The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20142072.tiff) AM17[1.`f=7-1.111--S;:r_lif_ffifyingri&Now Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION THE HUB FACILITY NORTHWEST CORNER OF WCR 6 AND WCR 7 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PREPARED FOR: Baseline Engineering 700 12th Street, Suite 220 Golden, Colorado 80401 PREPARED BY: Ninyo &Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants 6001 S. Willow Drive, Suite 195 Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 October 4, 2013 Project No. 500707001 6001 South Willow Drive,Suite 195 • Greenwood Village,Colorado 8011 I • Phone(303)629-6000 • Fax(303)629-6001 San Diego • Irvine • Los Angeles • Rancho Cucamonga • Oakland • San Francisco • San Jose • Saaamerxo Las Vegas • Phoenor • Tucson • Prescott Valley • Deaver • El Paso • Houston Tlav - _ in o& oars • _ Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants October 4, 2013 Project No. 500707001 Mr.Noah Nemmers, PE Baseline Engineering 700 12th Street, Suite 220 Golden, Colorado 80401 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation The Hub Facility Northwest Corner of WCR 6 and WCR 7 Weld County, Colorado Dear Mr.Nemmers: In accordance with our proposal dated August 21st, 2013 and your authorization Ninyo &Moore has performed a geotechnical evaluation for the above referenced site. The attached report pre- sents our methodology, findings, and conclusions regarding the geotechnical conditions at the project site and provides geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed improve- ments. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Respectfully submitted, .`��,.�� NINYO & MOORE P00 REGS,'►,I ;:ogq;�p13 s„ -��!ig, 82 - ,-�� /'''moo• j t3 '�`� e�� S/ONAL0NO Jeffrey M. Jones, P.E. Serkan Sengul, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Senior Engineer JMJ/SS/kr Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail) 6001 South Willow Drive,Suite 195 • Greenwood Village,Colorado 80111 • Phone(303(629-6000 • Fax(3031629-6001 San Diego • Irvine • Ins Pi yeks • Rancho Cucamonga • Oakland • San Francisco • San Jose • Saaamento Las Vegas • Phoenss • Tucson • Prescott Valley • Denver • EI Paso • Houston The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 3. SITE DESCRIPTION 2 4. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2 5. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2 6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 6.1. Geologic Setting 3 6.2. Subsurface Conditions 4 6.2.1. Alluvium 4 6.2.2. Laramie Formation Bedrock 4 6.3. Groundwater 5 7. CONCLUSIONS 5 8. RECOMMENDATIONS 7 8.1. Earthwork 7 8.1.1. Excavations 7 8.1.2. Site Grading 8 8.1.3. Subgrade Stabilization 10 8.1.4. Fill Placement and Compaction 11 8.1.5. Imported Fill Material 12 8.2. Utility Installation 12 8.2.1. Pipe Bedding Materials and Modulus of Soil Reaction(E') 13 8.2.2. Water Transfer in Utility Trenches and Pipe Bedding 13 8.3. Temporary Excavations and Shoring 14 8.4. Shallow Foundations 15 8.4.1. Conventional Spread Footings 15 8.4.2. Mat Foundations 16 8.5. Drilled Pier Foundations 17 8.5.1. Drilled Pier Design Considerations 17 8.5.2. Drilled Pier Construction Considerations 20 8.6. Structural Floors 22 8.7. Slab-on-Grade Floors 24 8.8. Lateral Earth Pressures 25 8.9. Pavements 26 8.9.1. Pavement Subgrade Support 26 8.9.2. Design Traffic 27 8.9.3. Pavement Design 27 8.9.4. Pavement Section Recommendations 28 8.9.5. Pavement Materials 28 8.9.6. Pavement Subgrade Preparation 29 8.9.7. Pavement Maintenance 30 500707001 R.doc /`/rnyo&/Vioore The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 8.10. Concrete Flatwork 30 8.11. Site Drainage 31 8.12. Corrosivity 32 8.13. Water Soluble Sulfates and Concrete 32 8.14. Construction in Cold or Wet Weather 33 8.15. Pre-Construction Conference 33 8.16. Construction Observation and Testing 34 9. LIMITATIONS 34 10. SELECTED REFERENCES 36 Tables Table 1 —Summary of Recommended Foundation Types and Overexcavation Depths 10 Table 2—Recommended Lateral Load Parameters 19 Table 3 —Lateral Load Group Reduction Factors 19 Table 4—Recommended New Pavement Sections 28 Figures Figure 1 —Site Location Map Figure 2 —Boring Location Map Appendices Appendix A—Boring Logs Appendix B—Laboratory Testing Appendix C—Unconfined Compression Test Results 500707001 R.doc ;; iyinyo& tour% The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 1. INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and authorization, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Hub Facility project located near the northwest corner of WCR 6 and WCR 7 in Weld County, Colorado. The approximate location of the site is depicted on Figure 1. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions and to provide design and construction recommendations regarding geotechnical aspects of the proposed project. This re- port presents the findings of our subsurface exploration program, results of our laboratory testing, conclusions regarding the subsurface conditions at the site, and geotechnical recommen- dations for design and construction of this project. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services for the project generally included: • Review of readily available aerial photographs and published geologic literature, including maps and reports pertaining to the project site and vicinity. • Notification to the Utility Notification Center of Colorado of the boring locations prior to drilling. • Drilling, logging, and sampling six exploratory borings to depths ranging from approxi- mately 20 to 40 feet below ground surface (bgs). The boring logs are presented in Appendix A. • Performing laboratory tests on selected samples obtained from the borings to evaluate in-situ moisture content and dry density, gradation, 200 wash,Atterberg limits, swell/consolidation, unconfined compressive strength, and soil corrosivity. The results of the laboratory testing are presented on the boring logs and in Appendices B and C. • Compilation and analysis of the data obtained. • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations re- garding the design and construction of the project. 500707001 R.doc 1 4finyo&NiOW The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 3. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site consists of an approximately 55-acre undeveloped agricultural parcel located near the northwest corner of WCR 6 and WCR 7, in Weld County, Colorado. The site is bordered to the west by undeveloped agricultural pastureland, to the north by a gas well pad and agricul- tural land, to the east by WCR 7 and to the south by WCR 6. The approximate location of the site is depicted on Figure 1. The site slopes gently to the east at grades of approximately 1 to 2 percent. Generally, the high point of the site is near the southwest corner at an elevation of approximately 5,235 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The lowest point of the site is near the eastern margin at an elevation of approximately 5,192 feet MSL. A shallow draw bisects the central portion of the site, extending in a roughly east-west direction. Historical aerial photographs for selected years between 1993 and 2012 provided by Google Earth were reviewed for the site. Based on the historical aerial photograph review, the site has been vacant and likely used as agricultural land since 1993. 4. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Based on conversations with Baseline Engineering (Baseline) personnel and our review of refer- enced project data, we understand the project will consist of the construction two primary liquid storage tank batteries containing six tanks each, other miscellaneous tanks, process facilities, paved staging and loading pads, a single-story water treatment building, and a single-story office building. Other site improvements include paved access roads, concrete flatwork and associated utilities. Anticipated grading is expected to consist of cuts and fills of approximately 10 feet or less, to establish pad grades and drainage. 5. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING On September 5 and 6, 2013, Ninyo & Moore conducted a subsurface exploration at the site in order to evaluate the existing subsurface conditions and to collect soil samples for laboratory 500707001 R.doc 2 Atlnyo&/Huure The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 testing. Our evaluation consisted of the drilling, logging, and sampling of six exploratory borings to evaluate the geologic and subsurface conditions beneath the site. The borings were advanced using a CME-75 track-mounted drill rig equipped with solid-flight augers. Relatively undis- turbed soil samples were collected at selected intervals. Descriptions of the soils encountered are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. The gen- eral locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2. The soil samples collected from our drilling activities were transported to the Ninyo & Moore laboratory for geotechnical laboratory analyses. The analyses included in-situ moisture content and dry density, No. 200 sieve analyses, gradation analyses,Atterberg limits, swell/consolidation potential, unconfined compressive strength, and corrosivity characteristics (including pH, mini- mum electrical resistivity, soluble sulfates, and chlorides). The results of the in-situ moisture content and dry density testing are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. A description of each laboratory test method and the remainder of the test results are presented in Appendices B and C. 6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The potential geologic hazards at the site are discussed in our previous Geologic Hazards Study, dated September 12, 2013. The geology and subsurface conditions at the site are described in the following sections. 6.1. Geologic Setting The project site is located approximately 16 miles east of the southern Rocky Mountains, within the Colorado Piedmont section of the Great Plains Physiographic Province. The pro- ject site is located near the northern margins of a large north-south trending structural basin called the Denver Basin. The Denver Basin formed during the Laramide Orogeny that up- lifted the Rocky Mountains during the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary (Trimble, 1980). Over time, the Denver Basin filled with alluvial sediments and wind-blown eolian deposits. The underlying bedrock is comprised of Tertiary to Cretaceous-age sedimentary units. 500707001 R.doc 3 /fInyo&44nnrn The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 The surficial geology of the site is mapped by Colton (1978) as Holocene to late Pleisto- cene-age Eolian Deposits (wind-blown) including dune sand and loess deposits, which were deposited in the post-glacial period. While geologic maps indicate surficial soils at the site consist of loess deposits, we encountered alluvium underlying topsoil. The underlying for- mational bedrock unit is mapped as Upper Cretaceous-age Laramie Formation. 6.2. Subsurface Conditions Our understanding of the subsurface conditions at the project site is based on our field ex- ploration and laboratory testing, and our experience with the general geology of the area. The following sections provide a generalized description of the subsurface materials encoun- tered. More detailed descriptions are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. 6.2.1. Alluvium Alluvium was encountered underlying topsoil and extended to depths between ap- proximately 9 and 19.5 feet bgs. Alluvium generally consisted of sandy clay, clayey sand with few gravel, and clayey gravel with sand. Cobbles, and boulders, although not encountered in our borings, may be present within the alluvium. Based on the results of the subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, the alluvium encountered is stiff to dense, exhibits non- to high plasticity, low to moderate consolidation potential (up to 2 percent consolidation), and low swell potential. Selected samples had in-place moisture contents between 9.0 and 24.5 percent and dry densities between 88.8 and 116.5 pounds per cubic foot(pcf). 6.2.2. Laramie Formation Bedrock Bedrock mapped by Colton (1978) as the Laramie Formation was encountered in each of our borings between approximately 9 and 19.5 feet bgs, and extended to the boring termination depths of approximately 20 to 40 feet bgs. The depth to bedrock is generally deeper in the shallow draw that bisects the site in a general east-west direction. The Laramie Formation was composed of varying shades of brown and gray, moderately to strongly indurated, weathered, claystone with interbeds of moderately to strongly ce- 500707001 R.doc 4 4finyo& OW The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 mented sandstone. Laramie Formation bedrock commonly contains layers and lenses of lignite (black in color). Although lignite layers/lenses were not encountered in the bor- ings drilled, they may be encountered during deep foundation excavations. Based on the subsurface exploration and laboratory test results, the formational bedrock ranged from non-plastic to high plasticity. Selected samples had in-place moisture contents between 12.8 and 24.2 percent and dry densities between 94.7 and 118.3 (pcf). Based on our laboratory test results, tested samples exhibited high swell potential, with percent swells ranging up to 7.5 percent when inundated with water at estimated overburden pressures. 6.3. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in Borings B-2 and B-4 through B-6 at depths between 9.5 and 19 feet bgs. This relatively shallow groundwater condition is due to perching atop the relatively impermeable bedrock. The Laramie Fox Hills aquifer is the principal source of groundwater for irrigation, accounting for the majority of groundwater for high capacity wells. The static groundwater table associated with the aquifer is expected to be at a depth of 400 to 700 feet bgs. Recharge to the alluvial aquifer occurs by infiltration of applied irriga- tion water and precipitation. Seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels and surface water flow may occur. These fluctuations may be due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface geologic conditions,precipitation, irrigation, and other factors. Evaluation of fac- tors associated with groundwater fluctuations was beyond the scope of this study. 7. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our subsurface evaluation, laboratory testing, and data analysis, it is our opinion that the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into design and construction of the proposed project. Geotechnical considerations include the following: • The site is underlain by approximately 9 to 19.5 feet of alluvium. The laboratory test results indicate that the alluvium is heterogeneous and is non-plastic to high plasticity. Field explo- ration and laboratory testing indicate the alluvium has low to moderate consolidation potential and low swell potential. 