Loading...
PZ - Geotech Report Geotechniical Engineering Evaluation 5665 IN Meridian Rd Development Meridian, Idaho PREPARED FOR: 2 North Homes PO Box 140798 Garden City, ID 83714 PREPARED BY: Innovate Geotechnical IGEO Project No. 322015 March 31, 2022 '1 INNOVATE GEOTECHNICAL INNOVATE GEHTECHMCAL page 1 of13 March 31, 2022 2 North Homes PO Box 140798 Garden City, ID 83714 Attention: Michael lobes Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 5665 N Meridian Rd Development Meridian, Idaho IGEO Project No. 322015 Michael, Submitted herewith is the report of ourgeotechnical engineering evaluation for the subject site. This report contains the results of our findings and an engineering interpretation of the results with respect to the available project characteristics. It also contains recommendations to aid in the design and construction of the earth related phases of this project. On March 3, 2022, an Innovate Geotechnical (IGEO) representative was on-site and completed test pits up to 11 feet below the existing ground surface. Soil samples were obtained during the field operations and were then transported to our office for further testing. Based on the findings of the subsurface investigation and other information, the site soils are suitable for the support using conventional shallow foundations and pavements provided the recommendations in this report are followed. A detailed discussion of design and construction criteria is presented in this report. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If we can be of further assistance or if you have any questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact us at (208) 484-1090. F5�'��eNs FNp Sincerely, O� AO �gHa Innovate Geotechnical i 'v i'3t-ZL ^�I 14307 / �1 t 11 Yill Vl/ �' OFiop'° Clara Klamm, E.I.T Seth P. Olsen, P.E. Engineering Intern Senior Geotechnical Engineer GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MERIDIAN,IV QCZ,,i?n IM MA9.R!p"\FE4d.)I i 1 frIJ1111411111 I L1 L U 1310TICHNICAL Page 2 of 13 Table of Contents Attention: Michael Jobes.... ....................................................... I 1.0 INTRODUCTION 3 2.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 3 3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 3 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND FIELD EVALUATION................................................................3 4.1 Surface Conditions 4 4.2 Field Evaluation.......... ........ 4 4.3 Subsurface Soils 4 4.4 Groundwater 5 4.5 Site Subsurface Variations 5 4.6 Seismic Setting.........................................................................................................................5 4.7 Infiltration Testing................................................................... ..............................................6 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................6 5.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork...........................................................................................6 5.2 Structural Fill 7 5.3 Fill Placement and Compaction.............................................................................................8 5.4 Foundation Support................................................................................................................9 5.5 Lateral Resistance 9 5.6 Floor Slabs............................................................................................................................. 10 5.7 Drainage................................................................................................................................. 10 5.8 Pavements......................................................... 11 5.9 Infiltration 11 6.0 QUALITY CONTROL........................................................................................................... 12 6.1 Field Observations................................................................................................................ 12 6.2 Fill Compaction..................................................................................................................... 12 6.3 Concrete Quality................................................................................................................... 12 7.0 LIMITATIONS........................................................................ ............ ................................. 12 8.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................... 13 List of Figures Appendices Figure 1—Vicinity Map Appendix A—Boring Logs Figure 2—Site Map Appendix B—Laboratory Test Results Appendix C—DCP Test Results LpEfl INNOVATE GEGTICNNICAL 1.0 INTRODUCTION Innovate Geotechnical (IGEO) is pleased to present this report which summarizes the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed development at 5665 N Meridian Road in Meridian, Idaho. The project area is located approximatelyas shown in the Vicinity Map,Figure 1. 