USEB172009_Geotechnical Report.pdf

REPORT COVER PAGE

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Construct Global ASNT Support Facility

Salt Lake City, UT

October 31, 2019

Terracon Project No. 61195138

Prepared for:

Pond and Company

Peachtree Corners, Georgia

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Midvale, UT

Terracon Consul tants, Inc. 6949 High Tech Dr ive Midvale, UT 84047 P (801) 545 8500 F (801) 545 8600 terracon.com

REPORT COVER LETTER TO SIGN

October 31, 2019

Pond and Company 3500 Parkway Lane Peachtree Corners, Georgia 30092

Attn: Mr. Gary Kerr P: (404) 748 4889 E: KerrG@pondco.com

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Construct Global ASNT Support Facility 765 North 2200 West Salt Lake City, UT Terracon Project No. 61195138

Dear Mr. Kerr:

We have completed the Geotechnical Engineering services for the above referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. P61195138 dated August 12, 2019. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations for the proposed project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Justin M. Krieg, P.E. John Mancini, P.E.

Geotechnical Project Engineer Senior Associate

11/4/19

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

REPORT TOPICS

INTRODUCTION

SITE CONDITIONS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

EARTHWORK

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

LIQUEFACTION

CORROSIVITY

GENERAL COMMENTS

FIGURES

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. Orange Bold text in the report indicates a referenced section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on the

GeoReport logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at client.terracon.com.

ATTACHMENTS

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Note: Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.

http://client.terracon.com/

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

INTRODUC TION

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Construct Global ASNT Support Facility

765 North 2200 West

Salt Lake City, UT Terracon Project No. 61195138

October 31, 2019

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed Satellite Dish Tower to be located at 765 North 2200 West in Salt Lake City, UT. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

■ Subsurface soil conditions ■ Foundation design and construction

■ Groundwater conditions ■ Excavation considerations

■ Site preparation and earthwork ■ Seismic site classification per IBC

■ Dewatering considerations

The geotechnical engineering Scope of Services for this project included the advancement of one test boring to a depth of approximately 51 ½ feet below existing site grades.

Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration

Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs and the graphs in the Exploration Results section.

SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps.

Item Description

Parcel Information

The project is located at 765 North 2200 West in Salt Lake City, UT.

Latitude / Longitude: N 40.785784° / W 111.955700° (approximate)

See Site Location

Existing

Improvements Paved parking lot, building to the south.

Current Ground

Cover Asphalt concrete paved parking lot.

Construct Global ASNT Support Facility ■ Salt Lake City, UT

October 31, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. 61195138

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Item Description

Existing Topography Relatively flat

Geology

Qcs: Clay, silt and sand (Holocene) – Thick- to thin- bedded clay, silt and very fine sand; mainly deltaic and lacustrine beds deposited in Great Salt

Lake at higher lake levels than at present.

Bryant, Bruce. 1990, Geologic Map of Salt Lake City 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, North-Central Utah and

Uintah County Wyoming, Map, Scale 1:100,000, Interior-Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Our initial understanding of the project was provided in our proposal and was discussed during project planning. A period of collaboration has transpired since the project was initiated, and our final understanding of the project conditions is as follows:

Item Description

Information Provided Email from Pond with Subsurface Exploration Scope of Services.

Project Description A new Satellite Dish Tower. The satellite dish has an approximate diameter of 8’-0” and will be elevated and supported by the Satellite Dish Tower.

Proposed Structures Steel tower with 4 columns.

Maximum Loads Columns: 20 kips (vertical), 10 kips (lateral)

Grading/Slopes No grade changes are anticipated.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface conditions based upon our review of the subsurface exploration, laboratory data, geologic setting and our understanding of the project. This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation of site preparation and foundation options. The individual log can be found in the Exploration Results section and the GeoModel can be found in the Figures section of this report.

As part of our analyses, we identified the following model layers within the subsurface profile. For a more detailed view of the model layer depths at each boring location, refer to the GeoModel.

