The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCapEd Meridian - Storm Drainage CalculationsCAPED MERIDIAN LINDER & MCMILLAN MERIDIAN, IDAHO STORM DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS JuLv 2013 Cap Ed - McMillan & Linder Dsesign Criteria: Storage Design Storm: 100 -yr Conveyance Design Storm: 100 -yr (conveyance system; pipes, etc.) Water Quality Design Storm: 2 -yr Storm Peak flow rates were calculated for each sub -basin using the rational method (equation 1- 1). Storm rainfall intensities were derived from the 2 -year, 10 -year, 25 -year and 100 -year intensity duration frequency curves for Zone A using calculated times of concentration. The time of concentration was calculated for each sub -basin based on the runoff coefficient "C" as defined in the rational method peak flow rate equation, and the individual sub -basin slope and length (see equation 1-2). Q = CiA (equation 1-1) where; Q = Peak Flow Rate (cfs) C = Runoff Coefficient (dimensionless) i = Rainfall Intensity (inches/hour) A = Drainage Area (acres) 1.81.1—CWD V-- (equation 1-2) where; [,= Time of Concentration (minutes) C = Runoff Coefficient (dimensionless) D = Distance from Remotest Contributing Point (feet) S = Slope Along D The rational method for peak flow calculation assumes: 1) the rainfall occurs uniformly over the drainage area; 2) the peak rate of runoff can be reflected by the rainfall intensity averaged over a time period equal to the time of concentration of the drainage area; and 3) the frequency of runoff is the same as the frequency of rainfall used in the equation. qj-A W. MCMLLAN RD. V� I Gm&v DrahaM ftn �' I I. I �, I Io BABN 2-0 4Z \AFEA j.924 Aft Q\FLOOR EL, 101.59,,:� Ja ---------- I ----- ------ I- 1 If Gm&v DrahaM ftn �' I Basin -1 Pretreatment: 1000 Gallon Sand and Grease Trap Filter Sand Storage: Onsite Infiltration Gallery C -Value Hard Surface 22910 sqft 0.9 Pervious Surface 0 sqft 0.2 Basin Area: 22,910 sgft Runoff Coefficient: 0.90 Basin Length: 98 feet Delta Z: 1 ft Average Basin Slope: 1,02% Time of Concentration: 3.54 min (Use 10 min.) Intensity (2 -year): 1 in/hr Qp (2 -year): 0.47 cfs Intensity (25 -year): 2.2 in/hr Qp (25 -year): 1.04 cfs Intensity (50 -year): 2.5 in/hr Qp (50 -year): 1.18 cfs a , i Basin -2 Pretreatment: Grass & Filter Sand Storage: Onsote Swale C -Value Hard Surface 1733 sgft 0.9 Pervious Surface 7924 sgft 0.2 Basin Area: 9,657 sgft Runoff Coefficient: 0.33 Basin Length: 165 feet Delta Z: 2.5 ft Average Basin Slope: 1.52 % Time of Concentration: 15.59 min (Use 10 min.) Intensity (2 -year): 1 in/hr Qp (2 -year): 0.07 cfs Intensity (25 -year): 2.2 in/hr Qp (25 -year): 0.16 cfs Intensity (50 -year): 2.5 in/hr Qp (50 -year): 0.18 cfs 111,115111102 Peak Flows at Structures and Inlets Type Tributary Basins Q2 0100 SG -1 Basin - 1 0.47 1.51 Sand And Grease Trap Throat Velocity The target throat velocity design value is 0.5 fUsec through the baffles of the S&G trap for the 2 -year water quality design storm. Baffle/Box Width = 48 inches Throat Width = 18 inches Structure Throat Area s ft 2 -yr Event Peak Flow, cfs Throat Velocity tUsec SG -1 6.000 0.47 0.08 All of the S&G trap throat velocities are near or below the 0.5 fUsec guideline. BASIN -1 Infiltration Gallery No. 1 Cap Ed Meridian Storm Drain Infiltration Trench Sizing 100 -Year Recurrance Interval Using ITD Zone A Chart Interpolated For A 100 Year Storm Predevelopment Discharge Rate 0 CFS (for 1 -hour storm) Storm Duration C -Value Hard Surface Area 22910 Sq. Ft. 0.9 Pervious Area 0 Sq. Ft. 0.2 Total Area 22910 Sq. Ft. Run Off Coefficient 0.90 Bed Length "* 48 Ft. Bed Width 18 Ft. Bed Depth 4.39 Ft. Percolation Rate 8 In./Hr. Predevelopment Discharge Rate 0 CFS (for 1 -hour storm) Storm Duration Storm Intensity (in/hr) Run Off Rate cfs) Run Off Volume (ft) Percolation Volume (ft3 Storage Required (ft) 5 Min. 4.38 2.07326 622 21 601 30 Min. 1.73 0.81889 1,474 129 1,345 2 Hr. 0.61 0.28874 2,079 515 1,564 6 Hr. 0.26 0.12307 2,658 1,545 1,113 12 1 Hr. 1 0.1501 0.071001 3,067 1 3,091 123) 24 1 Hr. 1 0.0811 0.038341 3,313 1 6,181 1(2,868) Drain Bed Voids 40% 12" Pipe Volume 1.57 Cu. Ft./ Ft. Bed Storage Volume 32.55 Cu. Ft./Ft. Seepage Bed Storage Volume 1,562 Cu. Ft. * Rational Formula Q=CiA *" Percolation Area = 2/3 of trench wall height along bed perimeter (excluding freeboard) Time to infiltrate 90% of the design storm = 6.0 hours INFILTRATION GALLEY-1.XLS 7/9/2013 Cap ED Meridian Boise, Idaho 100 -Year Recurrance Interval Using ITD Zone A Chart Hard Surface Area Pervious Area (Lots) Total Drainage Basin Area Run -Off Coefficient Drainage Window Area Drainage Window Perc Rate Drainage Swale No. 1 C -Value 1733 Sq. Ft. 0.9 7924 Sq. Ft. 0.2 0.22 Acres 0.33 90.00 sgft 8.00 in/hr Storm Duration Storm Intensity in/hr) Run Off Rate cfs. Run Off Volume cu It Percolation Volume cu It On -Site Storage cu ft _5i 30 2 6 Min. 4.38 0.32 95 90 5 30 0.12 0.04 225 317 Min. 1.73 195 197 0.61 120 Hr. Hr. 0.26 _W02-40-5-360 45 12 24 Hr. 0. 15 0 .01 468 — 518 720 1,440 -- -252 -922 Hr. 0.083 0.01 ' Rational Formula Q=GiA Time to infiltrate 100 -yr storm Storm Volume = Percolation Rate = Drainage window area = Time to percolate 100 -yr storm = 215 cuft 8 in/hr 90.00 sqft 3.6 POND 1 .xis 7/9/2013 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 O 1.0 d 0.8 Cl) w 0.6 U Z 0.4 }Z_ F - Z2 0 W Z J 0.01 La 0.08 Q 0.06 !Y MGM 0.0210 15 20 30 40 6060 MINUTES I ZONE - A TION NP 2 3 4 5 6 8 1012 HOURS 18 24 CONCRETE GRADE BACKFILL 24' DIA. CAST IRON PLACE MOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ON RING AND SLOTTED PAVEMENT SECTION SUSGRADE OVER SAND COVER MERE SHOM AND GREASE TRAP. FABRIC SHALL EXTEND CATCH BASIN MINIMUM OF&FEET BEYONDTHE SAND AND (AS REQUIRED) 2 U71 GROUT' I- 24' DIA, CAST IRON RING AND SOLID COVER (TYP.) CONCRETE COLLAR a L�4 PER ISPM 50010 RISER SECTION PLACE MOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ON 317 DIA CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION SUSGRADE OVER SAND BOISEVAULT AND GREASE TRAP. FABRIC SHALL EXTEND CATCH BASIN MINIMUM OF&FEET BEYONDTHE SAND AND (AS REQUIRED) TRAP ON ALL SIDES. ' GREATW20 OR ET APPROVED EQUAL)GEOTEXTOE PIPE INVERT FABRIC IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER LANDSCAPE r AREAS. ENOTE PERFORATED F P OF BA4 FLE 12' HDPE :.I • PIPE a 0.0% PIPE INVERT T IGROUTI SOLID WALL , INFILTRATION TRAP I.� �.I nl 1 GALLERY MERE SHOM) ----------------- ON B' THICKNESS OF CHIPS UNDISTURBED EARTH LL NOTES 1, MUST BE RATED FOR HS -25 TRAFFIC LOADS 1 INTERIOR DIMENSIONS OF TRAP MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 4B' X 21' AT THE THROAT LOCATION. 1 THE DETAIL ABOVE SHOM AN IDAHO PRECAST 1.000 GALLON SAND 6 GREASE TRAP. 4. THE SAND AND GREASE TRAPS SHALL BE SET SO THAT THE TOP OF BAFFLE ELEVATION IS BETMEN THE INLET PIPE AND OUTLET PIPE INVERT ELEVATIONS. 5. MAXIMUM GRADE RING HEIGHT- 12 -INCHES PROVIDE A BOISE VAULT 30' DIACONCRETE RISER SECTIONAS REQUIRED AT LOCATIONS MERE GREATER THAN 12' OF GRADE RINGS ARE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH FINISHED GRADES_ 1,000 GALLON SAND AND GREASE TRAP BOTTOM OF DRAIN ROCK EL 53.00 BOTTOM OF FILTER N T I. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF GROUNDWATER IS ENCOUNTERED WITHIN X OF THE BOTTOM DESIGN ELEVATION OF ANY INFILTRATION FACILITY. 2. SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER ELEVATION WAS DETERMINED BY MTI WITHIN THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CAP ED MERIDIAN PREPARED BY MTI. INFILTRATION GALLERY CROSS SECTION NON WOVEN FILTER FABRIC (<OZrSY) TOP 6 SIDES ONLY IOM OF DRAIN ROCW OF ASTM C33 SAND ASTM C33 SAND EXISTING FREE DRAINING POORLY GRADED GRAVEL STRUCTURAL FILL BETWEEN TOP OF SEEPAGE BED AND PAVEMENT SECTION SUBGRADE FINISHEDGRADE I �.� 1-iJ In�+L: i•�•i-�:1 • "i 11 I.L-4 1 1 1.i -0 iw i� � i.' i.S.�'l.:�il✓.v{i, ids ��7� � i go Ift{i. H��J_.A_ l4i_� I � -1.MON BOTTOM OF DRAIN ROCK EL 53.00 BOTTOM OF FILTER N T I. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF GROUNDWATER IS ENCOUNTERED WITHIN X OF THE BOTTOM DESIGN ELEVATION OF ANY INFILTRATION FACILITY. 2. SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER ELEVATION WAS DETERMINED BY MTI WITHIN THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CAP ED MERIDIAN PREPARED BY MTI. INFILTRATION GALLERY CROSS SECTION NON WOVEN FILTER FABRIC (<OZrSY) TOP 6 SIDES ONLY IOM OF DRAIN ROCW OF ASTM C33 SAND ASTM C33 SAND EXISTING FREE DRAINING POORLY GRADED GRAVEL EL: 90.00± NOTES: BOTTOM EL: 99.00 - (TOP OF ROCK) BOTTOM PLAN AREA = 90 SOFT PER LANDSCAPE PLAN SEE C'% J ICKNESS OF 9' DIA �iR9Ii�[�kklylyi��Y_l�L; Innnnnn�n111CT.:C�a_Zi19�L\. h�9e1.1 KH:LVIq 4."� NATIVE FREE DRAINING SOIL CONTACT ENGINEER FOR INSPECTION PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF SAND 1, CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF GROUNDWATER IS ENCOUNTERED WITHIN 3' OF THE BOTTOM DESIGN ELEVATION OF ANY INFILTRATION FACILITY. 2. SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER ELEVATION WAS DETERMINED BY MTI WITHIN THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CAP ED MERIDIAN PREPARED BY MTI. • • , • ■1n_nwwaLi NON WOVENr TEXTILE FABRIC :ND SIDES ONLY , • • • , . 'Ilwwwww •• •• •• www ' • '. • • • • •.owes -w • • • • • •��awaw • • • �YYb11AETER WASHED DRAIN ROCK • • •, • •, • • �wwwwww ••• • •• •■wwwww •••,•••, •wnwwwrY • •HARDPAN • ■wwwww • �• • •. • • �awasaw �iR9Ii�[�kklylyi��Y_l�L; Innnnnn�n111CT.:C�a_Zi19�L\. h�9e1.1 KH:LVIq 4."� NATIVE FREE DRAINING SOIL CONTACT ENGINEER FOR INSPECTION PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF SAND 1, CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF GROUNDWATER IS ENCOUNTERED WITHIN 3' OF THE BOTTOM DESIGN ELEVATION OF ANY INFILTRATION FACILITY. 2. SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER ELEVATION WAS DETERMINED BY MTI WITHIN THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CAP ED MERIDIAN PREPARED BY MTI. Prepared for: Slichter Architects 6611 Ustick Road Boise, I® 83704 GEOTECHNICAL- ENGINEERING REPORT of CapEd Credit Union 4853 North Linder Road Meridian, I® MTI File Number 13130720g 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise. ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322.66515 mtitamti-id.com • www.mti-id.com O MATERIALS � TESTING & INSPECTION Mr. Chad Slichter Slichter Architects 6611 Ustick Road Boise, ID 83704 208-6.58-1674 Ile: Geotechnical Engineering Report CapEd Credit Union 4853 North Linder Road Meridian, ID Dear Mr. Slichter 21 June 2013 Page # 1 of 27 b 130720e_geotech In compliance with your instructions, we have conducted a soils exploration and foundation evaluation for the above referenced, development. Fieldwork for this investigation was conducted on 13 June 2013. Data have been analyzed to evaluate pertinent geotechnical conditions. Results of this investigation, together with our recommendations, are to be found in the following report. We have provided a PDF copy for your review and distribution. Often questions arise concerning soil conditions because of design and construction details that occur on a project. MTI would be pleased to continue our role as geotechnical engineers during project implementation. Additionally, MTI would be pleased in providing materials testing and special inspection services during construction of this project. If you will advise us of the appropriate time to discuss these engineering services, we will be pleased to meet with you at your convenience. MTI appreciates this opportunity to be of service to you and looks forward to working with you in the future. If you have questions, please call (21.18) 376-4748. Respectfully Submitted, Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. Eli fL beth Br( Geotechnical 14898 & 2,1-13 �7,UFESSION � C\ KEVIN L. SCHROEDER 964 Y Reviewed by:c oe er, P.G. 114 OFI P P' Geotechnical Services Manager Reviewed by: LaiSaculles, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer CPopyright @2013 Materials Testing &- Inspcc6un. Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way - Boise. ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com 21 June 2013 WE I ] tW Page 4 2 of 27 TABLE OF CONTENTS INIRODOCTION................................................................................................................................................- 3 ProjectDescription.................................................................................................................................... 3 Authorization......_...................-....................................._......................................................................... 3 Purpose........................................................................._........................................................................... 3 Scopeof Investigation ......... ............. ........... .............................. ........................................ ...... .......... ....... 3 Warrantyand Limiting Conditions ................ .... ........... ............ ..... ....... ...... ........ .... ....... ............. ............... 4 Exclusiveuse ................. ................................_................... ............. ...................... ................................... 4 Report Recommendation are Limited and Subject to Misinterpretation ....... ....... ................. I-- ...... I ... .... 4 EnvironmentalConcerns....._.................................................................................................................... 5 SI1'H DFSCRIP'IION ........................ .... ............ ....... ......... ............ ................. ,...... ....... .... ............... .... I..... I ... --.... 5 SiteAccess ... _....................._......................... .... ........ ........... ......... _..... ........ ....... ....... ...... ............ ...... 5 RegionalGeology ......... ........ .............. .._................ ................ ....... ....................... ..._....... .... ............. ..... 5 GeneralSite Characteristics ...... ......................... ........ ...... .......... ...... ...... .............. .... ...... ............... ... ......... 5 Regional Site Climatology and Geochemistry........................................................................................... 6 GeoseismicSetting................................................................................................................................... 6 SOILSLXPLORA'YION.................... ................ ......_........... ....... -..... ..,.......,...... ....... ......... ,.................................. 6 Exploration and Sampling Procedures......_ ... .............. ........... ............................ ........................ ............... 6 LaboratoryTesting Program ....... ......... _.......... ....... ........ ....... ........................... ......... .... .... ......... ..........._.. 7 Soiland Sediment Profile .......................... ............ ..... .... .............. ....... ...._............. _................................ 7 VolatileOrganic Scan... ... — ........... ..... ............ .. ... ... .. .... . ..... . .. ........ ... . ....... . . . ............... 7 SI11-1 FIYDROI,00Y........ ............... ......._......................,................,..,..........................,..............................._...,. 7 Groundwater............. ..... ......... ...... ............... .... ..... ......... ............... ..... ........ ............................................... 8 SoilInfiltration Rates................................................................................................................................8 FOUNDATION, SLAG, AND PAVEMENT DISCIJSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................. 8 Foundation Design Recommendations ....................... ............ ...... ............................ .......... ........... ........... 9 FloorSlab -on -Grade ... ................ _.............. ........ .....-......--- ....... ........ ............ ............. .... .... ........ .... .... ........ 10 RecommendedPavement Sections ..................... ............................... ................. ................. ........... ........... 10 FlexiblePavement Sections....................................................................................................................... I I RigidPavement Sections........................................................................................................................... I I Common Pavement Section Construction Issues...................................................................................... 12 CONSI'RIIC'IION C.ONSII)FtLAIIONS ....... ................................................... .................................... ............. ........ 13 Earthwork.......................................................................................................................... .................................................. .... 13 DryWeather ............ ...... ............... ....... ._............................................................ .......... ............................. 13 WetWe ther................................................._........................................................................................... 14 SoftSubgrade Soils..........._.............._......................................................._......................_.........._......... 14 FrozenSubgrade Soils ............ ....... ...... .......... ........ ........... ....... ...._.... ........... .... _.... ................................. .. 14 StructuralFill- ... - .................................. . .......... ... ............ .. - .. '. - ........... - ....... .. - I S Backfillof Walls........................................................................................................................................ 16 Excavations............................................................................................................................................... 16 GroundwaterControl- .......... ..... . . ........... .......... _-._ ....... ....................... _ .................................. 16 GbNHZALCOMMI?NTS...................... ............... ..... ........ ...... ................................................................... ............ 17 Ra- ru I-. Ncrs..................................._.................................................... __................................. ......... ............... 18 APPIi MCF.S...................................... 9 AcronymList............................................................................................................................................. 19 GeotechnicalGeneral Notes...................................................................................................................... 2() Geotechnical Investigation Test Pit Log ....................... ........ ...-........ ...... .............. .... ............ ........ .... 21 AAS11T0 Pavement Thickness Design Procedures ........... ........................................................... ........... 23 PlateI: Vicinity Map ........... ..................................................................................................................... 26 Plate2: Site Map .... ...... ._.............. .......... ..... ................ ..... ........... ...... ............. ....... .... ..... ..... ...... .... ........ 