geotechnical engineering report - construction22.com plans/a5060 lone mountain corpor… ·...

Geotechnical Engineering Report Lone Mountain and Berg

North Las Vegas, Nevada

January 6, 2015

Terracon Project No. 64145039

Prepared for:

The Pauls Corporation

Denver, Colorado

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Las Vegas, Nevada

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 750 Pilot Road, Suite F Las Vegas, Nevada 89119

P [702] 597 9393 F [702] 597 9009 terracon.com

January 6, 2015


270 St. Paul Street, Suite 300

Denver, Colorado 80206

Attn: David H. Cross

303.371.9000

[email protected]

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Lone Mountain and Berg



Dear Mr. Cross:

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for

the above referenced project. These services were performed in general accordance with our

Agreement for Services approved on September 9, 2014.

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 in general accordance with

the 2012 Southern Nevada Amendments (SNA) to the 2012 International Building Code (IBC).

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Materials testing services

may also be provided by Terracon. We would be pleased to discuss these services with you. If

you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact

us.

Sincerely,

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Tamara Hashimoto, E.I.T. Daniel J. De Battista, P.E.

Staff Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Department Manager

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 2

2.1 Project Description .............................................................................................. 2

2.2 Site Location and Description ............................................................................. 2

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 3

3.1 Site Geology ....................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Typical Subsurface Profile .................................................................................. 3

3.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................................... 4

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ..................................... 4

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations .............................................................................. 4

4.1.1 Expansive Soils ....................................................................................... 4 4.1.2 Collapsible Soils ...................................................................................... 4 4.1.3 Existing Fill .............................................................................................. 5

4.2 Earthwork Recommendations ............................................................................. 5

4.2.1 Site Preparation ...................................................................................... 5 4.2.2 Material Requirements ............................................................................ 5 4.2.3 Compaction Requirements ...................................................................... 6 4.2.4 Utility Trench Backfill ............................................................................... 6 4.2.5 Grading and Drainage ............................................................................. 7 4.2.6 Earthwork Construction Considerations................................................... 7

4.3 Foundation Recommendations ........................................................................... 8

4.3.1 Foundation Design Recommendations ..................................................... 8 4.3.2 Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations ................................... 8

4.4 Floor Slab Design Recommendations ................................................................. 9

4.5 Seismic Considerations......................................................................................10

4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures .....................................................................................10

4.7 Pavements .........................................................................................................12

4.7.1 Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................12 4.7.2 Design Considerations ...........................................................................13 4.7.3 Pavement Design Recommendations ....................................................13 4.7.5 Pavement Maintenance ..........................................................................14 4.7.4 Pavement Drainage................................................................................14 4.7.5 Pavement Maintenance ..........................................................................15

4.8 Concrete Corrosivity ..........................................................................................15

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ...............................................................................................15

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Site Location Map

Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Plan

Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description

Exhibits A-4 to A-11 Boring Logs

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing

Exhibit B-2 Summary of Laboratory Results

Exhibit B-3 Grain Size Distribution

Exhibit B-4 Atterberg Limits Results

Exhibits B-5 & B-6 Summary of Moisture Density Relationship Test Results

Exhibit B-7 R-Value Test Results

Exhibits B-8 through B-11 Expansion Potential

Exhibits B-12 through B-14 One Dimensional Consolidation Test Results

Exhibits B-15 through B-18 Soil Direct Shear Results

Exhibit B-19 Chemical Laboratory Test Report

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-1 General Notes

Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification

Exhibit C-3 Shear-Wave Velocity Profile from SeisOpt ReMi Software Analysis

Exhibits C-4 through C-7 City of North Las Vegas Checklist

APPENDIX D – BORING LOGS FROM PREVIOUS STUDY BY OTHERS

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT LONE MOUNTAIN AND BERG NORTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

Terracon Project No. 64145039 January 6, 2015

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Terracon completed a geotechnical engineering report for the proposed construction of the Lone

Mountain and Berg project located at the southeast corner of East Lone Mountain Road and

Berg Street in North Las Vegas, Nevada. The field exploration program consisted of advancing

8 test borings, designated as B-1 through B-8, to approximate depths ranging between 6½ and

26½ feet below the ground surface (bgs) on November 6, 2014. Logs of the borings, a site

location map, and a boring location plan are included in Appendix A of this report. The boring

logs from a previous study performed at the site by others are also included in Appendix D. The

locations of the borings are indicated on the boring location plan in Appendix A.

The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering

recommendations relative to the proposed development:

subsurface soil conditions earthwork recommendations

groundwater observations seismic considerations

foundation design and construction

pavement design and construction

floor slab design and construction

Geotechnical Engineering Report Lone Mountain and Berg ■ North Las Vegas, Nevada January 6, 2015, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. 64145039


2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Structures (assumed)

The project includes two single-story warehouse buildings and

associated concrete and asphalt pavements. It is anticipated that

the buildings will be constructed with concrete tilt-up panels. The

half street improvements associated with the planned development

for Lone Mountain Road and Statz Street will also be constructed

as part of the project.

Maximum loads (assumed)

Columns: 100 kips;

Floor slabs: 150 psf; and

Walls: 8 klf.

Grading Maximum fill of approximately 7 feet.

Cut and fill slopes None anticipated.

Free-standing retaining walls None anticipated.

Below grade areas None.

2.2 Site Location and Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Location

The project site is located at the southeast corner of East Lone

Mountain Road and Berg Street in North Las Vegas, Nevada (APN

139-01-101-007, -015, and -017).

Existing improvements There are no existing improvements.

Current ground cover The current ground cover consists of sheet graded soils.

Existing topography The project site has approximately 10 feet of grade change, sloping

downward from north to south.

Nearest mapped fault scarp 1 Approximately 1.3 miles to the northwest.

Nearest mapped fissure 2 Approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest.

1 Las Vegas Valley Subsidence Project, Subsidence-Related Faults and Fissures of the Las Vegas Valley.

compiled from Bingler (1977), Bell (1978), Bell and Smith (1980), Matti and Bachhuber (1985), Matti et al. (1987). 2 Ibid.

Geotechnical Engineering Report Lone Mountain and Berg ■ North Las Vegas, Nevada January 6, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. 64145039


3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

The project site is located in the northern portion of the Las Vegas Valley. According to a

geologic map of the area, the project site consists of active alluvium and older alluvium of Red

Rock fan and Las Vegas Wash, designated as Qa and Qoa3. Red Rock fan material (Qa)

consists of pink to pale-brown fine sand to pebble and/or cobble gravel occurring as thin

veneers in incised stream channels and between-channel alluvial flats. This unit is mainly

sediment transported and deposited in active washes and channels of alluvial fans. Areas

underlain by Qa are subject to flooding. Las Vegas Wash sediments (Qoa) consists of pink to

pale-brown pebble-bearing silty sand to sandy silt, and pebble to cobble gravel composed

largely of sedimentary rock clasts.

3.2 Typical Subsurface Profile

Based on the results of the borings and laboratory tests, subsurface conditions on the project

site can be generalized as follows:

Description

Approximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum

(feet)

Material Encountered Consistency/Density

Fill 1 1 to 3 Silty and Clayey Gravel and Sand --

Native To depths explored

Sandy Lean Clay and Sandy Silty

Clay with layers of Silty and Clayey

Sand and Gravel

Very Stiff to Hard /

Medium Dense to Very

Dense

1) Encountered in borings B-1 and B-3 through B-8.

Specific conditions encountered at the boring locations are indicated on the individual boring

logs included in Appendix A. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the

approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ the transition between materials may be

gradual.

A discussion of field sampling procedures is included in Appendix A. Laboratory tests were

conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in Appendix B.

3 Matti, J.C., Castor, S.B., Bell, J.W., and Rowland, S.M., “Las Vegas NE Quadrangle Geologic Map” (1993)

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology.



3.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered during the field exploration; however, groundwater level

fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors

not evident at the time the borings were performed. The possibility of groundwater level

fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the

project. Based on a nearby monitoring well located within the same township, range, and

section as the project site, the depth to groundwater is anticipated to be deeper than 40 feet

bgs4.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

The proposed structures may be supported on a lightly-loaded shallow foundation system with

concrete slab-on-grade floors provided the recommendations presented herein are incorporated

into the project design and construction. Geotechnical considerations for this project include:

Expansive soils;

Collapsible soils; and

Existing fill

4.1.1 Expansive Soils

Swell potential tests performed on samples obtained from the site ranged from 0 to 7 percent,

which is considered low to moderate expansion based on Table 1808.6.1.1 of the 2012 SNA.

