foundation report proposed addition for upper …

Corporate Headquarters (610) 277-0880 FAX 277-0878

Southern New Jersey (856) 768-1001 FAX 768-1144

Central Pennsylvania (717) 697-5701 FAX 697-5702

Lehigh Valley 149 Main Street

Emmaus, PA 18049 (610) 967-4540 FAX 967-4488

[email protected] www.earthengineering.com

FOUNDATION REPORT

PROPOSED ADDITION

FOR

UPPER PROVIDENCE TOWNSHIP BUILDING

UPPER PROVIDENCE TOWNSHIP,

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Prepared For: Richard Kapusta & Company 935 Landis Road Telford, Pennsylvania 18969

EEI Project Number: 29307.00

December 12, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF WORK ................................................. 1

II. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................. 1

III. FIELD INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................ 3

IV. LABORATORY TESTING ...................................................................................... 4

V. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................... 4

A. GEOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 4

B. SOIL / BEDROCK ............................................................................................. 5

C. GROUNDWATER .............................................................................................. 7

VI. SITE PREPARATION ............................................................................................ 7

VII. GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 8

VIII. FLOOR SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 10

IX. EXCAVATION METHODS ..................................................................................... 11

X. PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 12

A. FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS .................................................................................. 12

B. GENERAL PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 12

XI. FILL AND COMPACTION ...................................................................................... 13

A. FILL CRITERIA ................................................................................................. 13

B. COMPACTION CRITERIA ................................................................................. 14

XII. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES........................................................................... 15

XIII. SITE SEISMICITY .................................................................................................. 16

XIV. CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL ............................................................... 16

XV. LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................... 16

APPENDIX

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF SITE GEOLOGIC MAP OF SITE BORING LOCATION PLAN

BORING PROFILES LABORATORY TESTING

BORING LOGS KEY TO BORING LOGS

Proposed Addition - 1 EEI Project Number 29307.00 Upper Providence Township

I. PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF WORK

Earth Engineering Incorporated (EEI) completed the Foundation Report for the proposed

addition to the Upper Providence Township Building located in Upper Providence Township,

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The objective of this project was to investigate, document, and

analyze the subsurface conditions present at the site. Based upon the subsurface conditions,

recommendations regarding the design of the foundation system for the proposed addition, as well

as general earthwork and construction recommendations, were developed and are included within

this Report.

The scope of work for this project included a field investigation, a geologic analysis of site

conditions, laboratory testing of a soil sample obtained during the field investigation and a

geotechnical engineering analysis. The work was performed in accordance with EEI proposal

LV3840. This Report presents the results of our work.

II. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

The Upper Providence Township Building is located at 1286 Black Rock Road in Upper

Providence Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The site is bordered by Black Rock

Road to the west, the township police administration building and commercial properties to the

south, with other township owned properties and athletic fields to the north and east. It should be

noted that U.S. Route 422 is located to the far northeast, beyond the park, and State Route 29 is to

the far south, beyond the commercial/industrial property. The existing township building is located in

the northern portion of the site, including asphalt driveways and parking areas on the south, east

and west sides of the building. The majority of the addition area is currently asphalt covered with

some landscaping. The topography of the proposed addition location is relatively flat. Ultimately,

the topography of the site slopes gently downward to the north. Based on the surface elevations at

each boring location, the relief across the footprint of the proposed addition area is approximately

two feet (2’). Plate 1, included with this Report, shows the location of the site on a topographic map

of the area. The following photographs show the site conditions at the time of the field

investigation:


B-101 (Photograph 1) B-102 (Photograph 2)

B-103 (Photograph 3)

Based on information provided to EEI by Richard Kapusta Architect & Planners (RKAP), a

single story, 6,800 square foot, slab-on-grade addition to the Upper Providence Township Building

is proposed to be constructed at the site. The proposed addition is expected to have a finished floor

elevating that will match the finished first floor elevation of the existing building at 313.23 feet. The

addition will consist of a combination of masonry bearing walls and steel column construction. A

portion of the addition containing the new meeting hall, restrooms and an entrance lobby will be

constructed with a crawl space. The bottom of footing elevation for the crawl space will be

approximately eight feet (8’) below the finished floor elevation of 313.23 feet. Based on information

provided by RKAP, the maximum column and wall loads will not exceed 110 kips and 6 kips per

linear foot, respectively. Finally, driveway and parking areas are also proposed around the new

building. The proposed construction, in relation to the existing site features is shown on the Boring

Location Plan, EEI Drawing Number: 29307.00-A-101, included within the Appendix of this Report.


III. FIELD INVESTIGATION

Three (3) borings, designated as B-101 through B-103, were conducted for this

investigation. The borings were performed on December 1, 2016, by Main Line Drilling Company of

Wayne, Pennsylvania. Supervision and monitoring of the boring program were performed by a

representative of EEI. The boring locations were field determined by a representative of EEI using

the provided plans. The ground surface elevation of each boring was determined by utilizing a

finished floor of a northern portion of the existing building as a reference datum. Based on the

provided plans, the existing finished floor elevation was 313.23 feet. The location of each test

boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan, included in the Appendix of this Report.

The test borings were advanced using two inch (2”) outer diameter (O.D.) split barrel

samplers and six inch (6”) O.D. hollow stem augers. Split-barrel samples, conducted in accordance

with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard D1586, were taken at regular

intervals throughout the depths of the borings. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values were

recorded for each sample. The SPT values, which are a measure of soil density and consistency,

are the number of blows required to drive the two inch (2”) O.D. split-barrel sampler six inches (6”)

using a one hundred forty pound (140#) weight dropped thirty inches (30”). The number of blows

required to advance the sampler over the 12 inch interval from 6 to 18 inches is considered the "N"

value. The test boring logs, which provide sample depths, description of the materials encountered

and sampling data, are included in the Appendix of this Report. The information presented on

these logs was used to generate boring profiles that graphically represent the subsurface conditions

encountered at the boring locations. The Boring Profiles, EEI Drawing Sheet Number: 29307.00-A-

102, are also included within the Appendix of this Report.

