B08_Attach_02_sucr333890_20260202_cd_final_spec_volume2.pdf

SUNSET CRATER VOLCANO

NATIONAL MONUMENT

BONITO MEADOWS

MAINTENANCE STORAGE FACILITY,

CONTAMINATED DEBRIS, AND

ROAD DRAINAGE

SUCR

PMIS Number 333890

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS

APPENDIX

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS)

DENVER SERVICE CENTER (DSC)

February 2, 2026 00 01 10 - 1 Table of Contents

SECTION 00 01 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

1.01 DIVISION 00 -- PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

A. 00 01 07 - Seals Page B. 00 01 10 - Table of Contents

SPECIFICATIONS

2.01 DIVISION 01 -- GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

A. 01 11 00 - Summary of Work B. 01 26 01 - Contract Modification Procedures C. 01 27 00 - Definition of Contract Line Items D. 01 31 00 - Project Management and Coordination E. 01 32 16 - Construction Schedule F. 01 32 33 - Photographic Documentation G. 01 33 23 - Submittal Procedures H. 01 35 05 - Environmental Protection and Special Controls I. 01 35 13.22 - Archeological Protection J. 01 35 23 - Safety Requirements K. 01 40 00 - Quality Requirements L. 01 42 00 - Reference Standards M. 01 50 00 - Temporary Facilities and Controls N. 01 57 19.12 - Noise and Acoustics Management O. 01 57 23 - Under-an-Acre Pollution Prevention (UPP) P. 01 67 00 - Product Requirements Q. 01 73 40 - Execution R. 01 74 19 - Construction Waste Management and Disposal S. 01 77 00 - Closeout Procedures T. 01 78 23 - Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Data U. 01 79 00 - Demonstration & Training

2.02 DIVISION 02 -- EXISTING CONDITIONS

A. 02 41 00 - Demolition

2.03 DIVISION 03 -- CONCRETE

A. 03 30 00 - Cast-in-Place Concrete

2.04 DIVISION 04 -- MASONRY (NOT USED)

2.05 DIVISION 05 -- METALS

A. 05 50 00 - Metal Fabrications

2.06 DIVISION 06 -- WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES (NOT USED)

2.07 DIVISION 07 -- THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

A. 07 92 00 - Joint Sealants

2.08 DIVISION 08 -- OPENINGS

A. 08 33 23 - Overhead Coiling Doors

February 2, 2026 00 01 10 - 2

B. 08 45 00 - Translucent Wall and Roof Assemblies C. 08 71 00 - Door Hardware

2.09 DIVISION 09 -- FINISHES

A. 09 91 13 - Exterior Painting B. 09 97 13 - Steel Coatings

2.10 DIVISION 10 -- SPECIALTIES

A. 10 44 00 - Fire Protection Specialties

2.11 DIVISION 11 -- EQUIPMENT (NOT USED)

2.12 DIVISION 12 -- FURNISHINGS (NOT USED)

2.13 DIVISION 13 -- SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION

A. 13 34 19 - Metal Building Systems

2.14 DIVISION 14 -- CONVEYING EQUIPMENT (NOT USED)

2.15 DIVISION 15 -- RESERVED (NOT USED) (FOR MECHANICAL, SEE DIVISIONS 21, 22, AND 23)

2.16 DIVISION 16 -- RESERVED (NOT USED) (FOR ELECTRICAL, SEE DIVISIONS 25, 26, 27, 28, AND 29)

2.17 DIVISION 17 -- RESERVED (NOT USED)

2.18 DIVISION 18 -- RESERVED (NOT USED)

2.19 DIVISION 19 -- RESERVED (NOT USED)

2.20 DIVISION 20 -- RESERVED (NOT USED)

2.21 DIVISION 21 -- FIRE SUPPRESSION (NOT USED)

2.22 DIVISION 22 -- PLUMBING (NOT USED)

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

A. 23 05 29 - Hangers and Supports for HVAC Piping and Equipment B. 23 05 48 - Vibration and Seismic Controls for HVAC - Kinetics Noise Control C. 23 05 93 - Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing for HVAC D. 23 09 13 - Instrumentation and Control Devices for HVAC E. 23 31 00 - HVAC Ducts and Casings F. 23 33 00 - Air Duct Accessories G. 23 34 16 - Centrifugal HVAC Fans

2.24 DIVISION 24 -- RESERVED (NOT USED)

2.25 DIVISION 25 -- INTEGRATED AUTOMATION (NOT USED)

2.26 DIVISION 26 -- ELECTRICAL

A. 26 05 19 - Low-Voltage Electrical Power Conductors and Cables B. 26 05 26 - Grounding and Bonding for Electrical Systems C. 26 05 29 - Hangers and Supports for Electrical Systems D. 26 05 33.13 - Conduit for Electrical Systems E. 26 05 33.16 - Boxes for Electrical Systems F. 26 05 53 - Identification for Electrical Systems G. 26 05 83 - Wiring Connections H. 26 21 00 - Low-Voltage Electrical Service Entrance I. 26 27 26 - Wiring Devices

February 2, 2026 00 01 10 - 3

J. 26 51 00 - Interior Lighting K. 26 56 00 - Exterior Lighting

2.27 DIVISION 27 -- COMMUNICATIONS (NOT USED)

2.28 DIVISION 28 -- ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY (NOT USED)

2.29 DIVISION 31 -- EARTHWORK

A. 31 10 00 - Site Clearing B. 31 22 00 - Grading C. 31 23 16 - Excavation D. 31 23 16.13 - Trenching E. 31 23 23 - Fill

2.30 DIVISION 32 -- EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

A. 32 31 13 - Chain Link Fences and Gates B. 32 92 19 - Seeding

2.31 DIVISION 33 -- UTILITIES (NOT USED)

2.32 DIVISION 34 -- TRANSPORTATION (NOT USED)

2.33 DIVISION 35 -- WATERWAY AND MARINE CONSTRUCTION (NOT USED)

2.34 DIVISION 36 -- RESERVED (NOT USED)

2.35 DIVISION 37 -- RESERVED (NOT USED)

2.36 DIVISION 38 -- RESERVED (NOT USED)

2.37 DIVISION 39 -- RESERVED (NOT USED)

2.38 DIVISION 40 -- PROCESS INTEGRATION (NOT USED)

2.39 DIVISION 41 -- MATERIAL PROCESSING AND HANDLING EQUIPMENT (NOT USED)

2.40 DIVISION 42 -- PROCESS HEATING, COOLING, AND DRYING EQUIPMENT (NOT USED)

2.41 DIVISION 43 -- PROCESS GAS AND LIQUID HANDLING, PURIFICATION AND STORAGE

EQUIPMENT (NOT USED)

