The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutChick-fil-A - Geotechnical Engineering ReportGreen Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 Meridian Town Center Meridian, Idaho November 21, 2011 Terracon Project No. 62115054 Prepared for: Chick-fil-A, Inc. Atlanta, Georgia Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Boise, Idaho November 21, 2011 Chick-fil-A, Inc. 5200 Buffington Road Atlanta, Geogia 3049-2998 Attn: Ms. Sharon Phelps Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 Meridian Town Center Meridian, Idaho Terracon Project No. 62115054 Dear Ms. Phelps: Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project. These services were performed in accordance with the Master Services Agreement (MSA) between Chick-fil-A, Inc. and Terracon, dated March 31, 2005. This geotechnical engineering report presents the results of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations, floor slabs, and pavements for the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us. Sincerely, Terracon 12154 Fla Ryan J. Olsen, P.E. SAN J. 0�`'� the . fi w elding, P.E. Geotechnical Department anager Boise Office Manager Attachments CAW:aa162115054_Geotechnical Report_Chi&-N-A #3084_Meridlan Town center.docx copies to: Addressee (1 Electronic) Mr. Vance Burgess - 5200 Buffington Road, Atlanta, GA 3049-2998 (1 Original) Terracon Consultants, Inc. 11849 West Executive Drive, Suite G Boise, Idaho 83713 P [20B] 323 9520 r [2981 323 9 592 terracon.com Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick -fl -A #3084 ■ Meridian, Idaho November 21, 2011 ■ Terracon Project No. 62115054 TABLE OF CONTENTS Neuman Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION..................................................................... ....................1 ....................1 2.1 Project Description................................................................................... 2.2 Site Location and Description................................................................. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................... 3.1 lypicalauosurracerIVluc.................................... - 3.2 Groundwater.............................................................................. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION .............. 4.0 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations................................................... 4.2 Earthwork.................................................................................. 4.2.1 Site Clearing and Subgrade Preparation .................... 4.2.2 Fill Materials and Placement ........................................ 4.2.3 Grading and Drainage ................................................... 4.2.4 Earthwork Construction Considerations ..................... 4.3 Foundations.............................................................................. 4.3.1 Spread Footing Recommendations ............................ 4.3.2 Foundation Construction Considerations .................. 4.4 Seismic Considerations........................................................... 4.5 Floor Slabs................................................................................ 4.5.1 Floor Slab Design........................................................ 2 1 3 3 .......................... 3 ........................... 3 ........................... 4 ........................... 4 4.5.2 Floor Slab Construction Considerations ................................. 4.6 Pavements............................................................................................... 4.6.1 Asphalt Pavement Sections........................................................... 4.6.2 Concrete Pavement Section for Concentrated Loads .................. 4.6.3 Pavement Design Considerations................................................. 4.6.4 Pavement Construction Considerations ..................................... 4.6.5 Pavement Maintenance........................................................... 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS.................................................................................. APPENDIX A — FIELD EXPLORATION Exhibit A-1 Vicinity Map Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Plan Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description Borings B-1 to B-8 Boring Logs APPENDIX B — LABORATORY TESTING Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Test Description APPENDIX C — SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Exhibit C-1 General Notes Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7 7 8 A ..............11 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1rerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 ■ Meridian, Idaho November 21, 2011 ■ Terracon Project No. 62115054 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A geotechnical exploration has been performed for the proposed Chick-fil-A restaurant to be located at the Meridian Town Center in Meridian, Idaho. Field explorations included drilling eight soil test borings to depths of about 6%2 to 16'/2 feet below existing site grades. The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in the borings and our current understanding of the proposed development. The following geotechnical considerations were identified: ■ As part of the ongoing construction of the Meridian Town Center, the project site had been stripped prior to our field exploration. Any remaining deleterious materials such as undocumented fill, vegetation, root systems, topsoil, debris, manmade structures/utilities, and soft, frozen, disturbed, or otherwise unsuitable materials should be completely removed from the proposed building and pavement areas prior to construction. ■ The proposed building may be supported on shallow spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on compacted Structural Fill supported directly on undisturbed native soil. ■ In general accordance with Section 1613 of the 2009 Intemational Building Code, the seismic site classification of D may be used for design. This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A #3084 MERIDIAN TOWN CENTER MERIDIAN, IDAHO Terracon Project No. 62115054 November 21, 2011 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed Chick-fll-A restaurant to be located at the Meridian Town Center in Meridian, Idaho. Field explorations included drilling eight soil test borings to depths ranging from about 6'/2 to 16'% feet below existing site grades. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: ■ subsurface soil conditions ■ groundwater conditions at the time of ■ earthwork drilling. ■ pavement design and construction ■ foundation design and construction ■ floor slab design and construction ■ seismic considerations 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Project Description -- — DESCRIPTION ITEM ---- — -- Refer to the Boring Location Plan (Exhibit A-2 in Appendix A). The Site layout site will include a restaurant building with a drive through, paved parking and drive areas, and landscaped areas. A single -story restaurant building measuring 4,678 square feet in Structures - plan area. ---- Frame or masonry structure supported on a reinforced concrete Building construction, foundation system, with concrete slab -on -grade floors and steel assumed interior columns. — I Finished floor elevation is assumed to be within 3 feet of the Finished floor elevation I existing site grade. _ -- �- - I Column loads: Less than 50 kips Maximum loads, assumed Continuous load-bearing wall loads: 1.5 to 3 klf Uniform floor slab load: 100 Maximum allowable settlement 1 -inch (assumed) Responsive ■ Resourceful Reliable 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 ■ Meridian, Idaho November 21, 2011 ■ Terracon Project No. 62115054 lrerracon ITEM DESCRIPTION' A grading plan was not available when this report was prepared. Site grading We have assumed that finished grades will be within approximately 3 feet of the existing grades. Retaining walls None anticipated. Design equivalent axle loads (18 kip flexible equivalent single axle loads, ESALs): Traffic loading, assumed Light-duty v� 14,000 ESALs (passenger vehicle parking) I Heavy-duty pavement: 50,000 ESALs (delivery and service truck lanes) 1, consistent with final design criteria, we should be contacted so that we may update our In the event these details are in recommendations as needed. 2.2 Site Location and Description ITEM Location Existing improvements DESCRIPTION The proposed restaurant will be located east of Eagle Road and within the Meridian Town Center that is currently being constructed. See the Vicinity Map in Appendix A. At the time of our visit, the site was vacant and had recently been stripped of vegetation. ed luf East: An of area that had recently been s n pp construction of a proposed parking area. West: Eagle Road. Surrounding developments North: An undeveloped area that had recently been stripped for construction of a proposed parking area. South: A rough graded roadway leading into the Meridian Town Center. -- The site had recently been stripped of vegetation, and the ground Current ground cover I suwgenerally bare soil. Based on the relative elevations at the boring locations, there is Existing topography approximately 1 foot of relief across the site. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS A description of our field exploration is presented in Appendix A. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples obtained during our exploration. A description of the laboratory testing is presented in Appendix B- 2 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report lferracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 ■ Meridian, Idaho November 21, 2011 ■ Terracon Project No. 62115054 3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile Specific conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs, which are presented in Appendix A. Stratification boundaries on the logs represent the approximate locations of changes in soil types; in-situ,. the transition betweeil i m terials for the pay be gradual. Based on our borings and laboratory testing, g ra ect site are presented in the following table. Approximate Depth to Description Bottom of Stratum stratum 1 2/: to 5 feet 4 feet to more than 61/2Stratum 2 feet, where encountered 7 feet, Stratum 3 I where encountered Stratum 4 Extended to the maximum depth explored_ t 3.2 Groundwater Material Encountered Silt with varying amounts of sand. Portions of this stratum were cemented. This stratum was only encountered in borings B-4, B-5, B - Consistency/Density stiff Hard Silty sand. Portions of these soils contained gravel. These soils were Dense to very dense not encountered in borings B-2 or Gravel with sand and varying Very dense The borings were monitored during drilling for the presence and level of groundwater. Groundwater was not encountered within the borings at the time of our exploration. Fluctuations of the depth to groundwater may occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of irrigation, rainfall, runoff, and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Evaluation of these factors is beyond the scope of this exploration. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations Based on the materials encountered in the borings, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for support for the proposed structure on conventional shallow spread footings, provided the recommendations included in this report are incorporated into project design and construction. 