B01 Attachment J03 Construction Specifications.pdf

Peach Springs Staff Quarters Replacement Project

Peach Springs, AZ

SPECIFICATION MANUAL

FOR CONSTRUCTION

April 27, 2023

ARCHITECT

JOHNSON SMITTHIPONG & ROSAMOND ASSOCIATES, INC.

TUCSON, ARIZONA

04/27/2023

PEACH SPRINGS STAFF QUARTERS

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

TOC-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 003132 - GEOTECHNICAL DATA

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 012000.0020 - PRICE AND PAYMENT

SECTION 012614 - REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

SECTION 013201.0010 - PROJECT SCHEDULE

SECTION 013233 - PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION

SECTION 013300 - SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

SECTION 013526 - GOVERNMENT SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 014500.0010 - QUALITY CONTROL

SECTION 015000 - TEMPORARY FACILITIES

SECTION 015720.0010 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SECTION 015721 - INDOOR AIR QUALITY CONTROLS

SECTION 015723 - STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL

SECTION 015800 - PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

SECTION 016000 - PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 017300 - EXECUTION

SECTION 017400 - CLEANING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

SECTION 017700 - CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES

SECTION 017823 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

SECTION 019100 - GENERAL COMMISSIONING REQUIREMENTS

DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE

SECTION 031000 - CONCRETE FORMING AND ACCESSORIES

SECTION 032000 - CONCRETE REINFORCING

SECTION 033000 - CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

SECTION 033816 - UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE

DIVISION 04 - MASONRY

SECTION 042613 - MASONRY VENEER

DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

SECTION 061000 - ROUGH CARPENTRY

SECTION 061600 - SHEATHING

SECTION 061753 - SHOP-FABRICATED WOOD TRUSSES

SECTION 061800 - GLUED-LAMINATED CONSTRUCTION

SECTION 064113 - WOOD-VENEER-FACED ARCHITECTURAL CABINETS

SECTION 064600 - WOOD TRIM

TOC-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-2

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

SECTION 072100 - THERMAL INSULATION

SECTION 072119 - FOAMED-IN-PLACE INSULATION

SECTION 072500 - WEATHER BARRIERS

SECTION 072600 - VAPOR RETARDERS

SECTION 074113.16 - STANDING-SEAM METAL ROOF PANELS

SECTION 074647 - FIBER-CEMENT TRIM

SECTION 076200 - SHEET METAL FLASHING AND TRIM

SECTION 077253 - SNOW GUARDS

SECTION 079200 - JOINT SEALANTS

SECTION 079219 - ACOUSTICAL JOINT SEALANTS

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

SECTION 081162 - METAL SCREEN AND STORM DOORS AND FRAMES

SECTION 081600 - MOLDED COMPOSITE DOORS

SECTION 081613 - FIBERGLASS DOORS

SECTION 083610 - RESIDENTIAL OVERHEAD DOORS

SECTION 085313 - VINYL WINDOWS

SECTION 087100 - DOOR HARDWARE

SECTION 088000 - GLAZING

SECTION 088300 - MIRRORS

DIVISION 09 - FINISHES

SECTION 092200 - ONE COAT STUCCO SYSTEM WITH INSULATING FOAM

SECTION 092900 - GYPSUM BOARD

SECTION 096519 - RESILIENT TILE FLOORING

SECTION 099000 - PAINTING

DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES

SECTION 102800 - TOILET, BATH, AND LAUNDRY ACCESSORIES

SECTION 104416 - FIRE EXTINGUISHERS

DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENT

SECTION 113100 - RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCES

DIVISION 12 - FURNISHINGS

SECTION 122113 - HORIZONTAL LOUVER BLINDS

SECTION 12 36 61.19 - QUARTZ AGGLOMERATE COUNTERTOPS

TOC-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-3

DIVISION 21 - FIRE SUPPRESSION

SECTION 210000 - SUPPLEMENTARY FIRE SUPPRESSION GENERAL CONDITIONS

SECTION 210517 - SLEEVES AND SLEEVE SEALS FOR FIRE-SUPPRESSION PIPING

SECTION 210553 - IDENTIFICATION FOR FIRE-SUPPRESSION PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

SECTION 211100 - FACILITY FIRE-SUPPRESSION WATER-SERVICE PIPING

SECTION 211313 - WET-PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

SECTION 220000 - SUPPLEMENTARY PLUMBING GENERAL CONDITIONS

SECTION 220513 - COMMON MOTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR PLUMBING EQUIPMENT

SECTION 220517 - SLEEVES AND SLEEVE SEALS FOR PLUMBING PIPING

SECTION 220518 - ESCUTCHEONS FOR PLUMBING PIPING

SECTION 220519 - METERS AND GAGES FOR PLUMBING PIPING

SECTION 220523 - GENERAL-DUTY VALVES FOR PLUMBING PIPING

SECTION 220529 - HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

SECTION 220553 - IDENTIFICATION FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

SECTION 220719 - PLUMBING PIPING INSULATION

SECTION 220800 - COMMISSIONING OF PLUMBING SYSTEMS

SECTION 221116 - DOMESTIC WATER PIPING

SECTION 221119 - DOMESTIC WATER PIPING SPECIALTIES

SECTION 221123 - DOMESTIC WATER PUMPS

SECTION 221316 - WASTE AND VENT PIPING

SECTION 221319 - SANITARY WASTE PIPING SPECIALTIES

SECTION 223300 - ELECTRIC, DOMESTIC-WATER HEATERS

SECTION 224100 - RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING FIXTURES