This report provides recommendations to mitigate the effects of expansion. However, even if the

recommendations are followed, some movement and possible minor cracking in the structures

should be anticipated. The severity of potential cracking and cosmetic damage, such as uneven

floor slabs, could increase if modification in the site results in excessive wetting or drying of

expansive soils.

4.1.2 Collapsible Soils

The potential for hydro-collapse of selected soil samples was measured during consolidations

tests. Collapse potentials ranging from 0.1 to 2.8 percent were measured. According to Table

1804.3.1 in the 2012 SNA, the collapse potential is within a “low collapsible” soil condition. As a

means to reduce the potential for future collapse-related distress to structures to be built at the

site, overexcavation of a portion of the existing soils is recommended, as provided within the

earthwork recommendations of this report.

4 King, Jason, “Well Log – General Report”, State of Nevada Department of Conservation & Natural

Resources – Division of Water Resources.



4.1.3 Existing Fill

Surficial fill was observed to approximate depths ranging between 1 to 3 feet bgs in boring B-1

and borings B-3 through B-8. We assume that the fill was placed during rough grading of the

site. The existing fill should be considered uncontrolled fill soil. Uncontrolled fill refers to

existing fill that was not properly placed, observed, and tested by an engineering firm. Visual

observations indicate that the fill is similar in type to the on-site native soils. The results of

limited laboratory testing indicated that a tested sample of fill generally meets the materials

requirements for engineered fill in Section 4.2.2. However, uncontrolled fill at the site should be

removed unless additional laboratory testing indicates that it meets the materials requirements

of Section 4.2.2, in which case, the fill may be reused as engineered fill provided it is properly

processed, moisture conditioned and compacted in accordance with the Earthwork section of

this report.

4.2 Earthwork Recommendations

Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of

earthwork should include observation and testing of on-site backfill material and other

geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the project.

4.2.1 Site Preparation

The existing potentially collapsible and expansive native soils at the site are not considered

suitable for direct support of the proposed warehouse building foundations or floor slabs. As a

minimum, the floor slabs and foundations should be supported on a minimum of 4 feet of

properly placed and compacted engineered fill. The native soil may be used as the new fill zone

below foundations provided it meets the materials requirements of Section 4.2.2.

Prior to placing any fill, existing topsoil, loose or disturbed soil, existing unsuitable fill and other

deleterious materials should be removed from the construction areas. If underground facilities

are encountered during site clearing, such features should be removed and the excavation

thoroughly cleaned and backfilled. All excavations should be observed by the geotechnical

engineer prior to backfill placement.

After removal of unsuitable materials, the existing soils should be scarified to a minimum depth

of 8 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to the requirements of this report. The

subgrade should be proof-rolled with a 10-ton vibrating roller to aid in locating loose or soft

areas. Soft or deflecting soil encountered during compaction should be removed and replaced

with properly placed and compacted engineered fill. Pad preparation should extend at least 5

feet horizontally beyond any settlement-sensitive structures.

4.2.2 Material Requirements

Engineered fill should meet the following material property requirements:



On-site soils may be used in required fills provided that they meet the requirements

below and are free of any debris and organic matter.

Imported soils used as engineered fill should conform to the following:

Gradation(ASTM C 136) Percent Finer by Weight

3” .............................................................................................. 100

No. 4 Sieve .......................................................................... 35-100

No. 200 Sieve ........................................................................ 20-50

Maximum liquid limit (LL) ............................................................ 35

Maximum plasticity index (PI) ..................................................... 15

Maximum expansive potential (%)5 ............................................... 8

Maximum sulfate content (%) .................................................... 0.2

Maximum solubility (%) .............................................................. 2.0

4.2.3 Compaction Requirements

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Fill Lift Thickness 8-inches or less in loose thickness.

Compaction Requirements 1 95% of the materials maximum modified Proctor dry

density (ASTM D 1557).

Moisture Content On-Site Soils 2

Within the range of optimum moisture content, ±2% the

optimum moisture content value as determined by the

modified Proctor test at the time of placement and

compaction.

1. We recommend that engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during

placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or

compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and

retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

2. Specifically, moisture levels should be maintained low enough to allow for satisfactory compaction

to be achieved without the fill material pumping when proof-rolled.

Backfill materials should be placed on a horizontal plane unless otherwise accepted by the

geotechnical engineer. Flooding or jetting is not permitted as a method of compacting fill

material.

4.2.4 Utility Trench Backfill

All trench excavations should be made with sufficient working space to permit construction

including backfill placement and compaction. The utility trenches should be backfilled with

imported soils materials. If utility trenches are backfilled with relatively clean granular material,

5 Expansive potential of soil as determined by the 60 psf Swell Test as specified in the 2012 Southern Nevada

Amendments to the 2012 International Building Code.



they should be capped with at least 18 inches of cohesive fill in non-pavement areas to reduce

the potential for infiltration of surface into the trench backfill. An effective, clay plug should be

placed in all trenches extending below the buildings to prevent migration of water along the

trench backfill and below foundations and floor slabs. The clay plug should be a minimum of 5

feet long and fill the full section width and height of the trench.

4.2.5 Grading and Drainage

All grades must provide effective drainage away from buildings, slopes and walls during and

after construction. Water permitted to pond next to these features can result in greater soil

movements than those discussed in this report. These greater movements can result in

unacceptable differential floor slab movements, cracked slabs and walls, and roof leaks. Final

grades should not allow water to flow over the tops of exposed slopes.

Paved ground should be sloped away from the building at 2 percent for at least 10 feet beyond

the perimeter of the buildings. Landscaped areas should be sloped away from buildings at a

minimum slope of 2 percent for at least 10 feet. After building construction and landscaping, we

recommend verifying final grades to document that effective drainage has been achieved.

Grades around the structure should also be periodically inspected and adjusted as necessary,

as part of the structure’s maintenance program.

Roof runoff should be collected in gutters with down spouts and diverted at least 10 feet away

from buildings.

4.2.6 Earthwork Construction Considerations

Trenching and shoring operations should be conducted in accordance with Section 10 Nos.

1926.650 through 1926.652 of the State of Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Standards

for the Construction Industry (with amendments as of August, 1991) and in accordance with 29

CFR Part 1926, Occupational Safety and Health Standards - Excavations; Final Rule (October

31, 1989). Safety of construction personnel is the responsibility of the contractor.

Field density tests should be conducted for each fill lift. The location of the tests in plan should

be spaced to give the best possible coverage and should be taken no farther apart than 100

feet. The Engineer may require additional tests as considered necessary to check on the

uniformity of compaction. No additional layers of fill should be placed until the field density test

results indicate that the specified density has been obtained.

Laboratory testing, observation and inspection of backfill materials should be carried out in

accordance with the guidelines provided in Table 1705.6 of the SNA to the 2012 IBC. Based on

the subsurface soil conditions encountered in the borings and the results of the laboratory tests

performed for the project, we recommend that periodic special inspections be carried out during

grading operations that consist of fill placement and compaction in accordance with Item 4a of

Table 1705.6.

Geotechnical Engineering ReportLone Mountain and Berg ■ North Las Vegas, NevadaJanuary 6, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. 64145039


4.3 Foundation Recommendations

The proposed structures may be supported by a lightly-loaded shallow, spread footingfoundation system bearing on a minimum of 4 feet of properly placed and compactedengineered fill. Design recommendations for shallow foundations for the proposed structure arepresented in the following paragraphs.

4.3.1 Foundation Design RecommendationsDESCRIPTION Column Wall

Net allowable bearing pressure 1 2,400 psf 2,200 psf

Minimum dimensions 18 inches 12 inches

Minimum embedment below finished grade 12 inches 12 inchesAllowable passive pressure 2 260 psf/ft

Ultimate coefficient of sliding friction 2 0.35

1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimumsurrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. The recommended allowable bearingpressure may be increased by 1/3 for transient loading conditions, such as wind or seismic loads.Assumes any expansive soils and unsuitable fill, if encountered, will be undercut and replaced withengineered fill.

2. The sides of the excavation for the spread footing foundation must be nearly vertical and the concreteshould be placed neat against these vertical faces for the passive earth pressure values to be valid.If the loaded side is sloped or benched, and then backfilled, the allowable passive pressure will besignificantly reduced.