2.42 DIVISION 44 -- POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT (NOT USED)

2.43 DIVISION 45 -- INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT (NOT USED)

2.44 DIVISION 46 -- WATER AND WASTEWATER EQUIPMENT (NOT USED)

2.45 DIVISION 47 -- RESERVED (NOT USED)

2.46 DIVISION 48 -- ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION (NOT USED)

2.47 DIVISION 49 -- RESERVED (NOT USED)

2.48 APPENDIX

A. Geotechnical Report - Fugro Consultants LP [Maintenance Storage Facility] B. Geotechnical Evaluation Report - Western Technologies [Culverts] C. Tunnel Fire Debris Characterization Sampling Report - Terranext [Debris Field]

END OF SECTION

Appendix A

A.1 Geotechnical Report for the Maintenance Storage Facility

A.1.1 Fugro Consultants LP

Brian McClure Snapshot

FUGRO CONSULTANTS LP

7031 West Oakland Street Chandler, AZ 85226

Phone: 480-961-1169 Fax : 480-940-0952

United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Report No. 3806-0071

August 16,2006 12795 West Alameda Parkway

Denver, Colorado 80225

Attention: Ms. Nellie Sparks, P.E.

Geotechnical Investigation

Fire Facility and Maintenance Building

Sunset Crater National Monument

Coconino County, Arizona

Submitted herewith is the report of the geotechnical investigation conducted for the above referenced project. In brief, the report contains a plan of borings, boring logs with laboratory test results and descriptions of subsurface conditions. Based ·on the findings, recommendations are set forth for design and construction of foundations and pavements.

Fugro Consultants LP appreciates the opportunity to provide these . geotechnical engineering services to the National Park Service. We look forward to future assignments.

JCN(g\2006\projects\3806-0071 IR3806-0071 )

Attachments Distribution:

Sincerely, FUGRO CONSULTANTS

ｾ＠ c ' J6hn C. Niedz1elsk1, Geotechnical Department Man

Ｏ ｾ＠ Ｏ Ｏ ＯＯｾ Ｏ Ｏ＠ ..... L

Ｏｔｾ｡ｳ＠ c. Wesling, P.E.

Arizona Operations Manager

National Park Service (Ms. Nellie Sparks) (3 hard copies, 1 electronic pdf copy) File (2)

A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world .

Report No. 3806-0071

CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION

AUTHORIZATION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

FIELD INVESTIGATION

LABORATORY TESTING

STRATA DESCRIPTIONS

SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Physiography

Climate

Geology

Site Stratigraphy and Engineering Properties

Groundwater

STRUCTURAL DETAILS

FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Analysis

Preparation of Building Pads

Slab-on-Grade Design

Shallow Spread (Individual and Continuous) Footings

Preparation of Engineered Fill Beneath Footings

Seismic Site Class

Surface Drainage

Building Maintenance

PAVEMENT SECTIONS

SEWER LEACH FIELD SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION

CORROSION POTENTIAL

Corrosion of Steel

Degradation of Concrete

SITE UTILITIES

CONTINUING SERVICE

CONDITIONS

ILLUSTRATIONS

PLATE

VICINITY MAP

PLAN OF BORINGS

LOGS OF BORINGS....................................................................................................... 3 - 5

KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON THE BORING LOGS

SUMMARY TEST PIT DATA

SOILS EVALUATION FORM PER ASTM D 5921

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (ASFE)

INTRODUCTION

On July 20, 2006, Fugro Consultants LP initiated a geotechnical investigation for the proposed project. The proposed project will consist of an 8,000 square foot maintenance building and a 2,000 square foot fire facility. We understand the buildings will be single-story prefabricated metal structures with slabs-on-grade. The site is located about 14 miles north of

Flagstaff, Arizona east of Highway 89 in Coconino County. Associated construction will include driveways, parking areas and a leach field. The approximate location of the site is shown on the

Vicinity Map, Plate 1.

AUTHORIZATION

The National Park Service authorized the geotechnical investigation on July 18, 2006.

Our proposal (Fugro Proposal No. P06-142) dated July 12, 2006 (revised) and the scope of services prepared by the National Park Service, with modifications, outline the scope of services for the investigation.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of the investigation was to 1) obtain adequate subsurface information to identify geotechnical and geologic conditions at the boring locations, 2) characterize the subsurface conditions and determine the percolation rate in the leach field areas, 3) provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed structure foundations, 4) provide pavement thickness design and construction recommendations, and

5) provide recommendations for earthwork.

This was accomplished through a three phase study including 1) a field investigation for determining general subsurface conditions at the boring and test pit locations and obtaining representative samples for classification and testing, 2) a laboratory testing program to aid in soil classification and to establish engineering properties of the strata encountered, and 3) analyses of field and laboratory data to develop geotechnical design and construction recommendations.

Field sampling, laboratory testing, soil classifications, and strata descriptions were in general accordance with methods, procedures, and practices set forth by the American Society for Testing and Materials, 2005 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, where applicable.

- 1 -

FIELD INVESTIGATION

The field investigation consisted of three 40.5-ft deep foundation borings (8-1, 8-2 and

8-3), three test pits (TP-1, TP-2 and TP-3), and three percolation tests (P-1, P-2 and P-3) at the locations selected by Mr. Mike Schneegas. The approximate locations of the borings, test pits and percolation tests are shown on Plate 2.

Detailed descriptions of the subsurface materials encountered at each boring location are presented on the Logs of Borings, Plates 3 through 5. Standard penetration test N-values in blows per foot and blow counts from driving a thick wall, ring-lined, split barrel sampler are presented on the boring logs at the respective sample depths. Observations of groundwater made during drilling are presented at the bottom of the boring logs. A Key to Terms and

Symbols used on the logs is presented on Plate 6.