DIVISION 23 - HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR-CONDITIONING (HVAC)

SECTION 230000 - SUPPLEMENTARY HVAC GENERAL CONDITIONS

SECTION 230513 - COMMON MOTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT

SECTION 230518 - ESCUTCHEONS FOR HVAC PIPING

SECTION 230529 - HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

SECTION 230553 - IDENTIFICATION FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

SECTION 230593 - TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR HVAC

SECTION 230713 - DUCT INSULATION

SECTION 230719 - HVAC PIPING INSULATION

SECTION 230800 - COMMISSIONING OF HVAC SYSTEMS

SECTION 232300 - REFRIGERANT PIPING

SECTION 233113 - METAL DUCTS

SECTION 233300 - AIR DUCT ACCESSORIES

SECTION 233423 - HVAC POWER VENTILATORS

SECTION 233713 - DIFFUSERS, REGISTERS, AND GRILLES

SECTION 238126 - SPLIT-SYSTEM AIR-CONDITIONERS

TOC-4 TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-4

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

SECTION 260000 - SUPPLEMENTARY ELECTRICAL GENERAL CONDITIONS

SECTION 260519 - LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUCTORS AND CABLES

SECTION 260526 - GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

SECTION 260533 - RACEWAYS AND BOXES FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

SECTION 260543 - UNDERGROUND DUCTS AND RACEWAYS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

SECTION 260544 - SLEEVES AND SLEEVE SEALS FOR ELECTRICAL RACEWAYS AND CABLING

SECTION 260553 - IDENTIFICATION FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

SECTION 262416 - PANELBOARDS

SECTION 262726 - WIRING DEVICES

SECTION 262813 - FUSES

SECTION 262816 - ENCLOSED SWITCHES AND CIRCUIT BREAKERS

SECTION 263100 - PHOTOVOLTAIC COLLECTORS

SECTION 265100 - INTERIOR LIGHTING

DIVISION 27 - COMMUNICATIONS

SECTION 271500 - COMMUNICATIONS HORIZONTAL CABLING

SECTION 274134 - CABLE TELEVISION

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

SECTION 311000 - SITE CLEARING AND GRADING

SECTION 312000 - EARTH MOVING

SECTION 313116 - TERMITE CONTROL

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

SECTION 321200 - PAVING AND AGGREGATE BASE

SECTION 321313 - CONCRETE PAVING AND CURB AND GUTTER

SECTION 323113 - CHAIN LINK FENCES AND GATES

DIVISION 33 - UTILITIES

SECTION 330500 - COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR UTILITIES

PEACH SPRINGS STAFF QUARTERS

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

DOCUMENT 003132 - GEOTECHNICAL DATA

1.1 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

A. This Document with its referenced attachments is part of the Procurement and Contracting Requirements for Project. They provide Owner's information for Bidders' convenience and are intended to supplement rather than serve in lieu of Bidders' own investigations. They are made available for Bidders' convenience and information. This Document and its attachments are not part of the Contract Documents.

B. Because subsurface conditions indicated by the soil borings are a sampling in relation to the entire construction area, and for other reasons, the Owner, the Architect, the Architect's consultants, and the firm reporting the subsurface conditions do not warranty the conditions below the depths of the borings or that the strata logged from the borings are necessarily typical of the entire site. Any party using the information described in the soil borings and geotechnical report shall accept full responsibility for its use.

C. Soil-boring data for Project, obtained by Atek Engineering Consultants dated October 18, 2022, is available for viewing as appended to this Document.

D. A geotechnical investigation report for the Project (ATEK Project #210211 REV.1), prepared by ATEK Engineering Consultants dated December 5, 2022, and supplemental geotechnical investigation report addendum 1 for the Project (ATEK Project #210211 Addendum 1), prepared by ATEK Engineering Consultants dated March 24, 2023 is available for viewing as appended to this Document.

1. The opinions expressed in this report are those of a geotechnical engineer and represent interpretations of subsoil conditions, tests, and results of analyses conducted by a geotechnical engineer. Owner is not responsible for interpretations or conclusions drawn from the data.

2. Any party using information described in the geotechnical report shall make additional test borings and conduct other exploratory operations that may be required to determine the character of subsurface materials that may be encountered.

END OF DOCUMENT 003132

003132-1 GEOTECHNICAL DATA 003132-1

www.ATEKEC.com

111 South Weber Drive, Chandler, Arizona 85226 – Office 480-659-8065 2015 North Forbes Boulevard, Suite 103, Tucson, Arizona 85745 – Office 520-638-8142

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

PEACH SPRINGS STAFFING UNITS

BOX CANYON ROAD SUBDIVISION

PEACH SPRINGS, ARIZONA

Prepared for:

Johnson Smitthipong & Rosamond Associates, Inc.

5210 E Williams Circle, Suite 600 Tucson, Arizona

Prepared by:

ATEK Engineering Consultants, LLC 111 South Weber Drive, Suite 1 Chandler, Arizona 85226

ATEK Project # 210211 REV. 1

December 5, 2022

111 SOUTH WEBER DRIVE, SUITE 1 WWW.ATEKEC.COM P (480) 659-8065

CHANDLER, AZ 85226 F (480) 656-9658

December 5, 2022 ATEK Project #210211 Rev. 1

Ryan Harrington, Specification and Sustainability Coordinator Johnson Smitthipong & Rosamond Associates, Inc.