3 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 1rerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 r Meridian, Idaho 62115054 November 21, 2011 ■ Terracon Project No. ongoing construction of art of the ong g location. Any A primary geotechnical consideration identified had been slipped Prior to our field exp topsoil, vegetation, root systems, p the Meridian Town Center, the project n, otherwise unsuitable remaining deleterious materials such as undocu frOzen fildisturbed, pavement areas, prior and soft, and p debris, manmade struot completelyremovedfrom the proposed building materials should be comp Y to constructiom aspects of design and Specific conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical asp sections. The recommendations ineering an andthis our construction are presented in the following testing, 9 report are based upon the results of fieldnd laboratory current understanding of the proposed project. 4.2 Earthwork placement subgrade preparation, and p ts recommendations for site clearing, n and construction of The following Presenons psened for des Of Structural Fill on the project. The recommendatislabsreandtpavements are contingent upon earth supported elements including foundations, q following the recommendations outlined in this section. The evaluation of atedby Terracon. Earthwork on the project should be observed and gand testing oflStructural Fill and Site Fill, subgrade 4 earthwork should include observation and other g eohnical conditions exposed during the tec preparation, foundation bearing construction of the project. 4.2.1 Site Clearing and Subgrai Preparation enter, project site had been stripped As part of the ong 9 remaining deleterious materials such as oin construction of the Meridian Town Center, the prior to our field exploration. Prior to construction, any manmade structureslutilities, and undocumented fill, vegetation, root systems, topsoil, debris, stbe ructures/ removed from soft, frozen, disturbed, or otherwise unsuitable posedasurfaces ls dshou d be free of mounds and the proposed building and pavement areas. EXP depressions that could prevent uniform compaction. tete, the top 8 inches of the exposed and pavements areas After removal of the mateshould be scarified, moisture conditioned rials described above is comp native soils in proposed building and compacted to the requirements outlined in Section 4.2.2 to near optimum moisture content, of this report. 4,2.2 Fill Materials and Placement 11 within tructuralro osed building area, and Material requirements for soils used as � ter of the structure, to a out ned in the table below. extending at least 5 feet beyond the p 4 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Report 1refracon Geotechnical Engineering Re P Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 in Meridian, Idaho November 21, 2011 a Terracon Project No. 62115054 – -- — -- Structural Fill in the Building Area 3 -inch minus gravel and sand meeting the requirements of the Idaho Standards for Public Works Section 801, Uncrushed Aggregates. Construction (ISPWC) Within proposed parking areas and other locations outside of the building, materials used as Site Fill should meet the requirements presented below. — site Fill in Parking and other Areas Outside the Build1ng _--- percent Passing 1i Sieve Size 100 6 -inch 15-100 No =— Less than 25 No. 200 30 percent, theplasticity index should be less than Liquid limit should be less than 10 percent, and the organic content shout e less than 3 percent, laced in horizontal, loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches thick, adjusted to acted to the minimum percentages of Fill materials should be p table, whichever is within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and comp either maximum dry density or relative density shown in the following appropriate for the material being used. Each lift of fill should be tested at various locations within the structure footprints d parkin/drive areas to verify it meets the density requirements parking /drive in the following table. it Location Beneath , slabs, and paved areas Other areas of fill and backfill, including backfill against the .,r ..,+Prior foundation walls Percent of Maximum Dry Density, ASTM D698 0 M percent Relative Dens y, ASTM D4253ID4254 75 4.2.3 Grading and Drainage away from the structure during and after All grades must provide effective drainage y and d drainage sh construction. Roof runoff ed away and surfaceof the foundationosloils.e Inadequdate d al n gegnear the from the building to reduce wetting ffnon or floor -slab movements, an structure could result in unacceptable differential foundation cracked slabs and walls. Effective drainage should be maintained for the life of the building. 5 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable I Geotechnical Engineering ort 3084 aRep Proposed ChicZf1 A: Terracon Project No. 62115054 November 21,0 1rerracan 4.2.4 Earthwork Construction Considerations Native soils will be susceptible to rutting or pumping under construction traffic when wet. Construction traffic over the completed subgrade should be avoided ouitabrtthe of foundations, floor Soils that rut, pump, or are otherwise disturbed are not s laced wle oth Structural Fill or Site Fill. slabs or pavements, and should be removed and rep performing earthwork Measures that may help reduce disturbance of exposed soUlis meat eland avoida e of heavy during warm, dry weather, the use of light track -mounted equipment, repeated traffic over a given area. Grading operations should be controlled to prevent water from flowing into construction areas. Excessive wetting or drying of the foundation excavation soils should be avoided during construction. Excess water should be promptly removed. The Contractor is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as stability of the excavation sides and bottom, and for pro required to maintain tecting existing avations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and facilities/utilities. Exc federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. trols who con Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the Under circumstances h shall means, methods and sequencing of construction op responsibilityhallthe information provided herein be interpreted to mean that Terracon is assuming any for construction site safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied or inferred. 