2.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The proposed development is on the northwest corner of N Meridian Road and W Producer Dr in Meridian, Idaho. The project entails developing the approximately 2-acre property into 4 residential lots and 1landscape buffer along N Meridian Road. An existing house on the property will remain and the 4 residential lots will share a common driveway. The proposed project includes evaluating the site for subsurface characteristics and providing pavement, foundation, and infiltration recommendations. Wall loads are expected to be up to 4.0 kips per lineal foot and column loads are anticipated to be less than 20 kips. If the loading conditions are different than we have anticipated, please notify us so that any appropriate modifications to our conclusions and recommendations contained herein may be made. Our understanding of the project is based on our voice and email communications with you and the Preliminary Short Plat Layout prepared by J.J. Howard and dated December 16,2021. A Site Plan for this evaluation is presented in Figure 2. 3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our geotechnical engineering evaluation was to provide recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, and foundation design and construction based on our site evaluation,laboratory testing,and engineering analyses. Our specific scope of services included: • Exploration of soil and groundwater conditions underlying the site by completing three test pits on the site to depths of up to 11 feet below the existing ground surface. • Laboratory testing to assess pertinent physical and engineering properties of the soil observed. • Preparation of this report. 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND FIELD EVALUATION Existing surface and subsurface conditions associated with the subject property are presented in this section. GLDIk.OA IIOi; f.I;uINYi:iLNG IAUW:1> f, .r.:�. ,1014wamsrOro+ INNCIVATE GEGTECHNICAL Page 4 of 13 4.1 Surface Conditions The proposed site for the 5665 N. Meridian Road Development is located in Meridian, Idaho(see Figures 1 and 2). It is currently partially developed with some of the existing structures to remain in place. Topographically, the site to be developed is relatively level with an existing ground surface elevation of approximately 2574 feet above mean sea level(MSL)to approximately 2572 feet above MSL. North Meridian Road forms the eastern boundary of the site and W Producer Rd forms the southern boundary. Photos 1 through 4 present the existing conditions at the time of our field evaluation. Photo 1: Looking east Photo 2: Looking north Photo 3: Looking west Photo 4: Looking southwest 4.2 Field Evaluation The subsurface soil conditions were determined by performing 3 test pits(TP-1 through TP-3) at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. An excavator was used to advance the test pits. Soil samples were obtained at significant change of strata and in general accordance with ASTM D-420 and ASTM D-2488. The subsurface conditions observed during the field evaluation are discussed in Section 4.3. Logs of the test pits,including a description of all soil strata encountered is presented in Appendix A. 4.3 Subsurface Soils After completion of the field evaluation, soil samples were tested for their engineering properties. The results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix a and shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINF_F12h1b ",V'fNNGYATf'.E"r' MM INN[1VATE GEDTFEMICAL Page 9 �; id The results of our field evaluation and our laboratory testing indicate a fairly consistent subgrade across the site. In general, the existing ground surface is underlain by a stiff sil/lean clay with sand to a depth of approximately 2 feet (TP-1 and TP-3)to approximately 2.5 feet (TP-2) below the existing ground surface. This layer is underlain by a medium dense silty sand to a depth of approximately 5.5 feet (TP-1 and TP-2)to approximately 6 feet(TP-3) below the existing ground surface. These layers overly poorly graded gravel with sand and cobbles to the full depth explored (approximately 11 feet below the existing ground surface). For a detailed description of the soil profiles observed in this evaluation, see the boring logs in Appendix A. See Figure 2 for the approximate boring locations. 4.4 Groundwater Groundwater was not observed during our field evaluation. Numerous factors such as heavy precipitation, irrigation practices, and other unforeseen factors may influence groundwater elevations at the site. The detailed evaluation of these and other factors, which may be responsible for groundwater fluctuations, is beyond the scope of this study. We estimate the seasonal high groundwater elevations to be more than 10 feet. Groundwater observations will be performed and reported monthly to assess on going groundwater elevations. 