5210 E Williams Circle, Suite 600 Tucson, Arizona

Regarding: Geotechnical Exploration Report

Project: Peach Springs Staffing Units

Box Canyon Subdivision Peach Springs, Arizona

Dear Mr. Rosamond:

ATEK Engineering Consultants, LLC is pleased to present the attached Geotechnical Exploration Report for the Peach Springs Staffing Units located on the Box Canyon Subdivision, in Peach Springs, Arizona. The purpose of our study was to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the proposed site to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for project design and construction.

Based on our findings, the site is considered suitable for the proposed construction, provided geotechnical recommendations presented in the attached report are followed. Specific recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the project design and construction are presented in the attached report. The recommendations contained within this report are dependent on the provisions provided in the Limitations and Recommended Additional Services sections of this report.

We appreciate the opportunity of providing our services for this project. If you have questions regarding this report or if we may be of further assistance, please contact the undersigned.

Sincerely, ATEK Engineering Consultants, LLC

Antonio Lopez, P.E. Armando Ortega, P.E.

Project Manager Principal Geotechnical Engineer

Distribution: (1) Addresses (Electronic Copy)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

Project Description Purpose Scope of Services

2. FIELD EXPLORATION

2.1 General

2.2 Soil Test Borings

3. LABORATORY TESTING

4. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

Surface Conditions Subsurface Conditions Groundwater Conditions Geologic Hazards

4.4.1. Liquefaction Potential

4.4.2. Collapsible Soils

4.4.3. Expansive Soils

Seismic Considerations Earth Fissures and Land Subsidence

5. ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Earthwork

5.1.1. Frost Heave

5.1.2. Spread Footings

5.1.3. Conventional Slab

5.1.4. Post-Tension Slabs

5.1.5. Sidewalks and Exterior Slabs

5.1.6. Pavement Site Preparation and Grading

5.1.7. Aggregate Base Course

5.1.8. Engineered Fill

Excavation

5.2.1. Trench Backfill

5.2.2. Temporary Excavations

5.2.3. Permanent Excavations and Slopes

Structures

5.3.1. Shallow Spread Footings

5.3.2. Structural Slab

5.3.2.1. Structural slabs (post-tensioned or reinforced mat-

type slabs)

5.3.2.2. Expansive Lots

5.3.3. Resistance to Lateral Loads

5.3.3.1. Wall Drainage

5.3.3.2. Backfill Placement

Moisture Protection Corrosion Potential

5.5.1. 10-point System

5.5.1.1. Electrical Resistivity

5.5.1.2. Oxidation-Reduction (Redox) Potential

5.5.1.3. Sulfides

5.5.1.4. Moisture

5.5.2. Sulfate and Chloride Content

Pavement Areas

6. CLOSURE

Limitations Recommended Additional Services

APPENDIX A – Site Location Map APPENDIX B – Sample Location Plan APPENDIX C – Field Study and Boring Logs APPENDIX D – Laboratory Test

Geotechnical Exploration 210211 Rev. 1 Peach Springs Staffing Units Peach Springs, Arizona Page 1 of 26

1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our geotechnical exploration for the Peach Springs

Staffing Units within the Box Canyon Subdivision located northeast of Buck and Doe

Road and Historic Route 66 in Peach Springs, Arizona. A Site Location Map is presented in Appendix A of this report. The following sections of this report describe our understanding of the project and our scope of services.

Project Description

The project consists of new single family and multi-family residential buildings within the Box Canyon Subdivision near Peach Springs, Arizona. The development consists of two single family (3-bedroom), and four multi-family buildings with two and three units.

The residential buildings will be wood framed supported on relatively shallow spread footings or a post tension slab on grade. Additionally, the site development is anticipated to have utilities extended to serve the new development.

Purpose

The purpose of this geotechnical study was to evaluate the general surface and subsurface conditions at the site, and to present recommendations related to geotechnical aspects of design and construction of the proposed project.

Scope of Services

Our study included a site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, soil sampling, field and laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. This report presents geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of proposed structures. The recommendations contained in this report are subject to the limitations presented herein. Attention is directed to the “Limitations” section of this report.

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 2 of 26

2. FIELD EXPLORATION

2.1 General

Prior to the start of drilling, the Arizona 811 was contacted to locate existing utilities at the boring locations. The field exploration was performed on October 18, 2022. Four soil borings were drilled to a depth of fifteen (15) feet below existing grade. The soil test borings were drilled using a truck mounted CME-55 power drill rig equipped with 7 and ¼-inch outside diameter hollow stem augers. The borings were located in the field at the approximate locations shown on the Sample Location Plan included in Appendix

B of this report. Upon completion of the borings, the boreholes were backfilled with excavated materials.

2.2 Soil Test Borings

Disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples were taken at the direction of the field engineer during drilling operations. Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface materials were obtained using a California sampler with a 2.5-inch inside diameter and a 3.0-inch outside diameter. Disturbed samples were obtained using a Standard

Penetration/Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) with a 1.5-inch inside diameter and 2.0-inch outside diameter. The California and the SPT samplers were driven 12 and 18 inches, respectively, using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches, and blow counts for successive 6-inch penetration intervals were recorded. After the sampler was withdrawn from the borehole, the samples were removed, sealed to minimize moisture loss, and submitted to the laboratory.

Soil classifications made in the field from auger cuttings and samples were re-evaluated in the laboratory after further examination and testing. The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System presented in Appendix C.