500707001 R.doc 5 iyipyp& OOVe The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 • Formational materials, mapped as the Laramie Formation, were encountered in each of our borings at depths ranging between approximately 9 and 19.5 feet bgs. The depth to bedrock is generally deeper in the shallow draw that bisects the site in a general east-west direction. Based on the field exploration, laboratory test results, and background review, the forma- tional materials have moderate to high swell potential. • The on-site soils should generally be excavatable to the anticipated removal depths with heavy-duty earthmoving or excavating equipment in good operating condition. We do not anticipate excavations will extend into the Laramie Formation bedrock, with the exception of drilled pier excavations. In the event deeper excavations are planned, the formational bed- rock encountered contains lenses of moderately to strongly cemented sandstone. The excavation rate will be very slow within the formational bedrock and the use of more ag- gressive excavation techniques, such as the use of single-shank rippers or rock breaking equipment, may be needed. • Groundwater was encountered in Borings B-2 and B-4 through B-6 at approximately 9.5 to 19 bgs. In general, based on our understanding of the proposed site grading groundwater is not expected to be a constraint to construction of the project. Groundwater will be encoun- tered in drilled pier excavations. Yielding subgrade conditions may be encountered in areas where site excavations are within 5 feet of the perched groundwater table. However, groundwater levels may rise due to seasonal variations, precipitation, irrigation, groundwater withdrawal or injection, and other factors. • Site soils generated from on-site excavation activities consisting of alluvium that are free of deleterious materials, and do not contain particles larger than 3 inches in diameter, can gen- erally be used as engineered fill. Laramie Formation bedrock, if encountered, should not be used as engineered fill. • The depth to Laramie Formation bedrock on this project site is highly variable. Laramie Formation bedrock has high swell potential and the distance between the finished floor ele- vation of the building pads and the top of formational bedrock is a major design consideration for this project. If final grades differ by more than plus or minus two feet from the project plans and/or locations of the proposed improvements are modified by more than 5 feet Ninyo & Moore should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations provided in this report. • Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, the results of our laboratory testing, and our experience with similar projects,we recommend supporting the proposed Office Control Building on a drilled pier deep foundation system with a structural floor. The proposed Wa- ter Treatment Building may be supported on a spread footing shallow foundation system with a slab-on-grade floor founded on 4 or more feet of compacted engineered fill. The pro- posed liquid storage tanks may be supported on mat foundations founded on 4 or more feet of compacted engineered fill. 500707001 R.doc 6 IyInya&*nore The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 • The sulfate content of tested soils presents a negligible risk of sulfate attack to concrete. • Corrosivity test results indicate the subgrade soils at the site are severely corrosive to ferrous metals. We recommend buried metal piping and components use corrosion resistant materi- als or a properly designed and installed cathodic protection system. 8. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our understanding of the project, the following sections present our geotechnical rec- ommendations for the design and construction of the proposed project. These recommendations were prepared based on preliminary grading plans. If final site grades differ by more than plus or minus 2 feet from preliminary plans, Ninyo & Moore should be notified and given an opportu- nity to re-evaluate our recommendations prior to bidding the project for construction. It should be noted that we have not been provided structural drawings for the proposed structures, and our recommendations may need to be revised once final plans have been prepared. 8.1. Earthwork The following sections provide our earthwork recommendations. Our recommendations are based on our evaluation of information obtained from six exploratory borings, our site ob- servations, laboratory test results, and our experience with similar materials. 8.1.1. Excavations Our evaluation of the excavation characteristics of the on-site materials is based on the results of the subsurface exploration, our site observations, and our experience with similar materials. The on-site surface and near surface soils (alluvium) may generally be excavated with heavy-duty earthmoving or excavation equipment in good operating condition. Laramie Formation bedrock contains layers and lenses of moderately to strongly ce- mented sandstone bedrock. We do not anticipate excavations will extend into the Laramie Formation bedrock, with the exception of drilled pier excavations. In the event deeper excavations are planned, the excavation rate will be very slow within the forma- 500707001 R.doc 7 /flnya&/ftoare The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 tional bedrock and the use of more aggressive excavation techniques, such as single- shank rippers or rock breaking equipment, may be needed to achieve proposed grades. Laramie Formation bedrock was encountered at depths ranging between approximately 9 and 19.5 feet bgs. When nearing excavation bottoms, equipment and procedures should be used that do not cause significant disturbance to the excavation bottoms. Excavators with buckets having large claws to loosen the soil should be avoided when excavating the last 6 to 12 inches of excavations. Such equipment may disturb the excavation base. In addition, excavation bottoms may be disturbed or deform excessively under the wheel loads of heavy construction vehicles as the excavations approach the required depths. Construc- tion equipment should be as light as possible to limit development of this condition. The use of track-mounted vehicles is recommended since they exert lower contact pres- sures. Groundwater was encountered in Borings B-2 and B-4 through B-6 at depths between approximately 9.5 and 19 feet bgs. Based on the anticipated depths of earthwork and construction, a static groundwater table is not expected to be encountered during con- struction of the project. Perched water conditions may be encountered on portions of the site in the alluvium. Yielding subgrade conditions may be encountered in areas where site excavations are within 5 feet of the perched groundwater table. Stabilization rec- ommendations are provided in Section 8.1.3 of this report. 8.1.2. Site Grading Prior to grading, the ground surface in proposed structure and improvement areas should be cleared of any surface obstructions, debris, topsoil, organics (including vege- tation), and other deleterious material. Materials generated from clearing operations should be removed from the project site for disposal (e.g. at a legal landfill site). Ob- structions that extend below finish grade, if present, should be removed and resulting voids filled with compacted soil or cement slurry, in accordance with the recommenda- 500707001 R.doc 8 A finyo&/yours The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 tions of the geotechnical consultant. We anticipate a stripping depth of approximately 6 to 8 inches. On-site topsoil should not be incorporated into engineered fill, but may be stockpiled for re-use as landscaping material or other non-structural material. Prior to placement and compaction of engineered fill, the project's geotechnical con- sultant should observe excavation bottoms to evaluate the exposed soils and if removals to more competent soils are needed. In areas that will receive engineered fill, the ex- posed soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned to approximately optimum moisture content, and compacted to 95 percent or more relative compaction as evaluated by ASTM D 698. Based on our subsurface exploration, we anticipate the bearing conditions will be vari- able across the site. Due to the variability of subsurface conditions across the site and the high potential for post-construction vertical movement, we have developed grading and foundation recommendations specific to the Office Control Building, the Water Treatment Building, and the liquid storage tanks. In order to reduce the potential for post-construction total and differential vertical movement, we recommend construction of a 5-foot thick fill prism beneath the bottom of the finished floor of the Water Treatment Building and a 4-foot thick fill prism be- neath the bottom of the mat foundation for the liquid storage tanks. The existing alluvium below structure footprints should be removed to the required depth and re- placed as moisture conditioned and compacted engineered fill. The fill prisms should be constructed to extend 5 or more feet laterally beyond structure footprints. Pavement and exterior flatwork may be placed on 12 or more inches of moisture condi- tioned and compacted engineered fill. The following table summarizes recommended foundation types and overexcavation depths needed to provide an adequate layer of engineered fill beneath proposed project improvements. 500707001 R.doc 9 Aflnyth*uure The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 Table 1 —Summary of Recommended Foundation Types and Overexcavation Depths Recommended Recommended Overexcavation Depth Proposed Improvement Foundation Type (ft) Control Building Drilled Piers with Struc- Office 0 tural Floor Water Treatment Building Spread Footings with 5 Slab-on-Grade Floor Liquid Storage Tanks Mat Slabs 4 NOTE:. Overexcavation depth may include approximately 6 inches of scarified, moisture-conditioned,and compacted in-place subsurface soils exposed in the bottom of overexcavations. Any loose, soft, and/or disturbed native soils should be removed from proposed structure and improvement areas.Deeper overexcavation than shown may be needed in some areas. 8.1.3. Subgrade Stabilization As previously indicated, a static groundwater table is not expected to be encountered during construction. However, perched water conditions may be encountered on por- tions of the site in the alluvium and pumping conditions may be encountered in excavations near the groundwater table. Stabilization methods should be provided by the grading contractor, as needed, and may include the use of a geogrid, such as Tensar TX 160, BX1100 or a woven geotextile fab- ric, such as Mirafi 600X, placed on unstable subgrade and overlain by 12 inches of crushed rock or aggregate base. Pushing oversized angular rock, up to approximately 6 inches in nominal diameter, into exposed unstable subgrade soils may also be an appro- priate stabilization alternative. The volume of rock needed will vary based upon factors including the moisture content of the native soil, soil type, depth to groundwater, and to- tal affected area. Placement of angular rock should continue until the area exhibits a relatively non-yielding behavior as observed or tested by the geotechnical consultant. 500707001 R.doc 10 HInyo& Ours The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 If conditions (e.g. excavations extending below groundwater) are observed that indicate additional stabilization efforts may be needed, a combination of overexcavation, rock fill, and geogrid placement should be considered. Dewatering and use of relatively light or tracked equipment may also be needed. The geotechnical consultant/engineer during construction should evaluate proposed subgrade stabilization methods prior to their im- plementation. 8.1.4. Fill Placement and Compaction Based on the laboratory test results and our general observations, it is our opinion the native site soils may be suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided they are processed and moisture conditioned in accordance with the recommendations provided herein. Laramie Formation bedrock should not be used as engineered fill. Engineered fill soils should not contain expansive soil (swell potential greater than 1 percent under a pressure of 200 psf when remolded at optimum moisture content), or- ganic material, claystone bedrock fragments, or other deleterious material. Soils used as engineered fill should be moisture-conditioned to moisture contents within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and placed in uniform horizontal lifts. Engi- neered fill should be compacted to 95 percent, or more, of the maximum proctor density as evaluated by ASTM D 698. Fill should be compacted by appropriate mechanical methods using vibratory compac- tion equipment. The optimal lift thickness of fill will depend on the type of soil and compaction equipment used, but should generally not exceed approximately 8 inches in loose thickness. Fill materials should not be placed, worked, or rolled while they are frozen or thawing, and should not be placed during poor/inclement weather conditions. Earthwork operations should be observed and compaction of engineered fill and backfill materials should be tested by the project's geotechnical consultant. Typically, one field test should be performed, per lift, for each approximately 500 cubic yards of fill place- 500707001 R.doc 11 49.nyog/Noore The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 ment in structural areas. Additional field tests may also be performed in structural and non-structural areas at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Compaction areas should be kept separate, and no lift should be covered by another until relative compac- tion and moisture content within the recommended ranges are obtained. 8.1.5. Imported Fill Material Imported material should consist of relatively impervious soil with 30 to 50 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, a low sulfate content (less than 0.1 percent), a low swell po- tential (approximately 1 percent or less when wetted against a surcharge pressure of 200 psf), and a low plasticity index (approximately 15 or less). Import soil should not contain organic material, clay lumps, bedrock (claystone, sandstone, etc.) fragments, debris, other deleterious matter, or rocks or hard chunks larger than approximately 4 inches nominal diameter. Imported fill soils should exhibit low corrosion potential. Imported materials placed in contact with ferrous materials should have a saturated soil resistivity of 2,000 ohm-cm or more and a chloride content of 25 parts per million (ppm) or less. Soils in contact with concrete should exhibit a soluble sulfate content less than 0.1 percent. We further recommend that proposed import material be evaluated by the project's geo- technical consultant at the borrow source for its suitability prior to importation to the project site. Import soil should be moisture-conditioned and placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the previous section. 