4.5 Site Subsurface Variations Based on the results of the subsurface exploration and our experience, variations in continuity and nature of subsurface conditions should be anticipated. Due to the heterogeneous characteristics of soils, care should be taken in interpolating or extrapolating subsurface conditions between or beyond the exploratory borings. Seasonal fluctuations in groundwater conditions may also occur. 4.6 Seismic Settin¢ According to the findings of our subsurface evaluation and the guidelines of the International Building Code(IBC, 2018)the Site Classification is D(IBC, 2018,section 1613). The following values should be used for site structural coefficients: Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration Ss=0.296g One Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration 51=0.107g Short Period Spectral Response Design Acceleration SDs=0.3089 One Second Period Spectral Design Acceleration SD1=0.171g 6rO1E;! NICIAL'2'N6iNEERING ifINNCIVATE GEUTECHNICAL Page 6 of 13 Liquefaction of a soil is defined as the condition when a saturated, loose, cohesion-less, (fine sand-type) soils have a sudden, large decrease, in their ability to support loads. This is because of excessive pore water pressure which develops during a seismic event. Cohesive (clay type) and dense sand and gravel soils typically do not liquefy during a seismic event. Because of the cohesive nature of the soils at the site and depth to groundwater, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at this site is low under seismic conditions. 4.7 Infiltration Testing Infiltration testing was performed in TP-1 and TP-3 at a depth of 3.5 feet to 6.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The infiltration testing was performed in clayey or silty sand. The measured infiltration rates are presented in Table 1.The recommended design infiltration rates are presented in Section 5.9 Infiltration. TABLE 1—Measured Infiltration Rates r TP-1 3.5 Silty sand Test 1 through 4 >20 inches/hour TP-3 3 Silty sand with Test 1 through 4 >20 gravel inches/hour TP-3 6.5 Poorly graded Test 1 through 4 >20 ug gravel with sand inches/hour 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our site exploration,laboratory testing,and engineering analyses,it is our opinion that the proposed development may be designed and constructed as envisioned. Specific recommendations for proposed foundation design, pavement design, and construction are presented in the following sections of this report. 5.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork 5.1.1 Initial Preparation We recommend that proposed areas for improvements be cleared of surface and subsurface deleterious and organic matter, debris be removed, and roots greater than % inch diameter be thoroughly grubbed, when encountered. Based on our observations, we anticipate approximately 2-4 inches of stripping will be required. G UTIKNPoICA:..'�:SiN;cE FIND IOVATE ! GEOGF,TFCNNHNICAL Page 7 oi'_3 51 2 Grading, Excavations and Subarade Preparation Current site grades within the proposed improvements are relatively level. We anticipate excavation depths to be fairly consistent on site. However, the relative amounts of silt and clay within the soil varies resulting in varying strengths. Therefore, in order to provide uniform bearing conditions for the proposed structures and pavements,we recommend the following site preparation activities: • Within foundation limits for homes, the native silty/clayey sand soils are to be proof- rolled and compacted to establish final foundation elevations. • Within floor-slab limits. The on-site silty/clayey sand should be proof-rolled before placing capillary break material. Floor-slab areas are to be supported by at least 4 inches of properly compacted capillary break material. • Within the pavement areas, the on-site sand should be proof-rolled before placing the aggregate for flexible pavement section. If earthwork activities cause excessive subgrade disturbance, replacement with structural fill may be necessary. A greater depth of disturbance of the subgrade soil may be expected if site preparation work is conducted during periods of wet weather when the moisture content of the soil exceeds optimum. Any soft, loose, wet or otherwise unsuitable soil, which is encountered during proof rolling, is to be overexcavated to firm soil, or a depth of 2 feet, whichever is less, and replaced with structural fill, as described below. 5.1.3 Temporary Excavations For temporary excavation less than 5 feet deep, side slopes should not be made steeper than 0.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Temporary excavations extending more than 5 feet and up to 30 feet in depth should not be made steeper than 1:1. If unstable conditions or groundwater seepage are encountered, flatter slopes, shoring, or bracing may be required for all conditions. All excavations should be made following OSHA safety guidelines. 