Model Layer Layer Name General Description

1 Pavement Asphalt concrete pavement, approximately 6” thick

2 Fill Poorly graded gravel with sand

3 Lean Clay Very soft

4 Silty Sand Very loose

5 Sandy Silt Soft to stiff

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

In our opinion, the proposed Satellite Dish Tower appears to be suitable for construction from a geotechnical engineering perspective provided that the recommendations presented in this geotechnical report are followed.

Below the existing pavement and sandy gravel fill, the native lean clay soils are very soft and compressible which will limit allowable bearing capacity. Furthermore, the loose to very loose sand and silt soils pose a liquefaction settlement potential. Because of these conditions, we recommend the proposed Satellite Dish Tower be supported on a mat foundation bearing on

Structural Fill. Stabilization of the foundation area with two layers of Stabilization Fill and biaxial geogrid will be necessary due to the poor subgrade conditions. Terracon should be contacted to review exposed subgrade conditions and verify stabilization recommendations during construction.

Liquefiable soils were encountered in the borings from a depth of 16 to 50 feet, resulting in an

IBC Site Class F. For a 2% probability of exceedance in 50-year seismic event, the estimated liquefaction induced settlement is up to 11 inches. Reducing this liquefaction-induced settlement will require ground improvement which will be costly due to the depth of the liquefiable soils. Use of a mat foundation will reduce differential settlement, but will also be subject to total sett lement following a major seismic event.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

Geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation systems and other earth connected phases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing (Exploration Results), engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

EARTHWORK

Earthwork is anticipated to include removal of asphalt pavements, excavations, and fill placement for shallow foundations. The following sections provide recommendations for use in the preparation of specifications for the work. Recommendations include critical quality criteria, as necessary, to render the sites in the state considered in our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the shallow foundations.

Site Preparation

Groundwater was encountered at an approximate depth of 6 feet and may impact excavations at the time of construction.

Existing pavement and granular fill, debris, loose, soft, or frozen soil and other deleterious materials encountered during construction should be removed from beneath the foundation areas.

There was a previous building in the proposed construction area and construction debris may be encountered during excavation. Our initial test boring encountered refusal at a depth of four feet and our interpretation is that we drilled into construction debris. All construction debris should be removed from beneath the shallow foundation area.

Following excavation to foundation elevation, stabilization of the very soft clay soils will be required. Once the overexcavation is complete, the geotechnical engineer should observe the subgrade. Subgrade should be stabilized by placing two layers of Stabilization Fill and biaxial geogrid. First, a bi-axial geogrid product (such as those provided by Tensar® (BX1100 grid or equivalent) or Mirafi® (BXG110 geogrid or equivalent)) should be placed on the subgrade followed by 12-inch thick layer of the Stabilization Fill. Then another layer of biaxial geogrid should be placed on to of the first lift of Stabilization Fill followed by another 12- inch thick layer of

Stabilization Fill. Stabilization Fill should be placed in uniform lifts and seated in-place by tamping using the bucket of an excavator or backhoe, or by making several passes using a static compactor or track equipment. Vibratory or excessive compaction effort should not be applied, and care should be taken to minimize disturbance to underlying native soils.

Although evidence of underground facilities such as septic tanks, cesspools, basements, and utilities was not observed during the site reconnaissance, such features could be encountered during construction. If unexpected fills or underground facilities are encountered, such features

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5 should be removed, and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction.

Dewatering

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 6 feet in the boring; however, water elevations vary seasonally and may rise or lower. Accordingly, dewatering may be required for the foundation excavation. Pumping from sumps may be utilized to control groundwater within excavations. The dewatering system should be designed to lower groundwater a minimum of 12 inches below excavation bottom, and so that groundwater seeping from excavations walls does not occur. The contractor should be responsible for the design and implementation of the dewatering systems.