8.2. Utility Installation The Contractor should take care to achieve and maintain adequate compaction of the backfill soils around valve risers and other vertical pipeline elements where settlements commonly are observed. Use of"flowable fill," i.e., a lean, sand-cement slurry, or a similar material should be considered in lieu of compacted soil backfill for areas with low tolerances for sur- face settlements. This would also reduce the permeability of the utility trenches. 500707001 R.doc 12 4finyo& nW The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 Special care should be exercised to avoid damaging pipes or other structures during the compaction of the backfill. In addition, the underside (or haunches) of buried pipes should be supported on bedding material that is compacted as described above. This may need to be performed with placement by hand or small-scale compaction equipment. 8.2.1. Pipe Bedding Materials and Modulus of Soil Reaction (E') The alluvium encountered will not be suitable for use as free-draining pipe bedding. We recommend pipes be supported on 6 inches or more of graded granular bedding mate- rial such as sand and gravel, or crushed rock with a particle size of 3/4-inch or less. To help limit the amount of fines from the excavation sides and bottom washing onto the void spaces of the bedding material after construction, we recommend the bedding ma- terial be encapsulated in a non-woven geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Pipe bedding materials, placement and compaction should meet pipe manufacturer and applicable municipal standards. Materials proposed for use as pipe bedding should be tested for suitability prior to import. The modulus of soil reaction (E') is used to characterize the stilftiess of soil backfill placed at the sides of buried pipelines for the purpose of evaluating deflection caused by the weight of the backfill over the pipe. For alluvial backfill soils, we recommend using an E' value of 1,000 psi. 8.2.2. Water Transfer in Utility Trenches and Pipe Bedding Bedding materials should be brought up evenly on both sides of pipes to reduce devel- opment of unbalanced loads on the pipe. Flooding or jetting of bedding materials should not be permitted. Development of site grading plans should consider the subsurface transfer of water in utility trenches and the pipe bedding. Pipe bedding materials can function as efficient conduits for re-distribution of natural and applied waters in the subsurface. Cut-off 500707001 R.doc 13 F jInyo&4400re The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 walls in utility trenches or other water-stopping measures, and/or outlet mechanisms for saturated bedding materials should be incorporated to reduce the rates and volumes of water transmitted along utility alignments and toward buildings, pavements and other structures where excessive wetting of the underlying soils will be damaging. These measures also will reduce the risk of loss of fine-grained backfill soils into the bedding material,with resultant surface settlement. 8.3. Temporary Excavations and Shoring Temporary excavations will be needed for this project to construct foundations and install utilities. Based on the subsurface information obtained from our exploratory borings and our experience with similar projects, we anticipate that site soils may slough or cave during ex- cavation. The contractor should provide safely sloped excavations or an adequately constructed and braced shoring system, in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, for employees working in excavations that may expose them to the danger of moving ground. Reducing the inclination of the sidewalls of the excavations, where feasible, may increase the stability of the excavations. If construction or earth mate- rial is stored, or equipment is operated near an excavation, flatter slope geometry or shoring should be used during construction. In our opinion, the native site soils should generally be considered a Type C soil when ap- plying the OSHA guidelines. For these soil conditions, OSHA recommends a temporary slope inclination of 1.5H:1 V or flatter for excavations 20 feet or less in depth. Steeper cut slopes may be utilized for excavations less than 4 feet deep depending on the strength, mois- ture content, and homogeneity of the soils as observed in the field. Appropriate slope inclinations for fill materials and alluvial deposits should be evaluated in the field by an OSHA-qualified "Competent Person"based on the conditions encountered. 500707001 R.doc 14 AtlnyoqNeure The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 8.4. Shallow Foundations The following sections provide our foundation recommendations for shallow, conventional spread footings and mat foundations bearing on engineered fill compacted in accordance with recommendations set forth in previous sections. 8.4.1. Conventional Spread Footings Spread footing foundations may be utilized to support the proposed Water Treatment Building provided the remedial grading and over-excavation recommendations pre- sented herein are followed. Spread or continuous footings may be designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Interior footings should be placed 18 or more inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade and pe- rimeter footings should extend to 36 inches or more below the lowest exterior finished grade for frost protection. Continuous and isolated footings should have a width of 24 or more inches. The average footing bearing pressure should not exceed the allowable equivalent uni- form bearing pressure tabulated above. However, peak edge stresses may exceed these values as long as the resultant passes through the middle third of the footing base. The allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering total loads including loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. Seismic parame- ters for design of structures at the site are provided in the referenced Geologic Hazards Report(Ninyo&Moore, 2013). Positive drainage should be established and maintained around the proposed improve- ments to direct water away from building foundations. The recommended allowable bearing pressure was based on an assumption of drained conditions. If foundation mate- rials become wet, the effective bearing capacity will be reduced and larger post- construction movements than those estimated below may result. If the recommendations provided in this report are implemented in design and construc- tion, and positive surface drainage away from the structures is maintained during the 500707001 R.doc 15 40:yog4►oore The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 life of the project, we estimate total vertical post-construction movement of foundations to be approximately 1-inch. Differential movements for the proposed water treatment building should be on the order of 1/2 to 3/4 of the estimated total vertical movement. These estimates are based on the anticipated loading conditions, the available soil bor- ing information, and our experience with similar soils. Lateral resistance for footings is presented in Section 8.8. The foundations should pref- erably be proportioned such that the resultant force from total footing loads, including lateral loads, falls within the kern (i.e., middle one-third of the footing base). Compacted fill placed against the sides of the footings should be compacted to 95 per- cent or more, relative compaction in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 8.1.2. 8.4.2. Mat Foundations The proposed liquid storage tanks may be supported on mat foundations with frost pro- tected turned down edges bearing on a zone of engineered fill prepared in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 8.1.2 of this report. The mat foundation may be designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. The total and dif- ferential settlement corresponding to this allowable bearing load are estimated to be less than approximately 1 inch and 3/4 inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet,respectively. Mat foundations typically experience some deflection due to loads placed on the mat and the reaction of the soils directly underlying the mat. A design modulus of subgrade reaction (K) of 90 tons per cubic foot (tcf) may be used for the subgrade soils in evalu- ating such deflections. This value is based on a unit square foot area and should be adjusted for large mats.Adjusted values of the modulus of subgrade reaction, K,,, can be obtained from the following equation for mats of various widths: K,=K[(B+1)/2B]2 (tcf) B in the above equation represents the width of the mat in feet. 500707001 R.doc 16 40:yo&/y►oure The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 8.5. Drilled Pier Foundations We recommend that the Office Control Building be supported on a drilled pier foundation system with a structural floor. In Boring B-1, which was drilled at the proposed location of the Office Control Building, we encountered shallow Laramie Formation bedrock. The re- sults of our swell/consolidation testing performed on samples obtained in Boring B-1 indicated moderate to high swell potential, see Figures B-5 and B-6. Based on our calcula- tions, if these materials experienced changes in moisture content, the post-construction vertical movement would be substantially greater than what can be tolerated by a conven- tional spread footing/slab-on-grade foundation system. The design considerations presented below should be considered during drilled pier founda- tion system design. The construction details and other considerations presented in this report should also be considered when preparing project documents. If the measures outlined in this report are implemented effectively, the total vertical foundation movement will be less than '/2-inch, provided that the drilled pier bearing materials are not significantly disturbed during construction. Differential movements are estimated to be of similar magnitude. This estimate is based on the soil and bedrock conditions between piers disclosed by the borings, anticipated conditions, and our experience with similar geologic materials. 8.5.1. Drilled Pier Design Considerations Piers bearing in formational bedrock may be designed for a net allowable end bearing pressure of up to 20,000 psf. The portion of the pier penetrating formational bedrock may be designed for an allowable skin friction (in downward axial compression) of up to 2,000 psf. This allowable skin friction value is applicable to provide bearing support and resist uplift. Piers should also be designed for a minimum dead load pressure of 10,000 psf based on pier end area only. Piers should have a length of 29 feet or more and penetrate 9 feet or more into compe- tent formational bedrock. Both criteria for pier length and bedrock penetration should be met. If the minimum dead load requirement cannot be achieved, and the piers are 500707001 R.doc 17 F/rnyo&/ftoure The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 spaced as far apart as practical, the pier length should be extended above recommended minimum length to make up the dead load deficit. This could be accomplished by as- suming skin friction located in the extended zone acts in the direction to resist uplift. A pier diameter of 18 or more inches or 5 percent of the expected total shaft length, whichever is greater, is recommended to facilitate cleaning and observation of the pier hole. The structural engineer should design the actual length to diameter ratio. Bedrock penetration in pier holes should be roughened artificially to assist the devel- opment of peripheral shear between the pier and bedrock. Artificially roughening of pier holes should consist of installing 3 inches high and 2 inches deep shear rings placed at 18 inches on center within the bedrock penetration zone within the bottom 9 or more feet of each pier. Shear rings should not be installed in the upper 15 feet of the drilled piers. Piers should be reinforced for their full length to resist the ultimate tensile load created by the on-site swelling materials. Tension may be estimated based on an uplift pressure of 1,200 psf for formational bedrock located within the upper 15 feet of material pene- trated by the pier and on the surface area of the pier. We understand that the lateral load analysis of shafts will be performed by others. The parameters tabulated below may be used for lateral analysis of drilled piers for resis- tance to lateral loads. The parameters were developed based on the field and laboratory data obtained for the subject site and our experience with similar sites and conditions. A simplified soil / bedrock profile with approximate unit wet weights (y, ys„b), angles of internal friction (4), undrained shear strength (c„), for the earth materials, as well as val- ues for strain at 50 percent of failure stress (£50) and modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction (kh) is presented in Table 2. Resistance to lateral loads should be neglected in the upper 3 feet of the existing ground surface. Cased zones (if casing is utilized) should 500707001 R.doc 18 /`Unyo&Ninure The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 not be included in load calculations and the lengths of individual piers should be in- creased correspondingly. Table 2—Recommended Lateral Load Parameters Ysub Cu kh £50 Material Type (pci) (pci) (deg) (psi) (pci) Engineered Fill 0.060 - 27 10 400 0.007 Alluvium 0.058 .0220 - 10 150 0.010 Formational Bedrock 0.063 .0270 - 28 1,300 0.005 For lateral loading, piers in a group may be considered to act individually when the center-to-center spacing is greater than 3D (where, D is the diameter of the pier) in the direction normal to loading and greater than 5D in the direction parallel to loading. The following table presents the lateral load reduction factors to be applied for various pier spacing for in-line loading. Linear interpolation may be used for spacings that are be- tween 3D and 5D. Table 3 —Lateral Load Group Reduction Factors Center-to-Center Reduction Factor* Pier Spacing for In-Line Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 and higher Loading 3D 0.8 0.40 0.3 5D 1.0 0.85 0.7 Note: * Based on AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Edition, 2010 In- terim Revision A 12-inch or thicker void form should be placed beneath grade beams and beneath pier caps. The void space that will be created after the void form disintegrates should be protected by a backfill retainer to discourage backfill soils from migrating into the void space on both sides. 