5.2 Structural Fill Soil used to support foundations, slab-on-grade floors, and pavement is classified as structural fill for the purposes of this report. Structural fill requirements vary depending on its use as described below. 5.2.15tructural Fill Structural fill should be well-graded granular soils free of organics, debris, or other deleterious materials and no particles larger than 4 inches in maximum dimension. Depending on the intended use, structural fill should meet the specifications described below: GEO-EC HNiCAL ENGINEERING 11"RI-l"N G S _ 11, INNOVATE GE0TEGHNICAL hr:ge or a • Structural fill placed within building limits, pavement limits, and below structural foundations should consist of well-graded, sandy gravel material with no more than 12% passing the#200 sieve. Equivalent specifications may be used if approved by the project geotechnical engineer. • Structural fill placed as capillary break material below floor slabs should consist of 1 %- inch-minus,free-draining, crushed gravel with less than 10 percent passing the U.S. No.4 sieve and the fines content should not exceed 3 percent. 5.2.2 Use of on-site Soil The on-site silt and clays observed in our test pits may not be reused as structural fill, unless it can be demonstrated that it meets the specified gradation above. The underlying silty sand and poorly graded gravel may be used as structural fill, provided it meets the specified gradation. 5.3 Fill Placement and Comoaction The various types of compaction equipment have their limitations as to the maximum lift thickness that can be compacted. For example, hand operated equipment is limited to lifts of about 4 inches and most"trench compactors" have a maximum,consistent compaction depth of about 6 inches. Large rollers, depending on soil and moisture conditions can achieve compaction at 8 to 12 inches. The full thickness of each lift should be compacted to at least the following percentages of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557: 1. Compacted fill, supporting foundations 95% 2. Compacted fill, below floor slabs 95% 3. Backfillof trenches a. Below foundations 95% b. Below floor slabs 95% c. Below pavements 95% d. Others 90% 4. Compacted fill, below pavements 95% Field density tests should be performed on each lift as necessary to insure that compaction is being achieved. As a minimum, 33%of all spot footings, and one test for every 50 lineal feet of continuous wall footings shall be tested for each lift. We recommend that a geotechnical representative be on site during earthwork operations to observe site preparation and fill placement. Conditions of the structural fill and compacted native soil should be evaluated by in-place density tests, visual evaluations, probing and proof- rolling as these materials are prepared to determine compliance with the contract documents and recommendations in this report. cram E" NK:,. :ivc,r e airy: t �W /,V itJGi tprfl INNOVATE CENTECHNICAL Page 9 of 13 5.4 Foundation Support We anticipate that the footings will be established at approximately 2 feet below the existing ground surface. To establish uniform bearing conditions the footings should be established entirely on a specific zone of proof-rolled and compacted native soils. Foundations may be designed using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1,800 psf. If structural loads exceed the levels projected in Section 2.0 we should be notified to review our recommendations and provide additional recommendations if needed. In addition to the fill recommendations presented previously in this report, the following recommendations should be implemented: • Continuous footing width should be maintained at a minimum of 24 inches. • Spot footings should be a minimum of 30 inches in width. • Exterior footings should be placed a minimum of 24 inches below final grade for frost protection, and interior footing shall be placed a minimum of 16 inches below grade. • Drainage around the site should be created so that water is not allowed to flow into the excavation during or after construction. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 for temporary loads such as wind and seismic forces. Based on the preliminary maximum foundation loads, as presented above, and given that the foundations are supported as described in this report, we estimate that total settlement will be less than about 1 inch. Differential settlement is estimated to be less than about A of the total settlement. Settlement should occur rapidly, essentially as loads are applied. Post-construction settlement should be minor. Loose soil or otherwise unsuitable soil not removed from footing excavations, or disturbance of soil at foundation grade during construction could result in larger settlements than estimated. 