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 3 of 26

Sample classifications, blow counts recorded during sampling, and other related information, were recorded on the soil boring logs. The boring logs are presented in

Appendix C. The information presented on the logs are a combination of factual and interpretive information. Lines delineating subsurface strata and group symbols are based on field observations made at the time of the field study. Actual subsurface lines delineating subsurface strata may be gradual and vary.

3. LABORATORY TESTING

Selected soil samples from the borings were tested in the laboratory for classification purposes and to evaluate their engineering properties. The laboratory tests included:

• Gradation;

• Atterberg limits;

• Moisture content;

• One-dimensional consolidation;

• Standard proctor;

• Expansion index;

• pH tests;

• resistivity tests;

• Sulfate content;

• Chloride content;

• Sulfide content;

• And redox potential.

A brief description of each test performed on the soil samples and the results are presented in Appendix D of this report.

4. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

Surface Conditions

The project is located approximately three miles west of Peach Springs, Arizona. The project is within an earthen cul-de sac between Historic Route 66, Buck and Doe Road, and Box Canyon Road. The topography south of the earthen cul-de-sac slopes gently to

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 4 of 26 the south. A 10-foot hill was observed north of the cul-de-sac. The site was covered with light to moderate vegetation outside of the cul-de-sac.

Subsurface Conditions

As indicated by the exploration borings, in general the surface soils consist of Clayey

Sand (SC) and Sandy Lean Clay (CL) with low to medium plasticity. These soils were found to have a relative firmness raging from firm to hard. The underlying subsurface soil encountered during our field exploration consisted cohesive and cohesionless soil.

The cohesive soils consisted of Sandy Lean Clay (CL) and Clayey Sand (SC) with low to medium plasticity. The cohesionless soils consisted of Silty Sand (SM). These soils were found to have a relative density of very dense. The strongly cemented soils below 5-feet below grade may be a sedimentary rock formation. For additional information see

Boring Logs presented in Appendix C.

Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was not encountered within the soil test borings, and it is anticipated that groundwater will not be a factor in design or construction of the planned improvements.

It should be noted that soil moisture conditions within the area may vary depending on rainfall and/or runoff conditions not apparent at the time of our field study.

Geologic Hazards

4.4.1. Liquefaction Potential

Based on the site soils and groundwater conditions encountered at the project site during this study, the preliminary potential for soil liquefaction is considered to be negligible.

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 5 of 26

4.4.2. Collapsible Soils

Collapsible soils are soils with the potential for a decrease in volume with an increase in external load or moisture content. These soils are typically found in areas of alluvial deposits with semi-arid to arid climates. Based on the information collected during our field study and subsequent laboratory testing, we anticipate collapse-susceptible soils will be encountered during construction. Based on ASTM D 5333, a calculated collapse potential, IC, of the tested undisturbed ring samples collected during our field study resulted in 2.7 percent indicating a moderate collapse potential.

4.4.3. Expansive Soils

Expansive soils are soils with the potential for an increase in volume with an increase in moisture content. Based on the information collected during our field study and subsequent laboratory testing, we anticipate expansive-susceptible soils will be encountered during construction. Based on ASTM D 4829, the expansive potential of the remolded sample collected during our field study, in the upper 5 feet, indicated an expansive potential.

Seismic Considerations

The project site is located in northwest Arizona which is an area of low seismic activity.

The following values were developed using the Structural Engineers Association by

Location (https://seismicmaps.org), the ASCE 7-16 reference by IBC 2018, and are based on knowledge of local geologic conditions, and subsurface soils encountered during our study. A 100-foot soil test boring was not advanced during our field study.

The geographic coordinates listed below were used in developing the seismic design factors.

Central Latitude…………………………………………………35.52520˚

Central Longitude……………………………………………-113.48089˚

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 6 of 26

Earth Fissures and Land Subsidence

The project site is located in an area with no documented earth fissures1 and in an area without a measured land subsidence2.

5. ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Earthwork

All existing structural remnants, fill, pavement, topsoil, vegetation and organic soils should be removed from below structural areas. The following sections present earthwork recommendations based on our understanding of the project, the finding of our field exploration, results of the laboratory tests and engineering analysis. Based on the finding of our field exploration, laboratory test results and engineering analysis, it

1 Natural Hazards in Arizona. Arizona Geological Survey.

Arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html 2 Land Subsidence Areas in Arizona. www.azwater.gov

Seismic Design Factors Value

Site Class D Fa, Site Coefficient 1.6 Fv, Site Coefficient 2.4 Ss, Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second Period 0.298 g S1, Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second Period 0.103 g SMS, Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second Period Adjusted for Site Class 0.466 g SM1, Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second Period Adjusted for Site Class 0.247 g SDS, Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second Period 0.310 g SD1, Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second Period 0.165 g

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 7 of 26 is our opinion that the proposed construction can be supported on a spread footing system as presented in the following sections.

5.1.1. Frost Heave

This project is in an area with an anticipated frost depth of 12 to 24 inches based on

Arizona Ground Frost Depth by Natural Resources Conservation Services dated June

2010. To protect against frost heave, the use of fine-grained soils should be avoided in and around structural areas. The potential for snowpack adjacent to the structural areas may allow significant moisture to increase into fills around the outer edge of foundations; therefore the exterior should be graded for positive drainage away from the structural areas. Also, to reduce the potential for moisture migration through earthwork operations, refer to the Section 5.5 of this report.