The borings were conducted to auger refusal at depths ranging from 10.0 to 15.0 feet below

the existing ground surface. Auger refusal is typically interpreted as the drilling apparatus

encountering the bedrock surface. Hard augering, which is indicative of very dense soil conditions,

was encountered at each boring location at depths ranging from 6.5 to 11.5 feet below the existing

ground surface. Groundwater was not encountered within any boring locations conducted, to the

depths achieved. The total depth of each boring and the conditions encountered can be observed

on the Boring Logs and Boring Profiles, included in the Appendix of this Report.


IV. LABORATORY TESTING

One (1) representative soil sample recovered during the subsurface investigation was tested

in the laboratory. The laboratory testing conducted on this sample consisted of classification, in

accordance with ASTM D2487, to verify visual classification and to establish engineering

parameters required for analysis. The tests performed include: Particle Size Analysis (ASTM

D422), Atterberg Limits Determination (ASTM D4318) and Natural Moisture Content (ASTM

D2216). A Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Group Symbol and ASTM Group Name were

assigned to the soil sample based upon the laboratory testing. The results of the laboratory testing

conducted are presented in Table I. A gradation curve, numerically and graphically depicting the

results of the analysis, is presented in the Appendix of this Report.

TABLE I

LABORATORY RESULTSSample Location B-102

Sample Number S-2

Sample Depth, feet 2.0’-4.0’

Stratum I

Atterberg Limits

Liquid Limit Non Plastic

Plastic Limit Non Plastic

Plasticity Index Non Plastic

Natural Moisture Content (%) 12.6

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Group Symbol

ML

ASTM Group Name Silt

V. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

A. GEOLOGY

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, PA

DCNR Interactive Map, reprinted November 30, 2016, the site is situated within an area underlain

by the Triassic Period Brunswick Formation (Geologic Symbol: Trb). Plate 2, included within the

Appendix, shows the location of the site on a geologic map of the area.

According to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Topographic and Geologic Survey,

Engineering Characteristics of The Rocks of Pennsylvania, Fourth (4th) Series, Revised 1982, the

Brunswick Formation is typically composed of a reddish-brown shale, mudstone, and siltstone

which sometimes contains beds of green and brown shale with red and dark-gray argillite inter-

bedded in some places. The bedding within this formation is typically thin to flaggy. Fracturing and

jointing within this rock type are moderately abundant, usually closely spaced and exhibiting a


blocky pattern. This rock type is moderately resistant to weathering and the overlying soil mantle is

moderately thick. Weathered fragments of this rock range in shape from elongated to blocky. The

ease of excavation ranges from easy in the completely to highly weathered rock to difficult in the

moderately weathered to fresh bedrock of the Brunswick Formation.

The split-barrel samples of the soil and weathered rock fragments confirm the presence of

the Brunswick Formation shale on this site.

B. SOIL / BEDROCK

The soil samples obtained during the field investigation were examined and visually

classified by EEI, both in the field and in the laboratory. Based upon the classifications and the

laboratory testing conducted, a generalized subsurface profile was developed for this site. One (1)

material designated as FILL and three (3) naturally-occurring strata were characterized by EEI to

exist at the site. Topsoil was encountered at the surface of each boring location, to depths ranging

from 0.3 to 0.4 feet below the existing ground surface.

Cross-sections of each boring, displaying the various strata, as well as other information

obtained from the field investigation, are included within the Appendix on the Boring Profiles. The

subsurface information observed is also shown on the Boring Logs. A general description of the

materials encountered is as follows:

FILL

The material designated as FILL is visually described as brown to gray sandy silt with trace

root fibers. The FILL material was encountered at each boring location, which extended to depths

ranging from 1.0 and 3.0 feet below the existing ground surface. The SPT (N) values recorded

during the sampling of this material ranged from 4 to 12 blows on the sampling barrel per foot of

penetration. The SPT (N) results indicate that the FILL materials are loose to medium dense.

STRATUM I

The soil designated as Stratum I is visually described as red brown silt to sandy silt. As

determined by laboratory testing, the USCS Group Symbol for a representative sample of this

material is ML. The assigned ASTM Group Name is Silt. The Stratum I soil was encountered at

each boring locations, which extended to depths ranging from 4.5 to 6.5 feet below the existing

ground surface.

The SPT (N) values recorded during the sampling of this material ranged from 10 to 26

blows on the sampling barrel per foot of penetration. The SPT (N) results indicate that the Stratum I

soil is medium dense.


STRATUM II

The material designated as Stratum II is visually described as interbedded weathered

siltstone and sandstone in the form of red brown sandy silt to silty sand. This material was

observed to be encountered in a highly weathered state. The Stratum II material was encountered

at boring locations B-102 and B-103, and extended to depths of 9.0 (B-102) and 11.5 (B-103) feet

below the existing ground surface. The SPT (N) values recorded during the sampling of this

material ranged from 36 to 72 blows on the sampling barrel per foot of penetration. The SPT (N)

results indicate that the Stratum II material is dense to very dense.

STRATUM III

The material designated as Stratum III is visually described as weathered shale in the form

of red brown to gray sand and gravel. The Stratum III material was encountered at each boring

location, which extended to the conclusion of the borings at depths ranging from 10.0 to 15.0 feet

below the existing ground surface. The SPT (N) values recorded during the sampling of this

material ranged from 61 blows on the sampling barrel per foot of penetration to 50 blows with no

penetration. The SPT (N) results indicate that the Stratum III material is very dense.

BEDROCK

Auger refusal was encountered at each boring location at depths ranging from 10.0 to 15.0

feet below the existing ground surface. Auger refusal is typically interpreted as the drilling

apparatus encountering the bedrock surface. The corresponding bedrock elevations can be found

in Table II below:

TABLE II BEDROCK ELEVATIONS

Boring Number Surface Elevation* (Ft.) Depth to Auger Refusal (Ft.) Bedrock Elevation (Ft.)