27 C'opynghl &2913 Materials listing Ni Inspcclimi, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Vday • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www,mti-id.com h4 &d ":. IIF. R V%k- i_ ;"� IdadG WSPECTION ❑.. � ... � � -.ori �. INTRODUCTION 21 June 2013 Page 9 3 of 27 h 13072(1 w eotech J i This report presents results of a geotechnical investigation and analysis in support of data utilized in design of structures as defined in the 2009 International Building Code (IBC). Information in support of groundwater and storm water issues pertinent to the practice of Civil Engineering is included. Observations and recommendations relevant to the earthwork phase of the project are also presented. Revisions in plans or drawings for the proposed development from those enumerated in this report should be brought to the attention of the soils engineer to determine whether changes in foundation recommendations are required. Deviations from noted subsurface conditions, if encountered during construction, should also be brought to the attention of the soils engineer. Project Description The proposed development is in the northwestern portion of the City of Meridian, Ada County, ID, and occupies a portion of the SE'/4SE`/4 of Section 26, Township 4 North, Range I West, Boise Meridian. This project will consist of construction of a commercial structure to be developed on 1.4 acres. Total settlements are limited to 1 inch. Loads of up to 2,000 pounds per lineal root for wall footings, and column loads of up to 50,000 pounds were assumed for settlement calculations, Additionally, assumptions have been made for traffic loading of pavements. Retaining walls are not anticipated as part of the project. MTI has been informed that the planned finish floor elevations will be 1.5 feet above existing site grade. Authorization Authorization to perform this exploration and analysis was given in the form of a written authorization to proceed from Mr. Chad Slichter of Slichter Architects to Elizabeth Brown of Materials Testing and Inspection, Inc. (MTI), on I I June 2013. Said authorization is subject to terms, conditions, and limitations described in the Professional Services Contract entered into between Slichter Architects and MTI. Our scope of services for the proposed development has been provided in our proposal dated I 1 June 2013 and repeated below. Purpose The purpose of this Geotechnical Engineering Report is to determine various soil profile components and their engineering characteristics for use by either design engineers or architects in: • Preparing or verifying suitability of foundation design and placement • Preparing site drainage designs • Indicating issues pertaining to earthwork construction • Preparing light and heavy duty pavement section design requirements Scope of Investigation The scope of this investigation included review of geologic literature and existing available geotechnical studies of the area, visual site reconnaissance of the immediate site, subsurface exploration of the site, field and laboratory testing of materials collected, and engineering analysis and evaluation of foundation materials. Copyright ® 2013 Mhterialk l e5tinr S Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise. ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@niti•id.com • www.mti-id.com �MATERIALS, r TESTING & INSPECTION ❑ � ❑ ��,� i �� a , Warranty and Limiting Conditions 21 June 2013 Page # 4 of 27 b 1307201;_gcolech MTI warrants that findings and conclusions contained herein have been formulated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice in the fields of foundation engineering, soil mechanics. and engineering geology only for the site and project described in this report. These engineering methods have been developed to provide the client with information regarding apparent or potential engineering conditions relating to the site within the scope cited above and are necessarily limited to conditions observed at the time of the site visit and research. Field observations and research reported herein are considered sufficient in detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the purposes cited above. Exclusive Use This report was prepared for exclusive use of the property owner(s), at the time of the report, and their retained design consultants ("Client"). Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the agreed-upon scope of work outlined in this report together with the Contract for Professional Services between the Client and Materials Testing and Inspection, Inc. ('Consultant'). Use or misuse of this report, or reliance upon findings hereof, by parties other than the Client is at their own risk. Neither Client nor Consultant make representation of warranty to such other parties as to accuracy or completeness of this report or suitability of its use by such other parties for purposes whatsoever, known or unknown, to Client or Consultant. Neither Client nor Consultant shall have liability to indemnify or hold harmless third parties for losses incurred by actual or purported use or misuse of this report. No other warranties are implied or expressed. Report Recommendation are Limited and Subiect to Misinterpretation There is a distinct possibility that conditions may exist that could not be identified within the scope of the investigation or that were not apparent during our site investigation. Findings of this report are limited to data collected from noted explorations advanced and do not account for unidentified fill zones, unsuitable soil types or conditions, and variability in soil moisture and groundwater conditions. To avoid possible misinterpretations of findings, conclusions, and implications of this report, MTI should be retained to explain the report contents to other design professionals as well as construction professionals. Since actual subsurface conditions on the site can only be verified by earthwork, note that construction recommendations are based on general assumptions from selective observations and selective field exploratory sampling. Upon commencement of construction, such conditions may be identified that required corrective actions, and these required corrective actions may impact the project budget. Therefore, construction recommendations in this report should be considered preliminary, and MTI should be retained to observe actual subsurface conditions during earthwork construction activities to provide additional construction recommendations as needed. Since geotechnical reports are subject to misinterpretation, do not separate the soil logs Isom the report. Rather, provide a copy, or authorise for their use, of the complete report to other design professional of contractors. This report is also limited to information available at the time it was prepared. In the event additional information is provided to MTI following publication of our report, it will be forwarded to the client for evaluation in the Form received. Copyright ©2013 NCiLcri;tls i c.sting & Impeutioli. Inc 2791 South Victory View Way ^ Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mutt) inti-id.com • www.mli-id.com MATERIALS j (" 21 lune 2013 TESTING £r Page 5of27 INSPECTION 613072Ug__eeotech Environmental Concerns Comments in this report concerning either onsite conditions or observations, including soil appearances and odors, are provided as general information. These comments are not intended to describe, quantify, or evaluate environmental concerns or situations. Since personnel, skills, procedures, standards, and equipment differ, a geotechnical investigation report is not intended to substitute for a geoenvironmental investigation or a Phase I1/1I1 Environmental Site Assessment. If the potential for petroleum or hazardous materials contamination or other environmental hazards relating to the site exists, MTI must be informed prior to the commencement of the geotechnical investigation. If environmental services are needed, MTI can provide, via a separate contract, those personnel who are trained to investigate and delineate soil and water contamination. SITE DESCRIPTION Site Access Access to the site may be gained via Interstate 84 to the Ten Mile Road exit. Proceed north on Ten Mile Road approximately 3.8 miles to its intersection with McMillan Road. from this intersection, proceed east 1.0 mile to Linder Road. The site occupies the northwest comer of this intersection. Presently the site exists as a vacant building lot. The location is depicted on site map plates included in the Appendix. Regional Geology The project site is located within the western Snake River Plain of southwestern Idaho and eastern Oregon. The plain is a northwest trending rift basin, about 45 miles wide and 200 miles long, that developed about 14 million years ago (Ma) and has since been occupied sporadically by large inland lakes. Geologic materials found within and along the plain's margins reflect volcanic and fluvial/lacustrine sedimentary processes that have led to an accumulation of approximately 1 to 2 km of interbedded volcanic and sedimentary deposits within the plain. Along the margins of the plain, streams that drained the highlands to the north and south provided coarse to fine-grained sediments eroded from granitic and volcanic rocks, respectively. About 2 million years ago the last of the lakes was drained and since that time fluvial erosion and deposition has dominated the evolution of the landscape. The project site is underlain by the "Gravel of Whitney "Terrace" as mapped by Othberg and Stanford (1993). Sediments of the Whitney terrace consist of sandy pebble and cobble gravel. The Whitney terrace is the second terrace above modern Boise River floodplain, is thickest toward its eastern extent, and is mantled with 2-6 feet of loess. General Site Characteristics This proposed development consists of approximately 1.4 acres of relatively level land. Throughout the majority of the site, poorly graded gravel fills were encountered at the ground surface and were underlain by native lean clay soils. Vegetation was limited and primarily consisted of native grass varieties typical of arid to semi -arid environments. Cop) right@2013 Materials -Testing yIWSP"Hnn. Inc. 2791 SOLIth Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (20B) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com MATERIALS, TESTING & INSPECTION ❑ -....10;1 .I I II ❑ inslrLo.n _ii phi 21 June 2013 Page # 6 of 27 LJ I b 130ROg_genteeh Regional drainage is north toward the Boise River. Storm water drainage for the site is achieved by percolation through surficial soils. The site is situated so that it is unlikely that it will receive any storm water drainage from off-site sources. Storm water drainage collection and retention systems are not in place on the project site. Regional Site Climatology and Geochemistry According to the Western Regional Climate Center, the average precipitation for Treasure Valley is on the order of 10 to 12 inches per year, with an annual snowfall of approximately 20 inches and a range from 3 to 49 inches. The monthly mean daily temperatures range from 21° F to 95° F with daily extremes ranging from -25° F to 111° F. Winds are generally from the northwest or southeast with an annual average wind speed of approximately 9 miles per hour (mph) with a maximum of 62 mph. Soils and sediments in the area are primarily derived from siliccous materials and exhibit low electro -chemical potential for contusion of metals or concretes. Local aggregates are generally appropriate for Portland cement and lime cement mixtures. Surface waters, groundwaters, and soils in the region typically have pH levels ranging from 7.2 to 8.2. Geoseismic Setting Soils on site are classed as Site Class D in accordance with Chapter 16 of the 2009 edition of the IBC. Structures constructed on this site should be designed per IBC requirements for such a seismic classification. Our investigation did not reveal hazards resulting from potential earthquake motions including: slope instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture caused by faulting or lateral spreading. Incidence and anticipated acceleration of seismic activity in the area is low. SOILS EXPLORATION Exploration and Sampling Procedures Field exploration conducted to determine engineering characteristics of subsurface materials included a reconnaissance of the project site and investigation by test pit. Test pit sites were located in the field by means of visual approximation from on-site features or known locations and are presumed to be accurate to within a few feet. Upon completion of investigation, each test pit was backfilled with loose excavated materials. Re -excavation and compaction of these test pit areas are required prior to construction of overlying structures. In addition, samples were obtained from representative soil strata encountered. Samples obtained have been visually classified in the field by professional staff, identified according to test pit number and depth, placed in sealed containers, and transported to our laboratory for additional testing. Subsurface materials have been described in detail on logs provided in the Appendix. Results of field and laboratory tests are also presented on these logs. MTI recommends that these logs not be used to estimate till material quantities. Copyright @ 2013 MatC11 a Is Testing 3 I[IS 1=1 inn. hip 2791 South Victory View Way • Buise, ID 83709 (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 roti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com MATERIALS ( ( 21 .lune 2013 TESTING & Pagefr 7of27 INSPECTION b 13o72(-g_gcot cull Laboratory Testing Program Along with our field investigation, a supplemental laboratory testing program was conducted to determine additional pertinent engineering characteristics of subsurface materials necessary in an analysis of the anticipated behavior of the proposed structures. Laboratory tests were conducted in accordance with current applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications, and results of these tests are to be found on the accompanying logs located in the Appendix. The laboratory testing program for this report included: Atterberg Limits Tests - ASTM D4318 and Grain Size Analysis - ASTM Cl 17/C136. Soil and Sediment Profile The profile below represents a generalized interpretation for the project site. Note that on site soils strata. encountered between test pit locations, may vary from the individual soil profiles presented in the logs, which can be found in the Appendix. The materials encountered during exploration were quite typical for the geologic area mapped as Gravel of Whitney Terrace. Poorly graded gravel fill materials were encountered at the ground surface across the site. These fill materials were light brown, dry, medium dense to dense, with silt, fine grained sand, and 6 inch minus cobbles. Brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff lean clay soils were observed underlying surficial fill materials. Silt with sand soils were found beneath lean clay soils and were classified as brown to reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, and very stiff to hard. Varying degrees of calcium carbonate cementation was noted throughout the silt soils. Poorly graded gravel with sand sediments were encountered at depth across the site. These sediments were reddish brown, slightly moist to saturated, and dense to medium dense. Fine to medium grained sand, fine to coarse gravels, and cobbles up to 8 inches in diameter were noted. Competency of test pit walls varied little across the site. In general, fine grained soils remained stable while more granular sediments readily sloughed. However, moisture contents will also affect wall competency with saturated soils having a tendency to readily slough when under load and unsupported. Volatile Organic Scan No environmental concerns were identified prior to commencement of the investigation. Therefore, soils obtained during on-site activities were not assessed for volatile organic compounds by portable photo ionization detector. Samples obtained during our exploration activities exhibited no odors or discoloration typically associated with this type contamination. Groundwater encountered did not exhibit obvious signs of contamination, SITE HYDROLOGY Existing surface drainage conditions are defined in the General Site Characteristics section. Information provided in this section is limited to observations made at the time of the investigation. Either regional or local ordinances may require information beyond the scope of this report. Copyright @)2013 Materials 'Test ing K It sp<cl inn. Lx. 2751 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 - (208) 376-4748 Fax (208) 322-6515 mtitzlmti-id.com • www.nnti-id.com MATERIALS TESTING it INSPECTION ❑ I , i. '] -,.inu� _ ❑ Groundwater ( 21 June 2013 Page 4 8 of 27 bI30720g_geotceh During this field investigation, groundwater was encountered in test pits at depths ranging from 14.2 to 14.4 Feet bgs. Soil moistures in the test pits were generally dry to slightly moist within surficial soils. Within the poorly graded gravels, soil moistures graded from slightly moist to saturated as the water table was approached and penetrated. In the vicinity of the project site, groundwater Levels are controlled in large part by residential and commercial irrigation activity and leakage from nearby canals. Maximum groundwater elevations likely occur during tale later portion of the irrigation season. During previous investigations performed in February and September 2005, April 2007, February 2010, and May 2012 within approximately '/2 -mile to the northeast, east and southeast of the project site, groundwater was noted within numerous test pits at depths ranging between 8.9 and 17.4 feet bgs. Furthermore, according to USGS monitoring well data within approximately '/2 -mile of the project site, groundwater was measured at depths ranging between 8.7 and 15 feet bgs. Based on evidence of this investigation and background knowledge of the area, MTI estimates groundwater depths to remain greater than approximately 8 feet bgs throughout the year. This depth can be confirmed through Ion, term groundwater monitoring. Soil Infiltration Rates Soil permeability, which is a measure of the ability of a soil to transmit a fluid, was tested in the field. For this report, an estimation of infiltration is also presented using generally recognized values for each soil type and gradation. Of soils comprising the generalized soil profile for this study, lean clay and silt soils generally offer little permeability, with typical hydraulic infiltration rates of less than 2 inches per hour; though calcium carbonate cementation may reduce this value to near zero. Poorly graded gravel sediments typically exhibit infiltration values in excess of 12 inches per hour. Infiltration testing is generally not required within these sediments because of their free -draining nature. It is recommended that infiltration facilities constructed on the site be extended into native poorly graded gravel sediments that are free of cementation. Excavation depths of approximately 8.5 feet bgs should be anticipated to expose these gravel sediments. Because of the high soil permeability, ASTM C33 filter sand, or equivalent, should be incorporated into design of infiltration facilities. An infiltration rate of 8 inches per hour should be used in design. Actual infiltration rates should be confirmed at the time of construction. FOUNDATION, SLAB, AND PAVEMENT DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Various foundation types have been considered for support of the proposed structure. Two requirements must be met in the design of foundations. First, the applied bearing stress must be less than the ultimate bearing capacity of foundation soils to maintain stability. Second, total and differential settlement must not exceed an amount that will produce an adverse behavior of the superstructure. Allowable settlement is usually exceeded before bearing capacity considerations become important; thus, allowable bearing pressure is nonnally controlled by settlement considerations. Copyright ® 2013 Materials Testing &I nspecflon, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise. ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6575 mti@mti-idcom • www,mti-id.com L MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION Un n I_u_rlol_ T- I ,'. 21 June 2013 Page 4 9 of 27 ❑ -. h 13072G11_polech Considering subsurface conditions and the proposed construction, it is recommended that the structure be founded upon conventional spread footings and continuous wall footings. Total settlements should not exceed 1 inch if the following design and construction recommendations are observed. Foundation Design Recommendations Based on data obtained from the site and test results from various laboratory tests performed. MTl recommends following guidelines for the net allowable soils bearing capacity: Cnil Rr carina r5ingcity Footing Depth ASTM D1557 Sub rade Compaction Net Allowable Soil Bearing Ca aci. Option 1: Footings must bear on competent. 2 1,500 Lbs/ft undisturbed, native lean clay soils or compacted Not Required for structural till. Existing fill materials must be Native Soil A 1/3 increase is allowable completely removed from below foundation for short-term loading, elements.) Excavation depths ranging from 1.5 to 95% for Structural Fill which is defined by seismic 2.2 feet bgs should be anticipated to expose events or designed wind proper bearing soils. speeds. Option 2: Footings must bear on competent, 2,000 lbs/ft2 undisturbed, native silt with sand soils or Not Required for compacted structural till. Existing lean clay soils Native Soil A 1/3 increase is allowable and fill materials must be completely removed for short-term loading, from below foundation elements.] Excavation 95% for Structural Fill which is defined by seismic depths ranging from 3.2 to 3.7 feet bgs should be events or designed wind anticipated to expose proper bearing soils. I I speeds. 