5.1.2. Spread Footings

The existing surface soils should be removed to a minimum depth of one (1) foot below bottom of proposed spread footing elevation or below the existing surface elevation, whichever is deeper. The excavation of the site soils should be within the entire footprint of the structure and extend laterally for a minimum distance of five (5) feet beyond the perimeter of structure. The exposed subsurface soils should be scarified to a depth of (eight) 8 inches: moisture conditioned to within two (2) percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density.

The excavated material should then be moisture conditioned to within two (2) percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density and used as engineered fill to within one (1) foot of finished pad elevation.

Optimum moisture content and maximum dry density should be determined by

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 698.

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 8 of 26

5.1.3. Conventional Slab

The site soils exhibit expansive characteristics and should not be used within one (1) foot of bottom of conventional slab-on-grade. Engineered Fill material meeting the recommendations presented in section 5.1.8 of this report should be placed within one

(1) foot of the finished pad elevation. These soils should be moisture conditioned to within two (2) percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of

95 percent of maximum dry density. Optimum moisture content and maximum dry density should be determined by ASTM D 698.

5.1.4. Post-Tension Slabs

The existing surface soils should be removed to a minimum depth of 1-foot below the lowest point (turn down) of the proposed post-tension slab. The excavation of the site soils should be within the entire footprint of the post-tension slab and extend laterally for a minimum distance of five (5) feet beyond the perimeter of structure The exposed native soils below building slab should be scarified to a depth of 8-inches: moisture conditioned to within two (2) percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density. The excavated material should then be moisture conditioned to within two (2) percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of ninety-five (95) percent of maximum dry density and used as engineered fill to bring site to grade. Optimum moisture content and maximum dry density should be determined by ASTM D 698.

5.1.5. Sidewalks and Exterior Slabs

The site soil tested as part of this project were expansive and should not be used to support the sidewalks and exterior slabs in the top 1-foot of subgrade. Any material with a diameter larger than 3-inches within the sidewalk and exterior slab area should be removed prior to concrete placement. The native soils should be removed to a depth of twelve (12) inches and replaced with Engineered Fill material meeting the

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 9 of 26 recommendations presented in section 5.1.8 of this report. The Engineered Fill material should be moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density. Optimum moisture content and maximum dry density should be determined by ASTM Test Method

D 698.

5.1.6. Pavement Site Preparation and Grading

The pavement section presented in this report is based on the site soils encountered during our field exploration. The native soils should be scarified to a depth of twelve

(12) inches: moisture conditioned to within two (2) percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of ninety-five (95) percent of maximum dry density. Optimum moisture content and maximum dry density should be determined by ASTM Test Method D 698. Any material with a diameter larger than three (3) inches within the pavement area should be removed during scarification and prior to base course placement.

5.1.7. Aggregate Base Course

Aggregate base used in support of Portland cement concrete and asphaltic concrete pavements should conform to the local governing agency and/or Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Section 303 Specifications. The plasticity index and resistance to abrasion should conform to Table 303-1 of the ADOT standard specifications.

A minimum of four (4) inch layer of clean, granular material should be placed beneath concrete slabs to serve as a leveling base, and to aid in concrete curing. The material should conform to the gradation requirements set by the local governing agency and/or

ADOT Section 303 specifications for Aggregate Base Course (ABC). The use of moisture barriers beneath the floor slabs may be helpful, but is not a geotechnical requirement;

however, the architect or the slab designer should evaluate their need.

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 10 of 26

All aggregate base material should be placed in lifts not greater than eight (8) inches and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density below Portland cement concrete and one hundred percent of maximum dry density below asphaltic concrete pavements as determined by ASTM Test Method D 698 or as specified by local specification. The moisture content during compaction should be maintained within two percent of optimum moisture content.

5.1.8. Engineered Fill

Engineered fill may consist of native soils and/or imported soils. Pea gravel and poorly-graded materials should not be used as engineered fill unless approved by the geotechnical engineer. All engineered fills should be compacted as noted in section 5.

1. Native soils with low expansive potentials could be used as fill material for the following:

• general site grading

• foundation areas

• foundation backfill

• up to 1-foot of finish pad elevation/subgrade

2. Imported soils with low expansive potentials could be used as fill material for the following:

• general site grading

• foundation areas

• interior floor slab areas

• foundation backfill

• exterior slab areas

• pavement areas

3. Imported soils (if required) should conform to the following:

Percent finer by weight

Gradation (ASTM C136)

3"………………………………………………………………………………………………100

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

No. 200 Sieve……………………………………………………………………50 (max)

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 11 of 26

Liquid Limit………………………………………………………………………30 (max)

Plasticity Index…………………………………………………………………15 (max)

Expansion Index

Expansion Index …………………………………………………………………20 (max)

Corrosion Potential (PPM) Sulfate Content (ARIZ 733)……………………………………………….1,000(max) Chloride Content (ARIZ 736)…………………………………………………500(max)

4. Imported soils (low-frost susceptible) should conform to the following:

Percent finer by weight

Gradation (ASTM C136)

3"………………………………………………………………………………….100

No. 4 Sieve ……………………………………………………………….25-60

No. 200 Sieve…………………………………………………………15 (max)

Expansion Index

Expansion Index ………………………………………………………………20 (max)

Corrosion Potential (PPM)

Sulfate Content (ARIZ 733)………………………………………….1,000(max) Chloride Content (ARIZ 736)……………………………………………500(max)

5. Aggregate base should conform to ADOT Section 303 and/or local governing specifications.

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

7. The following are intended to guide in establishing adequate support for the conventional foundation elements:

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 12 of 26

• Any natural washes, depressions or new excavations which are to be filled, should be widened as necessary to accommodate compaction equipment and provide a level base for placing fill.