Fill Material Types

Pea gravel or other similar non-cementitious, poorly graded materials should not be used as fill or backfill without the prior approval of the geotechnical engineer. Fill material should meet the following requirements:

Fill Type 1 Application

Requirements

Gradation

Plasticity Size

Percent finer

(by weight)

Structural Fill

Required for all fill under foundations

3 inch

No. 4 Sieve

No. 200 Sieve

35-60

15 max

Liquid limit 30 max

Plasticity Index 6 max

Stabilization Fill 2 On soft subgrade

4 inch

No. 200 Sieve

5 max Non-plastic

1. All fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation.

2. Clean crushed angular rock

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

Fill Compaction Requirements

The top lift of Structural Fill directly below the footing should meet the following compaction requirements.

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Fill Lift Thickness 8-inches or less in loose thickness

Compaction 95% of the material’s maximum dry density (modified Proctor - ASTM D

1557)

Moisture Content Within 2% of optimum moisture content as determined by the modified

Proctor test at the time of placement and compaction

Grading and Drainage

Positive drainage away from the structure should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the proposed project. Infiltration of surface water into excavations should be prevented during construction. All grades should provide effective drainage away from structures during and after construction. Water permitted to pond next to structures can result in greater soil movements than those discussed in this report. Estimated movements described in this report are based on effective drainage for the life of the and cannot be relied upon if effective drainage is not maintained.

Earthwork Construction Considerations

Soft, loose, pumping, rutting or otherwise unstable near-surface subgrade conditions will be encountered during general construction operations, especially if the soils are wetted and/or subjected to repetitive construction traffic. Such soils are not considered suitable for support of structures and should be removed and replaced with Stabilization Fill and Structural Fill in accordance with this report. A Mirafi BXG110 Geogrid separating the native soils from the

Stabilization Fill is required to form a stable surface for construction. The use of light weight construction equipment, minimizing repetitive trafficking and performing construction during dryer seasons would aid in reducing subgrade disturbance.

The earthwork efforts should be monitored under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer.

Monitoring should include documentation of areas requiring Stabilization Fill.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

If the proposed structure site has been prepared in accordance with the requirements noted in

Earthwork, the following design parameters are applicable for shallow foundations. In our opinion, the proposed Satellite Dish Tower can be supported by a lightly loaded shallow mat foundation system bearing on properly placed and compacted Structural Fill overlying

Stabilization Fill. Design recommendations for shallow foundations for the proposed structure are presented in the following paragraphs.

Building Design Parameters – Compressive Loads

Parameter Isolated

Net allowable bearing pressure for footing bearing on placed and compacted Structural Fill 1 500 psf

Minimum Dimensions 13 feet

Maximum Dimensions 15 feet

Minimum embedment of exterior footings below finished grade for frost protection 30 inches

Minimum Structural Fill thickness below footing 12 inches

Minimum Stabilization Fill thickness below

Structural Fill

24 inches

Approximate total settlement 2 1 inch

Estimated differential settlement 2 <½ inch between columns

Ultimate coefficient of sliding friction 0.40

1. The maximum net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. An appropriate factor of safety has been applied. These bearing pressure values can be increased by 1/3 for transient loads.

2. Settlements resulting from the structural loads noted in Project Description.

3. A biaxial grid should be installed after each 12-inch lift of Stabilization Fill.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

Foundation Construction Considerations

As noted in Earthwork, the footing excavations should be evaluated under the direction of the

Geotechnical Engineer. The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil, prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Care should be taken to prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during construction. Excessively wet or dry material or any loose/disturbed material in the bottom of the footing excavations should be removed/reconditioned before foundation concrete is placed.

Since unsuitable soil extends deeper than practical to remove, the subgrade should be stabilized using geotextiles in combination with Stabilization Fill as stated in Earthwork. Placement of

Structural Fill or Stabilization Fill below footings should extend laterally beyond all edges of the footings at least 8 inches per foot of overexcavation depth below footing base elevation.

Placement and compaction should be completed in accordance with Earthwork. The overexcavation and backfill procedure is shown in the following figure.