500707001 R.doc 19 Atlnyo&/inure The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 8.5.2. Drilled Pier Construction Considerations Our evaluation of the excavation characteristics of the on-site materials is based on the results of our exploratory borings, site observations, and experience with similar mate- rials. Resistant bedrock was encountered in our borings. Difficult drilling conditions may be encountered during pier hole drilling. The pier-drilling contractor should be prepared to core lenses and beds of highly cemented sandstone bedrock that may be present within the Laramie Formation. The pier-drilling contractor should mobilize equipment of sufficient size and operating capability to achieve the recommended penetration into the bedrock. The excavation technique chosen by the contractor should not adversely affect the quality or strength of the shaft side or end bearing materials. If refusal is encountered in these materials either during the test program or during actual installation, the geotechnical engineer should be retained to evaluate the conditions to establish that true refusal has been met with adequate drilling equipment. Groundwater was not encountered in Boring B-1, which was drilled at the proposed lo- cation of the Office Control Building. However, groundwater was encountered in Borings B-2 and B-4 through B-6 during the subsurface exploration. Groundwater may be present where not encountered during our subsurface exploration. The contractor should be prepared to advance the piers in the presence of groundwater. Casing may be needed in the pier holes to reduce water infiltration. The concrete may be placed by the free-fall method into piers that exhibit "dry" condi- tions (i.e. less than 3 inches of water). This method consists of using a vertical section of concrete chute to divert the concrete flow out of the truck in a vertical stream of con- crete with a relatively small diameter. The stream should be diverted to avoid hitting the sides of the drilled shaft or the reinforcing cage, which could cause concrete segrega- tion. In no case, should concrete be placed in more than 3 inches of water, unless placed using a tremie method. 500707001 R.doc 20 /vivo&/ Oure The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 Where water is present in the drilled pier hole, including outside of a casing (if utilized) that will be withdrawn from the hole, the concrete placed for the pier should have suffi- cient slump and be placed with sufficient head maintained above groundwater levels so that the concrete is not displaced in the body of the pier by water, soil, etc., leading to effective voids in the pier. Concrete utilized in the piers should be a fluid mix with suf- ficient slump so that it will fill the void between reinforcing steel and the pier hole wall. We recommend the concrete have a slump in the range of 6 inches+/-1-inch. The contractor should take care to reduce enlargement of the excavation at the tops of piers, which could result in mushrooming of the pier top. Pier holes should be cleaned prior to placement of concrete. Care should be taken to check that the soils at the pier bottom have not been disturbed. The movement associated with mobilizing the end- bearing component should not be beyond tolerable structural limits. The successful ad- vancement of drilled excavations for the construction of drilled shafts will depend largely on the suitability of the drilling equipment and skill of the operator. The drilled foundation contractor should try to reduce the time during which the excavation remains open. The contractor should schedule the sequence of operations so that each excavation can be finished, reinforcing steel placed, and the concrete poured in a rapid and timely manner. The contractor should not place drilled piers adjacent to each other until the first one is set. The installation of piers should be scheduled to allow the concrete in adjacent shafts to set before drilling the next shaft. Drilled piers spaced closer than about four shaft di- ameters (clear spacing) should be placed on alternate days and drilled shaft excavations should not be left open over night. The drilled pier excavations should be evaluated to check that adequate bearing material has been reached and that the bearing surface has been suitably cleaned. In the event lignite (black in color) is encountered within the bedrock penetration or end bearing zone, piers will have to be deepened to adequate bearing material as determined by the geotechnical engineer. This evaluation can typically be done at the surface. Installation 500707001 R.doc 21 /t/lnyo&/inure The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer or qualified representative to check that, among other things: 1) subsurface conditions are as anticipated from the borings, 2)the drilled shafts are constructed to the specified size and penetration, 3) drilled shafts are within allowable tolerances for plumbness, and 4)reinforcements are placed per project specifications. These items are fundamental to the installation and behavior of the drilled shafts in accordance with our recommendations. Furthermore, we recom- mend the following for the installation of drilled shafts. • The clear spacing between bars or behind the rebar cage should be more than three times the maximum size of the coarse aggregate used in the concrete. • Centralizers on the rebar cage should be installed to keep the cage positioned per project specifications. • Cross bracing of a reinforcing cage may be used when fabricating, transporting, and lifting. However, experience has shown that cross bracing can contribute to the de- velopment of voids in a concrete shaft. Therefore, we recommend removing the cross bracing prior to lowering the reinforcing cage into the open excavation. • If casing is used, a sufficient head of concrete that fills the casing should be used before pulling the casing. • Concrete tremied into a shaft with slurry (if utilized) should maintain a hydrostatic pressure in excess of either the surrounding water table or slurry in the excavation. We should be given an opportunity to review the proposed specifications and the con- tractor's installation procedures prior to construction. 8.6. Structural Floors We recommend the Office Control Building supported on a drilled pier foundation system be provided with a structural floor. Structural floors should be supported on grade beams and straight shaft drilled piers. Requirements for the number and position of additional piers to support the structural floors will depend upon the span, design load, and structural design, and should be developed by the Structural Engineer. Geotechnical recommendations for de- sign and installation of drilled piers are provided in the previous section. 500707001 R.doc 22 49.nyo&44 u re The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 Structural floors should be constructed to span above a well-ventilated crawl space 3 or more feet in height to allow access for maintenance of under floor utility piping. Interior utility lines should be suspended from the bottom of the structural floor and should be placed 12 or more inches above the site soils. In areas where utility piping supported by site soils enter the structural floor, positive bond breaks that allow 3 inches of differential movement should be used. Design and installation of associated fixtures should also ac- commodate this potential movement. Plumbing lines should be carefully tested before operation. If a wooden structural floor system is used in the buildings, particular care should be taken to design and maintain the under-floor ventilation system in order to reduce potential dete- rioration of the wooden structural members. A vapor barrier meeting ASTM E-1745 (Class "A") should be considered for installation be- low the structurally supported floor and should be attached/sealed to foundation walls/drilled piers above the void material. The sheet material should not be attached to horizontal sur- faces such that condensate might drain to wood or corrodible metal surfaces. New buildings generally lack ventilation due primarily to systematic efforts to construct air- tight, energy-efficient structures. Therefore, areas such as crawl spaces beneath structural floors are typically areas of elevated humidity. Persistently warm, humid conditions in the presence of cellulose, which is the base material found in many typical construction prod- ucts, creates an ideal environment for the growth of fungi, molds, and mildew. Published data suggest links between molds and negative health affects. Therefore,we recommend that the crawl space beneath the structural floor be provided with adequate,positive active venti- lation system or other active mechanisms such as specially designed HVAC systems to reduce the potential for mold, fungus and mildew growth. The owner should understand the risks of potential mold, fungus, and mildew growth when utilizing a structural floor system. Crawl spaces should be inspected periodically so that remedial measures can be taken in a timely manner. 500707001 R.doc 23 /r/nyo&/inure The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 8.7. Slab-on-Grade Floors The proposed Water Treatment Building may be designed for a slab-on-grade floor. The de- sign of the floor slabs (including jointing and reinforcement) is the responsibility of the structural engineer. Joints should be constructed at intervals designed by the structural engi- neer to help reduce random cracking of the slab. However, from a geotechnical standpoint, we recommend that floor slabs have a thickness of 5 or more inches and be reinforced with steel as designed by a structural engineer. Placement of the reinforcement in the slab is vital for satisfactory performance. Soils underlying the slabs should be improved in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 8.1.2. Floor slabs should be separated from bearing walls and columns with expansion joints, which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Joints should be observed periodically, par- ticularly during the first several years after construction. Slab movement can cause previously free-slipping joints to bind. Measures should be taken so that slab isolation is maintained in order to reduce the likelihood of damage to walls and other interior improve- ments. If post-construction vertical slab movement of about 1-inch cannot be tolerated or desired, than we recommend utilizing a structural floor system spanning over a void or a crawl space. Interior partitions resting on floor slabs should be provided with slip joints so that if the slabs move, the movement cannot be transmitted to the upper structure, including wall- boards and door frames. A slip joint that allows 2 or more inches of vertical movement is recommended for placement at the bottoms of the interior partitions. If slip joints are placed at the tops of walls, in the event that the floor slabs move, it is expected that the wall will show signs of distress, especially where the floors meet the exterior wall. Plumbing lines should be carefully tested before operation. Where plumbing lines enter through the floor, a positive bond break should be provided. Flexible connections allowing 2 or more inches of vertical movement should be provided for slab-bearing mechanical equipment. 500707001 R.doc 24 4finyO& nar The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 The slab should be underlain by 4 or more inches of moist clean sand and/or gravel. The need for a moisture-retarding system should be considered by the structural engineer or ar- chitect based on the moisture sensitivity of the anticipated flooring. 8.8. Lateral Earth Pressures Walls that are not restrained from movement at the top and have a level backfill behind the wall may be designed using an "active" equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This value assumes compaction within about 5 feet of the wall will be accom- plished with relatively light compaction equipment, and that backfill meeting engineered fill requirements will be placed behind the wall to a distance of half or more of the wall height. Unrestrained retaining walls and below-grade pit walls should also be designed to resist a surcharge pressure of 0.35q. The value for "q" represents the pressure induced by adjacent light loads, slab, or traffic loads plus any adjacent footing loads. The "at-rest" earth pressure against walls that are restrained at the top or braced so that they cannot yield, and with level backfill meeting the above stated criteria, may be taken as equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid weighing 67 pcf. Restrained retaining walls should also be designed to resist a horizontal earth pressure of 0.52q. The value of q repre- sents the vertical surcharge pressure induced by adjacent light loads, slab, or traffic loads plus any adjacent footing loads. For "passive" resistance to lateral loads, we recommend that an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pcf be used up to value of 2,500 psf. This value assumes that the ground is horizontal for a distance of 10 feet or more behind the wall or three times the height generating the pas- sive pressure, whichever is more. We recommend that the upper 24 inches of soil not protected by pavement or a concrete slab be neglected when calculating passive resistance. For frictional resistance to lateral loads, we recommend that a coefficient of friction of 0.34 be used between soil and concrete. If passive and frictional resistances are to be used in combination, we recommend that the passive resistance be limited to one-half of the ulti- 500707001 R.doc 25 /Vi►nyo&MOOve The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 mate lateral resistance. The passive resistance values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. Retaining walls should be backfilled and provided with a drain. Drainpipes should outlet away from structures, and retaining walls should be waterproofed in accordance with the recommendations of the project civil engineer or architect. To reduce the potential for water- and sulfate/salt-related damage to the retaining walls, particular care should be taken in se- lection of the appropriate type of waterproofing material to be utilized and in the application of this material. For exterior retaining walls, weepholes may be used in lieu of drainage pipes. 8.9. Pavements We understand project pavements will be privately maintained. Pavement section alterna- tives for the paved surfaces including standard duty (i.e. automobile access and parking) and heavy duty (i.e. truck access, drive lanes, and staging areas) areas were developed in general accordance with the guidelines and procedures of the American Association of State High- way and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), and Weld County. 