• Any engineered fill (backfill) materials placed beneath the foundations should meet the requirements for Engineered Fill Materials.

• All footing excavations should be relatively level and free of loose or disturbed material and inspected by a qualified representative of the

Geotechnical Engineer.

8. All fill soils to be used beneath the foundations; slabs and pavements should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Fill should be placed in eight (8) inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density. Fill materials placed at depth greater than five (5) feet should be compacted to 100 percent of maximum dry density to finished grade elevation. Optimum moisture content and maximum dry density should be determined by ASTM Test Method D 698.

Excavation

The field sampling and exploration was performed using a truck-mounted drill rig with

7 and ¼-inch outside diameter hollow stem augers. We present the following general comments regarding ease of excavation with the understanding that they are opinions based on the test borings. The project consultant and contractor should become familiar with this report including boring logs to evaluate potential hard dig conditions.

Please note that excavation characteristics are best evaluated by performing test excavations with the size and type of equipment the contractor plans on using at the site, which was not conducted as part of this study.

It is anticipated that shallow excavations in the site soils can most likely be accomplished by conventional earth moving equipment in good operating condition.

Due to the presence of subsurface cementation, excavations below 5-feet of existing

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 13 of 26 grade may require specialized excavating equipment. Sloughing and caving of near surface soils should be considered during grading operations. Please refer to Section 4 and the boring logs presented in Appendix C of this report for more information.

5.2.1. Trench Backfill

Materials

Pipe zone backfill (i.e., material beneath and in the immediate vicinity of the pipe) should consist of soil with a maximum particle size less than one inch. Trench zone backfill (i.e., material placed between the pipe zone backfill and finished subgrade) may consist of soil that meets the requirements for structural fill provided above.

If import material is used for pipe or trench zone backfill, we recommend it consist of fine-grained sand. In general, poorly graded coarse-grained sand and gravel should not be used for pipe or trench zone backfill due to the potential for site soil migration into the relatively large void spaces present in this type of material and water seepage along trenches backfilled with coarse-grained sand and/or gravel.

Recommendations provided above for pipe zone backfill are minimum requirements only. More stringent material specifications may be required to fulfill local codes and/or bedding requirements for specific types of pipes. We recommend the project

Civil Engineer develop these material specifications based on planned pipe types, bedding conditions, and other factors beyond the scope of this study.

Compaction Criteria

Backfill of trenches should utilize site soils with particle diameter less than 3-inches, in order to aid compaction and reduce potential differential settlement problems.

Backfilling of utility trenches should be in 12-inch maximum loose lifts, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent and 95 percent of ASTM D-698 (standard Proctor), in non-structural areas and structural areas, respectively. Please note that the local governing agency specifications may surpass these trench backfill requirements. Jetting, Peach Springs, Arizona Page 14 of 26 flooding, or puddling of cohesive backfill soils should not be utilized under any circumstances.

Care must be used during compaction of backfill against stem walls. Hand operated equipment and thin backfill lifts are suggested to reduce the buildup of additional excessive wall pressure due to compaction method. To reduce the potential for a subsurface wall blowout, heavy construction equipment should not be operated in close proximity to the below ground structures or earth retaining structures.

5.2.2. Temporary Excavations

General

All excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations including the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Generally, Construction site safety is solely the responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. We are providing the information below strictly as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the information be interpreted that ATEK is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the

Contractor’s activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

Excavations and Slopes

The Contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depths (including utility trench excavations) should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, and/or federal safety regulations (e.g., OSHA Health and Safety

Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations). Such regulations are strictly enforced; and, if not followed, could result in substantial penalties to the Owner, Contractor, and/or earthwork subcontractor and/or utility subcontractors.

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 15 of 26

Near-surface soils encountered during our field study consisted predominantly of silty clayey sands. In our opinion, these soils would be considered a Type B soil when applying OSHA regulations. For this soils type OSHA recommends a maximum slope inclination of 1(h):1(v) or flatter for excavations 20 feet or less in depth. Steeper cut slopes may be utilized for excavations less than five (5) feet deep depending on the strength, moisture content, and homogeneity of the soils as observed in the field.

Flatter slopes and/or trench shields may be required if loose, cohesionless soils and/or water are encountered along the slope face.

Construction Considerations

Heavy construction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should not be allowed within one-third the slope height from the top of any excavation.

Where the stability of adjoining buildings, walls, or other structures is endangered by excavation operations, support systems such as shoring, bracing, or underpinning may be required to provide structural stability and to protect personnel working within the excavation. Shoring, bracing, or underpinning required for the project (if any) should be designed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Arizona.

During wet weather, earthen berms or other methods should be used to prevent runoff water from entering all excavations. All runoff water should be collected and disposed of outside the construction limits.

5.2.3. Permanent Excavations and Slopes

We recommend all permanent cut and fill slopes in soil be constructed at a gradient no steeper than 3(h):1(v). During wet weather, erosion could become a problem. Proper drainage and maintenance is recommended. To reduce the potential for surface erosion, a berm or "V" ditch may be located at the top of slopes subject to significant overland water flows in order to intercept and redirect surface runoff.

