Floor Slab

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Central Park Restroom and Concessions

South Salt Lake, Utah
January, 25 2017
Terracon Project No. 61175002
Prepared for:
City of South Salt Lake
Prepared by:
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Midvale, Utah
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 1
2.1 Project Description ............................................................................................... 1
2.2 Site Location ........................................................................................................ 2
3.0 SUSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 2
3.1 Typical Profile ...................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 3
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ...................................... 3
4.1 Geotechnical Considerations ............................................................................... 3
4.2 Earthwork ............................................................................................................ 4
4.2.1 Site Preparation........................................................................................ 4
4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation .............................................................................. 5
4.2.3 Material Requirements ............................................................................. 5
4.2.4 Compaction Requirements ....................................................................... 6
4.2.5 Utility Trench Backfill ................................................................................ 7
4.2.6 Grading and Drainage .............................................................................. 7
4.2.7 Earthwork Construction Considerations .................................................... 7
4.3 Foundations ......................................................................................................... 8
4.3.1 Shallow Spread Footing .............................................................................. 8
4.3.2 Foundation Construction Considerations .................................................. 9
4.3.3 Drilled Piers ............................................................................................ 10
4.3.4 Foundation Construction Considerations ................................................ 12
4.4 Floor Slabs......................................................................................................... 12
4.4.3 Floor Slab Design Recommendations .................................................... 12
4.4.4 Floor Slab Construction Considerations ................................................. 13
4.5 Seismic Considerations...................................................................................... 13
4.6 Chemical Testing ............................................................................................... 14
5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................... 15
Reliable Resourceful Responsive

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Site Location Map
Exhibit A-2 Exploration Plan
Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description
Exhibit A-4 to A-5 Boring Logs
APPENDIX B – SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing
Exhibit B-2 Grain Size Distribution
Exhibit B-3 Consolidation Test Results
Exhibit B-4 Analytical Test Results
Exhibit B-5 UU Triaxial
APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-1 General Notes
Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System
Reliable Resourceful Responsive

Central Park Restrooms and Concessions South Salt Lake, Utah
January 25, 2017 Terracon Project No. 61175002
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A geotechnical exploration has been performed for the proposed Central Park Restroom and
associated concessions/canopies to be located at 2797 South 200 East in South Salt Lake, Utah.
Our scope of services included the advancement of 2 soil borings to approximate depths of
approximately 16½ feet below existing grade.
Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site can be developed for
the proposed project, provided the geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are
followed. The following geotechnical considerations were identified:
 Site Soils: Fill was encountered to a depth of approximately 6 feet in both borings. The fill
consisted of silty clayey sand with gravel, elastic silt, and lean clay. Native soils encountered
below the fill generally consist of sandy silt, silty sand, and sandy silty clay followed by soft
lean clay to the maximum depth explored of 16 ½ feet.
 Undocumented Fill: Existing fill materials appeared to be variable in composition and

consistency and contained traces of wood and plastic debris. The existing fill is not
considered suitable for support of structures and should be completely removed from below
foundations and floor slabs. Constructing structures over undocumented fill poses a risk of
settlement and structural distress to buildings.
 Foundations: The proposed building may be supported on either a drilled pier foundation
or on lightly loaded spread footings bearing on properly prepared native soils or properly
placed and compacted Structural Fill.
 Seismic: The soil profile is best represented by a Seismic Site Class E due to the presence
of liquefiable soils, based on criteria presented in the International Building Code (IBC).
Liquefaction-induced settlement on the order of one inch or less may occur during a strong
earthquake event.
 Floor Slabs: Floor slabs should supported on a minimum of 4 inches of crushed aggregate
base over a minimum of two feet of Structural Fill. Where soft, loose, or unsuitable soils are
observed, the materials should be removed and replaced with properly compacted
Structural Fill.
 Earthwork: Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon.