4.3.2 Shallow Foundation Construction ConsiderationsExcavations for slab-on-grade and spread footing foundations should be performed withequipment capable of providing a relatively clean bearing area. The excavations should beneatly excavated with a flat plate bucket. There should be no loose or disturbed soil or foreigndebris in the footing bottom. Should there be any loose or disturbed soil or foreign debris found,it may be necessary to re-assess the footing bottom of its bearing capacity suitability. Watershould not be allowed to accumulate at the bottom of the foundation excavation. Excavationsshould not be left open overnight. The bearing surface of the grade beams and spread footingsshould be evaluated immediately prior to placing concrete.

Over excavation for compacted backfill placement below footings should extend laterally beyondall edges of the footings at least 8 inches per foot of over excavation depth below footing baseelevation. The over excavation should then be backfilled up to the footing base elevation withengineered fill placed in lifts of 8 inches or less in loose thickness and compacted to at least 95percent of the material's maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). The over excavation andbackfill procedures are described in the figure below.



4.4 Floor Slab Design Recommendations

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Floor slab support Engineered fill after subgrade preparations as

discussed in Section 4.2.1. 1

Modulus of subgrade reaction 100 pounds per square inch per in (psi/in) for point

loading conditions.

Aggregate base course/capillary break 2 4 inches of free draining granular material.

1. We recommend subgrades be maintained in a relatively moist condition until floor slabs are

constructed. If the subgrade should become desiccated prior to construction of floor slabs, the

affected material should be removed or the materials scarified, moistened, and compacted. Upon

completion of grading operations in the building areas, care should be taken to maintain the

recommended subgrade moisture content and density prior to construction of the building floor

slabs.

2. The floor slab design should include a capillary break, comprised of compacted, granular material,

at least 4 inches thick. Free-draining granular material should have less than 10 percent fines

(material passing the #200 sieve).

The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade that will be

covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the

slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor

retarder, the slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions

regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder.



4.5 Seismic Considerations

Code Used Site Classification

2012 IBC 1 C 2

1. Site Class is based on characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile, in general

accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7.

2. Site Class was determined using the shear wave velocity results from the Refraction Microtremor

(Re-Mi) Survey performed on-site and in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7. The location of

the Re-Mi is shown on Exhibit A-2. The velocity profile with depth is shown on Exhibit C-3. The

description of how the Re-Mi Survey was performed is discussed in Exhibit A-3.

The mapped and design spectral response accelerations in the following table were obtained

from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) website with the U.S. Seismic Design Maps

application6. The values for spectral response accelerations are based on the 2012 IBC design

code reference with a risk category of I, II, or III.

We have determined the mapped and design spectral response accelerations based on the

following approximate latitude and longitude provided:

Site Latitude N 36.2454°

Site Longitude W 115.1101°

Ss 0.512 g

S1 0.169 g

SDS 0.408 g

SD1 0.184 g

4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures

Reinforced concrete walls with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed

for earth pressures at least equal to those indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will

be influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of

construction and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Two wall

restraint conditions are shown. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of

free-standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes wall movement. The "at-rest" condition

assumes no wall movement. The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a

factor of safety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls.

6 http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application/php.

http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application/php



Earth Pressure Coefficients

Earth Pressure

Conditions

Coefficient for

Backfill Type

Equivalent Fluid

Density (pcf)

Surcharge

Pressure, p1 (psf)

Earth Pressure,

p2 (psf)

Active (Ka) 0.33 43 (0.33)S (42)H

At-Rest (Ko) 0.50 65 (0.50)S (65)H

Passive (Kp) 3.00 390 --- ---

Applicable conditions to the above include:

For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements of about

0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height;

For passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance;

Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure;

In-situ soil backfill weight a maximum of 130 pcf;

Horizontal backfill compacted above 95 percent of modified Proctor maximum dry density;

Loading from heavy compaction equipment not included;

No hydrostatic pressures acting on wall;

No dynamic loading; and

No safety factor included in soil parameters.

Backfill placed against structures should consist of granular soils or low plasticity cohesive soils.

For the granular values presented above to be valid, the granular backfill must extend out from

the base of the wall at an angle of at least 45 and 60 degrees from vertical for the active and

passive cases, respectively. To calculate the resistance to sliding, a value of 0.35 should be

used as the ultimate coefficient of friction between the footing and the underlying soil.

To control hydrostatic pressure behind the wall we recommend that a drain be installed at the

foundation wall with a collection pipe leading to a reliable discharge. If this is not possible, then

combined hydrostatic and lateral earth pressures should be calculated for low plasticity



cohesive backfill using an equivalent fluid weighing 90 and 100 pcf for active and at-rest

conditions, respectively. For granular backfill, an equivalent fluid weighing 85 and 90 pcf should

be used for active and at-rest, respectively. These pressures do not include the influence of

surcharge, equipment or floor loading, which should be added. Heavy equipment should not

operate within a distance closer than the exposed height of retaining walls to prevent lateral

pressures more than those provided.

The seismic load due to lateral earth pressure may be defined in accordance with Section

1610.1.1 of the 2012 SNA. The dynamic component for yielding walls, ΔPAE = 3/8(kh)H2γ; and

the dynamic component for non-yielding walls is ΔPE = kh H2 γ.

kh is equal to SDS/2.5;

H is the height of the wall in feet; and

γ is equal to the unit weight of the backfill material in pcf.

The resultant dynamic force acts at a distance of 0.6H above the base of the wall.

kh (g) 0.163

γ (pcf) 130

ΔPAE (lb/linear foot of wall) 8.0*H2

ΔPE (lb/linear foot of wall) 21.2*H2

The dynamic forces are considered a short-term loading condition; therefore, a one-third

increase in the bearing pressure and passive resistance may be allowed for dynamic analysis.

4.7 Pavements

4.7.1 Subgrade Preparation

On most project sites, the site grading is accomplished relatively early in the construction phase.

Fills are placed and compacted in a uniform manner. However, as construction proceeds,

excavations are made into these areas, rainfall and surface water saturates some areas, heavy

traffic from concrete trucks and other delivery vehicles disturbs the subgrade and many surface

irregularities are filled in with loose soils to improve trafficability temporarily. As a result, the

pavement subgrades, initially prepared early in the project, should be carefully evaluated as the

time for pavement construction approaches.

We recommend the moisture content and density of the top 8 inches of the subgrade be

evaluated and the pavement subgrades be proof-rolled within two days prior to commencement

of actual paving operations. Areas not in compliance with the required ranges of moisture or

density should be moisture conditioned and compacted. Particular attention should be paid to

high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches



are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by removing and

replacing the materials with properly compacted fills.

After proof-rolling and repairing deep subgrade deficiencies, the entire subgrade should be

scarified and developed as recommended in Section 4.2.1 of the Earthwork section this report

to provide a uniform subgrade for pavement construction. Areas that appear severely

desiccated following site stripping may require further undercutting and moisture conditioning. If

a significant precipitation event occurs after the evaluation or if the surface becomes disturbed,

the subgrade should be reviewed by qualified personnel immediately prior to paving. The

subgrade should be in its finished form at the time of the final review.

4.7.2 Design Considerations

The anticipated traffic patterns were provided to Terracon in a schematic indicating three

anticipated loading conditions, including light duty asphalt concrete vehicle parking, heavy

section asphalt concrete and truck concrete apron. We understand that no truck traffic

information is available and therefore expected traffic volumes, vehicle types, and vehicle loads

for design are unknown for heavy truck traffic; however, between 20 and 40 trailer trucks per

day is anticipated.

Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing preventive

maintenance, the civil engineer should consider the following recommendations in the design

and layout of pavements:

Final grade adjacent to parking lots and drives should slope down from pavement edges at

a minimum 2%;

The subgrade and pavement surface should have adequate slope to promote proper

surface drainage;

Install below pavement drainage systems surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting

(e.g., landscape areas);

Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately;

Seal all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture migration to

subgrade soils; and,

Place compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter.