B-101 310.4 10.0 300.4

B-102 308.7 10.5 298.2

B-103 308.6 15.0 293.6

Note: * The ground surface elevation of each boring was determined by utilizing the existing finished floor elevation of a northern portion of the existing building as a reference datum. Based on the provided plans, the existing finished floor elevation was 313.23 feet.


C. GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered within any boring location conducted, to the depths

achieved. It must be noted that groundwater observations were made at the time of the drilling

operation and that groundwater table elevations may fluctuate with daily, seasonal, and climatic

variations. If groundwater is encountered during construction, the appropriate measures to be

taken for groundwater control during construction should be determined in the field at the time of

excavation, and is the responsibility of the contractor.

VI. SITE PREPARATION

EEI performed a cursory analysis of the excavations and fill placements necessary for the

development of this site using the existing site grades and the anticipated bottom of crawl space

footing elevation of approximately 305 feet. Based on this analysis, excavations ranging from 3 to 5

feet, and fill placements up to approximately 5 feet will be required to achieve the proposed grades.

Prior to the placement of the required structural fill, areas extending a minimum of ten feet

(10’) or twice (2x) the height of the proposed fill beyond the proposed construction should be

stripped of all vegetation, topsoil, root mats, and other deleterious materials, where applicable. The

stripping operation should be completed to the satisfaction of the on-site representative of the

Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Following removal of the surface materials and after excavation

to the proposed grades, the building pad should be proof-rolled and compacted. It is recommended

that a steel drum vibratory roller having a minimum static weight of ten (10) tons be utilized for this

purpose. Proof-rolling should be conducted with a minimum of two (2) passes in each direction with

a smooth drum roller in static mode. Proof-rolling and compaction procedures are necessary to

densify and verify the integrity of the upper zones of the soils. The proof-rolling effort is an important

aspect of the development of the site, as portions of the existing FILL materials were encountered

during the test boring operation; EEI anticipates that unstable areas will be encountered during the

proof-rolling effort. Any loose or unstable areas encountered during proof-rolling are most likely due

to excessive moisture within the soil matrix. These soils can be aerated and dried in-place.

Following adequate drying time, these soils can be densified in-place. Alternately, any loose or soft

zones of soil can be removed and replaced with structural fill, as outlined in the FILL AND

COMPACTION section of this Report.


The need to excavate and replace the soft materials will be reduced if the development of

the site occurs during periods of dry and warm conditions, such as the summer months. During

these periods, the effectiveness of scarifying and aerating will be greatly enhanced while reducing

the need to over-excavate and replace soft soils. The proof-rolling effort should be observed and

evaluated in the field by a qualified representative of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record.

Due to the fine-grained nature of the existing soils, repeated construction traffic across the

site will lead to instabilities. Therefore, construction traffic should be limited across the site. The

site should be graded during development to convey surface runoff away from construction. The

work areas should be sealed by rolling on a daily basis to promote runoff. Careful grading and

management of surface water runoff will help minimize disturbance of the subgrade. Furthermore, it

is recommended that all construction areas, including those which were excavated to achieve the

planned subgrade elevation, be proof-rolled immediately prior to the placement of the sub-base

stone section and again before installation of the asphalt/concrete sections. This will allow for soft

and/or weak areas to be observed and remediated prior to slab and/or pavement construction.

VII. GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

The results of the field investigation revealed that the general geotechnical cross-section of

the site consists of one (1) FILL material and three (3) residual strata above the shale bedrock. As

previously mentioned in the SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS section of this Report, the

maximum column and wall loads will not exceed 110 kips and 6 kips per linear foot, respectively.

Loose existing FILL material was encountered at boring location B-101 which extended to a

total depth of 3.0 feet below the existing ground surface. The variable density of the FILL indicates

that this material was not placed and compacted in controlled lifts, under engineering supervision.

Engineering analysis of the site conditions indicates there is potential for settlements above

acceptable limits if the foundation and slab elements are placed on or above the FILL materials.

Therefore, any FILL shall be removed and replaced with structural fill prior to structural fill

placement required to establish the slab subgrade elevations. It should be noted that FILL material

can vary in density and composition over short lateral and horizontal distances. Following the

removal of the FILL materials, the underlying subgrade soils should be proof-rolled and densified, in

accordance with the SITE PREPARATION section of this Report.


The natural soils are suitable for support of the proposed structure. However, if soft/loose

natural soils are encountered at the site during construction, foundation preparation measures may

also be necessary at the time of excavation. The soft/loose soils should be evaluated by the on-site

representative of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. All soft/loose natural soils should be

removed and replaced with structural fill. The over excavation, if required, should be backfilled with

compacted lifts of structural fill, to the originally proposed foundation bottom elevation. The

structural fill should be placed and compacted to ninety eight percent (98%) of the material’s

maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D698.

EEI recommends supporting the proposed structure utilizing a shallow foundation system,

bearing on the medium dense Stratum I soils and very dense Stratum II weathered rock and/or

properly placed structural fill and possibly Stratum III weathered rock. The following foundation

system and soil bearing capacity recommendations are provided by EEI, in addition to those

discussed above.

1. A foundation system consisting of strip and spread footings along with a

slab-on-grade floor system is recommended for the proposed addition.

2. The base of the strip and spread footings should be situated within the medium dense to very dense natural soils and/or newly placed and compacted structural fill as detailed in the FILL AND COMPACTION section of this Report. FILL material and/or soft/loose natural soils encountered at the footing bottom elevation should be removed and replaced with compacted lifts of structural fill, or lean concrete. Foundations shall not bear on or above existing FILL and/or soft/loose natural soils.

3. Following implementation of the site and foundation preparation recommendations, the foundations can be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot. Regardless of the load criteria, a minimum eighteen inch (18”) wide strip footing and thirty six inch (36”) spread footing should be utilized.