5.5 Lateral Resistance The soil pressure available to resist lateral foundation loads is a function of the frictional resistance against the foundation base and the passive resistance which can develop on the face of below-grade elements of the structure as those elements move horizontally into the soil. For foundations bearing in soil prepared as recommended above,the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.38 applied to vertical dead load forces for the contact between cast-in-place concrete and soil at foundation grade. The allowable passive resistance on the face of footings may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 210 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), triangular distribution, for structural fill, provided backfill placed against foundations is compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD. Each of the above values includes a safety factor of approximately 1.5. 6E1 G'H7d h:;?L;iN3it�i F--^Nt, fG INNOVATE CECTECHNICAt Page M of 13 5.6 Floor Slabs Floor slabs may be supported on on-site gravel and sand as recommended in the previous sections of this report. We recommend the slab be designed using a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction (k) of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci). To retard the upward wicking of moisture beneath the floor slab,we recommend that a capillary break be placed over the subgrade. Therefore, we recommend floor slabs be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of free-draining crushed rock meeting gradation and compaction specifications described in Section 5.2.1 of this report. Alternate gradation specifications may be used provided they meet the requirements outlined above and are accepted by the geotechnical engineer of record. To help control normal shrinkage and stress cracking,the floor slabs should have the following features: • Adequate reinforcement for the anticipated floor loads with the reinforcement continuous through interior floorjoints • Frequent crack control joints • Non-rigid attachment of the slabs to foundation walls and bearing slabs If moisture sensitive floor coverings are used, blotter, vapor retarder, and choker should be implemented. 5.7 Drainage All soils can experience some volume change when exposed to water. Therefore, adequate site drainage is always important. Site grading design and construction should be implemented to assure that all surface water is directed away from the foundation bearing soils. We recommend the following actions be taken: 1. All areas around the structure should be sloped to provide drainage away from the structures. We recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet away from the structure. 2. All roof drainage should be collected in rain gutters with downspouts designed to discharge well beyond the backfill limits. 3. Adequate compaction of the foundation backfill should be provided. We suggest a minimum of 90% of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D-1557. Water consolidation methods should not be used under any circumstances. 4. Sprinklers should be aimed away from the foundation walls. The sprinkling systems should be designed with proper drainage and be well-maintained. Over watering should be avoided. tT"fi!W" AL.ENGiNURING N 1- iprfliNNOVATE GEGTEGHNIGAL Page 11 of 13 5. Other precautions may become evident during construction. 5.8 Pavements The flexible pavement evaluation was performed using the Gravel Equivalence (GE) method. In our evaluation we analyzed a common driveway. In general, the thickness of the asphalt pavement is predominantly controlled by the traffic and the thickness of the base and sub-base layers is predominantly controlled by the subgrade conditions. The results of the R-value testing indicated an R-value of 5(TP-2).The total thickness analysis was developed based on an estimated R-value of the subgrade soil (5), our experience, and recommended traffic data. We recommend using a traffic index (TI) of 4 for the common driveway.The flexible pavement design criteria are summarized in Table 2. TABLE 2-Flexible Pavement Design Criteria Design Characteristicr . . Design Life 20 Years Traffic T.I.