4.7.3 Pavement Design Recommendations

As previously mentioned, design traffic volumes, vehicle types, and vehicle loads are unknown;

however, between 20 and 40 trailer trucks per day are anticipated. The following pavement

sections were calculated based ACI 330R may be used in design of the on-site and off-site

pavements for the project based on the provided pavement sections and an average laboratory

R-value test result of 20:



Typical Pavement Section Thickness (inches)

Road

Type Traffic Area Alternative

Asphalt

Concrete

Portland

Cement

Concrete1

Aggregate

Base

Course2

Total

Thickness

On-Site

Light Duty AC 2.0 -- 4.0 6.0

Heavy Section AC 3.0 -- 10.0 13.0

PCC -- 6.0 8.0 14.0

Truck Apron PCC -- 6.0 6.0 12.0

Trash Container Pad 3 PCC -- 6.0 4.0 10.0

Off-Site Lone Mountain Road AC 4.0 -- 16.0 20.0

Statz Street AC 4.0 -- 16.0 20.0

1. 1. 4,000 psi at 28 days, 4-inch maximum slump and 5 to 7 percent air-entrained, 6-sack min. mix.

PCC pavements are recommended for trash container pads and in any other areas subjected

to heavy wheel loads and/or turning traffic.

2. Type II

3. The trash container pad should be large enough to support the container and the tipping axle of

the collection truck.

4.7.4 Construction Considerations

Due to the uncertainty of future truck traffic at the proposed facility, it is recommended that 1 inch

diameter 14 inch minimum length smooth, round dowels be spaced 12 inches on center across

Portland cement concrete pavement joints with a minimum embedment of 6 inches on each side of

the joints. Dowels should be lubricated and positioned at contraction joints through the use of

dowel baskets. Tie bars of 24 inch length spaced as required in ACI 330R should be utilized to tie

the first longitudinal joint from the pavement edge and on centerline joints of entrance drives and

access areas that have a single longitudinal joint.

Concrete for rigid pavements should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi

and be placed with a maximum slump of 4 inches. A minimum 4 or 6 inch thick base course is

recommended beneath concrete pavements to help reduce the potential for slab curl, shrinkage

cracking, and subgrade “pumping” through joints. Proper joint spacing will also be required to

prevent excessive slab curling and shrinkage cracking. It is recommended that spacing between

joints be no greater than 15 feet. Joints should be extended through adjacent curbs and gutters.

All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material.

4.7.5 Pavement Drainage

Pavements should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water. Water allowed to pond

on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to premature

pavement deterioration. In addition, the pavement subgrade should be graded to provide



positive drainage within the granular base section. Appropriate sub-drainage or connection to a

suitable daylight outlet should be provided to remove water from the granular subbase.

4.7.6 Pavement Maintenance

The pavement sections provided in this report represent minimum recommended thicknesses

and, as such, periodic maintenance should be anticipated. Therefore preventive maintenance

should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program.

Preventive maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and

to preserve the pavement investment. Preventive maintenance consists of both localized

maintenance (e.g., crack and joint sealing and patching, cracked slab repair and joint grinding)

and global maintenance (e.g., surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first

priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest

return on investment for pavements. Prior to implementing any maintenance, additional

engineering observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of preventive

maintenance. Even with periodic maintenance, some movements and related cracking may still

occur and repairs may be required.

4.8 Concrete Corrosivity

Terracon conducted chemical laboratory tests on the soil samples obtained from the subsurface

exploration. The complete test results of the chemical tests are included in Appendix B. The on-

site soils have a “moderate” (S1) classification for sulfate exposure according to ACI Design

Manual Section 318, Chapter 4. However, “moderate” to “severe” sulfate exposure soils exist

throughout Southern Nevada. Therefore, Type V cement, a water-cement ratio of 0.45, and

minimum compressive strength of 4,500 psi should be incorporated into the concrete mix design

for this project in order to reduce sulfate attack as recommended in Table 4.3.1 of the ACI.

Consideration should be given to providing protection to buried metal pipes or use of non-

metallic pipes, where permitted by local building codes.

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

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

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.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the

project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical

engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. 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.

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT

INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

A-1

ExhibitSITE LOCATION MAPProject Manager

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

DJD

TH

DJD

Proposal No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

64145039

N.T.S.

EXHIBITS

November 2014

DJD

750 Pilot Road, Suite F Las Vegas, Nevada 89119

PH. (702) 597-9393 FAX. (702) 597-9009

Losee

Road

Craig Road

E Lone Mountain Road

E Washburn Road

Sta

tzS

treet

Lone Mountain and BergSEC of E. Lone Mountain Road and Berg Street


Project Site

Source: Clark County OPENWEB, Accessed on November 24, 2014

Berg

Str

eet

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT

INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES


PH. (702) 597-9393 FAX. (702) 597-9009

A-2

ExhibitBORING LOCATION PLANProject Manager

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

DJD

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

N.T.S.

DJD

DJD

TH

64145039

EXHIBITS

November 2014

Source: “Preliminary Grading Plan” provided by Slater Hanifan Group

Lone Mountain and BergSEC of E. Lone Mountain Road and Berg Street


APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

APPROXIMATE ANTICIPATED DEPTH OF FILL TO BE PLACED ABOVE EXISTING GRADE AT BORING

LOCATION, IN FEET

B-8

B-6

B-7

B-1

B-4B-3

B-8

B-5

B-2

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS PREVIOUSLY DRILLED BY OTHERS1B-8

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-6

B-5

B-7

B-8

1) BASED ON “LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY

EVALUATION” BY EII DATED JUNE 11, 2013

E. LONE MOUNTAIN ROADS

TA

TZ

ST

RE

ETB

ER

G S

TR

EE

T

APPROXIMATE ORIENTATION AND LOCATION OF RE-MI ARRAY

F=3

F=3

F=1

F=3 F=3

F=7

F=5

F=4

F=6


Exhibit A-3

Field Exploration Description

Terracon personnel marked the boring locations in the field utilizing the proposed boring location

diagram, an aerial image of the site, and scaling from existing features. The site was cleared for

buried utilities by a “One Call” utility locator service prior to the field exploration. Ground surface

elevations indicated on the boring log were estimated from the provided preliminary grading

plan, and were rounded to the nearest ½ foot. The coordinates and elevations indicated on our

boring logs may be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods

used to define them.

The borings were drilled with a Mayhew 1000 truck-mounted drill rig using air rotary techniques.

Samples of the materials encountered were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test

(SPT) method with standard split spoon (2-inch O. D.) sampling procedures.

In the SPT sampling procedure, the number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch

O.D. split barrel sampler the last 12 inches of the typical total 18-inch penetration or the middle

12 inches of total 24 inch penetration by means of a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30

inches, is the standard penetration resistance value (SPT-N). A 140-pound slide hammer was

used to advance the sampler.

The samples obtained were marked for identification, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and taken to

our laboratory for further examination, testing, and classification. Information provided on the

boring logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, consistency interpretations, boring

depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger

cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site.

The Terracon geologist prepared a field log of each boring during drilling. The logs included visual

classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller’s interpretation of

the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs included with this report represent

the engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory

observation and tests performed on the samples at the sampling depths. The boring logs are

presented on Exhibits A-4 through A-11 in Appendix A.

Terracon utilized the SeisOpt®ReMi™ method to develop a shear wave velocity profile at the

site for use in determining the seismic site class. This method employs non-linear optimization

technology to derive one-dimensional S-wave velocities from Re-Mi (ambient noise) recordings

using a seismograph and low frequency, refraction geophones. We deployed 24 receivers

(geophones) set along a straight-line array with a 15±-foot receiver spacing for a 360±-foot long

traverse. A number of unfiltered, 30 second records were collected using background noise.

The traverse location is depicted on Exhibit A-2.

1.5

2.0

3.0

FILL - CLAYEY SAND , with gravel, light brown, dry, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded tosub-angular

SILTY SAND (SM), light brown, damp, medium dense, very fine grained, sub-rounded tosub-angularSANDY SILT (ML), trace clay, light brown, damp, very stiff

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), light brown, medium plasticity, damp, hard

Slightly porous

Very stiff

The estimated depth of the fill materials should not beconsidered exact due to the similarity of lithology, color, anddensities of the graded materials and native soils.

13-24-50/3"

15-25-27

20-50/3"

15-18-13N=31

1938

1937.5

1936.5

10

12

10

17

Hammer Type: 140 lb Slide HammerStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

Latitude: 36.2466° Longitude: -115.1118°

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 1

450

39 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

12/

8/1

4

SITE:

Page 1 of 2

Advancement Method:Air Rotary

Abandonment Method:Backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.