4.3 Foundations ure can be supported on shallow spread footings supported on undisturbed The proposed struct s and construction considerations are presented in native soil. Design recommendation following subsections. 4.3.1 Spread Footing Recommendations Description Foundation Bearing material Net allowable Minimum footing width Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Criteria Conventional shallow spread footings. Undisturbed native soil or compacted Structural Fill meeting the requirements of section 4.2.2 oes report. The Structural Fill should be support nativP_ soils. 2,000 Columns: 36 inches 2 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 ■ Meridian, Idaho November 21, 2011 ■ Terracon Project No. 62115054 Description minimum embedment depth below lowest adjacent permanent finished grade or floor Estimated settlement2 ultimate coefficient of friction to resist lrerracon Criteria Exterior footing: 24 inches Interior footings not subiect to frost: 18 inches Total: 1 inch or less n;u,..o..flol Tonically'/2 tO % of the 0.35 (This is an ultimate value, d door efacof safety include a factor of safety. An appropriate ..r -..w hA nnnlied to this value for use in design.) slldmg 1. The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by 1l3 for support of temporary loads such as those generated by wind and seismic events. 4.3.2 Foundation Construction Considerations Care should be taken when excavating the foundations to avoid disturbing the supporting soils. Soils that rut, pump, or are otherwise disturbed are not suitable for support of foundations and should be removed and replaced with compacted Structural Fill. If compacted Structural Fill is placed beneath footings, its placement should extend at least 8 inches laterally beyond the footing edges in all directions for each foot of overexcavation depth below the footing's base elevation. 4.4 Seismic Considerations Cnde Used I t tional Building Code (IBC)1 Site Classincatton D` 2009 n ema 1. In general accordance with Section 1613 of the 2009 International Building Code (IBC). 2. The 2009 IBC requires a site soil profile extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope requested does not include a boring to 100 feet. Borings for the building extended to a maximum depth of approximately depth feet, and this seismic site class assumes similarly en exploration cncould el wutithe e maximum confirth stsite class or possibly jussurface tify exploration. omorle desired, a geophysical favorable class, if needed. 4.5 Floor Slabs 4.5.1 Floor Slab Design npscriotion Interior floor system ;Slab -on -grade concrete Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Criteria Geotechnical Engineering Report 1rerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 ■ Meridian, Idaho November 21, 2011 ■ Terracon Project No. 62115054 Criteria Description Minimum 4 inches of '/-inch-minus crushed aggregate base Floor slab support compacted in accordance with Section 4.2.2 of this report. Aggregate base should be supported on subgrade soils prepared in accordance with Section 4.2 of this report. 1, Aggregate base should meet the requirements of'/ -Inch (Type 1) crushed aggregate in the lspWC, Section 802. The use of a vapor retarder or barrier should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade that will be covered with wood, tile, carpet, or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, warrant the use or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions of a vapor retarder, the slab designer and slab contractor should refer to ACI 302 and ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarderlbarrier. 4.5.2 Floor Slab Construction Considerations Prepared subgrades should be protected and maintained at the proper moisture condition until floor slabs are constructed. If the subgrade should become disturbed, wet, or desiccated prior to construction of floor slabs, the affected material should be removed or the materials scarified, moisture conditioned as appropriate, and recompacted. Upon completion of grading operations, care should be taken to maintain the recommended moisture content and density prior construction of the building floor slabs. 4.6 Pavements Asphalt pavement section designs were based on the assumed traffic estimates presented in Section 2.1 of this report. If traffic volumes will exceed the presented values, Terracon should be notified in order to provide pavement sections designed for higher levels of traffic. Design and construction considerations are also presented below. 