8.9.1. Pavement Subgrade Support The subgrade soils encountered during the subsurface exploration typically consisted of sandy clay and clayey sand materials that classify as A-6 to A-7-5 soils in accordance with the AASHTO (2011) classification system. A resistance value (R-Value) of 3 was established from classifications of composite soil samples representative of subsurface soils at the site. The R-Value of 3 correlates to a subgrade resilient modulus (MR) of 2,834 pounds per square inch (psi) using equations developed by CDOT (2013). If during construction the subgrade is found to vary from the expected soil conditions, we should be contacted so we may re-evaluate our recom- mended resilient modulus value. 500707001 R.doc 26 iyiIyo&/yioore The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 8.9.2. Design Traffic Specific traffic loadings for the project were not available at the time of this report preparation. Equivalent 18-kip single axle load applications (ESAL's) of 36,500 and 500,000 for 20-year design lives were assumed for standard duty pavements (i.e. auto- mobile access and parking) and heavy duty pavements (i.e. truck access, drive lanes, and staging areas), respectively. If design traffic loadings differ significantly from these assumed values, we should be notified to re-evaluate the pavement recommendations below. 8.9.3. Pavement Design Pavement designs for the site were based on the "Guide for Design of Pavement Struc- tures" by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 1993). The design of flexible pavements was based on the following input parameters: Initial Serviceability: 4.5 Terminal Serviceability: 2.0 Reliability 80 % Overall Standard Deviation: 0.44 Resilient Modulus: 2,834 psi Stage Construction: 1 The design of rigid pavements was based on the following input parameters: Initial Serviceability: 4.5 Terminal Serviceability: 2.0 28-Day Mean PCC Modulus Rupture: 650 psi 28-Day Mean Elastic Modulus of Slab: 3.6 x 106 psi Mean Effective k value: 150 psi/in Reliability: 90% Overall Standard Deviation: 0.35 Load Transfer Coefficient: 4.2 Overall Drainage Coefficient: 1 500707001 R.doc 27 AtiHyo&NkOOre The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 8.9.4. Pavement Section Recommendations Based on the above-mentioned design traffic and input parameters, and following the AASHTO method of pavement design (AASHTO, 1993), the following structural sec- tions were calculated for standard duty and heavy duty pavements. Strength coefficients used in the design of the pavement sections were provided by CDOT (2013). Table 4 summarizes the recommended pavement sections. Table 4—Recommended New Pavement Sections AC/ABC PCC/ABC Traffic Type (inches) (inches) Standard Duty 5 /6 - Heavy Duty 7 / 10 6.5 /6 8.9.5. Pavement Materials The asphalt pavement shall consist of a bituminous plant mix composed of a mixture of high quality aggregate and bituminous material, which meets the requirements of a job- mix formula established by a qualified engineer. Grading S should be used for the lower lift(s) and grading SX should be used for the surface course. Pavement layer thickness should be 2 to 3 inches for the lower lift(s) and 1.5 to 2.5 inches for the surface course with tack coat layer(s) in between. The geotechnical engineer should be retained to re- view the proposed pavement mix designs, grading, and lift thicknesses prior to construction. Concrete pavements should consist of a plant mix composed of a mixture of aggregate, Portland cement and appropriate admixtures meeting the requirements of Weld County. Concrete should have a modulus of rupture of third point loading of 650 psi or more. The concrete should be air-entrained with approximately 6 percent air and should have a cement content of 6 or more sacks per cubic yard. Allowable slump should be 4 inches. 500707001 R.doc 28 F/rnya&/ftoora The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 Thickened edges should be used along outside edges of concrete pavements. Edge thickness should be 2 inches or more than the concrete pavement thickness and taper to the actual concrete pavement thickness 36 inches inward from the edge. Integral curbs may be used in lieu of thickened edges. Concrete pavements should have longitudinal and transverse joints that meet the appli- cable requirements of Weld County. In areas of repeated turning stresses, we recommend that the concrete pavement joints be fully tied and doweled. We suggest that civil design consider joint layout in accordance with CDOT's M Standards. The aggregate base material placed beneath pavements should meet the criteria of CDOT Class 6 aggregate base. Requirements for CDOT Class 6 aggregate base can be found in Section 703 of the current CDOT Standards and Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. 8.9.6. Pavement Subgrade Preparation For both the flexible and rigid pavement sections recommended above, we recommend the underlying subgrade soils be prepared as described in Section 8.1 of this report. The contractor should be prepared either to dry the subgrade materials or moisten them, as needed, prior to compaction. Some site soils may pump or deflect during compaction if moisture levels are not carefully monitored. The contractor should be prepared to process and compact such soils to establish a stable platform for paving, including use of chemical stabilization or geotextiles,where needed. The prepared subgrade should be protected from the elements prior to pavement place- ment. Subgrades that are exposed to the elements may need additional moisture conditioning and compaction,prior to pavement placements. Immediately prior to paving, the pavement subgrade should be proof rolled with a heav- ily loaded, pneumatic tired vehicle, and checked for moisture content.Areas that exhibit 500707001 R.doc 29 /t/lnyo&*eere The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 excessive deflection (as evaluated by the geotechnical engineer) during proof rolling should be excavated and replaced and/or stabilized. 8.9.7. Pavement Maintenance The collection and diversion of surface drainage away from paved areas is vital to satis- factory performance of the pavements. The subsurface and surface drainage systems should be carefully designed to facilitate removal of the water from paved areas and subgrade soils. Allowing surface waters to pond on pavements will cause premature pavement deterioration. Where topography, site constraints or other factors limit or pre- clude adequate surface drainage, pavements should be provided with edge drains to reduce loss of subgrade support. The long-term performance of the pavement also can be improved greatly by backfilling and compaction behind curbs, gutters, and sidewalks so that ponding is not permitted and water infiltration is reduced. As noted above, the standard care of practice in pavement design describes the recom- mended flexible pavement section as a "20-year" design pavement; however, many pavements will not remain in satisfactory condition without routine, preventive mainte- nance and rehabilitation procedures performed during the life of the pavement. Preventive pavement treatments are surface rehabilitation and operations applied to im- prove or extend the functional life of a pavement. These treatments preserve, rather than improve, the structural capacity of the pavement structure. In the event the existing pavement is not structurally sound, the preventive maintenance will have no long- lasting effect. Therefore, a routine maintenance program to seal joints and cracks, and repair distressed areas is recommended. 8.10. Concrete Flatwork It should be noted that ground-supported flatwork such as walkways will be subject to soil- related movements resulting from heave/settlement, frost, etc. Thus, where these types of elements abut rigid building foundations or isolated/suspended structures, differential 500707001 R.doc 30 itenyO&/Vinov% The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 movements should be anticipated. We recommend that flexible joints be provided where such elements abut the main structure to allow for differential movement at these locations. We recommend that exterior concrete flatwork be supported on improved subgrade as de- scribed in Section 8.1.2 of this report. Positive drainage should be established and maintained adjacent to flatwork. Water should not be allowed to pond on or adjacent to flat- work. In no case should exterior flatwork extend to under any portion of the building where there is less than 3 inches of clearance between the flatwork and any element of the building. Ex- terior flatwork in contact with brick, rock facades, or any other element of the building can cause damage to the structure if the flatwork experiences movements. Prior to placement of flatwork, a proof roll should be performed to evaluate areas that ex- hibit instability and deflection. The soils in these areas should be removed and replaced with engineered fill or stabilized. 8.11. Site Drainage Surface drainage should be provided to divert water away from the proposed structures and off of paved surfaces. Surface water should not be permitted to drain toward the structures or to pond adjacent to foundation walls or on paved surfaces. Positive drainage is defined as a slope of 2 or more percent for a distance of 10 or more feet away from the structures. Roof gutters should be installed on structures. Downspouts should discharge to drainage systems away from structures,pavements, and flatwork. Vegetation that may need irrigation should not be located within 5 feet of structure founda- tion perimeters. Irrigation sprinkler heads should be deployed so that applied water is not introduced within 5 feet of the foundation perimeters. Landscape irrigation outside the 5- foot limit should be limited to sustain healthy plant growth. 500707001 R.doc 31 /f/lnyo&/inure The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 8.12. Corrosivity The corrosion potential of the on-site materials was analyzed to evaluate its potential effect on the foundations and structures. Corrosion potential was evaluated using the results of laboratory testing of a sample obtained during our subsurface evaluation that was considered representative of soils at the subject site. Laboratory testing consisted of pH, minimum electrical resistivity, chloride, and soluble sul- fate contents. Soil pH and minimum resistivity tests were performed on a representative sample in general accordance with ASTM D 4972. The chloride content of a selected sample was evaluated in general accordance with CDOT Laboratory Procedure 2104. The sulfate content of a selected sample was evaluated in general accordance with CDOT Laboratory Procedure 2103. The results of the corrosivity tests are presented in Appendix B. Based on the values obtained for the soil parameters, the site soils are considered severely corrosive to ferrous metals. Corrosive conditions can be addressed by use of materials not vulnerable to corrosion, heavier gauge materials (increased pipe wall/metal thickness) with longer design lives, polyethylene encasement, or cathodic protection systems. A corrosion specialist should be consulted for further recommendations. 8.13. Water Soluble Sulfates and Concrete Laboratory chemical tests performed on an on-site soil sample indicated a water soluble sul- fate contents of up to 0.01 percent by weight. Based on review of the referenced International Building Code (ICC, 2009) and American Concrete Institute (ACI, 2005) the tested soil is considered to have a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete. Notwithstanding the sulfate test results and due to the limited number of chemical tests performed, as well as our experience with similar soil conditions and local practice, we recommend the use of "Type II"cement for construction of concrete structures at this site. The concrete should have a water-cementitious materials ratio of no more than 0.50 by weight for normal weight aggregate concrete. The structural engineer should ultimately se- lect the concrete design strength based on the project specific loading conditions. However, 500707001 R.doc 32 4finyO& OW The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 higher strength concrete may be selected for increased durability, resistance to slab curling and shrinkage cracking. We recommend the use of concrete with a design 28-day compres- sive strength of 4000 psi or more, for concrete grade slabs at this site. Concrete exposed to the elements should be air-entrained. 8.14. Construction in Cold or Wet Weather Given the soil conditions, it is important to avoid ponding of water in excavations. Water that accumulates in excavations should be promptly pumped out or otherwise removed and these areas should be allowed to dry out before resuming construction. Earthwork activities undertaken during the cold weather season may be difficult and should be done by an experienced contractor. Fill should not be placed on top of frozen soils. The frozen soils should be removed prior to the placement of new engineered fill or other con- struction material. Frozen soil should not be used as structural fill or backfill. The frozen soil may be reused (provided it meets the selection criteria) once it has thawed completely. In addition, compaction of the soils may be more difficult due to the viscosity change in water at lower temperatures. If construction proceeds during cold weather, foundations, or other concrete elements should not be placed on frozen subgrade soil. Frozen soil should either be removed from beneath concrete elements, or thawed and recompacted. To limit the potential for soil freezing, the time passing between excavation and construction should be minimized. Blankets, straw, soil cover, or heating could be used to discourage the soil from freezing. 8.15. Pre-Construction Conference We recommend that a pre-construction conference be held. Representatives of the owner, civil engineer, the geotechnical consultant, and the contractor should be in attendance to dis- cuss the project plans and schedule. Our office should be notified if the project description included herein is incorrect, or if the project characteristics are significantly changed. 