The drill crew advanced the borings through the on-site soils with a truck-mounted

CME-75 drill rig using 7-inch diameter hollow stem augers. Samples of the subsurface materials at the boring locations were obtained with either a 2.0-inch diameter standard split spoon sampler (ASTM D 1586) or a 2.42-inch inside diameter, ring-lined barrel sampler (ASTM D 3550) in general accordance with the referenced ASTM procedure. The samplers were driven into the various strata using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The exploratory borings were backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of drilling activities.

Our geotechnical representative logged the borings and obtained samples for laboratory analysis. The number of blows required to advance each respective sampler was recorded as the penetration resistance (SPT or N) value. Penetration resistance values provide an indication of the relative density of granular soils or consistency of fine-grained soils. Depths at which the samples were obtained and the penetration resistance values are shown on the boring logs.

Descriptions of the subsurface materials encountered at each test pit and percolation test location are presented on Plate 7. The test pits were excavated with a rubber-tired backhoe.

The percolation tests were performed within 2.5 to 3 foot deep backhoe-excavated test pits within a hand-dug hole 12 inches deep in the bottom of the test pits. The sidewalls (earth) of the percolation test holes were supported using a bucket with holes drilled in the sides and bottom.

The percolation tests were performed in general accordance with Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 9 in R18-9-A310(F). The test results are presented in the following table.

- 2-

Location Percolation Rate (minutes/inch}

P-1 0.02

P-2 0.03

P-3 0.03

LABORATORY TESTING

The laboratory testing program included identification and classification testing of the strata encountered in the subsurface. Soil classification tests, including Atterberg limit determinations (ASTM D 4318) and grain-size analyses (ASTM D 422) were conducted on representative samples of the soil strata. The classification tests included natural water content determinations (ASTM D 2216). The results of the tests are tabulated on the boring logs under the appropriate columns in Plate 7 "Summary of Test Pit Data."

The laboratory testing program also included natural pH, resistivity tests, soluble chloride, soluble sulfate and salinity tests. A summary of the analytical laboratory test results is presented in the following table.

Soluble Soluble

Sample Chloride Sulfate Soil

Boring Depth Resistivity Content Content Salinity

Number (feet) pH (ohm-em) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

B-1 0-5 7.4 3,410 5.4 4.2 120

8-3 0-5 7.6 5,220 3.9 2.6 115

STRATA DESCRIPTIONS

Descriptions of strata made in the field at the time the borings were drilled and test pits were excavated were modified in accordance with results of laboratory tests and visual examination. All recovered soil samples were classified in general accordance with ASTM D

2487 and described as recommended in ASTM D 2488. Classifications and descriptions of the soil strata encountered are shown on the boring logs.

- 3-

SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Physiography

As stated earlier, the proposed project site is located about 14 miles north of Flagstaff

Arizona, east of State Highway 89, on the south side of Forest Route 545 in Coconino County.

The approximate location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. Vegetation on the site consists of pine trees with occasional weeds and shrubs. A small storage shed is located west of the proposed leach field area and a gas filling pad area is located south of the storage shed.

The project site slopes down about 3 to 4 ft to the north based on visual observations. The contour labels on the site plan provided by the National Park Service are not legible.

Climate

Flagstaff and the surrounding area are located on a plateau with an average elevation of about 7,000 feet. At this elevation the area experiences a variety of weather including cold winters and mild pleasant summers, moderate humidity, and considerable diurnal temperature changes. The area averages about 23 inches and 99 inches of rainfall and snowfall per year, respectively. The average annual minimum and maximum temperatures are 31 and 61 degrees

Fahrenheit, respectively. The record high and low temperatures are 97 and -31 degrees

Fahrenheit, respectively. The frost depth in the area is about 36 inches.

Geology

According to the Geologic Map of Arizona

, this site is underlain by Holocene to Middle

Pliocene Basaltic Rocks. This unit consists of mostly dark-colored basaltic lava and cinders young enough that some original volcanic landforms are still present. This deposit includes a small amount of andesite, dacite and rhyolite. Rocks of this unit are restricted largely to six areas widely distributed in Arizona, including the San Francisco Volcanic Field that encompasses the project site and surrounding area.

Site Stratigraphy and Engineering Properties

Subsurface conditions at the site can be best understood by a thorough review of the boring logs presented on Plates 3 through 5, and the summary of test pit data on Plate 7. A brief summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring and test pit locations is presented in the following paragraph.

Richard, S.M., Reynolds, S.J., Spencer, J.E. and Pearthree, P.A., Arizona Geological Survey, Map 35, 2000.

- 4-

The surficial soils generally consist of silty sand and/or clayey sand with cinders, which is underlain by brown, black and red cinders that extend to the boring completion depth. A silty sand layer was encountered from the 29 to 31 foot depth at the boring locations. The silty sand was mixed with cinders from about a 31 to 37ft depth at the boring B-1 location. The soils have measured water contents ranging from 9 to 14 percent (average 11 percent), plasticity indices vary from 0 (non-plastic) to 10 (average 5), and percentages of material passing the No. 200 sieve range from 5 to 40 (average 24). In place dry densities were not able to be determined due to sample disturbance. Standard penetration test (SPT) values varied from 5 to 36 blows per foot (bpf).

Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings and/or test pits at the time of drilling and/or excavation, respectively. Based on the available well data provided by the Arizona

Department of Water Resources "Wells 55 Database CD", the depth to the regional groundwater table is situated approximately 1,960 feet below ground or deeper. The hydrostatic groundwater level can fluctuate with variations in precipitation, irrigation, groundwater withdrawal or injection, and other factors. It is anticipated that shallow groundwater will not be encountered.

STRUCTURAL DETAILS

The proposed project consists of a 2,000 square foot fire facility and an 8,000 square foot maintenance building. The structures will be a single story prefabricated metal buildings with low sloping roofs. Existing topographic information across the site was unavailable at the time this report was written, however, based on visual observations the site slopes gradually down to the north about 3 to 4 feet. It is our understanding that the site topography will be modified (cut and/or filled) to allow the prefabricated buildings to be founded on slabs-on-grade. Specific structural loads were also unavailable at the time this report was written.

FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Analysis

The recommendations herein are based on the boring locations being located within or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed building footprints. Analysis of the field and laboratory data indicates that the native subsoils at the site are suitable for support of the proposed structures on spread footings and slabs-on-grade, provided the earthwork recommendations herein are followed. Recommendations are provided in the following sections for preparation of the building pads, slab-on-grade design, shallow spread footings, preparation of engineered fill beneath footings, seismic site class, surface drainage and building maintenance.

- 5-

Preparation of Building Pads

1. Within the building footprints and 5 ft beyond the perimeter of the building footprints, remove all organics (i.e. surficial roots, trees, grass and other humus), debris, deleterious materials, and enough of the remaining surficial soil to provide at least 6 inches of aggregate base beneath the slabs-on-grade.

2. Recompact the cut subgrade to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined using ASTM D 698. Hold water contents to within ±3 percent of the optimum water content.

3. Fill material required beneath the slabs-on-grade should be an approved non expansive soil. The non-expansive soil should be free of organics and deleterious material and generally conform to the following requirements:

Maximum particle size

Maximum percent passing #200 sieve

Minimum percent passing #200 sieve

Maximum plasticity index (PI)

3inches

Maximum swell (under 100 psf surcharge) 1.5 percent (compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density at 2 percent below the optimum water content)

4. Fill material should be placed on subgrade that has been properly prepared and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. The fill should be wetted and thoroughly mixed to achieve a water content within ±3 percent of the optimum water content and should be placed in horizontal lifts with a compacted lift thickness of 8 inches or less.

The fill material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698.

5. The upper 6 inches of under slab fill should consist of aggregate base that conforms to the current Arizona Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction Item 303, Class 1 or 2. Compact the aggregate base to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined using ASTM D 698.

6. If moisture-sensitive flooring is planned, the use of a vapor barrier should be considered. If used, the vapor barrier should have a thickness of at least 8 mils and be of sufficient strength and durability to resist puncture during reinforcing steel and concrete placement. Placement of the vapor barrier should be in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.

- 6-

Slab-on-Grade Design

The structural engineer should design the slab-on-grade including: the slab thickness and reinforcement, and if necessary stiffening beam depth, spacing and reinforcement, based on the following soil parameters.

1. The potential vertical movements should be less than 1 inch, provided the building pads are constructed as recommended herein.

2. If the slabs-on-grade design requires a modulus of subgrade reaction, use 50 pci.

To reduce the effects of some differential movement, the floor slab should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints, to allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. Joints should be spaced in accordance with ACI guidelines.

Shallow Spread (Individual and Continuous) Footings

The recommended footing depth, widths and bearing pressures selected for design of footings should provide an acceptable factor of safety with respect to bearing failure and excessive settlement. Specific geotechnical design parameters for the spread footings are presented below.

1. Spread footings can be designed using an allowable net bearing pressure of 1 ,000 psf provided the footings are founded on recompacted native subgrade soils (moisture conditioned and compacted, and tested for moisture content and density) at a depth of at least 3 ft below the lowest finished grade within 5 ft of the structure.

As an alternative, spread footings can be designed using an allowable net bearing pressure of 1,500 psf if the footings are founded on 2 ft of engineered fill material

(moisture conditioned and compacted, and tested for moisture content and density) plus 8 inches of recompacted subgrade soils at a depth of at least 3 ft below the lowest finished grade within 5 ft of the structure. The material excavated below the footing bottom levels can be reused as engineered fill provided it is properly moisture conditioned and compacted.

2. Footings should be designed with a minimum width of 2 feet for individual footings, and 1.5 ft for continuous footings. Footings cast against earth shall be excavated with vertical sides to help limit potential frost heave.

3. Total vertical movement for footings designed in accordance with the recommendations herein should be about 1 inch or less. Differential vertical movement should be less than half the total vertical movement. Specific column and

- 7 -wall loads were unavailable, therefore a detailed settlement analysis could not be performed.

4. The above bearing capacity refers to the total of all loads, dead and live. The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one-third for wind, seismic or other loads of short duration.

5. Horizontal loads acting on the footings will be resisted by friction between the subgrade material and the base of the foundation and by passive resistance of the soil adjacent to the foundation. For design purposes, the allowable resistance from passive soil pressure at least 1 ft below the final ground surface may be taken as

250 psf. For concrete foundations placed in good contact with the prepared subgrade soil, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.27 may be used for sliding resistance.

6. Resistance to uplift loads acting on spread footings is limited to the weight of the footing plus the weight of any soil directly above the foundation. It is recommended that a factor of safety be applied to the ultimate uplift capacity when calculating an allowable uplift capacity.

7. The subgrade soils directly beneath shallow foundation elements (spread footings) should be observed by the geotechnical engineer or a representative prior to placing concrete. If weak, soft and/or loose soils are encountered, these soils should be removed and replaced with lean concrete, or the footing should be lowered.

Preparation of Engineered Fill Beneath Footings

1. If the footings are designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1 ,000 psf, the subgrade beneath the footing should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698. Maintain water contents to within ±3 percent of the optimum water content.

2. In order to utilize the higher bearing capacity of 1,500 psf, the subgrade soils directly beneath shallow foundation elements (spread footings) should be over-excavated to a depth of at least 2ft below the proposed footing bottom elevation, extending at least 2 feet beyond footing edges, and re-compacted as set forth below. Generally, an entire building pad does not require deep over-excavation provided footing lines can be accurately located during earthwork operations.

3. Prior to placing engineered fill (moisture conditioned and re-compacted soil) below footing bottom elevation, the exposed grade should first be scarified to a depth of

8 inches, moisture-conditioned to within ±3 percent of the optimum water content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D

698. The exposed subgrade should also be observed by the geotechnical engineer or

- 8 -a representative. If weak, soft, and/or loose soils, and/or soils containing deleterious materials are encountered, these soils should be removed and replaced with additional engineered fill.

4. The engineered fill should be placed in horizontal lifts (compacted lift thickness 8 inches or less) and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698. Maintain water contents to within ±3 of the optimum water content.

Seismic Site Class

Although borings were not advanced to 100 feet, Site Class E (per Table 1615.1.1, 2003

IBC) may be used for design of the structures based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations.