'It will be reduired for MTI personnel to verity the bearing sots sunaounv uur earn auuclulc at t 1L,,.l4 V construction. Note: Lean clay soils are moisture sensitive and may become soft and unstable during construction. It unstable clays soils are encountered during construction over -excavation or the use of geotextiles may be required. The following sliding frictional coefficient values should be used: 1) 0.35 for footings bearing on native lean clay or silt with sand soils and 2) 0.45 for footings bearing on granular structural fill. A passive lateral earth pressure of 282 pounds per square foot (psf) should be used for lean clay soils and 349 psi should be used for silt with sand soils. For compacted sandy gravel fill, a passive lateral earth pressure of 496 psi' should be used. Footings should be proportioned to meet either the stated soil bearing capacity or the 2009 IBC minimum requirements. Total settlement should be limited to approximately I inch, and differential settlement should be limited to approximately V inch. Copyrighta02013 Materials Testing& hispcction, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way •Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-Idcom • www.mti-id.com MATERIALS, TESTING & INSPECTION J i.I bla I ,. II I I U a. _ i. Ii I J 21 June 2013 Page # 10 of 27 b 130720g_,eolech Objectionable soil types encountered at, the bottom of footing excavations should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Excessively loose or soft areas that are encountered in the footing subgrade will require over -excavation and backfilling with structural fill. To minimize the effects of slight differential movement that may occur because of variations in character of supporting soils and seasonal moisture content, MTl recommends continuous footings be suitably reinforced to make them as rigid as possible. For frost protection the bottom of external footings should be 30 inches below finished grade. Floor Slab -on -Grade Fill material was encountered across the site MTI recommends that the these fill materials be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557 prior to placement of fill material used to achieve the required floor slab elevation MTi personnel must be present prior to till placement to perform density testing of the existing fill material. Organic, loose, or obviously compressive materials must be removed prior to placement of concrete floors or floor -supporting fill. In addition, the remaining subgrade should be treated in accordance with guidelines presented in the Earthwork section. Areas of excessive yielding should be excavated and backfilled with structural Till. Fill used to increase the elevation of the floor slab should meet requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section. Fill materials must be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557. A free -draining granular mat (drainage fill course) should be provided below slabs -on -grade. This should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness and properly compacted. The mat should consist of a sand and gravel mixture, complying with Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction (ISPWC) specifications for 1/4 -inch (Type 1) crushed aggregate. A moisture -retarder should be placed beneath floor slabs to minimize potential ground moisture effects on moisture -sensitive floor coverings. The moisture -retarder should be at least 15 -mil in thickness and have a permeance of less than 0.01 US perms as determined by ASTM E96. Placement of the moisture -retarder will require special consideration with regard to effects on the slab -on -grade. The granular mat should be compacted to no less than 95 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557. Upon request, MTI can provide further consultation regarding installation. Recommended Pavement Sections MTI has made assumptions for traffic loading variables based on the character of the proposed construction. The client shall review and understand these assuulptions to make sure they reflect intended use and loading of pavements both now and in the future. Based on experience with soils in the region, a subgrade California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 3 has been assumed for near -surface clay soils on site. The following are minimumthickness requirements for assured pavement function. Depending on site conditions, additional work. e.g. soil preparation, may be required to support construction equipment. These have been listed within the Soft Subgrade Soils subsection. Copyright rJ 2013 Materials'I eming K Inspection. Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 ^ (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 rnli@a mti-id.com - www.niti-id.com { MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION U _u i..- I. - 7 i !i, -i Flexible Pavement Sections 21 June 2013 Page #! 11 of 27 b130720g"eoteeh U- .I!11! The AASHTO design method has been used to calculate the following pavement sections. Calculation sheets provided in the Appendix indicate the soils constant, traffic loading, traffic projections, and material constants used to calculate the pavement sections. MTI recommends that materials used in the construction of asphaltic concrete pavements meet requirements of the ISPWC Standard Specification for Highway Construction. Construction of the pavement section should be in accordance with these specifications and should adhere to guidelines recommended in the section on Construction Considerations. AASHTO Flexible Pavement Specifications Pavement Section Component Asphaltic Concrete Crushed Aggregate Base Structural Subbase Compacted Subgrade Driveways and Parking No Truck Access Driveways and Parking Truck Access 2.5 Inches 3.0 Inches 4.0 Inches 6.0 Inches 12.0 Inches 12.0 Inches Not Required for Native Soils 95 for Existing Fill Material /o Not Required for Native Soils 95% for Existing Fill Material 1 I will be required for MTI personnel to verify subgrade competency at the time of construction. Asphaltic Concrete: Asphalt mix design shall meet the requirements of ISPWC, Section 810 Class III plant mix. Materials shall be placed in accordance with ISPWC Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. Aggregate Base: Material complying with ISPWC Standards for Crushed Aggregate Materials. Structural Subbase: Material should comply with the requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section of this report except that the maximum material diameter is no more than 2/; the component thickness. Rigid Pavement Sections AASHTO pavement design method was used to develop the following rigid concrete pavement sections. Traffic loading and subgrade values indicated in the flexible pavement design were used in developing the rigid sections. This design method assumes the use of dowels at transverse joints. Concrete pavement shall be batched and constructed in accordance with the most current American Concrete Institute Standards and in accordance with Idaho Transportation Department Standard Drawings C -1-A and C-1-13. Native subgrade soils on the site are frost susceptible, and therefore, require joint sealers or under -drains. Copyright O 2013 Materiels resting & Inspec ion, Inc. 2791 SOUth Victory View Way • Boise., ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION 12iuid Pavement Specifications Pavement Section Com onent Drive Thru Portland Cement Concrete 6.0 Inches Crushed Aggregate Base 6.0 Inches Structural Subbase 0.0 Inches 11 Compacted Subgrade Not Required for Native Soils 1 95% for Existing Fill Material 21 June 2013 Page * 12 of 27 b130720--geolech 11t will be required for MTI personnel to verify subgrade competency at the time of construction. Portland Cement Concrete: 4,000 psi concrete with a modulus of rupture greater than 650 psi generally complying with ITD requirement for Urban Concrete. Crushed Aggregate Base: Material complying with ITD Standard Specifications for Highway Construction sections 303 and 703 for aggregates. Structural Subbase: Material complying with the requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section except that the maximum material diameter is no more than 2 /3 the component thickness. Common Pavement Section Construction Issues The subgrade upon which above pavement sections are to be constructed must be properly stripped, compacted (if indicated), inspected, and proof -rolled. Proof rolling of subgrade soils should be accomplished using a heavy rubber -tired, fully loaded, tandem -axle dump truck or equivalent. Verification of subgrade competence by MTI personnel at the time of construction is required. Fill materials on the site must demonstrate the indicated compaction prior to placing material in support of the pavement section. MTI anticipates that pavement areas will be subjected to moderate traffic. MTI does not anticipate pumping material to become evident during compaction, but subgrade clays near and above optimum moisture contents may tend to pump. Pumping or soft areas must be removed and replaced with structural till. Fill material and aggregates in support of the pavement section must be compacted to no less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 for flexible pavements and by ASTM D1557 for rigid pavements. If a material placed as a pavement section component cannot be tested by usual compaction testing methods, then compaction of that material must be approved by observed proof rolling. Minor deflections from proof rolling for flexible pavements are allowable. Deflections from proof rolling of rigid pavement support courses should not be visually detectable. MTI recommends that rigid concrete pavement be provided for heavy garbage receptacles. This will eliminate damage caused by the considerable loading transferred through the small steel wheels onto asphaltic concrete. Rigid concrete pavement should consist of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP) generally