4. Supported on the suitably dense natural soil and/or properly placed structural fill, total settlements are estimated not to exceed 1.0 inch. Differential settlements are estimated not to exceed 0.5 inch. These settlements were calculated using a bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot along with the provided column and wall loads (110 kips and 6 klf, respectively).

5. The elevation of the base of the new foundations should match the base elevation of the adjacent existing footings. Alternately, foundations bearing at different elevations should be positioned so that the base of the closest points of the adjacent foundation is located a minimum of one horizontal to one vertical (1:1) from each other. Care should be taken not to undermine existing foundations. Should foundations be undermined, underpinning or shoring will be required.


6. The bottom of exterior footings and footings in unheated areas should be placed at least thirty six inches (36”) below the final exterior grade for protection from frost heave.

7. All footing bottoms should be tamped and completely cleaned of loose material or debris immediately prior to the placement of concrete. The foundation must be dry at the time of concrete placement.

8. The actual bearing conditions of the soil at the footing bottom elevations should be confirmed in the field during excavation, by inspection under the supervision of a Professional Engineer qualified in Geotechnical Engineering.

It should be noted that foundation excavation adjacent to the existing building will likely

encounter loose backfill material. Backfill material for exterior foundation walls is often not placed

and compacted under engineering control. Therefore, localized over-excavation adjacent to the

existing building foundation(s) should be anticipated. The extent of the over-excavation should be

field determined at the time of construction by a qualified representative of the Geotechnical

Engineer of Record.

VIII. FLOOR SUPPORT

Floor slabs for the building addition may be supported on approved soils and/or new

engineered fill placed and compacted over approved subgrade soils in accordance with the FILL

AND COMPACTION section of this Report. Due to the soft/loose FILL materials, overexcavation

and replacement is expected to be required for proper support.

Following stabilization, if required, as previously discussed, floor slabs for the proposed

building addition may be designed as a slab-on-grade system with a recommended Modulus of

Subgrade Reaction value of 150 psi/inch. The subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the

procedures described in this Report. In order to reduce capillary rise and damp floor slabs, a

granular subbase is recommended. The granular subbase will also provide uniform support

distribution between the subgrade soils and the base of the concrete slab. It is recommended that a

minimum of six inches (6”) of clean, coarse-graded aggregate (such as PADOT 2B or other

approved materials) be placed and compacted beneath all floor slab areas. The floor slabs should

be suitably reinforced to control shrinkage cracks. Proper joints should be provided at the interface

of the slab(s) and foundation walls so that a small amount of independent movement can occur

without causing damage.


IX. EXCAVATION METHODS

Excavations ranging from 3 to 5 feet deep will be required to achieve the proposed footing

bottom elevation of the crawl space. The excavations at this site are expected to occur within the

FILL materials and residual soils. Based on the results of the drilling operation, the FILL material

and Stratum I soil as well as the upper portion of the Stratum II weathered rock will be easy to

excavate using conventional equipment and techniques.

Conversely, very dense weathered rock (Stratum II and Stratum III) was encountered at

each of the boring locations. The depths to the very dense weathered rock (Stratum II and Stratum

III), in addition to the depths to bedrock, at each testing location are presented in the Table III.

TABLE III

DEPTHS OF VERY DENSE WEATHERED ROCK AND BEDROCK

Boring Location

*Surface Elevation

(ft)

Proposed Elevation

(ft)

Depth to Very Dense Stratum II

(ft)

Stratum II Weathered

Rock Elevation

(ft)

Depth to Very Dense Stratum III

(ft)

Stratum III Weathered

Rock Elevation

(ft)

Depth to Bedrock

(ft)

Bedrock Elevation

(ft)

B-101 310.4 305.0 -- -- 6.5 303.9 10.0 300.4 B-102 308.7 305.0 5.0 303.7 9.0 299.7 10.5 298.2 B-103 308.6 305.0 4.5 304.1 11.5 297.1 15.0 293.6

Note: * The ground surface elevation of each boring was determined by utilizing the existing finished floor elevation of a northern portion of the existing building as a reference datum. Based on the provided plans, the existing finished floor elevation was 313.23 feet.

Removal of the very dense materials with a standard back-hoe will prove difficult and result

in slow excavation rates. Improved excavation rates, specifically within the very dense portions of

these weathered materials, will be realized utilizing a late model, high power track-mounted hoe in

lieu of a standard backhoe. Removal of the deeper portions of the very dense Stratum II weathered

rock, such as during trench excavation, may require hydraulic hammering, ripping or other rock

removal techniques.

Deeper excavations for utilities may also encounter the bedrock surface. The rock removal

may be aided by the typically closely spaced fractures within the bedrock. However, rock

excavation within confined foundation and utility trenches is expected to require hydraulic

hammering, ripping, or other rock removal techniques. The final determination of the rock removal

method should comply with all Township codes and generally accepted safety guidelines.


As required, temporary slopes and support for excavations should be designed and installed

by the contractor in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA),

Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 29 CFR 1926, Subpart P. A competent person as

defined by the aforementioned regulation is required to confirm stability of all excavations during

construction. If required, the design of temporary bracing and shoring by the contractor needs to

consider an active earth pressure and passive earth pressure on the temporary shoring as

appropriate. Effects of any surcharges also need to be considered in the bracing design.

Permanent slopes should be designed at 3 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter.

X. PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Flexible pavement areas are expected to be constructed over the natural Stratum I soils

and/or newly compacted structural fill placed in accordance with the FILL AND COMPACTION

section of this Report. The following pavement design parameters including a 20 year design life

and 18 kip Equivalent Single Axle Loading (ESAL) of 26,249 ESALs were used in our analysis.

Should these traffic estimates be different, EEI should be notified so that our recommendations can

be reviewed and if necessary revised.

A. FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

The following design recommendations for flexible pavement sections were based on the

above parameters, and correlations with soil types and densities encountered during drilling. Based

on these estimated pavement design parameters and an assumed California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

value of 3.0, EEI recommends the following flexible pavement sections at the site.

Light Duty - Pavement Sections - 20 Year Design

Layer Designation Material Specification Thickness Surface Course PADOT ID-2 Wearing 1.5 inches

Base Course PADOT BCBC 2.0 inches Subbase PADOT Type 2A Modified Aggregate 7.0 inches

B. GENERAL PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

All pavement areas should be evaluated and thoroughly proof-rolled prior to the placement

of the subbase stone. Any soft or unstable areas encountered during proof-rolling should be

compacted in-place or removed and replaced with structural fill as outlined in the SITE

PREPARATION and FILL AND COMPACTION sections of this Report. Due to the fine grained

natural of the residual soils, stabilization sections and/or over-excavation are anticipated to be

required prior to the subbase stone placement. Existing local pavement specifications should be

adhered to if they are more stringent than those provided herein.


The previous pavement analysis was performed using the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) method of flexible pavement design and are based

on the assumption that the pavement subgrades are well compacted, stable, and otherwise suitable

for the placement of subbase and pavement materials. All pavement subgrade areas should be

evaluated and thoroughly proof-rolled prior to the placement of the subbase stone and again prior to

asphalt placement.

Unstable soil observed during proof-rolling that is attributed to excessive moisture can be

aerated and dried in-place. Following adequate drying time, the soils can be densified in-place.

The excessively moist state of the soil, if encountered, may require localized stabilization via soil

over-excavation. Once completed, it is assumed that periodic maintenance, such as patching and

sealing, is performed at regular intervals.

XI. FILL AND COMPACTION

A. FILL CRITERIA

Fill material which supports foundations, floor slabs, and pavements, as well as fill for

retaining wall backfill, is considered structural fill. Excavations required to achieve the anticipated

grades will make the existing FILL material, as well as the Stratum I soils, and possibly Stratum II

and Stratum III weathered rock available for reuse as structural fill material.

Based on visual observations, the existing FILL materials are considered suitable for use as

structural fill provided any deleterious materials (i.e., metal, wood, etc.) which are unsuitable for

reuse as structural fill are stockpiled separately and removed from the site or placed in non-

structural areas. EEI recommends that the FILL materials be further evaluated for reuse as

structural fill by a representative of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record, at the time of excavation.

One (1) sample of the Stratum I soil was tested in the laboratory for natural moisture

content. The result yielded a natural moisture content of 12.6 percent. Based on visual

observations supported by laboratory testing, this material was observed to be near optimum

moisture.

Based on visual observations, the Stratum II and Stratum III weathered rock are suitable for

reuse as structural fill in their current condition. However, portions of the residual soil and

weathered rock may be encountered above optimum moisture. These portions of the Stratum II

and Stratum III materials may need time to be aerated and dried prior to use as structural fill. Also,

rock fragments should be processed to less than three inches (3”) in size and mixed with suitable

soil materials during placement to provide a well-graded structural fill.


The on-site soils will require careful moisture control as they are sensitive to moisture

changes. Materials stockpiled for use as structural fill should be graded to shed water and rolled to

maintain the soils. During periods of wet site conditions, travel upon the building pad and

construction areas should be limited to minimize disturbance of the subgrade which will lead to

instabilities.

Any structural fill imported to the site should meet the following criteria:

Free of organic matter, ash, cinders, frozen materials, and demolition debris.

Plasticity Index less than ten (10). Less than fifteen (15) percent by weight rock fragments larger than

three (3) inches, less than thirty (30) percent by weight larger than ¾ inches, and less than thirty (30) percent by weight smaller than the No. 200 sieve.

Meets the definition of clean fill according to PADEP Management of Fill Policy, Document Number 258-2182-773.

The criteria are provided as a general guideline for soil materials imported to the site. Soil

materials available for use as structural fill should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer of

Record for evaluation prior to use at the site.

B. COMPACTION CRITERIA

Structural fill should generally be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches (8”) in

loose thickness and compacted with a sheepsfoot or smooth drum vibratory roller with a minimum

static weight of ten (10) tons. Where compaction by hand-operated equipment is necessary,

structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of six inches (6”) loose thickness. The optimum lift

thickness and number of repetitions necessary to achieve the required percentage compaction

values should be determined in the field with test passes of the chosen compaction equipment.

The fill material should be placed at its optimum moisture content (+/- 2%) as determined in

accordance with ASTM D698 and compacted to a minimum percentage of the maximum dry density

as indicated in Table IV.

TABLE IV COMPACTION CRITERIA

Fill Area Percent of Maximum Dry Density as

per ASTM Standard D698 Foundation Support and Slab on Grade 98

Retaining Wall, Paved Areas, Walkways and Berms

95

Non-Structural 92


XII. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

The lateral earth pressure coefficients that may be used for designing below grade walls and

retaining walls, if necessary, are shown in Table V. Retaining walls that are restrained from

deflection should be designed for the at-rest (Ko) condition. Retaining walls that are free to deflect,

such as landscape walls, should be designed for the active (Ka) condition. Considered somewhat

conservative, the earth pressure data for the on-site materials was determined from the soil

classification testing and visual classification of the soil samples which was compared to generally

accepted and published values for the various properties.

EEI recommends that a drainage system be installed for walls constructed below grade.

The presence of a drainage system will serve to minimize hydrostatic pressures caused by water

trapped against the walls. If adequate drainage is not provided, the walls should be designed to

resist hydrostatic loads. Additionally, consideration should be given to any surcharge loads at the

top of walls.