750 Pilot Road, Suite FLas Vegas, Nevada

Notes:

Project No.: 64145039

Drill Rig: Mayhew 1000

Boring Started: 11/6/2014

BORING LOG NO. B-1The Pauls CorporationCLIENT:Denver, CO

Driller: Elite Drilling

Boring Completed: 11/6/2014

Exhibit: A-4

See Exhibit A-3 for description of fieldprocedures.See Appendix B for description of laboratoryprocedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols andabbreviations.

SEC Lone Mountain Rd and Berg Street North Las Vegas, Nevada

PROJECT: Lone Mountain and Berg Distribution Center

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

Surface Elev.: 1939.5 (Ft.)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)

Groundwater not encounteredWATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

17.0

19.0

21.5

23.0

25.5

26.5

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), light brown, medium plasticity, damp, hard (continued)

SILTY SAND (SM), light brown, damp, dense, fine grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), light brown, damp, hard

SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), light brown, damp, hard

SILTY SAND (SM), light brown, damp, dense, very fine to fine grained, sub-rounded tosub-angular

CLAYEY SAND (SC), light brown, damp, very dense, very fine to fine grained, sub-roundedto sub-angular

Boring Terminated at 26.5 Feet

8-20-30N=50

17-25-20N=45

16-27-28N=55

1922.5

1920.5

1918

1916.5

1914

1913

8

18


LOCATION

DEPTH


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 1

450

39 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

12/

8/1

4

SITE:

Page 2 of 2




Notes:







Exhibit: A-4





FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


ELEVATION (Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

20

25

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)


2.0

5.0

6.5

SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), porous, light brown, dry, dense

SILTY GRAVEL (GM), with sand, light brown, damp, very dense, fine to coarse grained,sub-rounded to sub-angular

SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), with gravel, white, damp, hard


20-30-50N=80

20-35-20N=55

1940

1937

1935.5

16

8


LOCATION

DEPTH


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 1

450

39 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

12/

8/1

4

SITE:

Page 1 of 1




Notes:







Exhibit: A-5





FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

Surface Elev.: 1942 (Ft.)

ELEVATION (Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)


1.0

9.0

15.0

FILL - SILTY GRAVEL , with sand, light brown, dry, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded tosub-angular

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), with silt, light brown, damp, hard

Very stiff

Hard

SILTY GRAVEL (GM), with sand, trace clay, light brown, damp, very dense, fine to coarsegrained, sub-rounded to sub-angular

Caving


29-43-45

20-32-25

27-50/5"

15-30-34N=64

1939.5

1931.5

1925.5

12

11

11

12


LOCATION

DEPTH


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 1

450

39 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

12/

8/1

4

SITE:

Page 1 of 2




Notes:







Exhibit: A-6





FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


ELEVATION (Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)


19.0

22.0

26.5

SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), light brown, damp, hard

With silty gravel lenses

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), light brown, medium plasticity, damp, very stiff

SILTY GRAVEL (GM), with sand, trace clay, light brown, damp, medium dense, fine tocoarse grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular


15-20-25N=45

15-10-12N=22

8-9-12N=21

1921.5

1918.5

1914

10

10

12


LOCATION

DEPTH


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 1

450

39 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

12/

8/1

4

SITE:

Page 2 of 2




Notes:







Exhibit: A-6





FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


ELEVATION (Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

20

25

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)


1.0

2.0

FILL - SILTY SAND , with gravel, light brown, dry, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded tosub-angular

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), white to light brown, medium plasticity, damp, hard

SILTY GRAVEL (GM), with sand, light brown, damp, very dense, fine to coarse grained,sub-rounded to sub-angular

Caving

With clay lenses


18-43-50/3"

15-21-50/4"

12-50/4"

10-27-28N=55

1938.5

1937.512

12

2

12


LOCATION

DEPTH


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 1

450

39 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

12/

8/1

4

SITE:

Page 1 of 2




Notes:







Exhibit: A-7





FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


ELEVATION (Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)


18.0

26.5

SILTY GRAVEL (GM), with sand, light brown, damp, very dense, fine to coarse grained,sub-rounded to sub-angular (continued)Trace clay

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), slightly porous, brown, medium plasticity, damp, very stiff to hard

Very stiff


25-50/5"

15-20-22N=42

12-13-14N=27

1921.5

1913

6

18


LOCATION

DEPTH


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 1

450

39 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

12/

8/1

4

SITE:

Page 2 of 2




Notes:







Exhibit: A-7





FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


ELEVATION (Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

20

25

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)


2.0

4.5

6.3

FILL - CLAYEY SAND , with gravel, light brown, dry, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded tosub-angular

Damp

CLAYEY SAND (SC), light brown, damp, dense, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded tosub-angular




8-16-18N=34

24-30-50/3"

1933.5

1931

1929.5

12

0


LOCATION

DEPTH


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 1

450

39 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

12/

8/1

4

SITE:

Page 1 of 1




Notes:







Exhibit: A-8





FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


ELEVATION (Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

4.0

5.5

8.0

9.5

13.5

FILL - SILTY GRAVEL , with sand, light brown, dry, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded tosub-angularFILL - CLAYEY SAND , light brown, damp, fine to medium grained, sub-rounded tosub-angularSILTY SAND (SM), light brown, damp, very dense, fine to medium grained, sub-rounded tosub-angularSANDY SILT (ML), trace clay, light brown, damp, hardSANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), with silt, light brown, damp, hard

CLAYEY SAND (SC), light brown, damp, very dense, very fine grained, sub-rounded tosub-angular

SILTY SAND (SM), trace clay, light brown, damp, very dense, very fine grained,sub-rounded to sub-angular

Occasional silt lenses

SILTY GRAVEL (GM), with sand, trace clay, light brown, damp, very dense, fine to coarsegrained, sub-rounded to sub-angular

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), with partially cemented lenses, white to light brown, damp, hard

Occasional caliche lenses

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), with sand, light brown, damp, very dense, fine to coarse grained,sub-rounded to sub-angular


13-29-35

25-50/5"

25-50/6"

20-23-23N=46

1936

1935.5

1935

1934.5

1932.5

1931

1928.5

1927

1923

12

10

12

10


LOCATION

DEPTH


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 1

450

39 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

12/

8/1

4

SITE:

Page 1 of 2




Notes:







Exhibit: A-9





FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


ELEVATION (Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)


17.0

21.5

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), with sand, light brown, damp, very dense, fine to coarse grained,sub-rounded to sub-angular (continued)

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, damp, hard

With partially cemented lenses from 18.5 to 19.5 feet


30-50/2"

15-28-27N=55

1919.5

1915

6

9


LOCATION

DEPTH


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 1

450

39 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

12/

8/1

4

SITE:

Page 2 of 2




Notes:







Exhibit: A-9





FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


ELEVATION (Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

20

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)


1.0

3.0

9.0

10.5

14.0

FILL - SILTY GRAVEL , with sand, trace asphalt debris, light brown, dry, fine to coarsegrained, sub-rounded to sub-angular

FILL - CLAYEY SAND , with gravel, light brown, damp, fine to coarse grained, sub-roundedto sub-angular

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), white, medium plasticity, damp, very stiff

SILTY GRAVEL (GM), with sand, light brown, damp, medium dense, fine grained,sub-rounded to sub-angular

SILTY SAND (SM), light brown, damp, dense, fine grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), with sand, light brown, damp, dense, fine to coarse grained,sub-rounded to sub-angular


15-50/5"

20-21-20

12-20-20

10-15-20N=35

1937.5

1935.5

1929.5

1928

1924.5

6

4

9

12


LOCATION

DEPTH


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 1

450

39 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

12/

8/1

4

SITE:

Page 1 of 2




Notes:







Exhibit: A-10





FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


ELEVATION (Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)


17.0

19.5

21.5

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), with sand, light brown, damp, dense, fine to coarse grained,sub-rounded to sub-angular (continued)

CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace gravel, light brown, damp, dense, fine to coarse grained,sub-rounded to sub-angular

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), with sand, light brown, damp, dense, fine to coarse grained,sub-rounded to sub-angular


20-25-18N=43

16-20-14N=34

1921.5

1919

1917

12

6


LOCATION

DEPTH


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 1

450

39 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

12/

8/1

4

SITE:

Page 2 of 2




Notes:







Exhibit: A-10





FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


ELEVATION (Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

20

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)