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the results of our exploration, the subsurface soil profile at the proposed structure is best represented by Site Class F according to the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) due to the presence of liquefiable soils. Site class factors may be selected based on a Site Class E as shown in the table below. The National Seismic Hazard Map database was searched to identify the peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral accelerations for 0.2 second (Ss) and 1.0 second

(S1) periods for a 2% probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years at the project site for Site Class

B. These values should be adjusted for site effects using appropriate site class factors from the

2015 IBC.

Stabilization/

Structural

Fill

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

Seismic Parameters: Global ASNT Support Facility

Description Value

Site Class 1 F 2, 3

Site Latitude N 40.785784°

Site Longitude W 111.955700°

So PGA 0.69g

Ss Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.613g

S1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.562g

FPGA Site Coefficient for PGA 0.9

Fa Site Coefficient for a Short Period 0.93

Fv Site Coefficient for a 1-Second Period 2.43

1. In general accordance with the 2015 International Building Code, Section 1613.3.2. IBC Site Class is based on the average characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile as described in

ASCE 7-10.

2. The 2015 International Building Code (IBC) requires a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope does not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. The boring extended to a maximum depth of 50 feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that similar soil conditions continue below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to deeper depths would be required to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration.

3. As discussed in this report, portions of the site soils are liquefiable; consequently, the Site Class is F per

2015 IBC and ASCE 7-10 Table 20.3-1, for any profile containing soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading such as liquefiable soils. However, Section 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-10 allows site coefficients Fa and Fv to be determined assuming that liquefaction does not occur for structures with fundamental periods of vibration less than 0.5 second. Based on the results of the field exploration, Site Class E may be used to determine the values of Fa and Fv in accordance with Section 20.3.1 of the ASCE 7-10.

LIQUEFACTION

The proposed structure is shown in an area mapped as having high liquefaction potential.

Liquefaction analysis was performed using a seismic event with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. With this seismic design event ground motion, the estimated liquefaction-induced vertical settlement is approximately 11 inches. Due to the thickness and loose consistency of the sand and silt soils, ground improvement (such as rammed aggregate piers) extending to a depth of at least 40 feet is expected to be necessary in order to reduce the liquefaction settlement. Use

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10 of a lightly-loaded mat foundation will mitigate the differential settlement potential, however post-earthquake settlements of several inches are still likely.

Additional information can be provided upon request for ground improvement options.

CORROSIVITY

The table below lists the results of laboratory soluble sulfate, soluble chloride, electrical resistivity, and pH testing. The values may be used to estimate potential corrosive characteristics of the on-site soils with respect to contact with the various underground materials which will be used for project construction.

RESULTS OF CHEMICAL REACTIVITY LABORATORY TESTS

Sample Depth

(ft) pH

Resistivity

(ohm-cm)

Sulfates

(mg/kg)

Chlorides

(mg/kg)

B-1 5.0 9.93 1,510 8.53 3.04

An aggressive subsurface environment where corrosion can deteriorate the buried steel over their design life can generally be identified by soil resistivity and pH tests. The following criteria for corrosive soil are specified in AASHTO LRFD Section 10.7.5.

◼ Electrical resistivity less than 2,000 ohm-cm

◼ pH less than 5.5

◼ pH between 5.5 and 8.5 in soils with high organic content

On-site soils at the proposed Satellite Dish Tower are considered aggressive to buried steel based on laboratory test results. Based on the test results and ACI manuals, sulfate exposure to concrete appears to be negligible. Type II cement may be used for concrete applications.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural variations will occur between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather.

The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction.

Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11 absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.

Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third-party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client.

Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client, and is not intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.

Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

FIGURES

Contents:

GeoModel

4,175

4,180

4,185

4,190

4,195

4,200

4,205

4,210

4,215

4,220

4,225

4,230

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

M

S L

(f ee t)

Construct Global ASNT Support Facility Salt Lake City, UT Terracon Project No. 61195138

Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the geotechnical engineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface conditions as required for the subsequent geotechnical engineering for this project.

Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground surface.

NOTES:

B-1

GEOMODEL

This is not a cross section. This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only. See individual logs for more detailed conditions.

Groundwater levels are temporal. The levels shown are representative of the date and time of our exploration. Significant changes are possible over time.