4.6.1 Asphalt Pavement Sections Asphalt pavement sections for this project were designed in general accordance with the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) publication "Design of Hot Mix Asphalt Pavements for Commercial, Industrial, and Residential Areas." The following flexible pavement sections should be placed on subgrade soils prepared in accordance with Section 4.2 of this report. Thickness Inches Material Standard Light Duty Heavy Duty 4 Asphalt concrete' ____ 3 `— Crushed aggregate base course (314 Inch - g 9 Type 1)' _ — 8 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 ■ Meridian, Idaho November 21, 2011 ■ Terracon Project No. 62115054 lrerracon Thickness, Inches Material Standard Light Duty Heavy Duty 12 13 Total thickness 1. Asphalt concrete and aggregate base should. conform to the applicable sections of the ISPWC. Following subgrade preparation, the base aggregates should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, placed in uniform lifts, and compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. The asphalt concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 92.0 percent of the maximum theoretical density, as determined by AASHTO T 209. The asphalt concrete should meet ISPWC requirements for a''/z-inch maximum size Class III mix. Asphalt cement should be PG 58-28. 4.6.2 Concrete Pavement Section for Concentrated Loads For areas subject to concentrated and repetitive loading conditions such as dumpster pads, truck delivery docks, and ingress/egress aprons, we recommend using a Portland cement concrete pavement. For dumpster pads, the concrete pavement area should be large enough to suport the cotainerle of the refuse ruck. The sectionp pshould ben placedaon supbgradexsoils prepared in accordancwith following pavement nd Section 4.2 of this report. Portland Cement Concrete' 7 inches Crushed Aggregate Base Course (314 Inch - Type 1)' Total Thickness 11 inches 1. Portland cement concrete and aggregates should conform to the applicable sections of the ISPWC. 4.6.3 Pavement Design Considerations reducing or Long-term pavement performance will to dependent d several preventive maintenance. In preventing increases in subgrade moisture content and providing p general, increases in the moisture content of subsurface soils can result in adverse effects to the pavement section. These adverse effects typically result from frost susceptibility or loss of subgrade strength with increases in moisture content. Water allowed to pond on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to premature pavement deterioration. Openings in the pavement surface, such as landscape islands, are sources for water infiltration into the surrounding pavement section and subgrade. Water can collect in the islands and migrate into the underlying subgrade soils, thereby degrading support of the pavement. This is 9 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report lrerraccn Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 ■ Meridian, Idaho November 21, 2011 ■ Terracon Project No. 62115054 especially applicable for islands with raised concrete curbs, irrigated vegetation, and near - surface soils with low permeability. The civil design for pavements with these conditions should include features to restrict or collect and discharge excess water from the islands. Examples of these features are edge drains connected to the storm -water collection system or other suitable outlet and impermeable barriers that reduce lateral migration of water such as a cutoff wall installed to a depth below the pavement section. The following should be considered as minimum recommendations in the design and construction of pavements: ■ Provide a minimum 2% grade in the ground surface away from the edge of pavements. ■ Provide a minimum 2% cross slope for the subgrade and pavement surface to promote proper surface drainage. such as ■ Install pavement drainage at the perimeter of areas where frequent wetting, from irrigation or other sources of water, is anticipated. ■ Install joint sealant and seal cracks promptly. ■ Seal all landscaped areas adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture migration to subgrade soils. ■ Place compacted low -permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter. 4.6.4 Pavement Construction Consideratonared subgrade, as described in Section Pavement sections should be placed on properly prepared 4.2 of this report. As construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed or altered o utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, or rainfall. As a result, the pavement ts of subgrade may become re prepared subgradpavement e may result support. ncracks olong-term r potholes in the pavement Therefore, _ areas of inadequately p p Therefore, the subgrade rutting. if disturbabe nceororrlutt ng has uated at the time of subgrade areas should r excessive ru g dations in this ns of reworked, o recommendations dist d to the be reworked, moisture conditioned, and properly compacted report immediately prior to constructing the pavement section materials. In areas of prepared subgrade or partial thickness pavement, the Contractor should limit traffic to equipment necessary to construct the pavement se tion. Hn deterioration Mllnd es operating in on these surfaces may cause significant damage, 9 pavement life. 4.6.5 Pavement Maintenance Preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program. These maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventive maintenance global maintenance ltsof(b (both localized maintenance (e.g., crack and joint sealing and patching) and surface sealing). This type of maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and generally provides a high return on investment for 10 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 1rerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 ■ Meridian, Idaho November 21, 2011 ■ Terracon Project No. 62115054 pavements. Even with periodic maintenance, some movements and related cracking may still occur and repairs may be required. 