adhering to ITD specifications for Urban Concrete. PCCP should be 6 inches thick on a4 -inch drainage fill course (see Floor Slab -on -Grade section), and should be reinforced with welded wire fabric. Control joints must be on 12 -foot centers or less. Copyright ®2013 Materials lYsiing& Inspect',)", Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mtinsmti-id.com • www.mti-id.com Ago MATERIALS ( 21 June 2013 Am TESTING & Page 13 of 27 INSPECTION b 1307211g_eeolech u u)_ CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Reconunendations in this report are based upon structural elements of the project being founded on competent, native lean clay or silt with sand soils or compacted structural till. Structural areas should be stripped to an elevation that exposes these soil types. Earthwork Excessively organic soils, deleterious materials, or disturbed soils generally undergo high volume changes when subjected to loads, which is detrimental to subgrade behavior in the area of pavements, floor slabs, structural fills, and foundations. Limited vegetation with associated root systems were noted at the time of our investigation. It is recommended that organic or disturbed soils, if encountered, be removed to depths of 6 inches (minimum), and wasted or stockpiled for later use. Stripping depths should be adjusted in the field to assure that the entire root zone or disturbed zone or topsoil are removed prior to placement and compaction of structural fill materials. Exact removal depths should be determined during grading operations by MTI personnel, and should be based upon subgrade soil type, composition, and firmness or soil stability. if underground storage tanks, underground utilities, wells, or septic systems are discovered during construction activities, they must be decommissioned then removed or abandoned in accordance with governing Federal, State, and local agencies. Excavations developed as the result of such removal must be backfilled with structural fill materials as defined in the Structural Fill section. MTI should oversee subgrade conditions (i.e., moisture content) as well as placement and compaction of new fill (if required) after native soils are excavated to design grade. Recommendations for structural fill presented in this report can be used to minimize volume changes and differential settlements that are detrimental to the behavior of footings, pavements, and floor slabs. Sufficient density tests should be performed to properly monitor compaction. For structural fill beneath building structures, one in-place density test per lift for every 5,000 square feet is recommended. In parking and driveway areas.. this can be decreased to one test per lift for every 10,000 square feet, Dry Weather If construction is to be conducted during dry seasonal conditions, many problems associated with soft soils may be avoided. However, some rutting of subgrade soils may be induced by shallow groundwater conditions related to springtime runoff or irrigation activities during late summer through early fall. Solutions to problems associated with soft subgrade soils are outlined in the Soft Subgrade Soils section. Problems may also arise because of lack of moisture in native and till soils at time of placement. This will require the addition of water to achieve near -optimum moisture levels. Low -cohesion soils exposed in excavations may become triable, increasing chances of sloughing or caving. Measures to control excessive dust should be considered as part of the overall health and safety management plan. Clopynghl 02u13 Mnleriale Tesling& Inspeeliun, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com - www inti-id.com t MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION ❑ .'.tri I ,.rvi6. Wet Weather 21 June 2013 Page # 14 of 27 b 13t1720g_geoteu4 If construction is to be conducted during wet seasonal conditions (commonly from mid-November through May), problems associated with soft soils must be considered as part of the construction plan. During this Lime of year, fine-grained soils such as silts and clays will become unstable with increased moisture content, and eventually deform or rut. Additionally, constant low temperatures reduce the possibility or drying soils to near optimuun conditions. Soft Subgrade Soils Shallow fine-grained subgrade soils that are high in moisture content should be expected to pump and rut under construction traffic. During periods of wet weather, construction may become very difficult if not impossible. The following recommendations and options have been included for dealing with soft subgrade conditions: • Track -mounted vehicles should be used to strip the subgrade of root matter and other deleterious debris. Heavy rubber -tired equipment should be prohibited from operating directly on the native subgrade and areas in which structural fill materials have been placed. Construction traffic should be restricted to designated roadways that do not cross, or cross on a limited basis, proposed roadway or parking areas. • Construction roadways on soft subgrade soils should consist of a minimum 2 -foot thickness of large cobbles of 4 to 6 inches in diameter with sufficient sand and fines to fill voids. Construction entrances should consist of a 6 -inch thickness of clean, 2 -inch minimum, angular drain -rock and must be a minimum of 10 feet wide and 30 to 50 feet long. During the construction process, top dressing of the entrance may be required for maintenance. • Scarification and aeration of subgrade soils can be employed to reduce the moisture content of wet subgracle soils. After stripping is complete, the exposed subgrade should be ripped or disked to a depth of 1'/2 feet and allowed to air dry for 2 to 4 weeks. Further disking should be performed on a weekly basis to aid the aeration process. • Alternative soil stabilization methods include use of geotextiles, lime, and cement stabilization. MT'I is available to provide recommendations and guidelines at your request. Frozen Subgrade Soils Prior to placement of structural fill materials or foundation elements, frozen subgrade soils must either be allowed to thaw or be stripped to depths that expose non -frozen soils and wasted or stockpiled for later use. Stockpiled materials must be allowed to thaw and return to near -optimal conditions prior to use as structural till. CopyrigJv o0 -'r113 Materials Testing K Inspection. In¢ 2791 Soutlr Victory View Way Boise, ID 83709 • (208)376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@rnti-id.com • www.mii-id.com MATERIALS fop TESTING & INSPECTION 21 June 2013 Page # 15 of 27 b 130721Ds_geolech U �,. - ❑ _ ,-ra �nl�_,I' r f-AiucJi Structural Fill Soils recommended for use as structural fill are those classified as GW, GP, SW, and SP in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D2487). Use of silty soils (USCS designation of GM, SM, and ML) as structural fill may be acceptable. However, use of silty soils (GM,_SM._and ML) as structural till below footings is prohibited. These materials require very high moisture contents for compaction and require a long time to dry out if natural moisture contents are too high and may also be susceptible to frost heave under certain conditions. Therefore these materials can be quite difficult to work with as moisture content, lift thickness, and compactive effort becomes difficult to control. If silty soil is used for structural fill, lift thicknesses should not exceed 6 inches (loose), and fill material moisture must be closely monitored at both the working elevation and the elevations of materials already placed. Following placement, silty soils must be protected from degradation resulting from construction traffic or subsequent construction. Recommended granular structural fill materials, those classified as GW, GP, SW, and SP, should consist of a 6 -inch minus select, clean, granular soil with no more than 50 percent oversize (greater than 1/4 -inch) material and no more than 12 percent fines (passing No. 200 sieve). These till materials should be placed in layers not to exceed 12 inches in loose thickness. Prior to placement of structural fill materials, surfaces must be prepared as outlined in the Construction Considerations section. Structural fill material should be moisture - conditioned to achieve optimum moisture content prior to compaction. For structural fill below footings, areas of compacted backfill must extend outside the perimeter of the footing for a distance equal to the thickness of till between the bottom of foundation and underlying soils, or 5 feet, whichever is less. All fill materials must be monitored during placement and tested to confirm compaction requirements, outlined below. have been achieved. Each layer of structural fill must be compacted, as outlined below: • Below Structures and Rigid Pavements: A minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. • Below Flexible Pavements: A minimum of 92 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 or 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. The ASTM D1557 test method must be used for samples containing up to 40 percent oversize (greater than 3/a -inch) particles. If material contains more than 40 percent but less than 50 percent oversize particles, compaction of fill must be confirmed by proof rolling each, lift with a 10 -ton vibratory roller (or equivalent) until the maximum density has been achieved, Density testing must be performed after each proof rolling pass until the in-place density test results indicate a drop (or no increase) in the dry density, defined as the maximum density or "break over" point. The number of required passes should be used as the requirement on the remainder of till placement. Material should contain sufficient tines to Fill void spaces, and must not contain more than 50 percent oversize particles. Copyright °02013 Materials Iestin X Inspeginn. Inc 2791 South Victory View Way Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti®mti-id.com • www.inti-id.coni MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION Backfill of Walls 21 June 2013 Page 4 16 of 27 b 130720g_gcrneel, Backfill materials must conform to the requirements of structural fill, as defined in this report. For wall heights greater than 2,5 feet, the maximum material size should not