Water levels shown are as measured during and/or after drilling. In some cases, boring advancement methods mask the presence/absence of groundwater. See individual logs for details.

First Water Observation

Very soft3

Very loose4

Soft to stiff5

LEGEND

Asphalt

Fill

Lean Clay

Silty Sand

Sandy Silt

Model Layer General DescriptionLayer Name approximately 6"1

Poorly graded gravel with sand2

Lean Clay

Silty Sand

Sandy Silt

Asphalt

Fill

31.5

51.5

ATTACHMENTS

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 1 of 2

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) Planned Location

1 51.5’ or auger refusal Satellite Dish Tower

Boring Layout and Elevations: Unless otherwise noted, Terracon personnel provided the boring layout. Coordinates were obtained with a handheld GPS unit (estimated horizontal accuracy of about ±10 feet).

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the borings with a track-mounted rotary drill rig using continuous flight hollow stem augers. Four samples were obtained in the upper 10 feet of the boring and at intervals of 5 feet thereafter. In the thin-walled tube sampling procedure, a thin-walled, seamless steel tube with a sharp cutting edge was pushed hydraulically into the soil to obtain a relatively undisturbed sample. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch outer diameter split-barrel sampling spoon was driven into the ground by a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value. The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths. We observed and recorded groundwater levels during drilling and sampling. For safety purposes, all borings were backfilled with auger cuttings after their completion. Pavements were patched with cold-mix asphalt.

The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information was recorded on the field boring logs. The samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory for testing and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs were prepared from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the

Geotechnical Engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on observations and tests of the samples in our laboratory.

Laboratory Testing

The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned laboratory tests to understand the engineering properties of the various soil strata, as necessary, for this project. Procedural standards noted below are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods were applied because of local practice or professional judgment. Standards noted below include reference to other, related standards. Such references are not necessarily applicable to describe the specific test performed.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 2 of 2

■ ASTM D2216 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)

Content of Soil and Rock by Mass

■ ASTM D4318 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of

Soils

■ ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils

■ ASTM D2435/D2435M Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Consolidation

Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading

The laboratory testing program often included examination of soil samples by an engineer. Based on the material’s texture and plasticity, we described and classified the soil samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

Site Location Plan

Exploration Plan

Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.

SITE LOCATION

Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.

When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.

The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.

SITE LOCA TION

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

EXPLORATION PLAN

Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.

When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.

The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.

EXPLORATION P LAN

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

Boring Log (B-1)

Grain Size Distribution (2)

Consolidation

1-0-1 N=1

0-0-0 N=0

2-1-1 N=2

4-0-1 N=1

10-3-8 N=11

3-2-2 N=4

3-11-7 N=18

3-4-9 N=13

4-5-5 N=10

28-16-12

27-19-8

NP

NP

ASPHALT, aproximately 6" POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP), yellowish brown to brownish gray LEAN CLAY (CL), olive brown to brownish gray, very soft

SILTY SAND (SM), gray, very loose, some gravel in sampler tip at 25 feet layering

SANDY SILT (ML), trace clay, gray to brownish gray, sof to stiff, layering

- decreasing silt content

-increasing silt content

- greenish gray, soft clay observed in sampler tip Boring Terminated at 51.5 Feet

0.5 2.0

16.0

31.5

51.5

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

C O

N S

T R

U C

T G

LO

B

A L

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

0/

5/

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 40.7858° Longitude: -111.9558°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: 61195138

Drill Rig: Geoprobe

BORING LOG NO. B-1

Pond & CompanyCLIENT:

Peachtree Corners, GA

Driller: DPS

Boring Completed: 10-01-2019

PROJECT: Construct Global ASNT Support Facility

Elevations were not determined.

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any).