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS o Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and R testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction, and other earth -related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable N ,r w SiTE .1 w Fairview Avenue L �111 IN -F • a A W ° SCALE 1:24,000 + uitF +000 O 1709 2D00 37IX1 A000 5700 5000 >000 FEET DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT ,e,Ton... an. CnNFTRI ICTION PURPOSES U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE SERIES TOPOGRAPHIC MAP EAGLE AND CLOVERDALE, IDAHO QUADRANGLES ISSUED 1998 7 PrOJect Manager: 7RJO Rmien N7. 62115054 . ( +•inline Br n �n, ...nu•*s 0. VICINITY MAP CHICK -FE -A#3084 MERIDIAN TOWN CENTER MERIDIAN, IDAHO Drawn by: TMA Scale: Checked by: RJ o File Name: V.IR Me Appreved by: RJO Date:anlzoalszve�iw 11/16111 rnx.Iwelanesaz IL a � p k - Si CIP •. � � - p.Y..M C15T CY a .. ,.r �... 'p IRtLl�. N ,r w SiTE .1 w Fairview Avenue L �111 IN -F • a A W ° SCALE 1:24,000 + uitF +000 O 1709 2D00 37IX1 A000 5700 5000 >000 FEET DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT ,e,Ton... an. CnNFTRI ICTION PURPOSES U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE SERIES TOPOGRAPHIC MAP EAGLE AND CLOVERDALE, IDAHO QUADRANGLES ISSUED 1998 7 PrOJect Manager: 7RJO Rmien N7. 62115054 . ( +•inline Br n �n, ...nu•*s 0. VICINITY MAP CHICK -FE -A#3084 MERIDIAN TOWN CENTER MERIDIAN, IDAHO Drawn by: TMA Scale: Checked by: RJ o File Name: V.IR Me Appreved by: RJO Date:anlzoalszve�iw 11/16111 rnx.Iwelanesaz FIG No. IA -1 NOTES: 1. Locations are approximate. 2. Temporary benchmark (TBM) is an electrical conduit manhole cover. The TBM has an assumed elevation of 100 feet. 3. Based on drawing provided by Chick-fil-A, Inc. 4. For general location use only, not intended for construction purposes. Manager:rro�en RJO nv. Scale: 62115054IBM r 1 r by. BLP �oi�:a4ra�-E"sLv&SC'iesl5n .a by: Fle Name: RJOI evi�i'no ao wavtEE ➢ retlb: _.,. fete'. . ,a 2aonwsm�e ae. anal 3ay.osm r-ix,me's2 LEGEND: * Approximate Boring Location Temporary Benchmark (TBM) IORING LOCATION PLANFIG No. CHICK-FIL-A #3084 MERIDIAN TOWN CENTER A-2 MERIDIAN, IDAHO G Geotechnical Eng meering 3084 aReport 1rerr�eon eridian, Idaho Proposed Chic0f1 A: Terracon Project No. 62115054 November 21, 2 Field Exploration Description ei ht borings in the proposed project area. The The subsurface exploration consisted of drilling 9 Location Plan included in this approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Boring appendix. property corners were staked by others. The Prior to the field exploration, the building and pro p ro os borings were located in the field usinging ed building and boring locations were selected by Terracon based on the locations ng wheel or pacing and pavement areas. The by visually sighting from the staked locations. Relative engineer'sulevelU Relative elevationsations at e boring reported Terracon usingof a manhole cover providing locations were measured by operty corner was used as a on the boring logs are rounded to the nearest '/� foot. The top access to an electrical conduitTheaelevatonted rof the TBMthe awas st rassmed to be0t. the temporary benchmark (TBM). Location Plan presented is approximate location of the TBM is shown on the Boring appendix. The 1lodcabY means the an elevations and methods used to define them uld be considered accurate only to the degree imp) sround surface feet elow the The borings were drilled to depths °ea bwith continuous -flight out 61/2 to /bhollow stem' augers. sting A Terracon with a truck -mounted drill rig equipp during the drilling operations. field geologist recorded logs of the borings 9 Disturbed soil samples were obtained at various depths in the borings using a 2-inch- Disturbed oon sampler driven in general accordance with the Standard outside -diameter sp � - p were obtained of the auger cuttings. Penetration Test (SPT). In addition, disturbed bulk samples140-pound wired u drive the split spoon sampler the The result of the SPT is an N -value. The N -value is the number of blows_ from a hammer falling from a height of 30 inches that are req es are shown on the last 12 inches of an 18 -inch interval or the distance in re presented re entedvonuthe boring logs in this boring logs. Descriptions of the materials encountered are p appendix. The N value provides a reasonable estimate of the relative in-place place density of non-cemented sandy type materials. However, the N -value only provides h indication a the relative stiffness penetration resistance of these soils may be affected by the of cohesive materials, since the p -value in ravel) n interpreting the N moisture°ntent. Consierable care must be exercised ularly where the size of the gravel part clesf a ceeds the inside d ameterr of the soils, pa sampling spoon. used to advance the split -spoon sa mpler in the borings An automatic SPT hammer was icall achieved with the automatic hammer compared to performed. A greater efficiency is typ Y on the cathead and rope method. The e. Published correlations the conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead an rope. between the SPT values and soil properties are based Exhibit A-3 Responsive 9 Resourceful ■ Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report lrerracon Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 ■ Meridian, Idaho November 21, 2011 ■ Terracon Project No. 62115054 higher efficiency of the automatic hammer affects the standard penetration resistance blow count (N -value) by increasing the penetration per hammer blow over what would be obtained using the cathead and rope method. The effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has been considered in the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-3 LOG OF BORING NO. B -'I Page i of 1 CLIENT