Surface Drainage

The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the building has been completed. The ground surface adjacent to the exterior foundations should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 10 ft in landscaped areas, and 3 inches in the first 1 0 ft in paved areas. Hardscape adjacent to the structure can be useful in promoting runoff and minimizing infiltration of water. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of the structure. Care should be taken in design and construction to ensure that domestic and interior storm drain water is contained to prevent seepage.

Building Maintenance

It is critical that proper maintenance be performed over the life of the structure and that positive site drainage be maintained to ensure overall performance of the foundation and floor system as presented herein. The designer should be provided with a copy of this report.

Maintaining positive site drainage will require periodic maintenance to ensure roof gutters and roof downspouts are properly maintained and properly discharged away from the foundation in all directions. All landscaping or surface re-grading must take into consideration the positive drainage recommendations presented herein. Changing the surface drainage could have a negative impact on surface flow and create a source of water and the development of perched water conditions.

- 9-

PAVEMENT SECTIONS

Using the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures and our experience with traffic loadings on similar projects, recommendations were formulated for various 18-kip equivalent single axle loadings (ESAL) over a 20-year design life for flexible pavement. Based on Table 202.02-3 in the Arizona Department of Transportation {ADOT) Materials Manual

(ADOTM-XII-TWO-C), a correlated R-value of about 50 was obtained from the classifications tests performed on the surficial soils. Based on Figure 202.02-2 of the ADOT Materials Manual and correlating the R-value and a seasonal variation factor of 3.5 from Table 202.02-4, a resilient modulus of 15,000 psi was estimated. Using this resilient modulus, flexible pavement sections consisting of asphaltic concrete (AC) over aggregate base {AB) are provided in the following table for the anticipated subgrade condition.

Traffic Total Flexible Pavement Sections

Category 18-kip ESAL AC (inches) AB (inches)

Light Duty 20,000 2 6

{Automobile Parking Areas)

Medium Duty 100,000 2.5 7

(Automobile Entrances/Driveways)

Heavy Duty 400,000 3 8

(Sanitation, Fire, Other Truck Traffic)

It is our understanding that asphaltic concrete may not be placed over the aggregate base in the maintenance yard, and a thickened aggregate base section is requested. Traffic loading conditions in the maintenance yard are unknown. An equivalent aggregate base section to that of the pavement section provided for the light duty pavement would consist of 12 inches of aggregate base. Proper drainage would be critical in maintaining a serviceable traffic area and frequent maintenance of rutting and shoving areas will likely be required.

The project traffic engineer should evaluate the anticipated site traffic conditions to determine if the traffic loadings presented are accurate for this project. Further, these designs are based on the assumption that the subgrade and any fill material have been properly prepared and/or placed in accordance with the Coconino County Engineering Design and Construction

Manual and the following recommendations:

1. Within the pavement areas remove all organics (i.e. topsoil, roots, trees, grass and other humus) and deleterious materials.

- 10-

2. Scarify and moisture condition at least 8 inches of the cut subgrade and recompact to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined using ASTM D 698.

Hold water contents to within ±3 percent of the optimum water content.

3. All fill or embankment material required to bring the site to grade should meet the material requirements set forth under Item 3 on Page 6 of this report. The fill should be wetted and thoroughly mixed to achieve a water content within ±3 percent of the optimum water content and should be placed in horizontal lifts (compacted lift thickness 8 inches or less).

4. The aggregate base should conform to the current Arizona Department of

Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction Item 303, Class 1 or 2. Cinders are not acceptable for use as aggregate base. Compact the aggregate base to at least 100% of the maximum dry density as determined using

ASTM D 698.

5. The asphaltic concrete should conform with and be placed in accordance with the current Coconino County Public Works Department Paving Standards C%-inch mix), with one exception. Due to the recommended thickness of asphaltic concrete, it should be placed in one lift, not two lifts.

It should be noted that control of surface drainage and groundwater is important to the performance and life of pavements. Infiltration of water into the pavement subgrade and pavement structure will result in premature loss of serviceability. Adequate drainage provisions should be included in the pavement design. Additionally, the placement of curbs, islands and irrigation systems should be carefully planned in a manner that will not lead to pending and saturation of base materials that extend into island areas. Further, routine maintenance such as crack sealing is critical for the life of the pavement.

SEWER LEACH FIELD SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION

The proposed project includes a leach field area and a future replacement leach field area. Subsurface characterizations of the leach field areas were performed in accordance with the Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18 Environmental Quality, R18-9-A310(D) "Subsurface

Characterization". The subsurface characterization was performed in general accordance with

R18-9-A310(D)(1)(a)(i) (ASTM D 5921 Subsurface Site Characterization of Test Pits for On-Site

Septic Systems) and R18-9-A310(D)(1)(b) (Percolation Testing as Specified in Subsection F of

R18-9-A31 0). It should also be noted that auger borings were performed to a depth of 40.5 feet nearby to obtain subsurface information to provide foundation recommendations for the fire facility and maintenance building.

- 11 -

The soils evaluation per ASTM D 5921 is provided on Plate 8. The percolation test results are presented on Page 3 of this report. The percolation rates from the percolation tests were less than 1 minute per inch, therefore a site-specific soil absorption rate (SAR) is required, per R318-9-A312(0)(2)(a) and R318-9-A312(0)(2)(b).

Under R18-9-A31 0(0)(2) there is a list of limiting conditions that are to be evaluated by the investigator. The investigator is to determine if any of the limiting conditions exist within 12 feet of the land surface. As noted in the previous paragraph the SAR could not be determined from the information obtained during this investigation, therefore it is unknown if the SAR is a limiting condition per R18-9-A310(0)(2)(a). However, there are two limiting conditions that exist within 12ft of the land surface. The two limiting conditions are R18-9-A310(0)(2)(d)(iii) "soil with more than 50 percent rock fragments" and R18-9-A310(0)(2)(e)(iii) "highly permeable materials".

CORROSION POTENTIAL

Steel and concrete elements in contact with soil, whether part of a foundation or part of the supported structure or underground utilities, are subject to degradation due to corrosion or chemical attack. Therefore, buried steel and concrete elements should be designed to resist corrosion and degradation based on accepted practices. General discussions regarding the corrosion of steel and the degradation of concrete with respect to the results of the analytical laboratory tests and laboratory soil resistivity tests are provided in the following sections of this report.