=6.0 Idaho Climatic Factor 1 Subgrade R-Value=4 Subbase R-Value=60 Untreated Base Course (UTBC)—%"crushed aggregate R-Value=80 Asphalt 1.95:1.0 Substitution Ratios Base 1.10:1.0 Subbase 1.0:1.0 The recommended total design pavement section for the common driveway is presented in Table 3. TABLE 3- Flexible Pavement Section Flexible Ba.se Pavement Section Pavement Thicknes Thickness (inches) (inches) Common Driveway 2.5 4 6 12.5 5.9 Infiltration Based on our field evaluation and our understanding of the soils anticipated at the site, applying a factor of safety of 2 forthe measured infiltration rate,we recommend using a design infiltration GEDTECNNICAL ENGINEERiNG MERO9 N, V 2CS 4MI'M WOM INfy VATEGP000'-0 INNOVATE GEGTECNNICAL rate of 8 inches/hourforthe drainage facilities on site in the silty sand and poorly graded gravel. Variations in the infiltration properties of the soils on site can be expected including with depth. We recommend performing an infiltration test to verify the facility specific infiltration rate at the design depth during construction. We estimate the seasonal high groundwater elevation to be more than 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Monthly groundwater readings will be obtained from the piezometers on site over the irrigation season 2022 to confirm this estimate. 6.0 QUALITY CONTROL Our recommendations in this report are based on the assumption that adequate quality control testing and observations will be conducted during construction to verify compliance. This may include but not necessarily be limited to the following: 6.1 Field Observations Observations should be completed during all phases of construction such as site preparation, foundation excavation, structural fill placement and concrete placement. 6.2 Fill Compaction Compaction testing is required for all structural supporting fill materials. Maximum Dry Density (Proctor-ASTM 1557) tests should be requested by the contractor immediately after delivery of any granular fill materials. The maximum density information should then be used for field density tests on each lift as necessary to ensure that the required compaction is being achieved. 6.3 Concrete Quality We recommend that freshly mixed concrete be tested in accordance with ASTM designations. Testing should include slump, temperature, unit weight, yield, entrained air and compressive strength tests. 7.0 LIMITATIONS The recommendations provided herein were developed by evaluating the information obtained from the subsurface investigation. The exploration data reflects the subsurface conditions only at the specific locations at the particular time designated on the logs. Soil and ground water conditions may differ from conditions encountered at the actual exploration locations. The nature and extent of any variation in the explorations may not become evident until during the course of construction. If variations do appear, it may become necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report after we have observed the variation. >f%%e�NNI�Ai. ENGiNGE^ING rviovui>,+.io tar� is{n IPEJ—LINNOVATE GEBTEGHNIGAE r ai,a 13 0{ 13 Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. 8.0 REFERENCES ASTM,American Society for Testing and Materials ASCE 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,American Society of Civil Engineers(2016) IBC, International Building Code, 2018 Edition, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(1993) Foundation Engineering—Peck, Hanson,and Thornburn (1994) Fundamentals of Geotechnical Analysis—Dunn,Anderson, and Kiefer(1980) Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations—David F. McCarthy(2007) Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction (2020) Principles of Foundation Engineering, Braja M. Das. (2004) GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MLRIDIN ID f,�,n 10-)Q WNN1NN0VAFEGL000k1 r INNOVATE IB Efl E] Approximate Site Location CEDTECHNICAL5665 N Meridian Road Development Date: 29-Mar-22 Vicinity Map Project No: 322015 Drawn By: C. Klamm Locations are approximate Client: znane Homes �4 k 1 INNOVATE r ® Approximate Test Pit Locations Ll E o T E C H N I C AL 5665 N Meridian Road Development Date: 24-Mar-22 Site Flan Project No: 322015 Drawn By: C. Klamm Locations are approximate Client: 2 norm Homes CENTINNCIVATE fCBNICdt Appendix A GNIFIEG SOIL CLASSIFICA9GN SYSTEM FlFW OEMIFIGnONPROLEnMF9 _ _ bPYeovs.pu^� an Gmrela wxema.aa,.mm�an.wo-maemwnavr .'. GW waamMFa.en,aaa mtwm.mty vno envmwnpmubvpee .r... .. onmmbww.ei.nre.dwwn.mw .�. GP PaanemmvwKm. Mn.re..iei. v,,rew"" wiFNea xmwmm.elan.neaum^puwmwniexwa GM aMwwK waMmwvm'a..aaw CaeroG2lnetl '� Solla meae n... Pnwoa..rya u.^pnuxnpwfun..e e.wl GC irvnavnK wub^�evw `Mw.a.�"...v wwnrc.av+e�.�Ytreuwumma.i.m SW r'r+Y .w— +7 mfomavbwabevaamwanv.ma axnnwb SP PooMem.Euib.av:eryw.6bewno6 Rar anmy9h Fu.. xmgveem..rya,d..nnmttngeewvewneewl ;: SM an..iRpxrbvmen.mn.nmwn. SC w.p—Xwe .aaa.Yrmew ��wawmro.ra m Rne Grained Siltaand Ckya ML .mn�anip%mow Sulk w...,rww ww. . vw CL eeaer..awroa.aWwp.mmr.vwry w-mevra vanr.+n.eiXeen.Y..aery (MH amewa wwatanaenan.pmna w-mr� .... w... an.xro. �oaee+wn ..we. KSiMaentlClaysewHlgbOrganioSolk p.eienaoownybww�tem pro�nmry W..5kelbv;bYpuwypavxMuba Wuywpenbpmyty¢mMMnsdpapuryienK Gvevrip6(iNLywNpaMp.WUNmtbn MNery NMs. a)N WwNeew IMNe1ve VB.YntlN. Sampling MBlbotle AU a m. GE3 MC s:a;. NR RC SPT re; SS 'm ST T. UD C I I VA Geneml NO s Mo ftn MoleMre CanbM v...