500707001 R.doc 33 /f/lnya&/inure The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 8.16. Construction Observation and Testing During construction operations, we recommend that a qualified geotechnical consultant per- form observation and testing services for the project. These services should be performed to evaluate exposed subgrade conditions, including the extent and depth of overexcavation, to evaluate the suitability of proposed borrow materials for use as fill, to evaluate the stability of open temporary excavations, to evaluate the results of any dewatering activities, and to observe placement and test compaction of fill soils. If another geotechnical consultant is se- lected to perform observation and testing services for the project, we request that the selected consultant provide a letter to the owner, with a copy to Ninyo & Moore, indicating that they fully understand our recommendations and that they are in full agreement with the recommendations contained in this report. Qualified subcontractors utilizing appropriate techniques and construction materials should perform construction of the proposed im- provements. 9. LIMITATIONS The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this geotechnical report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions pre- sented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through addi- tional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request. Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, or the pres- ence of hazardous materials. This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document,by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore 500707001 R.doc 34 4finyO& oov% The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant per- form an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing. Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encoun- tered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, there- fore,be invalidated over time, in part or in whole,by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control. This report is intended exclusively for use by the client.Any use or reuse of the findings, conclu- sions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said parties'sole risk. 500707001 R.doc 35 4/lnyo&N►oore The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 10. SELECTED REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2004, Guidelines for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction (ACI 302.1R-04). American Concrete Institute, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary. American Concrete Institute, 2010, Guide to Design of Slabs-on-Ground (ACI 360-10).American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2010 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1997 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Baseline Engineering, Planning, Surveying, 2013, Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., Liquids Han- dling Hub, Site Plan, dated August 9. Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers, 2007, Geotechnical Study Guidelines for Light Commercial and Residential Buildings in Colorado, dated September. Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers, 1996, Guideline for Slab Performance Risk Evaluation and Residential Basement Floor System Recommendations (Denver Metro- politan Area), dated December. Colton, Roger B., 1978, Geologic Map of the Boulder-Fort Collins - Greeley Area, Colorado. Hart, Stephen S., 1973-4, Potentially Swelling Soil and Rock in the Front Range Urban Corridor, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey. International Building Code, 2009, International Code Council Kirkham, Robert M., 1977, Quaternary Movements on the Golden Fault, Colorado, from Geol- ogy,Volume 5, Issue 11,page 689. Ninyo & Moore, 2013, Geologic Hazards Study, The Hub Facility Northwest Corner of WCR 6 and WCR 7, Weld County, Colorado, dated September 12. Rogers, W. P. and Widmann B. L., Fault number 2324, Golden fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults. Trimble, Donald E., 1980, The Geologic Story of the Great Plains, Geological Survey Bulletin 1493. United States Geological Survey, 2008, Earthquake Ground Motion Parameter Java Application, Java Ground Motion Parameter Calculator — Version 5.0.9a; http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ research/hazmaps/design/. 500707001 R.doc 36 49.nyo&4400re The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 Aerial Photograph References Source Dates Google Earth June 1993; October 1999;August 2004; March 2008, October 2012 500707001 R.doc 37 ifigp&IVinure fr 12 -12T�� 5 1,-" - ERIE DACONO I I Ua 4-"\-_____:11' __ I 1 cR/2 CR¶2 GRAND viEW BLVD / CR 12 i 4, 11.. L: J . / RED I 805 kohm• 2 0GID1OW 011 a 4T+16 ND CR 10 CR 15 GRACt% BIvD CR 15 PERFOPIE RD • ""13 .2 ' DACONO 80514 2 MRntn CM a� r5 w CHAR S SLUM ¢ � R Q illSeo CR 8 -, m t .CR.J — APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION / • ic l I DACONO s I 5 ier wwrty,pn 11 Paoeln" BROOMFIELD i 5 CA 8 2 PwOrPt 12 Piordr , { . ¢ :-swam sn u 41,2311 LI LCO(IB'QE W *us S3 Wus S JJiE11 M1 1510./(r•M J1Sa L. I ON11CICWS 11 RACAL CR r2YV12[ry n Slrt*ERCP 5, !N ST 4 LIP E P 62 1 VFW R 17 U501.111 / Y0RP0LSST 2C C0011000 CP 01 CR 1 aw s1 CR 4 ¢ CR: 77 _ CO € �5 ------.....-/.......j 4m U u :� 1' I - Grp t I i4 i Z Nr 1.(1 r(ll\T\ t0YEilU1% I - �5 BR(NSI71l in • • -"---»-1� c t;` ! rrNv2\ '' 1 ` 1 i .,� 1 VISr, E. � I e,,, + '� 1 -_'„�ASELINE,�Q_ no 1 , CR 2 152:21 run i BASELINE RD BROOMFIELD r — J�_-- 800201 > - iP riW41i22.M> 0 1900 Source:Macvan Map Company,Denver Metro Edition,Colorado,2010. Approximate Scale: 1 inch=1900 feet Note:Dimensions,directions,and locations are approximate. FIGURE lying°silVtoctre SITE LOCATION PROJECT NO: DATE: THE HUB FACILITY 1 WELD COUNTY ROAD 6 AND COUNTY ROAD 7 500707001 10/13 WELD COUNTY,COLORADO file no:0707vmap0913 toP 41 paws ITYP) I a WATER 51ip % TREATMENT G -- _..7.. .__...____.1 '; +df' BUILDING r WATER LOADING _' .•—•— —• —I 0 !OIL LOADIN3 = � -J=2 - — — •- -• .. — y I{. —.._ �_ .—.. — _......1 B 2 I 1 _ 7 \ ° 19.5, ,�o0 of d. ) I IIyi ❑• ` • B-6 �I1�� o --� III44, i� 1 � ° Q i 14 44, O ' til:.i 4II , it CB-4O ) B 3) L —14' -I / 345 i i[ i 1 l ( Cji .4„_ \ J i / 1--IVI.Th saw .....:1\...... 9.59 * ------------- ._.._________1::"--------------.--._._______------ ---7—...------_________------7:22-.. .. .. ...,:"Abk....''',.....„,_ i • . 3203 . 5115 • OFFICE API° a4• in CONTROL BUILDING LEGEND B-6 Boring Location 19.5' Depth to Bedrock FIGURE 2 A lyingo szlyknor e BORING LOCATIONS NOT TO SCALE PROJECT NO: DATE: THE HUB FACILITY 2 WELD COUNTY ROAD 6 AND COUNTY ROAD 7 500707001 10/13 WELD COUNTY,COLORADO Note:Dimensions,directions,and locations are approximate. The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 APPENDIX A BORING LOGS Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods. Bulk Samples Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory borings. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing. The Standard Penetration Test(SPT) Spoon Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of a Standard Penetra- tion Test spoon sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 13/8 inches. The spoon was driven into the ground 12 to 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free-falling from a height of 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586-99. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches of penetration; the blow counts reported on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of penetration. Soil samples were observed and removed from the spoon,bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for testing. Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods. The Modified California Split-Barrel Drive Sampler The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a hammer in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer or bar, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. The California Drive Sampler The sampler, with an external diameter of 2.4 inches, was lined with four 4-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 1.9 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a hammer in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass liners, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. 500707001 R.doc /fnya&/Nooca LLI a o a w p Qo U) coin 2 � BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET a o o r}n Cl) ❑ m≥ U ❑ O [0 ' Bulk sample. Modified split-barrel drive sampler. No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler. Sample retained by others. CStandard Penetration Test(SPT). LNo recovery with a SPT. xx/xx Shelby tube sample.Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered in inches. No recovery with Shelby tube sampler. Continuous Push Sample. Q Seepage. I o s Groundwater encountered during drilling. Groundwater measured after drilling. SM ALLUVIUM: Solid line denotes unit change. Dashecirme&notesmaterial chnge. Attitudes:Strike/Dip b:Bedding c:Contact j:Joint f:Fracture F:Fault cs:Clay Seam s: Shear bss:Basal Slide Surface sf:Shear Fracture sz: Shear Zone sbs:Sheared Bedding Surface The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the boring. ?n BORING LOG dying()& oor a EXPLANATION OF BORING LOG SYMBOLS PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE Rev.01/03 U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES GW Well graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines GRAVELS •• Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand • ■• GP (More than 1/2 of coarse .:•• mixtures, little or no fines O '� ar fraction k.4.: GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures A 48 •FA > No. 4 sieve size) • o z .0 / GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures ��,�7/ Well graded sands or gravelly sands, little or W P. N• SW � o o no fines SANDS SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or p (More than 1/2 of coarse no fines U fraction <No. 4 sieve size) SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures ,..:::::::::.::::•:: SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures I. 11ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with 'o a� SILTS & CLAYS CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, O , .N Liquid Limit<50 gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean A N 0 Organic silts and organic silty clays of low z g OL plasticity o Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous c7 2 • f(9 MH fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts zSILTS & CLAYS Liquid Limit>50 CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays LT. OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, or;,anic silt cla s, or.anic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils GRAIN SIZE CHART PLASTICITY CHART RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE 70 CLASSIFICATION U.S.Standard Grain Size in 60• Sieve Size Millimeters BOULDERS Above 12" Above 305 a CH 40 COBBLES 12"to 3" 305 to 76.2 GRAVEL 3"to No.4 76.2 to 4.76 30 Coarse 3"to 3/4" 76.2 to 19.1 6 CL f"i l s O11 Fine 3/4"to.No.4 19.1 to 4.76 20 SAND No.4 to No.200 4.76 to 0.075 0. 13. Coarse No.4to No.10 4.76 to 2.00 CL-ML ML&DL Medium No. 10 to No.40 2.00 to 0.420 I Fine No.40 to No.200 0.420 to 0.075 ° 0 b 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 I LIQ IRD LIMIT(LL), SILT&CLAY Below No.200 Below 0.075 /.fIno&//fioore U.S.C.S.METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION USCS Soil Classification Updated Nov.2004 U) w J DATE DRILLED 9/06/13 BORING NO. B-1 a U. Z aD u) O o - O GROUND ELEVATION 5,212'p(MSL) SHEET 1 OF 1 O W JO < co 1 u) D w al ai METHOD OF DRILLING CME-75,4"Diameter Solid-Stem Auger(Precision Drilling) o m≥ m } g DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.(Auto Hammer) DROP 30" O CC O Ci SAMPLED BY DLH LOGGED BY DLH REVIEWED BY JMJ DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION • 0 JJJV+J TOPSOIL:Approximately 8 inches thick. CH ALLUVIUM: Brown,damp,firm to very stiff,sandy CLAY with few calcium carbonate mineralization. I20 9.0 88.8 to I 41 19.8 103.8 LARAMIE FORMATION: Brown to gray,damp to moist,moderately indurated,CLAYSTONE;iron staining and gypsum mineralization;weathered. H24 18.5 118.3 Light brown,dry,moderately cemented,silty,fine-grained SANDSTONE;weathered. sox R 50 20 =GIS Total Depth=20 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 9/06/13 shortly after completion of drilling. Note: Groundwater,though not encountered at the time of drilling,may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. 30 40 BORING LOG Nlnuo& Dore THE HUB FACILITY WCR 6 AND WCR 7,WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 500707001 10/13 A-I U) w w DATE DRILLED 9/06/13 BORING NO. B-2 a U. Z 5 u) O o 0.- O GROUND ELEVATION 5,201'p(MSL) SHEET 1 OF 1 O w w0 p vi w i w x w al g • Lai METHOD OF DRILLING CME-75,4"Diameter Solid-Stem Auger(Precision Drilling) o m≥ m } g DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.(Auto Hammer) DROP 30" p cc U SAMPLED BY DLH LOGGED BY DLH REVIEWED BY JMJ DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION • 0 TOPSOIL:Approximately 8 inches thick. r.�� SC ALLUVIUM: brown,moist,medium dense,clayey SAND with few gravel. ' 21 13.6 116.1 .. ::• CL Reddish brown,moist,very stiff,sandy CLAY. 10 I 15 19.1 108.1 34 —16.3-116.5 GC Reddish brown and brown,moist,dense,clayey GRAVEL with sand. `I 41 — �@19':Groundwater encountered during drilling. 20 LARAMIE FORMATION: \Purplish gray,moist to saturated,moderately indurated,CLAYSTONE;weathered. Total Depth=20.5 feet. Groundwater was measured at a depth of approximately 19 feet in borehole during drilling. Backfilled on 9/06/13 shortly after completion of drilling. Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. 30 40 BORING LOG Nlnuo& Dore THE HUB FACILITY WCR 6 AND WCR 7,WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 500707001 10/13 A-2 U) w J DATE DRILLED 9/05/13 BORING NO. B-3 a U. Z aD u) O o a O GROUND ELEVATION 5,207'p(MSL) SHEET 1 OF 2 O W JO < co iu) D w al ai METHOD OF DRILLING CME-75,4"Diameter Solid-Stem Auger(Precision Drilling) o m m } g DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.(Auto Hammer) DROP 30" ,f:' tr O SAMPLED BY DLH LOGGED BY DLH REVIEWED BY JMJ DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION 0 TOPSOIL:Approximately 8 inches thick. CL ALLUVIUM: Light brown to brown,damp,very stiff,sandy lean CLAY with few calcium carbonate % mineralization. r20 33 LARAMIE FORMATION: 10 Light brown to brown,damp,very stiff,moderately indurated;CLAYSTONE;trace iron staining. 84 12.8 115.0 Few iron staining. a41 i 16.9 116.8 20 d42 22.7 104.4 876/11" Gray. 30 81/1 I" Olive brown;few black carbonaceous mineralization. 40 a 57 BORING LOG Nlnuo& Dore THE HUB FACILITY WCR 6 AND WCR 7,WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 500707001 10/13 A-3 U) w w DATE DRILLED 9/05/13 BORING NO. B-3 a U. Z u) O o a0 GROUND ELEVATION 5,207'p(MSL) SHEET 2 OF 2 O w 0 Qvi w 1 u) D w ai METHOD OF DRILLING CME-75,4"Diameter Solid-Stem Auger(Precision Drilling) o m≥ m } g DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.(Auto Hammer) DROP 30" a CC U SAMPLED BY DLH LOGGED BY DLH REVIEWED BY JMJ DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION 40 Total Depth=40 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled on 9/05/13 shortly after completion of drilling. Note: Groundwater,though not encountered at the time of drilling,may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. 