Corrosion of Steel

Corrosion is a major factor in the life of steel elements in contact with soil. Corrosion is caused by migration of electrons from the steel into the surrounding soil. Three measurable soil properties that indicate the corrosion potential for steel in contact with soil are: 1) soluble chloride, 2) pH, and 3) electrical resistivity. Analytical test results are presented earlier in this report in the "Laboratory Testing" section. It is generally accepted that corrosion of steel is most likely to occur in environments that have chloride ions (even in low concentrations), low pH, and/or low resistivity.

The following table presents some general guidelines concerning the corrosion potential of soil on steel pipe as a function of soluble chloride and electrical resistivity. If the pH is less than 7 the soil is acidic and corrosive conditions are indicated

Johnson Division, UOP Inc., (1975), Ground Water and Wells, Saint Paul, Minnesota, pg. 194.

- 12-

I Soluble Chloride Concentration

Electrical Resistivity

Corrosion I Potential (ppm) (ohm-em) r- > 500 0- 1,000 Very Severe ' Severe

I I

I

100-500 1,000- 2,000

25-100 2,000 - 5,000 Moderate

10-25 5,000- 10,000 Mild

------- 10,000 + Very Mild

Each variable should be used independently of the others when evaluating soil corrosion potential. For example, it is not necessary to have both a resistivity between 0 and 1,000 ohm em and a pH less than 7 to indicate a very high corrosion potential.

The results of the laboratory resistivity tests indicate that the corrosion potential of steel in contact with the soil at the site is mild to moderate. The pH is above 7, which indicates the soils are not corrosive, and the soluble chloride content is less than 10 ppm, which indicates the soils have a very mild corrosion potential. Based on the results of our analyses, the soils at the site appear to exhibit a moderate tendency to corrode buried steel. A Corrosion Engineer should review the test results discussed herein when designing appropriate methods of protecting buried steel.

Degradation of Concrete

The degradation of concrete is caused by chemical agents in the soil or groundwater that react with concrete to either dissolve the cement paste or precipitate larger compounds which cause cracking and flaking. The concentration of water-soluble sulfates in the soils is a good indicator of the potential for chemical attack of concrete. The soluble sulfate content in soil can be used to evaluate the need for protection of concrete based on the following table:

Water Soluble Sulfate Content Water Soluble Sulfate Content Degradation

In Soil

, (percent) In Soil, (ppm) Potential

> 2.0 > 20,000 Very Severe

0.2-2.0 2,000- 20,000 Severe

0.1-0.2 1,000- 2,000 Moderate

0.0-0.1 0-1,000 Mild

Department of the Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Design Manual, Civil Engineering, NAVDOCKS DM-5, pg.

5-9-53.

Palmer, J. F., "Soil Resistivity Measurements and Analysis," Materials Performance, Vol. 13, January 1974.

American Concrete Institute, ACt Manual of Concrete Practice, 1998, Part 1, Materials and General Properties of Concrete, Section 201.2R-10.

- 13-

ReportNo. 3806-0071

The results of the soluble sulfate content tests indicate that the potential for the degradation of concrete is mild at the site. However, a Corrosion Engineer should be consulted to determine if sulfate resistant concrete is warranted.

SITE UTILITIES

The design of temporary construction slopes and temporary retainage systems are the sole responsibility of the contractor. The suggestions set forth herein are for estimating purposes, and do not in any way, change the sole responsibility of the contractor for design.

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring B-1 through B-3 locations, the soils in the upper 20 ft classify as a Type C soil according to OSHA Guidelines with a recommended maximum allowable slope of 1 Y2 horizontal to 1 vertical ( 1.5H: 1 V). Sloping or benching for excavations greater than 20 feet deep shall be designed by a registered professional engineer

Since the proposed excavations are not anticipated to encounter significant groundwater, trench bottom stability problems are not anticipated during construction on this site.

Groundwater encountered in excavations due to perched water or runoff should be able to be removed from site excavations by sumps and pumping.

Installation procedures including the selection of the type of bedding material is dependent on the type of pipe selected. Bedding material requirements should be in accordance with the recommendations of the project civil engineer and the Coconino County Public Works

Department Standards. All underground utilities carrying water should have a minimum cover of at least 36 inches.

The trench backfill should be placed in horizontal lifts (compacted lift thickness 8 inches or less) and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by

ASTM 0 698. Water contents should be maintained within ±3 percent of the optimum water content. Moisture/density tests should be performed at a frequency of at least 1 test per 1 ft vertical lift per 350 lineal feet. The backfill around manholes should also be tested.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Part 1926 (2003), "Labor", Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department oflabor, Subpart P- Excavations, pgs. 373-410.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Part 1926 (2003), "Labor", Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor, Subpart P- Excavations, pgs. 373-410.

- 14-

CONTINUING SERVICE

Two additional elements of geotechnical engineering service are important to the successful completion of this project.

1. Consultation with Design Professionals During The Design Phases. This is important to ensure that the intentions of our recommendations are properly incorporated in the design, and that any changes in the design concept properly consider geotechnical aspects.

2. Observation and Monitoring During Construction. A geotechnical engineer or field technician from our firm should observe the footing excavations and earthwork phases of the work to determine that subsurface conditions are compatible with those used in the analysis and design. During site grading, placement of structural fill should be observed and tested to confirm that the proper density has been achieved.

CONDITIONS

Since some variation was found in subsurface conditions at boring locations, all parties involved should take notice that even more variation may be encountered between boring locations. Statements in the report as to subsurface variation over given areas are intended only as estimations from the data obtained at specific boring locations.

The professional services that form the basis for this report have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical engineers practicing in the same locality. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice set forth.

Fugro's scope of work does not include the investigation, detection, or design related to the presence of any biological pollutants. The term 'biological pollutants' includes, but is not limited to mold, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and the byproducts of any such biological organisms. The scope of this investigation and report also does not include consideration of hazardous releases or toxic contamination of any type.

The results, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are directed at, and intended to be utilized within, the scope of work contained in the agreement executed by

Fugro Consultants LP and client. This report is not intended to be used for any other purposes.