-m.i..a—.a.v.vmv.r..m...,n. Ce.W.n Canoe GWnW Solla .n.. x WMer Level Symbok .aP..x ePr rot�.oe,eX nwar Mwm es, �7 xtri..x w.ea...i —Fin.Gamed 3oila r SbM ion ry I uaamaeaxw as Pocw„w..w. Gwran o�v«. F&na: aepn ryX w.Mlw _ _ A-1 lunINNOVATE Innw Gealechnical TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 20M E FmnMln Rd,Ste.110 PAGE 1 OF 1 IULU GEOTECHNICAL THephone::h.(208)4 1090 CLEW 2 Naih Hanes PROJECT RAME 5665 N Mewlan Road Develcoment PROJECT NUMBER 322016 PROJECT LOCATION Meridian Maha DATE STARTED 313122 COMPLETED 313f12 GROUND ELEVATION 2574 B TEST PR SIZE —inches EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR COM GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Fxavaler AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY C.Xlamm CHECKED BY S.Olw AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Appwumata Location:43.85627 -116 39369 AFTER EXCAVATION — ATTERBERG r O w wX LIMITS o xrF x1p �w Ko 3tm-� d r rcr z We O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION j� o_z OK mO> Y'� NF �� vFig FW U� 6z wv 0Z K ZO Sz 0.0 m C A O U R ]a z a 3"d ga„ s 'o SILT WITH SAND,(ML)1 %grovel,17%sand,B2%floe,,M , GB moist,sane see cools up to 2'Elamelet 1 23 82 2.5 z 6 SILTY SAND,(SM)Tight bean,tlry to mast,same cemenfatianod GB 2 5.0 F Highlycemented,�from 6-5.5' 0 POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND,COBBLES,(GP)78% GB a;au 9r 1,22%serW,1%fine,,light bha ,suLmaMed,tlry 0 moist 11 3 4 1 "4 7.3 ¢ 5 D: B4 e as 5 q: s e(Zo 4 10.0 m'.D: G4B Bolan of It pit M 11.0 w. v� lunINNOVATE InnveloGeotachnical TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 2006 E Franklin Rtl,Ste.110 PAGE 1 OF 1 M. IULU GEOTECHNICAI Tslephonetl(h208)48C-1090 CLEW 2 Narih Homes PROJECT NAME 5685 N Meridian Roatl Oevelwnent PRQIECTNUMBER 322615 PROJECTLOCATION Meridian,Icaho DATE STARTED N3122 COMPLETED 3fJ122 GROUND ELEVATION 2572 It TEST PIT SIZE —iruAes EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR CIIW GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Ewavator AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY C.10amm CHECKED BY S.Olsen AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES ApEMmale Location:4365646 -11639463 AFTEREXCAVATION — ays`�n4 a rc �Wrc oAr�T TEF5Rr�SBE R G LIM wX cow w MATERIAL 0 E0atc DESCRIPTION OmjOz Hz w DD z V=CLAY, 4%sang 96%fnes, a , 1 24 42 21 21 9EI 6 a i p SILTYSAND,(SM)12%grsval,63%send,26%fines,lightly vm, tIj Gg 3 subangular,metlium to coarse grained,moist 11 2 23 26 � 5.g s High cementatl section from 5.25'-5.5' e fS< POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND,COBBLES,(GP)light GS Govm,subrotmtl 'moist 3 fS^ a�D u .5 . Q. e�4 Q: �� GB ¢ 100 .e q �? amen m loot pX at 1o.D rear. 0 INNOVATE Innate- eoleuhnioal TEST PIT NUMBER TP3 2006 E Franklin Rd,Ste.110 PAGE 1 OF 1 M�iGE0TECIREAL h.(20e 4� -1090 CLIENT 2 NO Homes PROJECT NAME 5665NMerkllanRoadDevelWment PROJECT NUMBER 322015 PROJECT LOCATION Meddi.,IcUh. DATESTARTED 3/322 COMPLETED 3W2 GROUNDELEVATION 2573ft TEST PIT SIZE —Indhes EXCAVATI)N CONTRACTOR Clfent GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Ew to AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY C.Klamm CHECKED BY S.Olsen AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES APpmArn is L.mtni. 4365574 -11839471 AFTEREXCAVATION — w o29 O� aa¢O 0 FR wJ OWXrc oK" 3m�0Uy�Q1Z o1WyUVy. rzJ b{� _zF A TE w NGR EG LMR Q I w owwm ��MATRAL DESCRIPTION OZ F Vf O f0 WZ Z DD r iI'dgmss f °o SANDY SILT,(ML)50%fines,b.,mdd GB 1 26 34 28 8 50 E 2.5 a i ffi m 6 =y SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL,ISM)25%gavel,54%aentl,21 % CIS i 5.0 + fines,light bro ,s lhangular,medium to warse Gntnec,mist 2 23 21 Larger grevel antl some cobbles,same cementation,harder digging Gg 3 D: 7.5 Q POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND,COBBLES,(GP)light GS b..submunded,moist 4 3 •:Q° GB i 10.0 5 •? Sodom of test pit at IDU feel. a 0 u INNOVhTE CEOTECHhllCAE Appendix B ~ 9 9 1 rY rJ N F+ F+ PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT O O O N q N A N Q 10 O J N ip Om O m y N N W N S 4 N J p rAT (1 9 m O 31 y y N O r _ N $ m A � - y Q g H IN Ap A IN L W y 0 ° E - O d N w ao N Y y O �^ z o n 0 3 Z ¢ o 0 0 n 1 1'7 co2 o W � 1 C o . . o _ PLASTICITY INDEX(PI) D 9 cm _ Z] O F+ O A 3 \ N N O m O \ � g p Or o � r c t 2 O O 1 r � O`- 3 w o N m 3 N O N m N 0 3 n 0 n n 0 9 3 n Shannon a Wilson 5111SHANNON F&WILSON Project Information Report to: Innovate Geotechnical Project: 5665 N. Meridian Rd. Report Date: 3/21/2022 File No.: 108473-006 Material Information Date Sampled: 3/3/2022 Sampled By: Client Date Received: 3/8/2022 Date Tested: 3/14 to 3/18/2022 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS Leb Borehole Sample �epUt Coo�ent %6200ng Liquid unn plasticity soil Number TYPa (fl) %) Sieve (%) Iotlez Type Remarks 22-0253 1 TP-2=Bulk 1.0I 23.9 I 96.3 I 42 1 21 CL - Prepared By: Travis Thomsen Shannon & Wilson ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT MINSHnNNON&WILSON CLIENT: Innovate Geotechnical PROJECT NAME:5665 N. Meridian Rd. FILE NUMBER:106473-006 PROJECT LOCATION:Ada County, Idaho 60 CL CH 50 x 40 zz [5 3 0 0 yF 7 2 20 • 10 CL-ML ML MH 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT I%) Specimen Identification MC LL PL PI Fines Classification • TP-2 Bulk 1.0 23.9 42 21 21 96 LEAN CLAY(CL) Prepared By: Travis Thomsen Shannon &Wilson "11■■IIIIIIIY■YIIYIIYYWIYIII�Iii:;!