exceed 4 inches in diameter. Placing oversized material against rigid surfaces interferes with proper compaction, and can induce excessive point loads on walls. Backfill shall not commence until the wall has gained sufficient strength to resist placement and compaction forces. Further, retaining walls above 2.5 feet in height shall be backfilled in a manner that will limit the potential for damage from compaction methods and/or equipment. It is recommended that only small hand -operated compaction equipment be used for compaction of backfill within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall, measured from the back face of the wall. Backfill should be compacted in accordance with the specifications for structural fill, except in those areas where it is determined that future settlement is not a concern, such as planter areas. In nonstructural areas, backfill must be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. Excavations Shallow excavations that do not exceed 4 feet in depth may be constructed with side slopes approaching vertical. Below this depth, it is recommended that slopes be constructed in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, section 1926, subpart P. Based on these regulations. on-site soils are classified as type "C" soil, and as such, excavations within these soils should be constructed at a maximum slope of 1'/z foot horizontal to 1 foot vertical (I 1/41-11V) for excavations up to 20 feet in height. Excavations in excess of 20 feet will require additional analysis. Note that these slope angles are considered stable for short-term conditions only, and will not be stable for lone -tern conditions. During our subsurface exploration, test pit sidewalls generally exhibited little indication of collapse; however. sloughing of native granular sediments from test pit sidewalls was observed, particularly after penetration of the water table. For deep excavations, native granular sediments cannot be expected to remain in position. These materials are prone to failure and may collapse, thereby, undermining upper soils layers. This is especially true when excavations approach depths near the water table. Care must be taken to ensure that excavations are properly backfilled in accordance with procedures outlined in this report. Groundwater Control Groundwater was encountered during the investigation but is anticipated to be below the depth of most construction. If recommended, excavations below the water table will require a dewatering program. Dewatering will be required prior to placement of fill materials. Placement of concrete can be accomplished through water by the use of a treme. It may be possible to discharge dewatering effluent to remote portions of the site, to a sump, or to a pit. This will essentially recycle effluent, thus eliminating the need to enter into agreements with local drainage authorities. Should the scope of the proposed project change, MTI should be contacted to provide more detailed groundwater control measures. Copyright © 201 i Materials Tessin,, &I n,,I)cclion. Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com MATERIALS ( ( 21 June 2013 TESTING £r Page 17 of 27 INSPECTION h 130Rue_geoleoh Special precautions may be required for control of surface runoff and subsurface seepage. It is recommended that runoff be directed away from open excavations. Clayey soils may become soft and pump if subjected to excessive traffic during time of surface runoff. Ponded water in construction areas should be drained through methods such as trenching, sloping, crowning grades, nightly smooth drum rolling, or installing a French drain system. Additionally, temporary or permanent driveway sections should be constructed if extended wet weather is forecasted. GENERAL COMMENTS When plans and specifications are complete, or if significant changes are made in the character or location of the proposed development, consultation with MTI should be arranged as supplementary recommendations may be required. Suitability of subgrade soils and compaction of structural fill materials must be verified by M'fl personnel prior to placement of structural elements. Additionally, monitoring and testing should be performed to verify that suitable materials are used for structural fill and that proper placement and compaction techniques are utilized. C��pyrigh4 ®ZU 13 Materiels Testing R Inspection. Inc. 2791 South Vidory View Way • Boise. ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 rnti@mti-id.eom • www.mti-id.can & NSPECTI N REFERENCES 21 June 2013 Page 4 18 of 27 b1307205,eeuteoh :1 , o i American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2004). Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75 -Lori (No 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing: ASTM Cl 17. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2006). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of rine and Coarse Aggregates' ASTM C 136, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2007), Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort D698. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2009). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort D1557. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2007). Standard Test Methods for California Bearing Ratio, ASTM D1883. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2011). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes Unified Soil Classification Sysleml D2487. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2010). Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils: ASTM D4318, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1993). AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993. Washington, D. C.: AASHTO. Desert Research institute. Western Regional Climate Center. [Online] Available: <hjW-//www.wrcc.dri.edu/> (2013). International Building Code Council (2009). International Building Code 2009. Country Club Hills, IL: Author. Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) (2010). Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction -2i) 1010, Boise, ID: Author. Othberg, K. L. and Stanford, L. A., Idaho Geologic Society (1992). Geologic Mari of the Boise Valley and Adjoining Area Western Snake River Plain Idaho (scale 1:100,000). Boise, Idaho: Joslyn and Morris. U. S. Dept. of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "CFR )4 Part 1926 subpart P• Safety and Health Regulations ]or Construction Excavations (1986)'. [Online] Available: < www.osha.gov> (2013). U. S. Geological Survey. (201 I ), National Water Information System: Web Interface. [Online] Available: <http'"w2terdata users ^ov/nwis> (2013), Copyriehl ©2013 Malerlals 1-cs6oe . Inapectiou. Inc 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376.4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 m1i0Omti-id.corn • www.mti-icl.com MATERIALS j (" TESTING & INSPECTION ']I ❑. APPENDICES ACRONYM LIST AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACCP: Asphalt Cement Concrete Pavement ACHD: Ada County Highway District ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials AU; Auger sample bgs: below ground surface CB: Carbide bit CBR: California Bearing Ratio D: natural dry unit weight, pcf DB: diamond bit DM: Dames & Moore sampling tube GS: grab sample IBC: International Building Code ISPWC: Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction ITD: Idaho Transportation Department LL: Liquid Limit M: water content MSL: mean sea level N: Standard "N" penetration: blows per foot, Standard Penetration Test NP: nonplastic PCCP: Portland Cement Concrete Pavement PERM: vapor permeability PI: Plasticity Index PID: photoionization detector PVC: polyvinyl chloride Qc: cone penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, psi Qp: Penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, tsf Qu: Unconfined compressive strength, tsf SPT: Standard Penetration Test (140:pound hammer falling 30 in. on a 2:in. split spoon) SS: split spoon (13/8:in. inside diameter. 2:in, outside diameter, except where noted) ST: shelby tube Qin. outside diameter, except where noted) USCS: Unified Sail Classification System USDA: United Slates Department of Agriculture LIST: underground storage tank V: vane value, ultimate shearing strength, tsf WT: apparent groundwater level 21 .Ituie 2013 Page 4 19 of 27 6130720g_geolech LJ =.1 i...i,iI I Copyrighl 3) 20 3 Muteri al" "I esting & IllspcciK-II. Inc. 2791 South Victoiy View Way • Boise. ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 -Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mli-id.com • www.mtkid.com �1AA_ E—Rs � 5 TESTING & UNSPECTiON j -3 1,i I i. I GEOTECHNICAL GENERAL NOTES 21 June 2013 Page # 20 of 27 h13073ng_gzotccat N Boulders: RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION Coarse -Grained Soils SPT Blow Counts (N) Fine -Grained Soils SPT Blow Counts ) 5 to 0.6 mm Silts: 0.075 to 2005 nun Very Loose: <4 Very Soft: <2 Well -graded gravels; gravel/sand mixtures with little or no fines Loose: 4-10 Soft: 2-4 Gravel Medium Dense: 10-30 Medium Stiff: 4-8 _ Dense: 30-50 Stiff: 8-15 Well -graded sands; gravelly sands with little or no fines Very Dense: >50 Very Stiff: 15-30 SM -- Hard: >30 Clayey sands; poorly -graded sand/gravel/clay mixtures Fine Grained Soils >50% passes No.200 sieve Silts & ClaysLean LL < 50 Inorganic silts; sandy, gravelly or clayey silts MoistureContent Field Test clays; inorganic, gravelly, sandy, or silty, low tomedium-plastic ity clays Cementation Description Field Test Description Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to touch Crumbles or breaks with handling or Weakly ressure slight finger Moist Damp but not visible moisture Moderately Crumbles or beaks with considerable finer pressure Wet Visible free water, usually soil is below water table Strongly Will not crumble or break with ringer pressure - - N Boulders: >12 in. Divisions Gravel & Gravelly Soils <50'% fraction passes No.4 sieve Coarse -Grained Sand: 5 to 0.6 mm Silts: 0.075 to 2005 nun Cobbles' 12 to 3 in Well -graded gravels; gravel/sand mixtures with little or no fines Medium -Grained Sand- 0 6 to 0.2 nun Clays: <0.005 mm Gravel i in to 5 nun GC Fine -Grained Sand: 0 2 to 0.075 mm J p SW Well -graded sands; gravelly sands with little or no fines SP Poorly -graded