1.0

5.0

6.5

7.0

8.5

11.0

FILL - CLAYEY SAND , with gravel, light brown, dry, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded tosub-angularTrace gravel, damp


CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), with sand, brown, damp, dense, fine to coarse grained,sub-rounded to sub-angular

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, medium plasticity, damp, hard

SILTY SAND (SM), trace clay, brown, damp, dense, fine grained, sub-rounded tosub-angular

CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace gravel, light brown, damp, dense, fine grained, sub-rounded tosub-angular

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), with sand, light brown, damp, medium dense, fine to coarsegrained, sub-rounded to sub-angular


9-13-30

28-40-45

35-35-35

13-25-50/5"

1936

1932

1930.5

1930

1928.5

1926

12

12

8

16


LOCATION

DEPTH


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 1

450

39 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

12/

8/1

4

SITE:

Page 1 of 2




Notes:







Exhibit: A-11





FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


ELEVATION (Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)


16.0

18.5

21.5

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), with sand, light brown, damp, medium dense, fine to coarsegrained, sub-rounded to sub-angular (continued)Medium dense

CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace gravel, light brown, damp, medium dense, fine to mediumgrained, sub-rounded to sub-angular

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), slightly porous, light brown, damp, very stiff


15-12-15N=27

16-11-11N=22

1921

1918.5

1915.5

16

9


LOCATION

DEPTH


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 1

450

39 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

12/

8/1

4

SITE:

Page 2 of 2




Notes:







Exhibit: A-11





FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S


ELEVATION (Ft.)

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

20

RE

CO

VE

RY

(In

.)


APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING


Exhibit B-1

Laboratory Testing

Soil samples from the borings were tested for moisture content, dry density, grain size

distribution, Atterberg limits, R-value, moisture-density relationship, swell potential,

consolidation, direct shear, and chemical tests (sodium, water soluble sulfate, total water

soluble sodium sulfate, solubility, and chlorides). The soil samples were classified by the

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The laboratory test results are provided in Appendix

B.

Descriptive classifications of the soils indicated on the boring logs are in accordance with the

General Notes and the USCS method presented in Appendix C. USCS and a brief description

of this classification system are also provided in Appendix C.

50pH Resistivity

(ohm-cm)Sulfates(ppm)

Chlorides(ppm)

DryDensity

(pcf)

Expansion(%)

Corrosivity

Dry Density(pcf)

Atterberg Limits

In-Situ Properties

Passing#200

Sieve (%)

Classification

PL PI

WaterContent

(%)

Remarks

Expansion Testing

Surcharge(psf)

WaterContent (%) LL

USCSSoil

Class.Expansion

IndexEI

REMARKS1. Dry Density and/or moisture determined from one or more rings of a multi-ring sample.2. Visual Classification.3. Submerged to approximate saturation.4. Expansion Index in accordance with ASTM D4829-95.5. Air-Dried Sample

BoreholeNo.

Depth(ft.)

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS

PROJECT: Lone Mountain and Berg Distribution Center PROJECT NUMBER: 64145039

CLIENT: The Pauls Corporation Denver, CO

SITE: SEC Lone Mountain Rd and Berg Street North Las Vegas, Nevada

PH. 702-597-9393 FAX. 702-597-9009


EXHIBIT: B-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

S

OIL

PR

OP

ER

TIE

S 2

145

039

GIN

T.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2012

.GD

T

11/2

6/14

B-1 1.5 - 3.0 SM 97 4 1, 2B-1 7.0 - 7.8 CL 93 8 99 16.0 60 3.1 1, 2

B-2 0.0 - 2.0 SC-SM 1 48 21 15 6

B-3 1.0 - 2.5 CL 105 5 1100 500 1, 2B-3 2.5 - 4.0 CL 92 5 1, 2

B-3 6.0 - 6.9 CL 92 5 1, 2B-4 1.0 - 2.3 CL 101 3 87 9.8 60 0.2 1, 2

B-4 2.5 - 3.8 GM 120 2 1, 2

B-5 0.0 - 2.0 SC 40 29 14 15B-6 1.5 - 2.4 ML 94 3 91 4.2 60 2.9 1, 2

B-6 6.0 - 7.0 SM 104 3 1, 2B-7 2.5 - 4.0 CL 100 11 91 16.1 60 6.8 1, 2

B-7 6.0 - 7.5 CL 100 11

B-8 0.0 - 1.5 SC 114 3 1, 2B-8 1.5 - 3.0 CL 1200 500 2

B-8 6.0 - 7.5 GC 115 4 1, 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40 501.5 2006 810

47.8

40.5

5.8

24.6

14

LL PL PI

%Clay%Silt

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

15

14

6

15

D100

Cc Cu

SILT OR CLAY

4

%Sand%GravelD30 D10

B-2

B-5

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND(SC-SM)

CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL(SC)

21

29

0.099

0.211

12.5

19

B-2

B-5

0.0

0.0

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarse fine

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

USCS Classification

46.4

35.0

D60

coarse medium

0.0

0.0

Boring ID Depth

Boring ID Depth

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONASTM D422


PROJECT NUMBER: 64145039PROJECT: Lone Mountain and Berg

Distribution Center



EXHIBIT: B-3

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E: U

SC

S-2

145

039

GIN

T.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2012

.GD

T

11/2

6/14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

CH o

r

OH

CL o

r

OL

ML or OL

MH or OH

PL PIBoring ID Depth Description

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND

CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL

Fines

PLASTICITY

INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT

"U" L

ine

"A" L

ine

6

15

48

40

LL USCS

B-2

B-5

ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTSASTM D4318

15

14

21

29

SC-SM

SC

0.0 - 2.0

0.0 - 2.0


PROJECT NUMBER: 64145039PROJECT: Lone Mountain and Berg

Distribution Center



EXHIBIT: B-4

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

AT

TE

RB

ER

G L

IMIT

S 1

4503

9 G

INT

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

11/

26/1

4

CL-ML

Job No.:

Sample Type: BS

Sample Location: B-2 @ 0' - 2'

SAMPLED BY:

##

TEST METHOD: TEST PROCEDURE: D

Specific Gravity Used For Zero Air Voids Curve:

Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversized Particles

Absorption of Oversized Particles, %:

MAXIMUM DRY UNIT WEIGHT, pcf: lb/ft3

OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT, % %

REE


SEC of E Lone Mountain Road and Berg Street

SUMMARY OF MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS

CLIENT: The Pauls Corporation 64145039

PROJECT:

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP, ASTM 1557

11.6

2.70

Oversized Particles, %: 3.0

N/A

N/A

122.2

AASHTO T180

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

MA

XIM

UM

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y, p

cf:

OPTIMUM MOISTURE, %

Exhibit B-5

Job No.:

Sample Type: BS

Sample Location: B-5 @ 0' - 2'

SAMPLED BY:

##

TEST METHOD: TEST PROCEDURE: D

Specific Gravity Used For Zero Air Voids Curve:

Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversized Particles

Absorption of Oversized Particles, %:

MAXIMUM DRY UNIT WEIGHT, pcf: lb/ft3

OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT, % %

REE



SUMMARY OF MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS

CLIENT: The Pauls Corporation 64145039

PROJECT:

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP, ASTM 1557

9.8

2.70

Oversized Particles, %: 9.0

N/A

N/A

129.8

AASHTO T180

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

MA

XIM

UM

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y, p

cf:

OPTIMUM MOISTURE, %

Exhibit B-6

##

Client:

Project: Lone Mountain and Berg

Site:

Project No.:

Specimen IdentificationCompaction Pressure

(psi)

R-Value Test


SEC of Lone Mountain Ave and Berg Street

64145039

@

@

0

10

20

30

40

50

100200300400500600700800

R-V

alu

e

Exudation Pressure, psi

Exhibit: B-7

Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) R-Value at 300 psi

B-5 0-2' 100.0 121.2 10.2 19

B-2 0-2' 200.0 131.6 8.3 21

Project No. Sample No. @

Max. Dry Density, pcf: Wt. of Ring

Optimum Moisture Content, % Wet Wt. of Ring + Soil

Compaction Required, % Dry Wt. of Ring + Soil

Dry Density Required, pcf Final Wt. of Ring + Soil

Dry Wt. of Soil in Ring, g

Wet Wt. of Soil in Ring, g

Project Lone Mountain & Berg 64145039 B-1 7-7.8'