50 60 70 R0 BORING LOG AJInut Dore THE HUB WELD COUNY & WCR 6 AND WCR 7, COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 500707001 10/13 A-4 U) w w DATE DRILLED 9/05/13 BORING NO. B-4 a U. Z 5 u) O o a O GROUND ELEVATION 5,212'p(MSL) SHEET 1 OF 2 O w w0 p vi w i w x w al g ai METHOD OF DRILLING CME-75,4"Diameter Solid-Stem Auger(Precision Drilling) • o m≥ m } g DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.(Auto Hammer) DROP 30" a CC U SAMPLED BY DLH LOGGED BY DLH REVIEWED BY JMJ DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION 0I % CL \TOPSOIL:Approximately 6 inches thick. ALLUVIUM: Brown,moist,very stiff,sandy CLAY with little calcium carbonate mineralization. 1 16 18 19 115.0 10 GCReddish brown,saturated,medium dense,clayey GRAVEL with sand. @9.5':Groundwater encountered during drilling. X, 32 i Gray. LARAMIE FORMATION: Gray to brownish gray,moist to saturated,moderately indurated,CLAYSTONE with little black carbonaceous mineralization;trace iron staining;weathered. 20 X 34 d23 24.2 94.7 Purplish gray; some iron staining. a34 Gray to dark gray;moist;black carbonaceous mineralization;little iron staining. 30 d86/11" Light gray and brown;strongly indurated;trace black carbonaceous laminations. 40 a 52 BORING LOG Nlnuo& Dore THE HUB FACILITY WCR 6 AND WCR 7,WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 500707001 10/13 A-5 co w J DATE DRILLED 9/05/13 BORING NO. B-4 a U. Z aD u) O o a O GROUND ELEVATION 5,212'p(MSL) SHEET 2 OF 2 O W JO < co 1 co D w al ai METHOD OF DRILLING CME-75,4"Diameter Solid-Stem Auger(Precision Drilling) o m≥ m } U) g DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.(Auto Hammer) DROP 30" a CC U SAMPLED BY DLH LOGGED BY DLH REVIEWED BY JMJ DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION 40 Total Depth=40 feet. Groundwater was measured at a depth of approximately 9.5 feet in borehole during drilling. Backfilled on 9/05/13 shortly after completion of drilling. Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. 50 60 70 R0 BORING LOG AJInut Dore THE HUB WELD COUNY & WCR 6 AND WCR 7, COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 500707001 10/13 A-6 U) w w DATE DRILLED 9/06/13 BORING NO. B-5 a U. Z aD u) O o - O GROUND ELEVATION 5,215'p(MSL) SHEET 1 OF 1 O w w0 < co w i w x w al ai METHOD OF DRILLING CME-75,4"Diameter Solid-Stem Auger(Precision Drilling) o m≥ m } g DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.(Auto Hammer) DROP 30" a CC U SAMPLED BY DLH LOGGED BY DLH REVIEWED BY JMJ DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION • 0 7 , \TOPSOIL:Approximately 6 inches thick. CL ALLUVIUM: Brown,moist,stiff,sandy CLAY with trace calcium carbonate mineralization. 13 20.0 101.5 10 IL 12 24.5 99.5 Wet. = GC Brown,saturated,very dense,clayey GRAVEL with sand. @l1': Groundwater encountered during drilling. 4 „......= / 42 14.9 LARAMIE FORMATION: Gray and brown,moist to saturated,moderately indurated,CLAYSTONE interbedded with moderately to strongly cemented,silty fine-grained SANDSTONE;weathered. 20 / 35 Few black carbonaceous mineralization and iron staining. Total Depth=20.5 feet. Groundwater was measured at a depth of approximately 11 feet in borehole during drilling. Backfilled on 9/06/13 shortly after completion of drilling. Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. 30 40 BORING LOG Nlnuo& Dore THE HUB FACILITY WCR 6 AND WCR 7,WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 500707001 10/13 A-7 U) w w DATE DRILLED 9/06/13 BORING NO. B-6 a U. Z aD u) O o - O GROUND ELEVATION 5,194'p(MSL) SHEET 1 OF 1 O w i7 < co w 1 u) D w al ai METHOD OF DRILLING CME-75,4"Diameter Solid-Stem Auger(Precision Drilling) o m≥ m } g DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.(Auto Hammer) DROP 30" a CC U SAMPLED BY DLH LOGGED BY DLH REVIEWED BY JMJ DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION • 0 TOPSOIL:Approximately 8 inches thick. CL ALLUVIUM: Brown,moist to wet,stiff,sandy CLAY with clayey gravel interlayers. 7 10 V 12 20 @9.5':Groundwater encountered during drilling. Saturated. SZCES 20 23.1 LARAMIE FORMATION: Gray,moist to saturated,moderately indurated,CLAYSTONE interbedded with moderately cemented,silty,fine-grained SANDSTONE with iron staining;weathered. 55 Darkgray and brownishgray;strongly indurated. 20 I gY Total Depth=20.5 feet. Groundwater was measured at a depth of approximately 9.5 feet in borehole during drilling. Backfilled on 9/06/13 shortly after completion of drilling. Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. 30 40 BORING LOG Nlnuo& Dore THE HUB FACILITY WCR 6 AND WCR 7,WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 500707001 10/13 A-8 The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Classification Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A. In-Place Moisture and Density Tests The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the ex- ploratory excavations were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory excavations in Appendix A. Atterberg Limits Tests were performed on selected representative soil samples to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. These test results were util- ized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The test results are summarized on Figure B-1. 200 Wash An evaluation of the percentage of particles finer than the No. 200 sieve in a selected soil sample was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1140. The results of the tests are presented on Figure B-2. Gradation Analysis A Gradation analysis test was performed on a selected representative soil sample in general ac- cordance with ASTM D 422. The grain-size distribution curve is shown on Figure B-3. The test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Consolidation/Swell Tests The consolidation and/or swell potential of selected materials were evaluated in general accor- dance with ASTM D 4546. Relatively undisturbed and remolded specimens were loaded with a specified surcharge before inundation with water. Readings of volumetric swell were recorded until completion of primary swell. After the completion of primary swell, surcharge loads were increased incrementally to evaluate swell pressure. The results of the swell tests performed on relatively undisturbed samples are presented on Figures B-4 through B-9. 500707001 R.doc /VnyaqHoora The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 Soil Corrosivity Tests Soil pH and minimum resistivity tests were performed on a representative sample in general ac- cordance with ASTM D 4972. The chloride content of a selected sample was evaluated in general accordance with CDOT Laboratory Procedure 2104. The sulfate content of a selected sample was evaluated in general accordance with CDOT Laboratory Procedure 2103. The test results are presented on Figure B-10. 500707001 R.doc PP& % USCS SYMBOL LOCATION DEPTH LIQUID PLASTIC PLASTICITY CLASSIFICATION USCS (FT) LIMIT, LL LIMIT, PL INDEX, PI (Fraction Finer Than (Entire Sample) No. 40 Sieve) • B-1 4 55 17 38 CH CH ■ B-1 14 69 18 51 CH - • B-2 4 38 16 22 CL SC o B-2 9 33 13 20 CL CL o B-3 9 35 12 23 CL - A B-5 4 43 16 27 CL CL NP- INDICATES NON-PLASTIC 60 - Zo 50aw40 o z >- ►b 30 Uc~/)• 20 aCL or O10 CL-ML 0 I , 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT, LL PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4318 H/ngo&Moore ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS FIGURE PROJECT NO. DATE THE HUB FACILITY 500707001 10/13 WELD COUNTY ROAD 6 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 7 B-1 WELD COUNTY,COLORADO FIG 8-1 ATTERBERG.,ds SAMPLE PERCENT PERCENT EQUIVALENT SAMPLE DEPTH DESCRIPTION PASSING PASSING USCS LOCATION (FT) NO.4 NO.200 B-1 4 Brown,sandy CLAY 100 73 CH B-1 9 Brown,CLAYSTONE 100 97 CH B-1 14 Brown,CLAYSTONE 100 72 CH B-2 4 Reddish Brown,clayey SAND 100 46 SC 8-2 9 Reddish Brown,sandy CLAY 100 72 CL B-3 9 Light Brown,CLAYSTONE 100 95 CL PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1140 i /yi%11g0&/y►oore NO. 200 SIEVE ANALYSIS FIGURE PROJECT NO. DATE THE HUB FACILITY 500707001 10/13 WELD COUNTY ROAD 6 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 7 B-2 WELD COUNTY,COLORADO FIG B-2 200-WASH.xIs GRAVEL SAND FINES Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt I Clay U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 3" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" 4 8 10 16 30 40 100 200 100 Fill • T TT TT i ►, i 90 all 1. I ;I- - 'fI. --I I_ I I _ LJ.__ II .. { , i. I i. I I I I II I-f 1 'I 1 II III I ₹ I I I 11 �.._{ I s ii I 8° _..1 —1--II If ' ! r I I J- 7 — _ iti f '':, 1 i I -- —..I I Il ll I1 I I li I I �.. �'- , Itill I I I I1-I VII , ; -- —,_1--....I._ _�f1_.. _� _ T ci 6o 1. I L I_f__�I-h� �� I L -_.� III,._ f j 1'...L....� - I! II 11 I � II I ; 1 ' I j I Ili ,I, I i . L I 1 T-' I W 50 i l NI 11x1 ;f I f -1��, -L-. I . . I_. ___L. L. ! I-_€_. ... z II ' , I II III III I I I I= I I I I I I i f z 40 -I--11-- ,I _I 11 I_. I l_11. 1 fT •• I I L-�T_ I : I �r `. -- W w 30 I ,I , i L_I. . I f I...it I �._ .L.�j L. II._ --L 'I Il-11 I Il l l I III I 11 I I ) 11' ! I i I- , i I I - - - 20 _� ,I.._..-._ I .L..._,I ._I . �. .....I l 1-.! - I I '4- - -r-; - 1 I_ .f T i� l. I , : I I III III I I III I IT;I ; III 10 I III I. I I . E l- f I, I C- �F ,•_._ _ -_._L.. L�. 0 `J= , i : 1 1 I id II . I III' I I I'--i---I . 1 -I III i ' I ___Li .'-�- __ .__.._ iI I I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Sample Depth Liquid Plastic Plasticity Passing Symbol Location (ft) Limit Limit Index D10 D30 D80 Cu Cc No.200 U.S.C.S (%) B-5 4 43 16 27 -- -- - -- -- 64 CL PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 4,1/7,0&/Nome GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE PROJECT NO. DATE THE HUB FACILITY WELD COUNTY ROAD 6 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 7 B-3 500707001 10/13 WELD COUNTY,COLORADO FIG B-3 SIEVE 8-5@ 4.xls STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT -4.0 I I I I I I I I It f _I, = E I I [ I , I I. � � jl j I....._....._..._.._....__--i-J�_ I _ I i III I I II i I i .. -2.0 I I I 1 w � I i � I i ; I � II w � •1. I r.._._�..__.. I �I_ o_ i Qo j l l ) ! 11 Z � l i i w < 0.0 i ' I ' — - O CLI x i I I CC w aw • I 1 i i - I I II f i ! : zO U i a - -I-. — -------- r 71 ≥ I ! ! i I I • O I=¢ L i : . O w �- ifl I U z I I 2.0 i I i •LI i j 1 I I I I i �• -I i I ! r . . - .. ... _.. .. _ . _ � I- ,. . .._ .. ... .._. I j I 4 - , ' I 4.0 I I I I I i Ili : 1 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 ---s--- Seating Cycle Sample Location B-1 Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft.) 4 A Loading After Inundation Soil Type CH --A-—• Rebound Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546 /yin")&/y►oore CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST RESULTS FIGURE PROJECT NO. DATE THE HUB FACILITY WELD COUNTY ROAD 6 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 7 B-4 500707001 10/13 WELD COUNTY,COLORADO FIG 8-4 CONSOL B-1 @ 4.xls STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT -4.0 . II I I I I I � I I ; j I i I 1. • -2.0 w l I I i....., I r - - F U I- • I J u.i . a t 1 . 1 . I I 4 a � ! I I I F u_ .... 0 ,_, I - , , _ I O.) (.7) ,_ w 4 0.0 ' � w I I ! w U I Z Q i z i I a U I I 1 - 9 Y I I i , F j I I 1 I I Z U I O z l l 1 I ! I I i i I I 2.0 1 I E l I I I i I I � I { 1 L_... - _I j i I I I 4.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 ---•--- Seating Cycle Sample Location B-1 • Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft.) 9 A Loading After Inundation Soil Type Laramie Formation — -- Rebound Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546 y/ilyo&/4oDre CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST RESULTS FIGURE • PROJECT NO. DATE THE HUB FACILITY • WELD COUNTY ROAD 6 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 7 B-5 500707001 10/13 WELD COUNTY,COLORADO FIG B-5 CONSOL B-1 @ 9.xis STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT -6.0 i I `t 1 .._.....____ -__'.....___- i.. I ! I I i I ! I s i 1 ...... [ I 1- 1 H w _— _._— v -2.0 i _ I 1 i i I ! J 1 CI- • Z o --- _._- — ._—....w._..__._� .—_ ° z I ! I I w a 0.0 •-�-- Z � ! l PH '- o 2.0 -I • I I Z C7 Ow [ , j.. l j i t- -- U Z1 i l j L.. Lam_ �,_ 4.0 1 I I I ;I , 1 4 ..... Lam. .—..._�... ; i -. I -t. LH i 1 ! r 6.0 I I_. 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 --Al--- Seating Cycle Sample Location B-1 • Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft.) 14 A Loading After Inundation Soil Type Laramie Formation --A--- Rebound Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546 • 4fIngo&/f'tooxe CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST RESULTS FIGURE PROJECT NO. DATE THE HUB FACILITY WELD COUNTY ROAD 6 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 7 B-6 500707001 10/13 WELD COUNTY,COLORADO FIG 8-6 CONSOL 8-1 @ 14.xis STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT -4.0 I I , 1 I l I ........- ._. I 1 I. _ ..{{II. ._..._._ _ __ _...__.....__. 1--I------- I I 1 i1 ll • -2.0 I I . W Y ' jU I I 1 ( ' _ I I Li.i -J 2• "3. I l l Q ° o O I 1 I' I I i I I- Z i W ¢ 0.0 •, I I I 11.1 ZH• LLI € r I 1 1 I ! I- II Q I __ O Z ) 3 I_, T I I1 2.0 I I I i I II I l , I I ! —I a I 4.0 I I I. 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 ---•--- Seating Cycle Sample Location B-2 ♦ Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft.) 4 A Loading After Inundation Soil Type SC --A--- Rebound Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546 401/1y0& Moore CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST RESULTS FIGURE PROJECT NO. DATE THE HUB FACILITY WELD COUNTY ROAD 6 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 7 B-7 500707001 10/13 WELD COUNTY,COLORADO FIG 8-7 CONSOL 8-2 @ 4.,d STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 4.0 I I II I ! ► ! I i --- , - -- ......__.. - .... �:._._..-.-.._...__.-.. _ I I' -2.0 I Ill Z ...-._.. - - - Y j ]3 I- 3 j I. i ! I i I _ Q I I co If . l i w a 0.0 , I I I X I I I I I ZLug I I w ' - I _. _ • o l I o• W I T I jI o � I i I ! o• w I UZ /� I ! i ! 2.0 I I I I I i i I l I I i' I ! I I ; ( Iiili I � . � I l 1 I'iT rj I � I • 4.0 , ! I I I I - 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 ---•--- Seating Cycle Sample Location B-2 • Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft.) 9 A Loading After Inundation Soil Type CL --A--- Rebound Cycle •t PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546 iv/nig&/toots CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST RESULTS FIGURE PROJECT NO. DATE THE HUB FACILITY WELD COUNTY ROAD 6 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 7 B-8 500707001 10/13 WELD COUNTY,COLORADO FIG B-8 CONSOL 8-2©9.xls STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT -4.0 , I i 1 I i , pji I � i I 1I VIII f • -2.0 i I I I c I I I v7 Y - ---I i _._....