TABLE V SOIL PROPERTIES FOR THE COMPUTATION OF LATERAL LOADS

FILL &

STRATUM I STRATUM II & STRATUM III

Effective Stress Angle of Friction – φ 28.0º 30.0º

Dry Unit Weight - γd 110.0 pcf 120.0 pcf

Submerged Unit Weight – γw 47.6 pcf 57.6 pcf Rankine Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure - Ka 0.36 0.33 Rankine Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure - Kp 2.77 3.00 Rankine Coefficient of at Rest Earth Pressure - Ko 0.53 0.50

It should be noted that for the design of an Segmental Retaining Walls (SRW), the National

Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) suggests that all soil placed within the reinforced zones of

the system have no more than 35% passing the #200 sieve. The soil classification, conducted by

EEI as part of this investigation, indicates that placement of the Stratum I soil in the reinforced zone

of an SRW is not permitted. However, additional testing should be conducted once the reinforced

backfill material is identified, namely a direct shear test (ASTM D3080). The results of this test may

provide more aggressive soil parameters to be used in retaining wall design, which may effectively

reduce retaining wall costs.


XIII. SITE SEISMICITY

The 2009 edition of the International Building Code (IBC) specifies seismic design

requirements applicable to the structural design of the proposed building addition. In particular,

Chapter 16, Sections 1613 through 1620 are relevant to this structural design. This in turn requires

that the project site be classified geotechnically as either “Site Class” A through F based on Table

1613.5.2 of IBC 2009. In this regard, based on a comparison of the criteria of Table 1613.5.2 with

the field data accumulated during the drilling for this site in December 2016, the site should be

classified as Site Class “C”, which according to IBC 2009 indicates a “very dense soil and soft rock”

profile.

XIV. CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL

As documented within this Report, the anticipated construction will include significant

earthwork procedures and foundation construction activities. The quality of this work is an integral

part of the development of this site and directly impacts the validity of the recommendations

presented in this Report. Based upon past experience, the most cost effective and economical

earthwork inspection is obtained through the on-site presence of a qualified representative of the

Geotechnical Engineer of Record during the placement of structural fill and the installation of

structural elements. Therefore, it is recommended that the proof-rolling effort, excavation and

placement of fill, and verification of the installation of foundation elements be tested and confirmed

by Earth Engineering Incorporated.

XV. LIMITATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon the

subsurface data collected, and on details stated in this Report, as well as the assumption that the

subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by the test borings

performed.

Unless specifically indicated to the contrary in this Report, the scope of this Report is limited

only to investigations and evaluation of the geotechnical aspects of the site conditions, and does

not include any consideration of potential site pollution, contamination or other environmental

issues. This Report offers no facts or opinions related to potential pollution or contamination of the

site.


The procedures followed for the subsurface exploration, analysis and conclusion

development followed generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices and make no other

warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the professional advice provided under the terms of

EEI’s agreement and included in this Report. The conclusions and recommendations presented in

this Report assume that recognized proper construction practices are followed throughout

construction and that a Professional Engineer qualified in geotechnical engineering is retained to

oversee the inspection of site preparations, proof-rolling, foundation construction, and other critical

earthwork operations.

It is emphasized that this analysis was made for the proposed addition to the Upper

Providence Township Building located in Upper Providence Township, Montgomery County,

Pennsylvania. Earth Engineering Incorporated does not assume any responsibility in using this

Report to generate foundation design recommendations other than at the specific site addressed.

Respectfully submitted, EARTH ENGINEERING INCORPORATED

Michael J. Carmosky Assistant Director ~ Lehigh Valley Division

Michael O. Meixell, P.E. Director of Engineering ~ Lehigh Valley Division

Paul J. Creneti, P.G. Director ~ Lehigh Valley Division G:\PROJECTS\29000\29307.00 - UP TOWNSHIP BUILDING - LV GEOTECH\REPORT\29307.00 - UPPER PROVIDENCE TWP. BLDG. REPORT.DOC

APPENDIX

PLATE 1 - TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF SITE

Visit us at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us

Created using PA DCNR Map Viewer Copyright 2011 Esri. All rights reserved Collegeville Quadrangle Map created on Wed Nov 30 2016

PLATE 2 - BEDROCK GEOLOGY MAP OF SITE

Visit us at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us

Created using PA DCNR Map Viewer Copyright 2011 Esri. All rights reserved Collegeville Quadrangle Map created on Wed Nov 30 2016

Date:

F.F.E.= Finished Floor Elevation

UPPER PROVIDENCE TOWNSHIP BUILDINGUPPER PROVIDENCE TOWNSHIP, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

FILL - Brown to Gray Sandy Silt with Trace Root Fibers

www.earthengineering.com

TOPSOIL

STRATUM III - Red Brown to Gray Sand and Gravel(Weathered Shale)

313.23'

STRATUM II - Red Brown Sandy Silt to Silty Sand(Interbedded Weathered Siltstone and Sandstone)

Lithology Graphics

0.4'

26

12/12/2016

290

305.0+/-

A-102SHEET:

STRATUM I - Red Brown Silt to Sandy Silt

B.C.S.F.E.= Bottom of Crawl Space Footing Elevation

F.F.E.=

B.C.S.F.E.=

308

300

298

296

294

292

290

314

310

306306

304

302

300

298

296

294

292

312

PREPARED FOR

EL

EV

AT

ION

(fe

et)

3.0'10

29307.00

302

BORING PROFILES

304

EARTHENGINEERINGINCORPORATED

Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists

314

312

310

308

Project Number:

61

Auger RefusalHard Augering

11.5'-15.0'


9.5'-10.5'

B-102EL. 308.7'

10.5'

9.0'

5.0'

0.3'

4

72

6.5'

36

20

211.0'

2.2'

50/0''

60

71

50

B-103EL. 308.6'

15.0'

4.5'

0.4'

21

12

11.5'


6.5'-10.0'

50/5''

50/5''

B-101EL. 310.4'

10.0'

12.6 Odor:

% Gravel: Coarse: 0.0 Fine: 1.9 Diameter, mm % Finer

% Sand: Coarse: 3.0 Medium: 3.9 Fine: 0.5 75 100.038.1 100.019.0 100.09.5 100.04.75 98.12.00 95.1