See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

N 2380 W St Salt Lake City, UT

SITE:

Boring Started: 10-01-2019

6949 S High Tech Dr, Ste 100 Midvale, UT

6' while drilling

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

0.0010.010.1110100

2006 810 142

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136

46 16 20 30 40

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

4 1 3/4 1/2 60

HYDROMETER

3/8 3 100 1403 501.5

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

SILTY SAND (SM)

NP

NP

0.154

9.5

4.75

4.75

9.5

5 - 6.5

10 - 12

15 - 17

20 - 21.5

5 - 6.5

10 - 12

15 - 17

20 - 21.5

79.7

57.3

95.3

18.2

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-1

Boring ID Depth D100 D60 D30 D10

Boring ID Depth USCS Classification AASHTO Classification LL PL PI

%Gravel %Sand %Silt mediumcoarse coarsefine fine

COBBLES

GRAVEL SAND

SILT OR CLAY

%Fines %Clay

WC (%)

NP

A-6 (4)

A-4 (7)

A-2-4 (0)

0.084

0.364

1.4

0.0

0.0

0.3

18.9

42.7

4.7

81.6

PROJECT NUMBER: 61195138

SITE: N 2380 W St Salt Lake City, UT

PROJECT: Construct Global ASNT Support Facility

CLIENT: Pond & Company Peachtree Corners, GA

6949 S High Tech Dr, Ste 100 Midvale, UT

LA

B

O R

A T

O R

Y T

E S

T S

A R

E N

O T

V A

LI

D

IF

S

E P

A R

A T

E D

F R

O M

O R

IG

IN

A L

R E

P O

R T

G

R A

IN

S

IZ

E

: U S

C S

A

A S

H T

O D

E S

C C

O M

B

IN

E D

C

O N

S T

R U

C T

G

LO

B A

L .G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

0/

4/

Cc Cu

0.0010.010.1110100

2006 810 142

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136

46 16 20 30 40

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

4 1 3/4 1/2 60

HYDROMETER

3/8 3 100 1403 501.5

SANDY SILT (ML) NPNP

9.535 - 36.5

35 - 36.5

53.8

B-1

B-1

Boring ID Depth D100 D60 D30 D10

Boring ID Depth USCS Classification AASHTO Classification LL PL PI

%Gravel %Sand %Silt mediumcoarse coarsefine fine

COBBLES

GRAVEL SAND

SILT OR CLAY

%Fines %Clay

WC (%)

23 NPA-4 (0)

0.098 0.1 46.1

PROJECT NUMBER: 61195138

SITE: N 2380 W St Salt Lake City, UT

PROJECT: Construct Global ASNT Support Facility

CLIENT: Pond & Company Peachtree Corners, GA

6949 S High Tech Dr, Ste 100 Midvale, UT

LA

B

O R

A T

O R

Y T

E S

T S

A R

E N

O T

V A

LI

D

IF

S

E P

A R

A T

E D

F R

O M

O R

IG

IN

A L

R E

P O

R T

G

R A

IN

S

IZ

E

: U S

C S

A

A S

H T

O D

E S

C C

O M

B

IN

E D

C

O N

S T

R U

C T

G

LO

B A

L .G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

0/

4/

Cc Cu

Before Consolidation

Sample Diameter (in): 2.50 Moist Unit Weight (pcf): 108 Sample Height (in): 1 Moisture Content (%): 39

Sample Volume (cf): 0.0028 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 78

After Consolidation

Sample Diameter (in): 2.50 Moist Unit Weight (pcf): 135 Sample Height (in): 0.7585 Moisture Content (%): 32

Sample Volume (cf): 0.0022 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 103

Liquid Limit: 28 Percent Fines: 95 Plasticity Index: 12 Classification: CL

Project Name:

Project No.:

Location:

Sample:

Consolidation Test Data (ASTM D 2435-04 )

Construct Global ASNT 61195138

B-1 @ 10' Salt Lake City, UT

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0.1 1 10 100

VE

RT

IC

AL

ST

RA

IN

VERTICAL STRESS, ksf

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

General Notes

Unified Soil Classification System

EXHIBIT A- 8

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

UNIFIED SOI L CLASSI FICATI ON SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group

Symbol Group Name B

Coarse-Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic:

PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line J

CL Lean clay K, L, M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL

Organic clay K, L, M, N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic:

PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K, L, M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH

Organic clay K, L, M, P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve.

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay.

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add

“sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.