-...__.....__.............__ _ -_�� l I i i L I = i I _. __._..-.._...._I --�_ —T.._.__._.._..._.-._.. _.__.._._�.�-Ia I i I a 3 co - r oQ I I j I z z , w a 0.0 I I € i I ax ' w I w � I f I za. -fi 1 I _. ; ' 1 . I 1l,, i v ' I I E ; F [ 3 r I I ;; a z .----- l , �__ _ 1 I , L- t 7 > I I I I I IO I- -I _...I._ . z �� ' I 2.0 1 1 I ' I I I I II 4.0 i I I i i i 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 ---•--- Seating Cycle Sample Location B-3 • Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft.) 9 A Loading After Inundation Soil Type Laramie Formation --A-—• Rebound Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546 FIGURE 41In1qo&4.'toUrCONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO. DATE THE HUB FACILITY WELD COUNTY ROAD 6 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 7 B-9 500707001 10/13 WELD COUNTY,COLORADO FIG 8.9 CONSOL 8.3 @ 9.xls SAMPLE SAMPLE DEPTH 1 RESISTIVITY 2 SULFATE CONTENT 3 CHLORIDE 4 LOCATION (FT) pH (Ohm-cm) (Plain) (%) CONTENT B-6 1-4 8.2 889 100 0.010 18.8 1 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4972 2 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH AASHTO T288 3 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH COOT TEST METHOD CP-L 2103 4 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CDOT TEST METHOD CP-L 2104 /y1ngo&44 oore CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS FIGURE PROJECT NO. DATE WELD COUNTY HUB FACILITY WELD COUNTY ROAD 6 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 7 B-10 500707001 10/13 ERIE,COLORADO FIG B-10 CORROSIVITY.xls The Hub Facility October 4, 2013 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 500707001 APPENDIX C UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS 500707001 R.doc yo&/Vioora UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST 4000 ui a) (75 C 3000 a) O C a) 2000 ( C a) o a 0 E a) O O C) 1000 Q a) MEM U (� O a) a. 0 0 10 20 30 40 Axial Strain, c Sample No. 1 cm Unconfined strength, psf 3648 (1' Undrained shear strength, psf 1824 o Failure strain, % 12.4 Strain rate, %/min. 1.00 a) o Water content, % 17.9 o Wet density, pcf 130.7 Dry density, pcf 110.8 Saturation, % 92.8 .5 Void ratio 0.5213 co Specimen diameter, in. 2.42 .5 Specimen height, in. 4.98 2 Height/diameter ratio 2.06 a) Description: .o LL = PL = PI = Assumed GS= 2.7 Type: Undisturbed L C- Project No.:DV108-298-02-400 Client: Niyo& Moore o Date Sampled: 9/19/13 Remarks: Project: Encana Hub Facility N&M M #500707001 2- a) Sample Number: B-4 Depth: 4' Knight Piésold c.) Figure CONSULTING Tested By: JHK Checked By: JDB UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST 9/23/2013 Date: 9/19/13 Client: Niyo& Moore Project: Encana Hub Facility N&M #500707001 Project No.: DV 108-298-02-400 Depth: 4' Sample Number: B-4 Description: Remarks: Type of Sample: Undisturbed Assumed Specific Gravity=2.7 LL= PL= PI= Parameters for Specimen No. 1 Specimen Parameter Initial Moisture content: Moist soil+tare, gms. 967.100 Moisture content: Dry soil+tare, gms. 847.900 Moisture content: Tare, gms. 182.850 Moisture, % 17.9 Moist specimen weight, gms. 786.9 Diameter, in. 2.42 Area, in.2 4.61 Height, in. 4.98 Wet density, pcf 130.7 Dry density, pcf 110.8 Void ratio 0.5213 Saturation, % 92.8 Test Readings for Specimen No. 1 Strain rate, %/min. = 1.00 Unconfined compressive strength =3648 psi at reading no. 109 Def. Deviator Dial Load Load Strain Stress No. in. Dial lbs. % psf 0 -1.8004 9.477 0.0 0.0 0 1 -1.7990 11.373 1.9 0.0 59 2 -1.7977 13.268 3.8 0.1 118 3 -1.7964 15.326 5.8 0.1 183 4 -1.7952 17.007 7.5 0.1 235 5 -1.7939 18.632 9.2 0.1 286 6 -1.7926 20.272 10.8 0.2 337 7 -1.7913 22.086 12.6 0.2 393 8 -1.7900 23.449 14.0 0.2 436 9 -1.7887 24.714 15.2 0.2 475 10 -1.7874 26.449 17.0 0.3 529 11 -1.7862 27.910 18.4 0.3 574 12 -1.7849 28.966 19.5 0.3 607 13 -1.7836 30.202 20.7 0.3 646 14 -1.7823 31.794 22.3 0.4 695 15 -1.7810 33.083 23.6 0.4 735 16 -1.7797 33.895 24.4 0.4 760 Knight Piesold Geotechnical Lab. Test Readings for Specimen No. 1 Def. Deviator Dial Load Load Strain Stress No. in. Dial lbs. % psf 17 -1.7784 35.515 26.0 0.4 810 18 -1.7772 36.652 27.2 0.5 845 19 -1.7759 37.694 28.2 0.5 878 20 -1.7746 38.823 29.3 0.5 912 21 -1.7733 39.979 30.5 0.5 948 22 -1.7721 40.370 30.9 0.6 960 23 -1.7708 41.868 32.4 0.6 1006 24 -1.7695 43.006 33.5 0.6 1041 25 -1.7682 43.980 34.5 0.6 1071 26 -1.7669 45.225 35.7 0.7 1110 27 -1.7656 46.106 36.6 0.7 1137 28 -1.7644 47.023 37.5 0.7 1165 29 -1.7631 47.760 38.3 0.7 1188 30 -1.7618 48.963 39.5 0.8 1225 31 -1.7605 49.949 40.5 0.8 1255 32 -1.7592 50.581 41.1 0.8 1274 33 -1.7579 51.797 42.3 0.9 1311 34 -1.7567 52.925 43.4 0.9 1346 35 -1.7554 53.782 44.3 0.9 1372 36 -1.7541 54.265 44.8 0.9 1387 37 -1.7528 55.491 46.0 1.0 1424 38 -1.7515 56.238 46.8 1.0 1447 39 -1.7503 56.889 47.4 1.0 1467 40 -1.7490 57.937 48.5 1.0 1499 41 -1.7439 60.822 51.3 1.1 1587 42 -1.7389 63.658 54.2 1.2 1673 43 -1.7338 66.408 56.9 1.3 1756 44 -1.7288 69.141 59.7 1.4 1838 45 -1.7237 71.366 61.9 1.5 1905 46 -1.7187 73.664 64.2 1.6 1973 47 -1.7137 75.646 66.2 1.7 2032 48 -1.7086 77.451 68.0 1.8 2085 49 -1.7036 79.068 69.6 1.9 2133 50 -1.6985 81.173 71.7 2.0 2195 51 -1.6935 82.790 73.3 2.1 2242 52 -1.6884 84.242 74.8 2.2 2284 53 -1.6834 86.042 76.6 2.3 2337 54 -1.6783 87.157 77.7 2.5 2368 55 -1.6733 88.703 79.2 2.6 2413 56 -1.6683 90.049 80.6 2.7 2451 57 -1.6632 91.663 82.2 2.8 2498 58 -1.6582 92.843 83.4 2.9 2531 59 -1.6531 93.782 84.3 3.0 2557 60 -1.6480 95.130 85.7 3.1 2595 61 -1.6430 96.494 87.0 3.2 2634 62 -1.6380 97.579 88.1 3.3 2664 63 -1.6329 98.595 89.1 3.4 2692 Knight Piesold Geotechnical Lab. Test Readings for Specimen No. 1 Def. Deviator Dial Load Load Strain Stress No. in. Dial lbs. % psf 64 -1.6279 99.895 90.4 3.5 2728 65 -1.6228 100.720 91.2 3.6 2750 66 -1.6178 101.743 92.3 3.7 2778 67 -1.6128 102.643 93.2 3.8 2802 68 -1.6078 103.632 94.2 3.9 2829 69 -1.6027 104.493 95.0 4.0 2852 70 -1.5976 105.468 96.0 4.1 2878 71 -1.5926 106.527 97.0 4.2 2907 72 -1.5875 106.906 97.4 4.3 2915 73 -1.5825 107.940 98.5 4.4 2943 74 -1.5775 108.635 99.2 4.5 2960 75 -1.5724 109.769 100.3 4.6 2991 76 -1.5674 110.415 100.9 4.7 3007 77 -1.5623 111.542 102.1 4.8 3038 78 -1.5573 112.018 102.5 4.9 3048 79 -1.5522 112.709 103.2 5.0 3066 80 -1.5471 113.858 104.4 5.1 3097 81 -1.5347 115.504 106.0 5.3 3137 82 -1.5220 117.095 107.6 5.6 3176 83 -1.5094 118.566 109.1 5.8 3210 84 -1.4969 120.313 110.8 6.1 3253 85 -1.4845 121.757 112.3 6.3 3287 86 -1.4718 123.240 113.8 6.6 3321 87 -1.4592 124.805 115.3 6.9 3358 88 -1.4465 126.340 116.9 7.1 3393 89 -1.4340 127.719 118.2 7.4 3424 90 -1.4214 128.420 118.9 7.6 3435 91 -1.4088 129.870 120.4 7.9 3467 92 -1.3962 130.736 121.3 8.1 3482 93 -1.3836 131.559 122.1 8.4 3496 94 -1.3711 132.445 123.0 8.6 3512 95 -1.3585 133.316 123.8 8.9 3527 96 -1.3459 134.055 124.6 9.1 3538 97 -1.3333 134.903 125.4 9.4 3553 98 -1.3207 135.778 126.3 9.6 3567 99 -1.3082 136.360 126.9 9.9 3574 100 -1.2956 137.539 128.1 10.1 3597 101 -1.2830 137.941 128.5 10.4 3598 102 -1.2704 138.624 129.1 10.6 3607 103 -1.2578 138.785 129.3 10.9 3601 104 -1.2452 139.417 129.9 11.1 3609 105 -1.2326 139.803 130.3 11.4 3609 106 -1.2200 140.584 131,1 11.7 3620 107 -1.2074 141.312 131.8 11.9 3630 108 -1.1949 142.208 132.7 12.2 3644 109 -1.1822 142.727 133.2 12.4 3648 110 -1.1696 142.947 133.5 12.7 3643 Knight Piesold Geotechnical Lab. Test Readings for Specimen No. 1 Def. Deviator Dial Load Load Strain Stress No. in. Dial lbs. % psf 111 -1.1574 143.263 133.8 12.9 3642 112 -1.1446 143.156 133.7 13.2 3628 113 -1.1320 142.624 133.1 13.4 3603 114 -1.1194 142.506 133.0 13.7 3589 115 -1.1068 143.171 133.7 13.9 3597 116 -1.0942 143.966 134.5 14.2 3607 117 -1.0816 143.928 134.5 14.4 3596 118 -1.0691 144.322 134.8 14.7 3596 119 -1.0565 144.829 135.4 14.9 3598 120 -1.0439 144.721 135.2 15.2 3585 121 -1.0313 144.627 135.1 15.4 3572 122 -1.0188 144.073 134.6 15.7 3547 123 -1.0061 143.981 134.5 16.0 3533 124 -0.9935 143.571 134.1 16.2 3512 125 -0.9809 143.323 133.8 16.5 3495 126 -0.9684 142.716 133.2 16.7 3469 127 -0.9558 142.056 132,6 17.0 3441 128 -0.9432 140.475 131.0 17.2 3390 129 -0.9306 137.302 127.8 17.5 3297 130 -0.9181 132.175 122.7 17.7 3155 131 -0.9054 124.978 115.5 18.0 2961 132 -0.8928 118.128 108.7 18.2 2777 133 -0.8802 111.616 102.1 18.5 2603 134 -0.8676 106.423 96.9 18.7 2463 135 -0.8551 105.033 95.6 19.0 2420 136 -0.8425 103.022 93.5 19.2 2361 137 -0.8302 101.619 92.1 19.5 2319 138 -0.8175 100.450 91.0 19.7 2282 139 -0.8049 99.309 89.8 20.0 2246 140 -0.8039 96.778 87.3 20.0 2183 Knight Piesold Geotechnical Lab. UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST 1000 ui a) (75 C 750 a) o C w a) 1 C - 500 :n U) C a) o Q Q a) O O C) cn 250 Q a) U U co O a) n 0 10 20 30 40 Axial Strain, c Sample No. 1 cm Unconfined strength, psf 630 °' Undrained shear strength, psf 315 o Failure strain, % 14.9 Strain rate, %/min. 1.00 a) o Water content, % 23.8 o Wet density, pcf 124.7 Dry density, pcf 100.7 Saturation, % 95.5 .5 Void ratio 0.6743 co Specimen diameter, in. 2.42 .5 Specimen height, in. 4.96 i' Height/diameter ratio 2.05 a) Description: .o LL = PL = PI = Assumed GS= 2.7 Type: Undisturbed L O- Project No.:DV108-298-02-400 Client: Niyo& Moore o Date Sampled: 9/19/13 Remarks: Project: Encana Hub Facility N&M M #500707001 2- a) Sample Number: B-6 Depth: 4' Knight Piésold U Figure CONSULTING Tested By: JHK Checked By: JDB UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST 9/23/2013 Date: 9/19/13 Client: Niyo& Moore Project: Encana Hub Facility N&M #500707001 Project No.: DV 108-298-02-400 Depth: 4' Sample Number: B-6 Description: Remarks: Type of Sample: Undisturbed Assumed Specific Gravity=2.7 LL= PL= PI= Parameters for Specimen No. 1 Specimen Parameter Initial Moisture content: Moist soil+tare, gms. 928.700 Moisture content: Dry soil+tare, gms. 785.400 Moisture content: Tare, gms. 184.300 Moisture, % 23.8 Moist specimen weight, gms. 746.6 Diameter, in. 2.42 Area, in.2 4.60 Height, in. 4.96 Wet density, pcf 124.7 Dry density, pcf 100.7 Void ratio 0.6743 Saturation, % 95.5 Test Readings for Specimen No. 1 Strain rate, %/min. = 1.00 Unconfined compressive strength = 630 psf at reading no. 118 Def. Deviator Dial Load Load Strain Stress No. in. Dial lbs. % psf 0 -1.7994 9.357 0.0 0.0 0 1 -1.7980 9.106 -0.3 0.0 -8 2 -1.7967 9.053 -0.3 0.1 -10 3 -1.7955 9.242 -0.1 0.1 -4 4 -1.7942 9.366 0.0 0.1 0 5 -1.7930 9.172 -0.2 0.1 -6 6 -1.7917 9.644 0.3 0.2 9 7 -1.7904 9.529 0.2 0.2 5 8 -1.7892 9.868 0.5 0.2 16 9 -1.7879 9.946 0.6 0.2 18 10 -1.7866 10.061 0.7 0.3 22 11 -1.7854 10.097 0.7 0.3 23 12 -1.7841 10.376 1.0 0.3 32 13 -1.7829 10.387 1.0 0.3 32 14 -1.7816 10.264 0.9 0.4 28 15 -1.7803 10.558 1.2 0.4 37 16 -1.7778 10.622 1.3 0.4 39 Knight Piesold Geotechnical Lab. Test Readings for Specimen No. 1 Def. Deviator Dial Load Load Strain Stress No. in. Dial lbs. % psf 17 -1.7765 10.916 1.6 0.5 49 18 -1.7753 10.826 1.5 0.5 46 19 -1.7740 11.135 1.8 0.5 55 20 -1.7727 10.871 1.5 0.5 47 21 -1.7715 11.368 2.0 0.6 63 22 -1.7702 11.372 2.0 0.6 63 23 -1.7689 11.447 2.1 0.6 65 24 -1.7677 11.673 2.3 0.6 72 25 -1.7664 11.480 2.1 0.7 66 26 -1.7651 11.815 2.5 0.7 76 27 -1.7639 11.581 2.2 0.7 69 28 -1.7626 12.000 2.6 0.7 82 29 -1.7613 11.756 2.4 0.8 75 30 -1.7601 12.020 2.7 0.8 83 31 -1.7588 12.238 2.9 0.8 89 32 -1.7575 12.052 2.7 0.8 84 33 -1.7563 12.409 3.1 0.9 95 34 -1.7550 12.180 2.8 0.9 88 35 -1.7538 12.554 3.2 0.9 99 36 -1.7525 12.428 3.1 0.9 95 37 -1.7512 12.624 3.3 1.0 101 38 -1.7500 12.391 3.0 1.0 94 39 -1.7487 12.892 3.5 1.0 110 40 -1.7437 13.181 3.8 1.1 118 41 -1.7386 13.487 4.1 1.2 128 42 -1.7336 13.714 4.4 1.3 135 43 -1.7286 14.082 4.7 1.4 146 44 -1.7236 14.379 5.0 1.5 155 45 -1.7186 14.700 5.3 1.6 165 46 -1.7136 14.836 5.5 1.7 169 47 -1.7086 15.015 5.7 1.8 174 48 -1.7036 15.342 6.0 1.9 184 49 -1.6986 15.532 6.2 2.0 189 50 -1.6936 15.595 6.2 2.1 191 51 -1.6886 16.298 6.9 2.2 212 52 -1.6835 16.639 7.3 2.3 223 53 -1.6785 16.873 7.5 2.4 230 54 -1.6735 17.178 7.8 2.5 239 55 -1.6684 17.109 7.8 2.6 236 56 -1.6634 17.275 7.9 2.7 241 57 -1.6584 17.826 8.5 2.8 258 58 -1.6534 18.037 8.7 2.9 264 59 -1.6484 18.397 9.0 3.0 274 60 -1.6434 18.670 9.3 3.1 282 61 -1.6384 18.817 9.5 3.2 287 62 -1.6333 19.014 9.7 3.3 292 63 -1.6283 19.104 9.7 3.4 295 Knight Piesold Geotechnical Lab. Test Readings for Specimen No. 1 Def. Deviator Dial Load Load Strain Stress No. in. Dial lbs. % psf 64 -1.6233 19.261 9.9 3.6 299 65 -1.6183 19.539 10.2 3.7 307 66 -1.6133 20.070 10.7 3.8 323 67 -1.6083 20.236 10.9 3.9 327 68 -1.6033 20.486 11.1 4.0 335 69 -1.5983 20.558 11.2 4.1 336 70 -1.5933 20.944 11.6 4.2 348 71 -1.5883 20.973 11.6 4.3 348 72 -1.5833 21.156 11.8 4.4 353 73 -1.5782 21.497 12.1 4.5 363 74 -1.5731 21.773 12.4 4.6 371 75 -1.5681 22.003 12.6 4.7 377 76 -1.5631 22.160 12.8 4.8 382 77 -1.5581 22.238 12.9 4.9 384 78 -1.5531 22.233 12.9 5.0 383 79 -1.5481 22.497 13.1 5.1 391 80 -1.5356 23.088 13.7 5.3 407 81 -1.5231 23.532 14.2 5.6 419 82 -1.5105 23.751 14.4 5.8 424 83 -1.4980 24.108 14.8 6.1 434 84 -1.4855 24.880 15.5 6.3 455 85 -1.4730 25.203 15.8 6.6 463 86 -1.4605 25.397 16.0 6.8 468 87 -1.4481 25.743 16.4 7.1 477 88 -1.4355 26.252 16.9 7.3 490 89 -1.4230 26.866 17.5 7.6 507 90 -1.4104 26.907 17.5 7.8 506 91 -1.3980 27.170 17.8 8.1 513 92 -1.3854 27.375 18.0 8.3 517 93 -1.3729 28.091 18.7 8.6 536 94 -1.3604 28.148 18.8 8.9 536 95 -1.3479 28.586 19.2 9.1 547 96 -1.3354 29.152 19.8 9.4 562 97 -1.3229 29.260 19.9 9.6 563 98 -1.3104 29.405 20.0 9.9 566 99 -1.2979 29.910 20.6 10.1 578 100 -1.2853 29.994 20.6 10.4 579 101 -1.2728 29.921 20.6 10.6 575 102 -1.2602 30.323 21.0 10.9 585 103 -1.2477 30.619 21.3 11.1 592 104 -1.2352 30.671 21.3 11.4 591 105 -1.2227 31.195 21.8 11.6 604 106 -1.2102 30.515 21.2 11.9 584 107 -1.1977 31.408 22.1 12.1 607 108 -1.1852 31.717 22.4 12.4 613 109 -1.1727 31.690 22.3 12.6 611 110 -1.1601 31.839 22.5 12.9 613 Knight Piesold Geotechnical Lab. Test Readings for Specimen No. 1 Def. Deviator Dial Load Load Strain Stress No. in. Dial lbs. % psf 111 -1.1476 32.027 22.7 13.1 616 112 -1.1350 31.861 22.5 13.4 610 113 -1.1225 32.274 22.9 13.6 620 114 -1.1100 32.520 23.2 13.9 624 115 -1.0975 32.463 23.1 14.2 621 116 -1.0850 32.597 23.2 14.4 623 117 -1.0724 32.779 23.4 14.7 626 118 -1.0599 33.018 23.7 14.9 630 119 -1.0474 33.010 23.7 15.2 628 120 -1.0348 33.048 23.7 15.4 627 121 -1.0223 33.029 23.7 15.7 625 122 -1.0098 33.278 23.9 15.9 630 123 -0.9972 33.356 24.0 16.2 630 124 -0.9847 33.181 23.8 16.4 623 125 -0.9722 33.352 24.0 16.7 626 126 -0.9597 33.389 24.0 16.9 625 127 -0.9471 33.541 24.2 17.2 627 128 -0.9348 33.548 24.2 17.4 625 129 -0.9222 33.490 24.1 17.7 622 130 -0.9095 33.749 24.4 17.9 627 131 -0.8970 33.694 24.3 18.2 623 132 -0.8845 33.894 24.5 18.4 626 133 -0.8720 33.493 24.1 18.7 614 134 -0.8595 33.924 24.6 19.0 623 135 -0.8470 33.873 24.5 19.2 620 136 -0.8345 34.018 24.7 19.5 622 137 -0.8220 33.951 24.6 19.7 618 138 -0.8095 34.046 24.7 20.0 619 139 -0.8074 33.136 23.8 20.0 596 Knight Piesold Geotechnical Lab. Hello