0.425 91.20.150 91.1

0.075 90.7

0.005 NR

0.001 NR

Gs: N/A Cu: N/A Cc: N/A

Project: LL: NP PL: NP PI: NP

Job #:

Client:

Sample:Depth:

Comments:

East Norriton, PA - (610) 277-0880 Central PA: (717) 697-5701 Southern NJ: (856) 768-1001Classification of Soils, ASTM D 2487-00 / D 2488-00

2.0'-4.0'

USCS Classification: ML, Silt

B-102 / S-2

AASHTO Classification: A-4

December 7, 2016

№ 200

Hydrometer AnalysisClay Size

Colloids

SAND

Coarse № 10Medium № 40

№ 100

Particle SizeUS Standard Sieve Size

GRAVELCoarse

3"1½"¾"

Fine

FineDilatency: N/R

⅜"№ 4

STRATUM I NP - Indicates Sample is Non Plastic

Upper Providence Township Building29307.00

Richard Kapusta Architects & Planners

Cementation: strong Dry Strength: medium

Reaction to HCl: N/R Toughness: N/R

Structure: homogeneous

Sand Description: sub-angular to subrounded, weathered, brown and gray

Consistency: very hard Hardness: N/R

As-rec'd water content: N/R

1.97.4

Gravel Description: sub-angular to subrounded, weathered, brown and gray

3" 1½" ¾" ⅜" №4 №10 №40 №100 №200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.1110100

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

Sie

ve

Sieve Opening, mm

Particle Size Analysis of Soils

149 Main Street, Emmaus, PA 18049Tel: 610-967-4540 Fax: 610-967-4488

50/5''

M

M

M

M

17

50/5''

9

12

14

15

3

4

6

6

1

2

2

3

310.0

10.0

6.5

3.0

0.4

Auger Refusal

S-4 - PP=3.25 tsf

Hard Augering 6.5'-10.0'

S-3 - PP=4.00 tsf

S-2 - PP=1.75 tsf

M

PP = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf=tons persquare foot)

-

FILL - Brown to Gray Sandy Silt withTrace Root Fibers

-S-5

S-4

S-3

S-2

S-1

sm

sm

ml

ml

cl-ml

300.4

303.9

307.4

S-1 - PP=2.00 tsf

-

-

-

WATER:

1

;

START 12/1/16

REMARKS

RE

CO

VE

RY

(Ft.

) US

CS


BLO

WS

/0.5

FT

.O

N S

AM

PLE

R

SA

MP

LE N

O./

TY

PE

/CO

RE

RU

N

TIME:DEPTH:

EQUIPMENT USED Truck Mounted Drill Rig - Mobile B-47

DATE:

DEPTH: 10.0'

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

BORINGLOG

DEPTH (feet)

PROJECT LOCATION Upper Providence Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

PROJECT NUMBER 29307.00

SURFACEELEV. (FT) 310.4

NOT ENCOUNTERED

H2O

CO

NT

EN

T

DEPTH:

DRILLING METHODS 2 inch O.D. Split Barrel Sampler, 6 inch O.D. Hollow Stem Augers

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

CHECKED BY: MJC

PROJECT NAME Upper Providence Township Building

DATE: 12/6/2016

DATE:


DESCRIPTION

TIME:

ELEVATION (feet)

STRATUM III - Reddish-Brown to GraySand and Gravel (Weathered Shale)

STRATUM I - Reddish-Brown Sandy Silt

TOPSOIL

CASING: SIZE: 3 1/4 inch I.D.

0.3'

0.7'

0.9'

1.4'

0.9'

INSPECTOR NAME D. Folk

DRILLER NAME/COMPANY Bill Corcoran/Main Line Drilling Company

1

XDATE:

OF


** D = DRY, M = MOIST, W = WET

RQ

D (

%)

AA

SH

TO

SHEET

;

END 12/1/16

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

BORING NO. B-101

8.48.0

6.9

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

M

M

M

W

W

6

11

50

46

40

32

34

9

12

24

25

8

9

11

15

1

4

17

10

308.4

10.5

9.0

5.0

1.0

0.3

Auger Refusal


S-5 - PP=4.25 tsf

S-3 - PP=4.25 tsf

-

Perched Water Was Present BeneathTopsoil Layer

S-1 - PP=2.00 tsf


FILL - Brown to Gray Sandy Silt withTrace Root Fibers

S-5

S-4

S-3

S-2

S-1STRATUM I - Reddish-Brown Silt toSandy Silt

sm

ml

ml

ml

298.2

299.7

303.7

307.7

-

-

-

-

S-4 - PP=4.50 tsf

WATER:

1

;

START 12/1/16

REMARKS

RE

CO

VE

RY

(Ft.

) US

CS

S-2 - PP=2.75 tsf


BLO

WS

/0.5

FT

.O

N S

AM

PLE

R

SA

MP

LE N

O./

TY

PE

/CO

RE

RU

N

TIME:DEPTH:


DATE:

DEPTH: 10.5'

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

BORINGLOG

DEPTH (feet)




NOT ENCOUNTERED

H2O

CO

NT

EN

T

DEPTH:


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%)

CHECKED BY: MJC


DATE: 12/6/2016

DATE:


DESCRIPTION

TIME:

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GELEVATION (feet)


STRATUM II - Reddish-brown Sandy Siltto Silty Sand (Interbedded WeatheredSandstone and Siltstone)

TOPSOIL

1.2'

1.5'

1.3'

1.0'

0.8'

ML


OF

DATE:


1

X


BORING NO. B-102EARTHENGINEERINGINCORPORATED

AA

SH

TO

RQ

D (

%)

SHEET

CASING: SIZE: 3 1/4 inch I.D. ;

END 12/1/16

9.5

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

32

29

31

28

.

