

CLIENT: Claremore Indian Hospital - Indian Health Service PROJECT NO.: 11390722

PROJECT LOCATION: 101 South Moore Avenue, Claremore, OK 74017

LOCATION: see Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: N/A

LOG OF

BORING B-1

DRILLER: H. WilsonDRILLER: H. Wilson LOGGED BY: R. Melton DRILLING RIG: CME-550 ATV-Mounted

DRILLING METHOD: Rotary Continuous Flight Augers DATE: 8/4/22

DEPTH TO WATER> INITIAL: Dry AT COMPLETION: Dry CAVING> None

D e p th fe e t)

S a m p le r

T yp e

Description

G ra p h ic

U S

C S

S ym b o l

S P

T N

-v a lu e b p f)

G ro u n d w a te r

M o is tu re C o n te n t

L iq u id

L im it

P la st ic

L im it

P la st ic ity I n d e x

T h is i n fo rm a ti o n p e rt a in s o n ly t o t h is b o ri n g a n d s h o u ld n o t b e i n te rp re te d a s b e in g i n d ic it iv e o f th e s it e

TOPSOIL - 3 inches 0.25

LEAN CLAY w/ trace sand, sandstone fragments (FILL) very stiff, dark and medium brown, moist

3.5 FAT CLAY w/ trace sand, sandstone fragments stiff, medium olive brown, moist

LEAN to FAT CLAY w/ trace sand, sandstone fragments stiff, dark and medium olive brown mottled medium gray, moist

Boring terminated at 10 ft.

CH

21.0 93.4 53 18 35

PROJECT: Claremore Indian Hospital - Sitework for Modular North

CLIENT: Claremore Indian Hospital - Indian Health Service PROJECT NO.: 11390722

PROJECT LOCATION: 101 South Moore Avenue, Claremore, OK 74017

LOCATION: see Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: N/A

LOG OF

BORING B-2

DRILLER: H. WilsonDRILLER: H. Wilson LOGGED BY: R. Melton DRILLING RIG: CME-550 ATV-Mounted

DRILLING METHOD: Rotary Continuous Flight Augers DATE: 8/4/22

DEPTH TO WATER> INITIAL: Dry AT COMPLETION: Dry CAVING> None

D e p th fe e t)

S a m p le r

T yp e

Description

G ra p h ic

U S

C S

S ym b o l

S P

T N

-v a lu e b p f)

G ro u n d w a te r

M o is tu re C o n te n t

L iq u id

L im it

P la st ic

L im it

P la st ic ity I n d e x

T h is i n fo rm a ti o n p e rt a in s o n ly t o t h is b o ri n g a n d s h o u ld n o t b e i n te rp re te d a s b e in g i n d ic it iv e o f th e s it

TOPSOIL - 3 inches 0.25

LEAN CLAY w/ trace sand, sandstone, concrete fragments (FILL) very stiff, dark grayish brown, moist

3.5 LEAN CLAY w/ SAND, trace sandstone fragments stiff, medium grayish brown, moist

8.5 LEAN to FAT CLAY w/ trace sand, sandstone fragments stiff, medium grayish brown mottled light gray, moist

Boring terminated at 10 ft.

CL

17.1 76.4 38 17 21

PROJECT: Claremore Indian Hospital - Sitework for Modular North

CLIENT: Claremore Indian Hospital - Indian Health Service PROJECT NO.: 11390722

PROJECT LOCATION: 101 South Moore Avenue, Claremore, OK 74017

LOCATION: see Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: N/A

LOG OF

BORING B-3

DRILLER: H. WilsonDRILLER: H. Wilson LOGGED BY: R. Melton DRILLING RIG: CME-550 ATV-Mounted

DRILLING METHOD: Rotary Continuous Flight Augers DATE: 8/4/22

DEPTH TO WATER> INITIAL: Dry AT COMPLETION: Dry CAVING> None

D e p th fe e t)

S a m p le r

T yp e

Description

G ra p h ic

U S

C S

S ym b o l

S P

T N

-v a lu e b p f)

G ro u n d w a te r

M o is tu re C o n te n t

L iq u id

L im it

P la st ic

L im it

P la st ic ity I n d e x

T h is i n fo rm a ti o n p e rt a in s o n ly t o t h is b o ri n g a n d s h o u ld n o t b e i n te rp re te d a s b e in g i n d ic it iv e o f th e s it

TOPSOIL - 3 inches 0.25

LEAN CLAY w/ sand, sandstone, concrete fragments (FILL) stiff to very stiff, dark grayish brown, moist

3.5 LEAN CLAY w/ trace sand, sandstone fragments stiff, medium grayish brown, moist

LEAN to FAT CLAY w/ trace sand, sandstone fragments stiff, medium grayish brown mottled medium gray, moist

Boring terminated at 10 ft.

CL 16

13.4 68.8 34 19 15

PROJECT: Claremore Indian Hospital - Sitework for Modular North

CLIENT: Claremore Indian Hospital - Indian Health Service PROJECT NO.: 11390722

PROJECT LOCATION: 101 South Moore Avenue, Claremore, OK 74017

LOCATION: see Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: N/A

LOG OF

BORING B-4

DRILLER: H. WilsonDRILLER: H. Wilson LOGGED BY: R. Melton DRILLING RIG: CME-550 ATV-Mounted

DRILLING METHOD: Rotary Continuous Flight Augers DATE: 8/4/22

DEPTH TO WATER> INITIAL: Dry AT COMPLETION: Dry CAVING> None

D e p th fe e t)

S a m p le r

T yp e

Description

G ra p h ic

U S

C S

S ym b o l

S P

T N

-v a lu e b p f)

G ro u n d w a te r

M o is tu re C o n te n t

L iq u id

L im it

P la st ic

L im it

P la st ic ity I n d e x

T h is i n fo rm a ti o n p e rt a in s o n ly t o t h is b o ri n g a n d s h o u ld n o t b e i n te rp re te d a s b e in g i n d ic it iv e o f th e s it

Symbol Description

Strata Symbols

Topsoil

Fill

Low Plasticity Clay

High Plasticity Clay

Low to High Plasticity Clays

Soil Samplers

Standard Penetration Test

KEY TO SYMBOLS