Fugro Consultants LP makes no claim or representation concerning any activity or condition falling outside the specified purposes to which this report is directed, said purposes being

- 15-specifically limited to the scope of work as defined in said agreement. Inquiries as to said scope of work or concerning any activity or condition not specifically contained therein should be directed to Fugro Consultants LP for a determination and, if necessary, further investigation.

- 16-

PLATES

vwwv delorme com su-.. , Alios USA 200.C

M roo Wl

VICINITY MAP

Fire Facility and Maintenance Building

Sunset Crater National Monument

Coconino County, Arizona

--mi 2 3 0 l.oom1().7

PLATE 1

00 w 00 , .. _, ____ , Scale: 1" = 80'

PLAN OF BORINGS

Fire Facility and Maintenance Building

Sunset Crater National Monument

Coconino County, Arizona

ｦＡｇｾｄ＠ ..... _____ .A.:! __ _

Proposed Leach Field Area

Trench and Percolation v_ Tests Sholl oe """" in These Areas

N s

---Proposed f"uture Replacement Area

Future Maintenance Building

PLATE 2

LOG OF BORING B-1

Fire Facility and Maintenance Building Sunset Crater National Monument

Coconino County. Arizona

TYPE: 7" Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: See Plate 2

X ;!?. >-':!?.

0;!?. 02!2-c f-

0 u

'f) ::.w x....: o<7- '..);!?. ｾｾ＠ :z;.:.; 8 6 iJ.l c..._ LAYER _o

GO:

;z: o.

:i ....l :/)0 i.l.l;z: sr-: '- .

｣Ｎｊｾ＠ c.J> >->-::0 c.. STRATUM DESCRIPTION ELEV/ r"iJ.l (;)f- f=x f- ::E ::E :So -<r- o- ｾｾ＠ ｾｩｊＮｬ＠ ;z:iJ.l Xf-c.. _;:E :/liJ.l Vj:/i O'l) iJ.l >- -< qu... DEPTH 3:6 ＮＮＮｊｾ＠ 0:::::3 <o ｾｖｩ＠ 0 :/l :/l i -";z

:/lo ;z u C..-

-<"T <o iJ.l

SURF. EL. ±ft Job No. 3806-0071 c.. c..,N 0 r r r \SILTY SAND (SM), black, moist, with

I

II

f.

••• I· gravel-sized cinders and organic material. 0.3 f i 13 SILTY SAND WITH gravel-sized CINDERS 10 NP NP NP 55 17

! f .. (SM), tan, medium dense, moist.

•··. II Gravel-sized CINDERS (GW), brown and black, 4.0 14 f- 5 - ••••• lX

ｾ＠ .. ［ｾ＠ little sand, loose to medium dense, moist •ｾＺＺｾ＠ - black below 7 ft

ｾｾ＠- 10-

.. ｾＧ＠•...

ｾＮＭ

ＮＺＮ［ｾ＠

f-!5-

ｾＺＬＬ＠ 5

ｾＭＭ Ｍｾｾ＠lj .

•• ﾷﾷｾＮ•＠

Ｇｾ＠ [X 5 -20- tx:

...... ﾷｾｾ＠

ｾｾ＠1- 25-

ＢＧﾷﾷＮＭＮﾷｾｾ＠

ft'- ｾＮｩＡ＠ ｾＧ＠

I J)< II SILTY SAND (SM), brown, some gravel-sized 29.0 f- 30- .··.·_.· r cinders, medium dense, moist.

i SILTY SAND WITH gravel-sized CINDERS 31.0

I. t !{ (SM), dark brown and red, medium dense.

f. t 1- 35- I) 24 r •••..

it .. · • Gravel-sized CINDERS (GW). black, loose, 37.0 ﾷｾﾷ＠ . .. ｾＮＧｾｾｾＮ＠ moist.

f- 40-

ｾﾷﾷ＠ f- a:.t.::; '--- f------------------------- -W.5

Note: 35" 22' 04" N. Ill" 32' 32" W

COMPLETION DEPTH: -t0.5 ft DEPTH TO WATER: No water DRILL DATE: 7-20-06

PLATE 3

ｾ＠ 0..

ｾ＠

-- ------ ＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭｾＭＭＭ ---

LOG OF BORING B-2

Fire Facility and Maintenance Building

Sunset Crater National Monument

Coconino County, Arizona

TYPE: 7" Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: See Plate 2

..J C/J

0 ｾ＠ ..J co 0..

ｾ＠ ｾ＠ >-- < C/J C/J

0::

w..l 0..;

zo :so ｯｾ＠ ..J ::0

STRATUM DESCRIPTION

SURF. EL. ±ft Job No. 3806-0071

Gravel-sized CINDERS WITH CLAYEY SAND

(GW-GC), light brown, very loose, moist.

5 - black below 9 ft

II

Note: 35° 22' 03" N, Ill" 32' 33" W

LAYER

ELEV./

DEPTH

4.0 12 NP NP NP 84 5

29.0 t---+-+--+-+--+--+----1

3 1.0 t---+--+---+-+---+--+-----1

40.5 r-------+-+---t--+--t---t-----i

COMPLETION DEPTH: -+0.5 t1: DEPTH TO WAfER: No water DRILL DATE: 7-20-06

PLATE 4

LOG OF BORING 8-3

Fire Facility and Maintenance Building

Sunset Crater National Monument

Coconino County, Arizona

TYPE: 7" Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: See Plate 2

ｾ＠;

Vl

ｾ＠ 0 :.w ｾ［｟＠ ....: co ..J :r.c f= 0.. STRATUM DESCRIPTION :::; :::; ;3::0 0..

WJ >- --< ｯｾ＠

0 Zl (/] ..J co

\ SURF. EL. ±ft Job No. 3806-0071

ｾ＠ SILTY CLAYEY SAND WITH gravel-sized CINDERS (SC-SM), light brown, medium

ｾ＠ 18 dense, moist.

- 5 - ｴｽＬｾ＠ ｾ＠ II Gravel-sized CINDERS (GW), black and dark

ｾｾﾷＮﾷＮﾷＮﾷｾｾ＠ brown, loose to medium dense, moist.

•• ｾﾷ＠ . . ., ..