PROJECT Chick-fil-A, Inc. Pronose Chick-fil-A #3084 SITE Meridian Town Center SAMPLES TESTS cp a $' o 0a LU w ya DESCRIPTION U a O z� �� wH z w d w m ¢Z o ¢ \ az z = ArNY roxSurface Elev.: 99 ft ran (CL)LAY: SS 1.0 26 ist, tan BS 2 SS 0.7 26 95 4 SAND:t, trace of gravel, tanSS 1.2 44 s92.5 F BORING z z 0 aJ K K W F 'a o The stratification lines represent the approximateboundary lines between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual. ° WATER LEVEL DEPTH(S), it Irerracon BORING STARTED 10-25-11 WL BORING COMPLETED 10-25-11' RIG CME -75 LOGGED BY TMA. -7 � 1 o WL - APPROVED RJO JOB# 621 505 o WL m LOG OF BORING NO. B-2 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT PROJECT Chick-fil-A, Inc. proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 SITE Meridian Town Center SAMPLES TESTS > a LU w y DESCRIPTION x z w N W O $ = W WW wj zcn 0: LU w� C6 O U Q3: ¢ �o z5 Approx. Surface Elev.: 99.5 ft wm <::iZ (CL) LEAN CLAY: SS 0.3 39 12 S9/18 hard, moist, tan 2- 2.5 97 SS 1.2 63 (GC) CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND; very dense, moist, tan 4 95.5 4- (GP-GM) GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND; SS 1.3 80 very dense, moist, tan s 6.5 93 BOTTOM OF BORING v z 0 aU K K W F 'a n The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual. m WATER LEVEL DEPTH(S), ft BORING STARTED 10-25-11 BORING COMPLETED 10-25-11 WL 4 N/E Irerracon RIG CME-75 LOGGED BY TMA o WL �_ T'EEE a WL APPROVED RJO I JOB # 62115054 m LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT PROJECT Chick-fil-A, Inc. Pronose Chick-fil-A#3084 SITE Meridian Town Center SAMPLES TESTS > 'i w o CDa w DESCRIPTION r LU N wLU LU Lu O LU Wz wlN- z a>i a ~ ° M of FO Nm ¢p �o z Approx. Surface Elev.: 99 ft (CL) LEAN CLAY; SS 0.2 29 very stiff, moist, tan BS 2 SS 1.3 29 4 95 4 (SM) SILTY SAND: dense, moist, trace of gravel, tan SS 1.2 48 r:: 6 6.5- 92.5 BOTTOM OF BORING z z E w a' co o The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual. WATER LEVEL DEPTH(S), ff Irerracon BORING STARTED 10-25-11 BORING COMPLETED 10-25-11 RIG CME-75 LOGGED BY TMA o 6 WL EaN Q o WL APPROVED RJO JOB # 62115054 o WL m LOG OF BORING NO. B-4 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT PROJECT Chick-fil-A, Inc. Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 SITE Meridian Town Center SAMPLES TESTS > LJ o DESCRIPTION �w w� u: N of w0 U x > z�n �w `° U a a Lu wIN— z d~ Q ED Approx. Surface Elev.: 98.5 ft o no r°nm �� ¢ _° Z - (CL) LEAN CLAY: SS 0.2 33 hard, moist, brown 2 96.5 2 (ML) SILT WITH SAND: SS 1.0 92/0.7 hard, moist, moderately cemented, tan 4 94.5 4 ISM) SILTY SAND: very dense, moist, strongly cemented, SS 0.2 500.4 }} brown . }1` 6 7 91.5 rrvt GRAVEL WITH SAND; SS 0.5 59 very dense, moist, tan 8 �D OD o D with cobbles below 10 ft 10 SS 1.3 63 O o D O 12 O^Un O \VO �O D 14 SS 0.3 00/0. OD 82.4 16 o BOTTOM OF BORING z 0 'a � The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil androck types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual. STARTED 10-25-11 BORING COMPLETED 10-25-11 SZ WL 7DEPTH(:S),ftBORING 7N/E 1 ��rr icon RIG CME -75 LOGGED BY TMA W o WL APPROVED RJO 'JOB # 62115054 o WL m LOG OF BORING NO. B-5 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT PROJECT Chick-fil-A, Inc. Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 SITE Meridian Town Center SAMPLES TESTS o. DESCRIPTION w J $ w W w z z W� win z �� Approx. Surface Elev.: 98.5 ft o y m nim 5 a7 Z5 (CL) LEAN CLAY; SS 1.5 26 very stiff, moist, tan 2 96.5 2 - (ML) SILT WITH SAND: SS 1.5 32 hard, moist, tan 4 5 93,5 (SM) SILTY SAND: SS 1.4 62 very dense, moist, tan 6 7 91.5 (GP -GM) GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SS 0.3 88 ° SAND; very dense, moist, tan 8 0 10 88.5 10 (GP) GRAVEL WITH SAND AND SS 1.3 87 COBBLES: �D very dense, moist, tan 12 O OD a D° 14 �D SS 1.3 72 ° o D - O 16 5 ° 1° 16.5 82 BOTTOM OF BORING 5 Y L L The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual. n WATER LEVEL DEPTH(S), ft BORING STARTED 10-25-11 BORING COMPLETED 10-25-11 ME -75 LOG RIG CGED BY TMA WL� N(E 1 1 rerracon WL 2 r WL APPROVED RJO I JOB # 62115054 9 LOG OF BORING NO. B-8 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT PROJECT Chick-fil-A, Inc. Proposed Chick-fil-A #3084 SITE Meridian Town Center SAMPLES TESTS i LU LU DESCRIPTION >o(D U r w zrn z re m'' N U w wa z ¢r a9 o a of m 0 3 zD c Approx. Surface Elev.: 99.5 ft a rn 0 <::i (CL) LEAN CLAY: SS 0.3 30 13 42/20 very stiff to hard, moist, tan 2 SS 1.0 38 10 37/18 4 95.5 4 (ML) SANDY SILT: hard, moist, weakly cemented, tan 16.5 SS 1.0 55 6 93 BOTTOM OF BORING The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual. WATER LEVEL DEPTH(S), ft 1 ��rr�con BORING STARTED 10-25-11 WL 4N/E = BORING COMPLETED 10-25-11 RIG CME -75 LOGGED BY TMA WL 'T WL APPROVED RJO JOB # 62115054 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable The number of blows required to advance a standard 2 -inch O.D. split -spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18 -inch penetration with a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the "Standard Penetration" or "N -value'. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: GENERAL NOTES Unconfined Standard Penetration WL: Water Level WS: DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling SS: Split Spoon - 1-'/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger ST: Thin -Walled Tube — 2" O.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger (Solid Stem) RS: Ring Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger DB: Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B RB: Rock Bit BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB Wash Boring or Mud Rotary The number of blows required to advance a standard 2 -inch O.D. split -spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18 -inch penetration with a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the "Standard Penetration" or "N -value'. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS Unconfined Standard Penetration WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling BCR: Before Casing Removal WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling ACR: After Casing Removal DCI: Dry Cave in AB: After Boring N/E: Not Encountered Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non -plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS Unconfined Standard Penetration Standard Penetration Compressive or N -value (SS) Consistency or N -value (SS) Relative Density Strength, Qu, Ps f Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft. < 500 0 - 1 Very Soft 0-3 VeryLoose 500-1,000 2-4 .Soft 4-9 Loose 1,000-2,000 4-8 Medium Stiff 10-29 Medium Dense 2,000 — 4,000 8-15 Stiff 30-50 Dense 4,000 — 8,000 15-30 Very Stiff > 50 Very Dense 8,000+ > 30 Hard RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Descriptive Term(s) Percent of Maier Component Particle Size of other constituents Dry Weight of Sample Trace <15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm) With 15-29 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm) Modifier i 30 Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75mm) Sand #4 to #200 sieve (4.75 to 0.075mm) Silt or Clay Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm) RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Descriptive Term(s) Percent of Term Plasticity of other constituents Dry Weight Index Trace <5 Non -plastic 0 With 5-12 Low 1-10 Modifier >12 Medium 11-30 High > 30 Rev 04/10 1'' LG n Exhibit C-1 11 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Soil Classification N L b t T t A Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group aures Using a ora ory es s Group Group Names Well -graded sand' Less than 5% fines ° Cu <6 and/or 1 > Cc> 3 E Symbol Poorly graded sand' Gravels: Clean Gravels: Cu >_ 4 and 1< Cc< 3e GW Well -graded gravely More than 50% of Less than 5% fines ` Cu <4 and/or 1 >C, 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F coarse fraction retained Gravels with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel Rc," Coarse Grained Soils: on No. 4 sieve More than 12% fines ` Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,°," More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Fine -Grained Soils: 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve Sands: 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Silts and Clays: Liquid limit less than 50 Silts and Clays: Liquid limit 50 or more Clean Sands: Cu >_6 and 1<Cc<3` SW Well -graded sand' Less than 5% fines ° Cu <6 and/or 1 > Cc> 3 E SP Poorly graded sand' Sands with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand More than 12% fines ° Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand c, '' PI > 7 and plots on or above line' CL Lean dayK m Inorganic: JA" PI < 4 or plots below "A" line ML Silt Z Liquid limit - oven dried Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7, Organic clay K' M'" Organic: <0.75 Liquid limit- not dried OL Organic silt K,L.m. 0\1 PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat clay K,L,M Inorganic: —— 1_,__,,,,,,._- —. —__.._—, KrLrM Organic: " Based on the material passing the 3 -in. (75 -mm) sieve s If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. ` Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW -GM well -graded gravel with silt, GW -GC well -graded gravel with clay, GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay. ° Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW -SM well -graded sand with silt, SW -SC well -graded sand with clay, SP -SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP -SC poorly graded sand with clay E Cu = Dw/Dio Cc = Tz )2 Dro x Den F If soil contains >_ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. ° If fines classify as CL -ML, use dual symbol GC -GM, or SC -SM. Liquid limit - oven dried limit - not dried <0.75 OH - Organic silt H If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. If soil contains >_ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL -ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel," whichever is predominant. ' If soil Contains >_ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. If soil contains >_ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. " PI >_ 4 and plots on or above "A" line. ° PI < 4 or plots below "A" line. P PI plots on or above "A" line. ° PI plots below "A" line. MH or OH 10 OI---._ J __—_ ML LOL — 4 C MLor 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) Exhibit i For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction 50 —of coarse-grained soils Equation of 'W'- line Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5. X 40 — then P1=0.73 (LL -20) W p Equation of "U" - line Z Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7, 30 -" then P1=0.9 (LL -6) F}- 0\1 F- U) 20 �o Ci Liquid limit - oven dried limit - not dried <0.75 OH - Organic silt H If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. If soil contains >_ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL -ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel," whichever is predominant. ' If soil Contains >_ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. If soil contains >_ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. " PI >_ 4 and plots on or above "A" line. ° PI < 4 or plots below "A" line. P PI plots on or above "A" line. ° PI plots below "A" line. MH or OH 10 OI---._ J __—_ ML LOL — 4 C MLor 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) Exhibit i