-

25

33

38

20

M

20

23

27

29

9

10

11

19

2

4

8

10

-


50/0''

S-5 - PP=3.50 tsf

S-4 - PP=4.50 tsf

S-3 - PP=4.50 tsf

S-2 - PP=3.25 tsf

S-1 - PP=3.50 tsf


FILL - Brown to Gray Sandy Silt withTrace Root FibersM

NA

M

M

M-

308.2

S-6

S-5

S-4

S-3

S-2

S-1

-

sm

ml

ml

ml

ml

293.6

297.1

304.1

306.4

-

-

;

START 12/1/16

REMARKS

RE

CO

VE

RY

(Ft.

)DEPTH: 15.0'

ELEVATION (feet)

DESCRIPTION

SHEET

SA

MP

LE N

O./

TY

PE

/CO

RE

RU

N

Auger Refusal

DEPTH:


DATE:

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

END 12/1/16

;

BLO

WS

/0.5

FT

.O

N S

AM

PLE

R


BORINGLOG

DEPTH (feet)




NOT ENCOUNTERED

H2O

CO

NT

EN

T

DEPTH: TIME:R

EC

OV

ER

Y(%

)

1

WATER:

DATE: 12/6/2016

DATE:

www.earthengineering.comGeotechnical Engineers & Geologists

CHECKED BY: MJC


TIME:

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

1.3'

STRATUM II - Reddish-brown Sandy Siltto Silty Sand (Interbedded WeatheredSandstone and Siltstone)

STRATUM I - Reddish-Brown Sandy Silt

TOPSOIL

AA

SH

TO

1.8'


1.8'

1.3'

1.5'

15.0

11.5

4.5

2.2

0.4

0.0'

1



X

CASING: SIZE: 3 1/4 inch I.D.

RQ

D (

%)

BORING NO. B-103


DATE:

OF


13.5

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

INCHES

3/4"-3.0"

and

3.0"-12.0"

Loose

3/16"-3/4"

Dense

Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines)

Over 50

> 12"

some

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, littleor no fines

Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little orno fines

(more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size)

(50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size)

GC

SW

CLAY

Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

SILT

SC

OL

Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures

CL

ML

soils; fine grained soils usually soft or very soft; granular soils exhibit no apparent cohesion

Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures

SP

31 - 50

Moist

GeneralClassification

DESCRIPTIONSYMBOL

Slight moisture perceptible by touch; fine grained soils are usually firm;

No visible free water; sample may be cool to the touch; at or above optimum moisture;

Dr

>30

Damp

(tons/sq.ft.)

W

Dry

Very dense

Medium dense

Very loose

APPARENTDENSITY

SPT# Blows/ft

Da

No. 10

trace

Passing #200 Seive

Passing #200 Seive

#200 Seive-#40 Seive

#40 Seive-#10 Seive

KEY TO LOG OFBORINGS

AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION

CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL

PERCENT OR

little

silty soilsgravel and

sandSignificant Constituent

Materials

Sieve AnalysisPercent Passing

No. 40

Unconfined Compressive Strength

11 - 30

SANDS

Liquid limit50% or greater

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous finesandy or silty soils, elastic silts

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravellyclays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays

SILTSANDCLAYS

Liquid limit lessthan 50%

SILTSANDCLAYS

50% or more ofcoarse fractionsmaller thanNo. 4 sieve

size

More than 50%of coarse

fraction largerthan No. 4sieve size

ASTM D 422-63 AND ASTM D2487-92

Peat and other highly organic soils

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or nofines

COMPONENT NAME FOR VARIOUS

GRAVELS

Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty orclayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART

Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays

Gravels with fines (More than 12% fines)

Clean Sands (Less than 5% fines)

Sands with fines (More than 12% fines)

Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity

35 max

Coarse SAND

Medium SAND

Fine SAND

OH

PT


EARTH

ENGINEERING

INCORPORATED

20 - 35%


GW

GM

SMSOIL MOISTURE

M

PROPORTION OF SOIL

51 max

PARTICAL SIZE RANGES

MH

3/32"-3/16"

Fine GRAVEL

Coarse GRAVEL

COBBLE

BOULDER

0 - 10%

COMPONENT NAME

GP

Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organicsilts

35 max

Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or nofines

0 - 4

CH

CONSISTENCY

COARSE-GRAINED SOILRELATIVE DENSITY

RELATIVEAMOUNT

DESCRIPTION

10 - 20%

Visible free water; usually soil is below water table; contains significantly more mosture than moist

HIGHLY ORGANICSOILS

granular soils have very little apparent cohesion

> 4.0

2 - 4

A-1-b

SPT# Blows/ft

A-2-4

Absence of moisture; dusty; completely dry to the touch

< 0.25

0.25 - 0.50

1.0 - 2.0

<2

40 max

Silt-Clay Materials(More than 35% of total sample

passing No. 200 sieve size)

6 max

finesand

Granular Materials(35% or less of total sample passing No. 200 sieve size)

NP

A-1-a

35 max

silty and clayeygravel and sand

10 max

36 min 36 min 36 min

A-2-5

35 maxNo. 200

5 - 10

Extruded between fingers when squeezed

Very stiff

Stiff

Medium stiff

Soft

Very soft

0.50 - 1.0

Molded by light finger pressure

Field Test

Molded by strong finger pressure

Readily indented by thumb but penetrated only with great effort

Readily indented by thumbnail

Indented with difficulty by thumbnail

41 min

granular soils might exhibit slight apparent cohesion

Hard

Plastic Index, Ip

Liquid Limit, wi

Characteristics ofFraction Passing

Wet

10 max

No. 40

41 min40 max

10 max

50 max

30 max

41 min

35 - 50%

2.0 - 4.0

GroupClassification

16 - 30

MOISTURE

10 max 36 min15 max

A-7-5A-7-6

A-2

11 min

9 - 15

11 min 11 min10 max

A-5 A-7

A-2-6 A-2-7

11 min

41 min40 max

A-4 A-6

5 - 8

40 max

A-3A-1

50 max

25 max

clayey soils

foundation report proposed addition for upper …

Documents