11/14/14 905a 60 + H2O 0.496 3.1%

Final Dry Density/Moisture

1.031

0.3298

0.0027

100.6 pcf @ 20.3%

Initial Dry Density/Moisture

11/14/14 805a 60 + H2O 0.496 3.1% 99.2 pcf @ 16.0%

11/13/14 1139a 60 + H2O 0.487 2.2%

11/13/14 102p 60 + H2O 0.495 3.0%

Date Time Load Dial Read Exp. %

11/13/14 1051a 60 + H2O 0.455 -1.0%

Date Time Load Dial Read

11/13/14 1049A 60 0.465

Displacement Reading After Inundation

Specimen Test Data

Specimen # Rack # Load psf

Initial Displacement Reading Before Inundation

Maximum Expansion Potential (%)

3.1%

Initial Percent Compaction

Report Number:

Service Date: 11/13/14

Expansion Potential Test

Remolding Calculations Specimen Data:

44.6

183.1

164.0

194.5

64(FHA Expansion) 4-15-10 Rev. 0 Page 1 of 1

tdhashimoto

Typewriter

Exhibit B-8








Project Lone Mountain & Berg 64145039 B-4 1-2.8'


1.002

0.2959

0.0026

91.2 pcf @ 22.6%


11/14/14 805a 60 + H2O 0.153 0.2% 86.5 pcf @ 9.8%

11/13/14 1139a 60 + H2O 0.153 0.2%

11/13/14 102p 60 + H2O 0.153 0.2%


11/13/14 1050a 60 + H2O 0.146 -0.5%


11/13/14 1048A 60 0.151


Specimen Test Data




0.2%


Report Number:




45.9

160.2

150.0

180.4


tdhashimoto

Typewriter

Exhibit B-9








Project Lone Mountain & Berg 64145039 B-6 1.5-2.4'

11/14/14 905a 60 + H2O 0.336 2.9%


1.029

0.31

0.0027

93.3 pcf @ 22.2%


11/14/14 805a 60 + H2O 0.336 2.9% 91.1 pcf @ 4.2%

11/13/14 1139a 60 + H2O 0.330 2.3%

11/13/14 102p 60 + H2O 0.334 2.7%


11/13/14 1051a 60 + H2O 0.317 1.0%


11/13/14 1048A 60 0.307


Specimen Test Data




2.9%


Report Number:




45.7

159.9

155.3

186.6


tdhashimoto

Typewriter

Exhibit B-10








Project Lone Mountain & Berg 64145039 B-7 2.5-4'

11/14/14 905A 60 + H2O 0.463 6.8%


1.068

0.3172

0.0028

90.8 pcf @ 23.9%


11/14/14 805a 60 + H2O 0.463 6.8% 91.2 pcf @ 16.1%

11/13/14 1139a 60 + H2O 0.456 6.1%

11/13/14 102p 60 + H2O 0.460 6.5%


11/13/14 1050a 60 + H2O 0.396 0.1%


11/13/14 1048A 60 0.395


Specimen Test Data




6.8%


Report Number:




46.4

173.9

156.2

190.6


tdhashimoto

Typewriter

Exhibit B-11

Project Name: Project No.: 64145039

Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final

188.4


TEST RESULTS

ONE DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION

Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Void Ratio Degree of Saturation (%)Boring No. Depth (ft)

0.600 0.502 21.5 100.0B-3 1.5' 4.9 35.7 103.4 66.6

-8.0

-7.0

-6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

10 100 1,000 10,000

Str

ain

(%

)

Stress (psf)

At Field Moisture

After Inundation

tdhashimoto

Typewriter

Exhibit B-12



215.0


TEST RESULTS


Boring No. Depth (ft)Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Void Ratio Degree of Saturation (%)

0.711 0.538 19.1 100.0B-3 2.5' 5.1 43.6 96.7 56.2

-12.0

-10.0

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

10 100 1,000 10,000

Str

ain

(%

)

Stress (psf)

At Field Moisture

After Inundation

tdhashimoto

Typewriter

Exhibit B-13



151.5


TEST RESULTS

0

Boring No. Depth (ft)Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Void Ratio Degree of Saturation (%)

0.731 0.831 53.7 100.0B-7 6-7.5" 14.8 47.5 95.6 51.9

-8.0

-7.0

-6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

10 100 1,000 10,000

Str

ain

(%

)

Stress (psf)

At Field Moisture

After Inundation

tdhashimoto

Typewriter

Exhibit B-14

Test

#

Sample

Lab ID

Depth

(ft)

Normal

(psf)

Height

(in)

Density

(pcf)

Height

(in)

Moisture

(%)

1 A 2.5 - 4 995.5 1.00 116.3 1.00 7.7

2 B 2.5 - 4 1,997.1 1.00 116.0 1.00 7.6

3 C 2.5 - 4 3,995.1 1.00 115.8 1.00 8.1

29

556

0.02

SOIL DIRECT SHEAR RESULTSSample Location: B-3 @ 2.5 - 4

Client

2.41

2.41

2.41

Friction Angle (°)

2,777.7

Cohesion (psf)

Shear Rate (in/min)

Test Parameters

Test Results

Max Shear

(psf)

5.1

Location

Initial Conditions Final Conditions


Notes and Special Test Conditions

Diameter

(in)

5.1

5.1

64145039

Project Name

1,056.5

Sample Information Test Stresses

Moisture

(%)

Exhibit B-15

Project #

Project Information



1,772.9

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Ma

xim

um

Sh

ea

r S

tre

ss (

psf)

Normal Stress (psf)

Shear Strength


PH. (702) 597-9393 FAX. (702) 597-9009

B-3 @ 2.5 - 4

SOIL DIRECT SHEAR RESULTS (PAGE 2) B-3 @ 2.5 - 4

Exhibit B-16

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300

Shear

Str

ess (

ksf)

Horizontal (Shear) Displacement (in)

Shear Stress Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

-0.002

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.014

0.016

0.018

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300

Ve

rtic

al (N

orm

al) D

isp

lace

me

nt

(in

)


Displacement Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

Test

#

Sample

Lab ID

Depth

(ft)

Normal

(psf)

Height

(in)

Density

(pcf)

Height

(in)

Moisture

(%)

1 1 1.5 999.7 1.00 89.6

2 2 1.5 2,019.6 1.00

3 3 1.5 3,995.4 1.00

46

96

0.002

Sample Information Test Stresses

Moisture

(%)

Project #

Project Information




Notes and Special Test Conditions

Diameter

(in)

64145039

Project Name

1,022.4

2,374.9

4,199.4

Cohesion (psf)

Shear Rate (in/min)

Test Parameters

Test Results

Max Shear

(psf)

Location

Initial Conditions Final Conditions

Sample Location: B-8 @ 1.5

Client

2.41

2.41

2.41

Friction Angle (°)

SOIL DIRECT SHEAR RESULTS

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Ma

xim

um

Sh

ea

r S

tre

ss (

psf)

Normal Stress (psf)

Shear Strength


PH. (702) 597-9393 FAX. (702) 597-9009

Exhibit B-17

B-8 @ 1.5

SOIL DIRECT SHEAR RESULTS (PAGE 2) B-8 @ 1.5

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300

Shear

Str

ess (

ksf)


Shear Stress Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

-0.002

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300

Ve

rtic

al (N

orm

al) D

isp

lace

me

nt

(in

)


Displacement Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

Exhibit B-18

Project Number:

Service Date:

Report Date:

Client

Date Received:

B-3 B-8

1.0-2.5 1.5-3.0

0.11 0.12

0.05 0.05

Analyzed By:

CHEMICAL LABORATORY TEST REPORT

Kurt D. Ergun

Water Soluble Sulfate (SO4), AWWA 4500 E

(percent %)

Chlorides, AWWA 4500 Cl B, (percent %)

The Pauls Corporation Lone Mountain and Berg Distribution Center

11/17/14

750 Pilot Road, Suite F

Las Vegas, Nevada 89119

(702) 597-9393


Project

270 St. Pauls St., Suite 300

Denver, Colorado 80206

Lab No.: 14-0641

Sample Location

Sample Depth (ft.)

The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client

indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to

the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials.