�IIII■■IIIIIII■■ . 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ ' 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ :, 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ 11■■IURINE■IIIIIII■■UPON■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■III ills■IIIIIII■INN 11■■1111111■■IIII Ills■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIlls■IIRUNS■1111111■■IIIIIII■■ 11■■IMINE■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ 11■■1111111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ 11■■IIIIIlls■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIII II■■ 11■■IIIIIII■■III Ills■1111111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■INN 11■■111111■■IIII Ills■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ 11■■1111111■■11111111111■111111111111■1111111■■11III111 ■ IN IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■1111111■■IIIIIII■■ 11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■MINE■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ 11■ 1111111■■Mill I■■MINE■IIIIIIION 111111,11111 ■■IIIIIII■■ mmOEM 13 ■■■ ®mmmm©©m 13m� � � ®mammammmm Shannon &Wilson 5260 Chinden Blvd. SHANNON 6 W LSON Boise, Idaho 83714 Phone:(208)658-8700 Fax: (208)658-8703 Report To: Innovate Geotechnical Report Date: 3/21/2022 Project: 5665 N.Meridian Date Sampled: 3/3/2021 Project No.: 108473-006 Date Received: 3/8/2022 Sample ID: TP-2, Bulk' Tested By: HL Soil Description: Lean Clay(CL) Lab Number: 22-0253 R-VALUE IDAHO T-8 Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Drainage Description Zero Zero R-Value @ 200 PSI Dry Density, PCF 99.2 1 00.5 Exudation Pressure Moisture Content,% 23.2 22.6 Exudation,PSI 308 423 5 R-Value(Corrected) 5 8 Specimen would not exudate at Expansion,PSI 0.06 0.22 2500 lb;Test terminated per —200 si — R- procedure. p Value �Expansicn 4.0 9000 Gradation:AASHTO T-11,T-27 Screen %Passing %Passing 8000 s¢es AS Recelved As Tested 4- 3.0 70M 3' n 6000 2" a 2.0 ITT moo 3/4" S ITTT o 1/2" 4000 - 3/8' No.4 100 100 MI 11 1 1 url 1.0 3000 No.8 200o No. 16 No.30 0.0 IN100o No.50 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 R-Value(cormbid) No. 100 No.200 'This report covers only material as represented by this sample and does not new3sadly cover all soils from this layer or souma. Reviewed By: Travis Thomsen INNOVATE GEOiCCHNICAE Appendix C DCP TEST DATA-Sowere Project: 5665 N Meridian Road Devefolemenf Date: 3-Mar-22 Location: TP-1 @ 2' Soil Type(.): Silt with$and(ML) No.of AcnrmulatW. Blow. Penetration Standard"N"Resiati(laIowa per foot) (ni (Inehae) 0 609.60 24.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 5 M. 24.9 24 609D 5 642.94 25.3 10 661.m M.1 20 em.21 M.9 % fi95 E E SSE Wp x 6a0A W G BBSA 38 711.2 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Reference:George F.Sowers and Charles S.Hedges. DVnamlc Cone for shallow in-sh i Penetration Testing, Vane Shear and Cone Penetrations Resistance Testing of In-Situ Soils,ASTM SIP 399,American Society of Testing and Materials,1966,pg.29. Figure C- 1 DCP TEST DATA-Sowers Project: 5555 N Meridian Road Development Date: 34ar-22 Location: TP-2 2' Soil TYPe(a): Lean cWy(CL) 73.01 Aenomolat. SlOwe Penetration Standard"N"Resistance(blows per foot) (mm) (inches) 0 609.60 24.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 5 6511 25.9 N6090 5 674.69 26.6 10 715.96 20.2 20 760.41 29.9 26 MA c E 3: E e ze T113 W 0 39 70 32 012.3 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 Referenm:George F.Sowers and Charles S.Hedges. Dynamic Cone Mr5hallow Ia-Sku Penetration Testing Vane Shear and Cone Penetrations Resistance Testing of in-Situ Soils,ASTM STP 399,American 5oclery cf Testing and Material;19M,pg.29. Figure C-2 DCP TEST DATA-Sowers Project: 5665 N Meridian Road Development Date: 3-Mar42 Location: TP-3 @ 2' Soil Typo(.): Bandy all!(ML) Nn.of Accumulative Blows Penetration Standard"N"Resistance(blows per fool) (mm) I (inches) 0 See00 24.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 13A 5 674.69 26.6 24 BOB a 5 ]12.]9 M.1 10 ]M.56 29.3 20 000.10 31.5 28 WA 2 E i E r = W 28 H. p ]112 W t3 162 u 0.0 e1z.e 5.0 10.0 15.9 Reference:George P.Sowers and Charles 5.Hedges, Dynamic Cone for Shallow In-Situ Penetration Testing, Vane Shear and Cone Penetrations Resistance Testing of In-Situ Soils,ASTM STP 399,American Society of Testingand Materials,I%6,1,29. Figure C-3 INNOVATE HJrU GEOTECHNICAL