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 16 of 26

Fill placed on slopes steeper than 5(h):1(v) should be benched into the existing slope. It is recommended that the slope face be compacted as presented in the earthwork section of this report.

Structures

5.3.1. Shallow Spread Footings

The anticipated frost depth for the project area is 12 to 24-inches below existing site grade. Therefore, concrete slabs should have turn downs which extend below the anticipated frost depth.

Shallow spread footings bearing on engineered fill can be used to support the structures as recommended (See section 5.1). Recommended footing depths and allowable bearing pressures are presented below.

Allowable Bearing Pressure for Shallow Foundations

Footing Depth Below

Finished Grade (ft.)*

Allowable

Bearing

Pressure

(psf)

2.0 2,000

2.5 2,500

*Note: Footing depth is defined as the depth below the lowest adjacent finished grade elevation within 5-feet of the edge of the footing.

A one-third increase may be applied to the design bearing pressures when considering short duration loads, such as wind and seismic.

Continuous footings and isolated column footings should have a minimum width of 16-inches and 24 inches respectively. The minimum widths are recommended for ease of construction, and to provide a margin of safety against a local or punching shear failure

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 17 of 26 of the foundation soils. All footings should be reinforced to reduce potential distress caused by differential foundation movement.

All the footing excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of reinforcing steel and/or concrete. If subsurface conditions are encountered that are different than indicated by the borings, revised recommendations may be required.

Settlement of footings designed as recommended above are estimated not to exceed

1-inch. Differential settlements over, a horizontal distance of 50 feet between similarly loaded footings, are expected to be less than ½-inch and ¾-inch for wall and column footings, respectively. Significant moisture increases above those recommended for compaction could result in additional movements. In order to minimize the sensitivity of the structure to differential settlements, footings should be reinforced to allow for a degree of load redistribution should a localized zone of supporting soils become saturated.

5.3.2. Structural Slab

The subgrade in the structural slab area should be prepared as recommended in section

5.1.4 including any fill.

For design of structural slabs on grade, a modulus of subgrade reaction, ks, of 150 pci is recommended for slabs bearing on competent soils prepared as recommended above.

However, this ks value is based on a bearing area of one square foot. In order to account for size effects a reduction is recommended for larger areas. The following approximation of ks (based on Terzaghi’s equation) can be used for mats of various dimensions.

ks (in pci) = 150 / B where B is the width of the mat (in feet)

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 18 of 26

Additionally, it is recommended that a thicken edge be constructed on the slab to minimize the potential for edge damage.

5.3.2.1. Structural slabs (post-tensioned or reinforced mat-type slabs)

Structural slabs (post-tensioned or reinforced mat-type slabs) are recommended to support the structures.

5.3.2.2. Expansive Lots

Expansive soil procedure design parameters were determined using the Post-Tensioning

Institute’s Standard Requirements for Design and Analysis of Shallow Post-Tension

Concrete Foundations on Expansive and Stable Soils dated 2019, the site soils classify as Expansive Soils (PTI-3):

Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressure, qa: 1250 psf (at grade)

Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction, k: 200 pci

Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em Center Lift Condition: 9.0 feet Edge Lift Condition: 4.6 feet

Maximum Differential Soil Movement, ym Center Lift Condition: 0.15 Edge Lift Condition: 1.31

Post-tensioned slabs’ thickened or turn-down edges and/or interior beams should be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Post-Tensioning

Institute and the American Concrete Institute.

Structures bearing on prepared subgrade as presented in the above section 5.1.4 Post-

Tensioned Slabs may experience total settlements up to ½ -inch. Differential settlement is expected to be less than ¼-inch between similarly load areas. The

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 19 of 26 majority of the settlement is expected to occur during construction. Additional foundation movements could occur if the supporting soils become wetted, please refer to Section 5.4 Moisture Protection.

5.3.3. Resistance to Lateral Loads

Proposed walls/structures that will retain soil must be designed to withstand lateral soil pressures. Cantilevered retaining walls, or unrestrained walls subject to lateral earth pressures, should be designed for an Equivalent Fluid Pressure (EFP) of 37 Pounds per cubic foot (PCF). Restrained walls should be designed to withstand a residual or long-term at-rest (Ko) earth pressure condition of 55 PCF.

A passive EFP of 300 PCF may be used for shallow spread footings. A coefficient of friction of 0.36 is recommended for computing lateral resistance between the base of footing and soil in analyzing lateral loads. Vehicular surcharge loads and/or hydrostatic pressure will increase the recommended EFP.

Only cohesionless, free-draining granular materials should be used as backfill, adjacent to earth-retaining structures. We recommend that backfill directly behind the walls be compacted with light, hand-held compactors. Heavy compactors and grading equipment should not be allowed to operate within 3 feet of the walls during backfilling, to avoid developing excessive temporary or long-term lateral soil pressures.

Positive gravity drainage of the backfill should be provided.

5.3.3.1. Wall Drainage

The above-recommended values do not include lateral pressures due to hydrostatic forces. Therefore, wall backfill should be free draining and provisions should be made to collect and dispose of excess water that may accumulate behind earth retaining structures. In cases where site soils become saturated an equivalent fluid pressure of

90 PCF should be used.

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 20 of 26

Wall drainage should be collected by continuous perforated drainpipes, filter fabric, and gravel connected to weep holes. The drainpipe must run parallel to the wall. We recommend drain rock consist of durable stone having 100 percent passing the 1-inch sieve and zero percent passing the No. 4 sieve. Synthetic filter fabric should have an equivalent opening size (EOS), U.S. Standard Sieve, of between 40 and 70, a permeability of at least 0.02 centimeters per second and minimum puncture strength of 50 pounds.