ｾｩｾＬ＠ t-10- ｾ｜Ａ＠ 6 - black below 9 ft

ﾷｾ＠ ｾｾ＠ ｴｬｾ＠ ﾷｾｩｾ＠••• 5

1- 15- ｾｾＮｬｾ＠

ﾷｾ＠ ｾＧ＠•••• ｾＮｾ］ｾ＠ ••• 9

-20-

ｾﾷﾷｾ＠ｾＭ

ｴｴｾ＠ ••• II

1- 25-t,1!

•..: ﾷｾｾ＠

ｾﾷ＠ ＺＮｾ＠

ﾷｾ＠ il

-30- )it

12 SILTY SAND (SM), brown, medium dense, 1 .. moist, little gravel-sized cinders.

t.,."' Gravel-sized CINDERS (GW), black, loose, . :, moist. . .:; ' ｾ＠ •.

1- 35- ｾﾷＺｾ＠ 8 l

ｾｾﾷﾷ＠·•: .. ｾＭＮ＠

ｦｴＮｾﾷ＠ t- .+o - ｩｾ＠

--- ｾＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭ

Note: 35° 22' 04" N, 111°32'34" w

COMPLETION DEPTH: 40.5 ft DEPTH TO WATER: No water

LAYER :::.::;,...: o'i!

ｾｺ＠ ｳｾ＠ELEV./ r'[JJ

<r- or ＺＺｾ＠DEPTH ;:::z u

10 31

4.0

29.0

31.0

40.5

""' Ｌｪｾ＠ c

ｾｾ＠ ._. 0 '-'

ｾｾ＠ G:i:

ｺｾ＠ zw 5 17.1::' c;:WJ C.::> >->-

ｾｘ＠ ｾｾ＠ zl.:.l IX'- ＺＺ［ｾ＠ ZlWJ [iji/i O[ij

...-r;o C/)-o.....: (/Jv: rr.o z ｾｺ＠

--<""" <o w 0..- 0.. o,.N 0

25 6 76 29

DRILL DATE: 7-20-06

PLATE 5

TERMS & SYMBOLS USED ON BORING LOGS FOR SOIL

ｾ＠ CH, Fat Clay

ｾ＠ CL, Lean Clay

[ill] ML, Silt

SOIL TYPES

["l SP, Poorly-Graded

L..J Sand

ｾ＠ SC, Clayey Sand

1111 SM, Silty Sand r.i GP, Poorly-Graded ｾ＠ Gravel

SAMPLER TYPES

I Seamless Push Tube rn Core

ｾ＠ Standard Penetration 0 Auger t;j Test

ｾ＠ Fill, Unclassified f"l SW, Well-Graded

E.J Sand

ｾ＠ GC, Clayey Gravel

ｾ＠ GM, Silty Gravel

P!J GW, Well-Graded

ｾ＠ Gravel ｾ＠ Ring Sampler ｾａｵｧ･ｲ＠ Sample

SOIL GRAIN SIZE

U.S.STANDARD SIEVE

6" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200

SILT

SOIL GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS

UNDRAINED

NUMBER OF BLOWS CONSISTENCY SHEAR STRENGTH

Kips Per Sq. Ft. PER FT, N

Very Soft Less Than 0.25 <4

Soft 0.25 to 0.50 5-8

Firm 0.50 to 1.00 9-15

Stiff 1.00 to 2.00 16-30

Very Stiff 2.00 to 4.00 31-50

Hard Greater Than 4.00 >50

ASTM D 2488 TABLE 3 Criteria for Describing Moisture Condition

Description Criteria

Dry Moist Wet

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Damp but no visible water Visible free water, usually soil is below water table

ASTM D 2488 Table 6 Criteria for Describing Cementation

Description

Weak Moderate Strong

Criteria

Crumbles or breaks with handling or little finger pressure Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure Will not crumble or break with finger pressure

DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS

NUMBER OF BLOWS RELATIVE

PER FT., N DENSITY

0-4 Very Loose

4-10 Loose

10-30 Medium Dense

30-50 Dense

Over 50 Very Dense

ASTM D 2488 Note 15 Criteria for Describing Percentages of Gravel, Sand and Fines

Description Criteria

Trace Few Little Some Mostly

Particles are present but estimated to be less than 5 % 5 to 10% 15 to 25% 30 to 45% 50 to 100%

Criteria for Describing Inclusions

Description

Parting

Seam

Criteria

Inclusion <1/8" thick extending through sample

Inclusion 1!8" to 3" thick extending through sample

Layer Inclusion >3" th1ck extending through sample

PLATE 6

Test Pit Depth

No. (feet)

0.0- 0.6

0.6- 0.8

TP-1

0.8- 3.3

3.3 - 5.6

5.6- 12.5

0.0-0.1

TP-1A 0.1-0.3

P-1 0.3- 0.8

0.8- 2.9

0.0- 0.3

0.3- 1.3

TP-2

1.3-3.0

3.0- 5.2

5.2-12.0

0.0- 0.3

TP-2A 0.3-0.7

P-2 0.7-1.0

1.0-2.6

0.0-0.1

0.1 -0.4

0.4-0.7

TP-3

0.7- 3.5

3.5-4.7

4.7-5.0

5.0-12.0

0-0.3

TP-3A

0.3-1.0 P-3

1.0-2.8

Material

Description

Silty Sand, Cinders and Gravel, black, gray and brown, little roots, organics, trace concrete pieces (Fill)

Cinders, gray

Silty Clayey Sand and Cinders, brown and tan, many roots, moist

Cinders, dark brown and gray, with light gray cemented layer with roots from 5.3' to 5.5'

Cinders, black, with 1" thick light gray cemented layer at 7.5'

Fine Gravel (aggregate base), (Fill), gray

Silty Sand and Cinders, black, organics

Silty Sand and Cinders, dark gray

Silty Clayey Sand and Cinders, tan

Silty Sand and Cinders, reddish brown, trace roots, organics and gravel

Cinders and Clayey Sand, dark gray and tan, trace roots and gravel

Clayey Sand and Cinders, brown

Cinders, gray, with 2" thick light gray layer at 5'

Cinders, gray and black, with 1" thick light gray layer at 7.3'

Cinders, dark gray

Cinders and Silty Sand, black, organics

Ci_nders, some silty sand, dark gray s'ilty'Sand and Cinders, tan

Cinders, gray (Fill)

Si…