sands; gravelly sands with little or no lines SM UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Major Divisions Gravel & Gravelly Soils <50'% fraction passes No.4 sieve Symbol Soil Descriptions Coarse-Grainedcoarse Soils <50°o passes No 200 sieve GW Well -graded gravels; gravel/sand mixtures with little or no fines GP Poorly -graded gravels; gravel/sand mixtures with little or no tines GM Silty gravels; poorly -graded gravelisand/silt mixtures GC Clayey gravels; poorly -graded gravel/sand/clay mixtures Sand & Sandy Soils >50% coarse fraction passes No.4 sieve SW Well -graded sands; gravelly sands with little or no fines SP Poorly -graded sands; gravelly sands with little or no lines SM Silty sands; poorly -graded sand/gravel/silt mixtures SC Clayey sands; poorly -graded sand/gravel/clay mixtures Fine Grained Soils >50% passes No.200 sieve Silts & ClaysLean LL < 50 Inorganic silts; sandy, gravelly or clayey silts clays; inorganic, gravelly, sandy, or silty, low tomedium-plastic ity clays PCIIL Organic, low -plasticity clays and silts Silts &ClaysFat LL > 50 Inorganic, elastic silts: sandy, gravelly or clayey elastic silts clays high -plasticity, inorganic clays Organic, medium to high -plasticity clays and silts Highly Organic Soils r P -F Peat, humus, hydric soils with high organic content Copyright ® 2013 Materials Testing & Inspection. Inc. 7/97 South Vir..toiy View Way • Boise, ID 83709 - (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mtkid.com MATERIALS ' TESTING & INSPECTION ❑, ❑ _ it ii I I,_-1 ! ❑ GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG 21 .Tune 2013 Page # 21 of 27 b 130720€v;;.uviceh Test Pit Log #: TP -1 Date Advanced: 13 June 2013 Logged by: Elizabeth Brown, P.E. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Depth to Water Table: 14.4 Feet bgs Total Depth: 15.0 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and Sample Sample Depth Qp Lab (Feet bgs) IISCS Soil and Sediment Classification Type Feet bgs) Test ID Poorly Graded Gravel Fill (GP FILL): 0.0-1.5 Light brown, dry, medium dense to dense, silt, ,fine grained sand, 5 inch minus cobbles. Lean Clay (CL): Brown, dry to slightly 3,0-4.0 1.5-3.7 moist, ver stiff. Silt with Sand (ML): Reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff, weak calcium 3.7-8.5 carbonate cementation,.fine. grainedsand. --Sand content increased with depth. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Reddish brown, slightly moist to saturated. 8.5-15.0 dense to mecliurtt dense, ,fine to medium ,rained sand, to coarse gravel, 8 inch .fine minus cobbles. Copyright OO 2013 M;rlcrials TesHne iz Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 - (208) 376-4748 - Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@rnJ-id.com • www.inti-id.com I'E 5 T !H K.1 G ONSPECTION J: J ii GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG 21 June 2013 Page # 22 of 27 b 130720p,_gcolech Test Pit Log #: TP -2 Date Advanced: 13 .lune 2013 Logged by: Elizabeth Brown, P.E. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Depth to Water Table: 14.2 Feet bgs Total Depth: 15.3 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and Sample Sample Depth QP Lab Feet bgs) USCS Soil and Sediment Classification Type Feet bgs) Test ID Poorly Graded Gravel Fill (GP FILL): 0.0-2.2 Light brown, dry, medium dense to dense, silt, ,fine grained sand, 6 inch minus cobbles. 2.2-3.2 Lean Clay (CL): Brown, dry to slightly 3.0-4.0 moist, very stiff Silt with Sand (ML): Brown, slightly moist, 3.2 7.3 very stiff; iralermtittenl weak calcium carbonate GS 3.5-3.8 A cementation, fine grained sand --Sand Content increased with depth. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Reddish brown, slightly moist to saturated, dense to medium dense, fine to medium 7.3-15.3 grained sand, fine to coarse gravel, 8 inch minus Cobbles. --Cemented in the upper 12 inches. Lab Test ID M LL PI I Sieve Analysis % 1 #4 1#10 #40 #100 #200 A 14 NP NP 1 100 1__L2L_L 90 81 73.2 CopyTight OO 2013 MaterialsTesting &I ispeawn. Inc. 2791 South Virtory View Way • Boise, ID 03709 • (208) 376-4748 Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com 1 MATERIALS 1 TESTING & INSPECTION AASHTO PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURES Pavement Section Design Location: Cap Ed Credit Wtion, No 'Truck Access 21 ,lune 2013 Page # 23 of 27 b 130720�geolcch I I '.rr i Average Daily fraBic Count: 400 All Lanes& Both Directions Drainage Design Lire: 20 Years Coefficient Percent of Traffic in Design Lane: 100% 0.42 n/a Terminal Seviceability Index (Pt): 2.5 0.25 n/a Level of Reliability: 95 0.17 n/a Subgrade CBR Value: 3 Subgradc Mr: 4,500 Pit Run Aggregate Subgradc: Calculation of Design -18 kip ISALs 0.10 1.0 Daily Gro+ah load Design 0.9 Traffic Rate Factors E,SALs Passenger Cars: 154 2.0%n 0.0008 1,093 Bases: 0 2.0% 0.6806 0 Pancl & Pickup Trucks: 40 2.0%u 0,0122 4,328 2-A%le. 6-Tue'1'r Licks: 5 2.0% 0.1890 8.381 Emergency Vehicles: LO 2.0% 4.4800 39.731 Duel p'll Licks: 0 2.0% 3.6300 0 Tractor smi'rrailer'rrucks: 0 2.0% 2.3719 0 Double Trailer I acks 0 2.0% 2,3187 0 Heavy Tractor Trailer Combo Trucks: 0 2.0% 2.9760 0 Average Daily T'raf f is in Design Lane: 200 Total Design Life 18 -kip ESAU: 53,532 Actual Log (IN ALS): 4.729 'Trial SN: 2.78 Trial Log (GSALs): 4.737 This number meet be equal to or greater than the Actual Log. Pavement Section Design SN: 2.81 This oumber most be equal to or greater than the'] vial SN. Design Copyright®2013 Ma[crials Testing& Iaspccli,m, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376.4748 Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com Depth Structural Drainage Inches Coefficient Coefficient Asphaltic Concrete: 2.50 0.42 n/a Asphalt -'Treated Base. 0.00 0.25 n/a Cement Treated Base: 0-00 0.17 n/a Crashed Aggregate Base: 4.00 0.14 1.0 Pit Run Aggregate Subgradc: 12.00 0.10 1.0 Special :Aggregate Subgradc: 0.00 0.09 0.9 Copyright®2013 Ma[crials Testing& Iaspccli,m, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376.4748 Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION ❑- i_ ] i- Ilir .rine ❑(' icf:I AASHTO PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURES 21 ,lune 201 1 Page # 24 of 27 b 1307201g_geotech ❑ `IG' I Copyright @ 2013 Materials'l'esting 4 Inslsctinn. Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way Boise, ID 83709 (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www,mti-id.com Pavement Section Design Location: Cap Ed Credit Union, Truck Access Average Daily Traffic Count: 400 All Lines & Both Directions Design Life: 20 Years Percent of Traffic in Resign Lane: 100% Terminal Seviceability Index (P(): 25 Loci of Reliability: 95 Suhgrade CBR Value: 3 Subgrade Mr, 4,500 Calculation of Design -18 kip ESALs Daily Growth Lead Design Traffic Rale Factors ESALs Passenger Cars. 129 2.0% ).0(1(18 915 Buses: 1 2.0% 0.680E 6,036 Panel & Pickup Trucks', 50 2.0% 0.0122 5,410 2 -Axle, 6 -Tire Trucks; 16 2.0% ).1890 26,818 Concrete Trucks: 1.0 2.0% 4.4800 39,731 Duml7ucks 1 2.0% 3,6300 32.193 tractor Semi Trailer Trucks: 2 2.0% 23719 42,071 Double 1railcr,rruoks 0 2.0% 2.3187 (1 1-Icavv Tnrclor*1 ruiler Combo Trucks: 0 2.041. 2.97611 0 Average Daily *1 raiTm in Design Lane: 200 Total Resign Life 18 -kip ESALs: 153,174 Actual Log (ESALs): 5.185 Trial SN: 330 Trial Log (FSAI s): iA 86 Dis number mull be equal to or greater Ibnn the Actual Leg. Pavement Section Design SN: 3 30 This number must be equal o or greater than the Trial SN. Design Depth Structural Drainage Inches Coefficient Coefficient Asphaltic Concrete. 300 0A2 ala Asphip4rcated Base Uo 0.25 n/a Cement -Treated Base: 0,110 0,1'7 iia. Crushed Aggregate Base: 6.00 0,14 1.0 Pi( limon Aggregate Suhgrade: )2,00 0.10 1.0 Special Aggregate Suhgrade: (1,00 0,09 09 Copyright @ 2013 Materials'l'esting 4 Inslsctinn. Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way Boise, ID 83709 (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www,mti-id.com • P MATERIALS � TESTING it INSPECTION ❑ _I ❑ I,� I i I -li''o �iI i,I ❑ - anal —II AASHTO RIGID PAVEMEN'P THICKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURES 21 June 2013 Page 4 25 of 27 b 130720e geole-ch ❑. Copyright 0 2013 Materials Testing & Inspection. Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 - Fax (20B)322-6515 mtiOamti-id.com • www.mti-id.com Pavement Section Design Location: Cad Ed Credit Union. Drive'fhru .average Daily Traffic Count: 400 All Lanes & Both Directions Design Life: 20 Years % of Traffic in Design Lane: 100% Terminal Sev iccabilify Index, Pt: 2 Level of Reliability, R: 95 R -Value: 6 Subgrade CHR Value: 3 Subgrade Mr: 4,500 Native Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, K: 100 Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, K: 160 Concrete Elastic Modulus, Ec: 4200000 Modulus of Rupture, S'c: 650 Load Transfer Coefficient, J: 42 Drainage Coefficient, Cd: I Standard Deviation, So: 0.34 Design Serviceability Loss, Delta PSI: 2.5 Calculation of Design 18 kip ESALs Daily Oremth Lead Design Truffle Rate Factors GSAL's Passenger Cars: 154 2.0% 0.0008 1,093 Buses: 0 2.0% 0.6806 0 Panel & Pickup'Trucks: 40 29% 0.0122 4.328 2 Axle, 6 Tire Trucks: 5 2.0% 0.1890 8.381 Eraerecncv Vehicles: 1 2.0% 3.4800 39,731 Dump Trucks: 0 2.0% 3.6300 0 Tractor Semi Trailer Trucks: 0 2.0% 2.3719 0 Doublefrailer Trucks 0 2.0% 2.3187 0 Heavv Tractor Trailer Combo Trucks: 0 2.0% 2.9760 0 Average Daily Trallic in Design lane: 200 Total Design Life l8 kip ESAL's: 53.532 Traffic Index equivalent= 6.4 Actual Log (ESAL's): 4.729 Trial Pavement Design Thickness, inches: 6.00 Trial Log (ESAL's): 5,233 'Pols anal 6ccqual tour grealerlhau the Acetal Pavement Design Thickness, loches:1116.0 Road Mix Section 1'hielcncss, Inches: (.0 Copyright 0 2013 Materials Testing & Inspection. Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 - Fax (20B)322-6515 mtiOamti-id.com • www.mti-id.com z N�0 .nn a m �zu of Lw A�-\ C O E hLn1(L p E 16 o d N N J p d w 0. E c o c Z E o w "xo o w Z m [W Q V o N o z J Q J U d' O 5 ^� ry Q n I NEACI.E FD - - . _ _ 1 _ �5 EAGLE RD - s.EAGIE RD c zi r z 4 ( - I w �� I � zi i � 'g �• W W W E 1ST.ST ' F- !_ I LLL_—_� r W,. s Ill lislsist3, s qti NMIQyIa ]w s 0. c 0 Y =I I a Y ll N i N p X K. Z Q W FC � LL iJ N iHAW lAlf % I Fri hUl f 1W _ GH H30NIFIN 'Dona L A,qg.fz.as S? W Ln E GH H30NIFIN 'Dona L A,qg.fz.as