5.3.3.2. Backfill Placement

All backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with recommendations provided above for engineered fill. Care must be used during compaction of backfill against the below ground walls. Hand operated equipment and thin backfill lifts are suggested to reduce the buildup of additional excessive wall pressure due to compaction method. To reduce the potential for a subsurface wall blowout, heavy construction equipment should not be operated next to the walls.

Moisture Protection

Soil support values reduce with an increase of moisture content. Therefore, positive drainage is essential to the successful performance of any structure. Good surface and subsurface drainage should be established during and after construction to prevent the soils below or adjacent to the structural areas and utility trenches from becoming wet.

Infiltration of water into utility or foundation excavations must be prevented during construction. The drainage design must route all storm and sprinkler water away from the structural areas in a positive manner. All water should be diverted away from areas where it could penetrate the ground surface near the structural areas. Watering of plants should be avoided adjacent to the buildings. Desert-type landscaping is advisable near the structural areas. Plants, which require more water, should be located and drained away from the structural areas.

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 21 of 26

Corrosion Potential

5.5.1. 10-point System

The 10-point soil evaluation includes the following soil tests: resistivity, pH, oxidation-reduction (redox) potential, sulfides, and moisture. For each of these tests, results are categorized according to their contribution to corrosively. The test results are assigned point values based on Table A.1 found in Appendix A of the American National Standard for Polyethylene Encasement For Ductile-Iron Pipes Systems (ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5-

99), dated 1999. The above referenced corrosion testing is applicable to carbon steel pipe. A sum of points greater than or equal to 10, is considered corrosive to ductile iron pipes and carbon steel pipe and protection against exterior corrosion should be provided. The sum of points of the site soils sampled is 3 (less than 10), hence; the site soils are not considered corrosive to high carbon steel. Nonetheless protection against exterior corrosion should be considered.

5.5.1.1. Electrical Resistivity

Electrical Resistivity of a soil is a measure of resistance to the flow of electrical current.

Corrosion of buried metal is an electrochemical process in which the amount of metal loss due to corrosion is directly proportional to the flow of electrical current (DC) from the metal into the soil. As a soil’s resistivity decreases, its corrosivity increases.

A commonly accepted correlation between soil resistivity and corrosivity towards ferrous metals is shown in the following table.

Resistivity (ohm-cm) Corrosivity Classification 0 to 1,000 Severely corrosive 1,000 to 2,000 Corrosive 2,000 to 10,000 Moderately corrosive Over 10,000 Mildly corrosive

Sample Location pH Resistivity (Ohm-cm) Bulk Sample B-2 8.7 3,110

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 22 of 26

Resistivity test results indicates two points, and the pH test results indicates zero points in the 10-point soil evaluation for the reservoir location.

Based on the laboratory tests as shown above, this soil would be considered

“moderately corrosive”. It should be noted that these corrosion conditions are for the soils at submerged moisture conditions. Resistivity at drier moisture contents would be less corrosive than the results of the test.

The pH values of the samples tested were neutral. In most cases, pH is not a significant factor in corrosion in the near-neutral pH range (5<pH<9).

5.5.1.2. Oxidation-Reduction (Redox) Potential

The redox potential of a soil is significant in assessing corrosion potential because the most common sulfate-reducing bacteria can live only in anaerobic conditions. A negative redox potential indicates that anaerobic conditions present in which sulfate reducers can live. The redox potential of site soils are 317 mV and results in zero points in the 10-point soil evaluation.

5.5.1.3. Sulfides

A positive sulfides reaction reveals a potential problem caused by sulfate reducing bacteria. A negative sulfides reaction was observed from the soil sample analyzed and results in zero points in the 10-point soil evaluation.

5.5.1.4. Moisture

The prevailing moisture condition of the soil is important to all soil corrosion. The specific moisture content of the soil is not necessary but rather the drainage characteristics and moisture condition. A conservative classification of the site soils is fair drainage and generally moist which results in one point in the 10-point soil evaluation.

Peach Springs, Arizona Page 23 of 26

5.5.2. Sulfate and Chloride Content

Selected samples of the near-surface soils encountered at the site were subjected to chemical analysis for the purpose of corrosion assessment. The samples were tested for soluble sulfates, and soluble chlorides. The samples were tested in general accordance with Arizona Test Methods 733, and 736 for soluble sulfates, and soluble chlorides, respectively. The test results are provided in Appendix C.

Based on provisions of American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318 Section 4.3, Table 4.3.1, Requirements for Concrete Exposed to Sulfate-Containing Solutions a sulfate concentration below 0.10 percent by weight (1,000 ppm) is negligible. Based on the laboratory results, sulfate contents of the site soils tested indicate a negligible corrosion potential to concrete.

Based on the laboratory result of the sample collected for this project, chloride contents of the site soils tested indicate a negligible corrosion potential.

Pavement Areas

The on-site soils should be suitable as pavement subgrade soils provided all unsuitable debris, rubble, oversized cobbles, etc. are removed. A flexible and/or rigid pavement is recommended for the pavement areas. The recommended pavement sections are based on the assumption that the subgrade soils are prepared in accordance with section 5.1 of this report.

Th…