64145039

Terracon (64)Sample Submitted By: 11/14/2014

Results of Soluble Salt Analysis

Chemist

11/17/14

Exhibit B-19

APPENDIX C

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit: C-1

Unconfined Compressive StrengthQu, (psf)

500 to 1,000

2,000 to 4,000

4,000 to 8,000

1,000 to 2,000

less than 500

> 8,000

Non-plasticLowMediumHigh

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONSS

AM

PL

ING

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

FIE

LD

TE

ST

S

GENERAL NOTES

Over 12 in. (300 mm)12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mmPassing #200 sieve (0.075mm)

Particle Size

< 55 - 12> 12

Percent ofDry Weight

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES

01 - 1011 - 30

> 30

Plasticity Index

Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dryweight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils haveless than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, andsilts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may beadded according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are definedon the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

Percent ofDry Weight

Major Componentof Sample

TraceWithModifier

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

TraceWithModifier

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

BouldersCobblesGravelSandSilt or Clay

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

N

(HP)

(T)

(DCP)

(PID)

(OVA)

< 1515 - 29> 30

Term

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Water levels indicated on the soil boringlogs are the levels measured in theborehole at the times indicated.Groundwater level variations will occurover time. In low permeability soils,accurate determination of groundwaterlevels is not possible with short termwater level observations.

Water Level Aftera Specified Period of Time

Water Level After aSpecified Period of Time

Water InitiallyEncountered

Use for allBulkSamples

ModifiedDames &Moore RingSampler

StandardPenetrationTest

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracyof such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey wasconducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographicmaps of the area.

Standard Penetration TestResistance (Blows/Ft.)

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

ST

RE

NG

TH

TE

RM

S Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

Descriptive Term(Consistency)

Descriptive Term(Density)

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field

visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Hard > 30

> 50 15 - 30Very Stiff

Stiff

Medium Stiff

Very Soft 0 - 1

Medium Dense

SoftLoose

Very Dense

8 - 1530 - 50Dense

4 - 810 - 29

2 - 44 - 9

Very Loose 0 - 3

Exhibit C-2

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A

Soil Classification

Group

Symbol Group Name B

Coarse Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained

on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of

coarse fraction retained

on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse

fraction passes No. 4

sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line J CL Lean clay K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles

or boulders, or both” to group name. C 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. D 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 = D60/D10 Cc =

6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name. I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name. J 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. L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to

group name. M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name. N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O PI 4 or plots below “A” line. P PI plots on or above “A” line. Q PI plots below “A” line.

0

1000

2000

3000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Rayle

igh W

ave P

hase V

elo

city,

ft/s

Period, s

Dispersion Curve Showing Picks and Fit

Calculated Dispersion

Picked Dispersion

Lone Mountain and BergTerracon Project No. 64145039

p-f Image with Dispersion Modeling Picks

Exhibit C-3

-100

-75

-50

-25

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Depth

, ft

Shear-Wave Velocity, ft/s

Vs Refraction Microtremor Vs= 1490 ft/s NEHRP/IBC SiteClass C

Shear-Wave Velocity Profile from SeisOpt ReMi Software Analysis

Lone Mtn and Berg


Exhibit C-4

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT CHECKLIST

The City of North Las Vegas utilizes the Geotechnical Report Checklist to insure thatall reports submitted to the City of North Las Vegas for review meet a minimum set ofrequirements, address project specific issues on a case basis, and reference pagenumber(s) for items pertinent to the oversight of the proposed project.

The City of North Las Vegas intends to use the checklist for review and approval of allgeotechnical reports submitted after March 1, 1996. The attached checklist WILL BEREQUIRED with all geotechnical reports submitted for review. As noted on page 5 ofthe attached checklist, Items I through IV are mandatory for all reports. Reports will bereturned for correction if not completed.

I. Project Information

1. Project name

2. Study date

3. Consultant project identification number

4. Company name and address, and name and phone number of who prepared the report

5. Preparer’s name, seal, and signature

6. Client name

II Location and Development Description

1. A written description of project location which includes adjacent street names

2. Vicinity map

3. Site plan

4. Types of structures to be constructed

5. Type of streets to be constructed

6. Anticipated approximate cut and fill depths

7. Anticipated building loads

III. Geotechnical Investigations

1. Area or acreage

2. A site reconnaissance survey of existing surface conditions

3. Identification of any known or encountered geologic hazards, discuss local/regional geology.

4. Type, description, and results of any surface geophysical surveys

5. Describe any in-situ tests conducted

Description Page(s)

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Cover

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Cover

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Cover

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Cover Letter

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

2

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

2

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

N/A

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

N/A

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

2

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

2

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Appendix C

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Exhibit A-3

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Exhibit A-2

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Exhibit A-1

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Cover Letter

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Cover

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

2

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

2

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Exhibit C-5

6. Dates of investigations

7. Type of equipment used for field explorations

8. Number of borings and/or trenches

9. Diagram showing location of borings and/or trenching

10. Boring or trenching logs (continuous log): description of subsurface soils, classification of soils, identification of soil stratification zones, and approximate contact zones, including top and bottom elevations (if available), and borehold diameter.

11. Location on the log of each Standard Penetration Test

12. Identify any encountered groundwater

13. Discuss any observed fissures, faults, or geologic hazards

14. Identify seismic zone

IV Laboratory Testing

1. Identify all tests performed, including procedures/standards used

2. All test results in tabular or graphical form

V. Site Preparation and Grading

1. Surface clearing and approximate depth of loose soil to be removed

2. Required depth of ex/overexcavation in structural and pavement area

3. Required depth of ex-overexcavation in nonstructural areas

4. Required lateral extent of ex/overexcavation

5. Scarification, moisture content, compaction requirements

6. Structural/nonstructural fi ll composition: expansion, gypsum solubility, percent passing #200 sieve (min/max), maximum particle size

7. Placement Requirements: Lift thickness, compaction (moisture and density for both granular and clayey material)

8. Requirements for imported fill

9. Caliche Considerations: Recommendations for removal of caliche, if encountered, as well as preparation and grading recommendations and recommendations for foundations and footings on caliche.

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Exhibit A-4 thru A-11

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Exhibit A-3

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

1

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Exhibit A-2

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Appendix A

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Appendix A

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

4

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

N/A

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

9

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

5

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

5

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

N/A

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

8

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

5 - 6

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

5 - 6

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

6

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

5 - 6

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

N/A

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Exhibit C-6

10. Testing During Grading - type of testing required during site preparation and grading activities

11. Fault/Fissure mitigation

VI. Foundations/Retaining Walls

1. Conventional foundations

a. Required minimum depth and width of footings

2. Post-Tensioned Foundation

a. Required minimum depth and width of footings

b. Allowable bearing pressure

c. Estimated friction coefficients

d. Cement type

e. Design center and edge of slab movement (Ym)

f. Observation requirements

3. Block Wall Foundations

a. Required minimum depths and widths of footings

b. Allowable bearing pressures

c. Cement type

d. Estimated friction coefficients

e. Observation requirements

4. Special foundations



c. Cement type


e. Observation requirements

5. Retaining Walls



memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

6 - 7

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

N/A

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

7 - 8

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

7 - 8

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

N/A

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

N/A

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

7

tdhashimoto

Text Box

7

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

10 - 12

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Exhibit C-7

c. Lateral earth pressures


e. Backfill and drainage requirements

f. Observation requirements

VII. Slab on Grade/Exterior Flatwork

1. Base requirements

2. Moisture barrier requirements (type, placement)

3. Type of cement

VIII. Utility Trenches

1. Main lines (in street areas) / laterals compaction requirements

IX. Street and Pavement Designs

1. R-values or CBR values. Traffic Indices

2. Street section (AC thickness, Type I/Type II thickness), design method, and criteria

3. Structural base coarse - compaction recommendations

4. On-site pavement and street design

X. Drainage Moisture Protection

1. Drainage recommendations for use in design

2. Minimum slopes away from structures

3. Landscaping recommendations

* The items identified in sections I. through IV. shall be provided in allgeotechnical reports. Reports not containing this information will be returned forcorrection.

** The items identified in sections V. through X. are to be provided as appropriatefor the specific project.

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

9

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

9

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

14

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

6

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

13

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

13

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

12 - 14

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

7

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

7

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

6

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

11

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

10

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

11

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

10

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

7

memcgettigan

Typewritten Text

Exhibit C-8

APPENDIX DBORING LOGS FROM PREVIOUS STUDY BY OTHERS

geotechnical engineering report - construction22.com plans/a5060 lone mountain corpor… ·...

Documents