The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill,
subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions
exposed during construction.
Reliable Resourceful Responsive i

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should
be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must
be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The
section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report
limitations.
Reliable Resourceful Responsive ii

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
CENTRAL PARK RESTROOMS AND CONCESSIONS
SOUTH SALT LAKE, UTAH
Terracon Project No. 61175002
January 25, 2017
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A geotechnical exploration has been performed for the proposed Central Park Restroom and
associated concessions/canopy at 2797 South 200 East in South Salt Lake, Utah. The purpose of
these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative
to:
 subsurface soil conditions  foundation design and construction

 groundwater conditions  slab design and construction
 earthwork  seismic considerations
Two soil borings were completed within the area of the proposed development to approximate
depth of 16½ feet below current site grade. Logs of the borings, along with a Site Location and
Exploration Plan, are included in Appendix A. The results of the laboratory testing are included in
Appendix B. Descriptions of the field exploration and field and laboratory testing are included in their
respective appendices.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Project Description
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Single-story restroom building with associated canopy and adjacent
Structure
covered pavilion.
Masonry restroom structure with steel roof joists. Canopy and pavilion
Building construction
will be metal-framed with drilled shafts.
Finished floor elevation (FFE) Near or at existing site grade
Grading Minimal: less than 3 feet
Cut and fill slopes None
Below grade areas None
1
Liquefaction potential High, based on available published liquefaction maps.
1. Christenson, G.E., Shaw, L.M., 2008, Liquefaction Special Study Areas, Wasatch Front and Nearby Areas,
Utah, Supplement Map to Utah Geological Survey Circular 106
Reliable Resourceful Responsive 1

2.2 Site Location
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Location 2797 South 200 East in South Salt Lake, Utah
Existing
Existing elementary school and various out structures and playgrounds.
improvements
Current ground cover Gravel
Existing topography Relatively flat site, sloping gently down to the west.
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Typical Profile
Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized
as follows:
Approximate Depth to
Consistency/
Stratum Bottom of Stratum Material Description
Density
(feet)
1B-1 Fill - Silty clayey sand with gravel (SC-
---
SM).
1 6
B-2 Fill - Sandy elastic silt and lean clay
---
(MH, CL)
Silty sand (SM), Sandy silt to Silt with sand Medium Dense,
2 10½ to 12
(ML), Sandy silty clay (CL-ML) Soft
3 16 ½ 2 Lean clay (CL) Soft
1. Varying soil conditions encountered within borings B-1 and B-2 from ground surface to six feet below surface.
2. Maximum depth explored
Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples, and the test results are presented in
Appendix B.
Conditions encountered at each exploration location are indicated on the individual exploration
logs. Stratification boundaries on the logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil
types; in situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the exploration
points can be found on the boring logs in Appendix A.

3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered during the subsurface exploration and was estimated to be at
approximately six to eight feet below existing grade in borings B-1 and B-2, respectively. It should
be recognized that fluctuations of the groundwater table may occur due to seasonal variations in
the amount of rainfall, runoff, future construction and other factors not evident at the time the
boring was performed. Evaluation of these factors is beyond the scope of this exploration.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
4.1 Geotechnical Considerations
The results of our exploration indicate the site can be developed for the proposed project provided
the recommendations presented in this report are followed. During our exploration, the following
geotechnical considerations were identified:
Based on our subsurface exploration results, relatively poor uncontrolled fill material was
encountered in borings B-1 and B-2 to depths of six feet below existing grade. Support of
structures on or above existing uncontrolled fill involves risk. Risk associated with construction on
existing uncontrolled fill must be assumed by the owner. Foundations supported on or above
existing uncontrolled fill that has not been uniformly placed and compacted with strict moisture
and density control may not perform predictably. Further, the composition and amount of existing
uncontrolled fill could vary across the site. We recommend that all existing fill be removed from
within the proposed buildings and replaced with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill.
As an alternative, deep foundations may be used to extend structural loads below the fill soils and
floor slabs supported on a minimum of 24 inches of newly placed compacted Structural Fill.
Based on our subsurface exploration results, groundwater will likely be encountered in the deeper
portions of excavation for fill removal. It is recommended that excavations for fill removal extend
to a minimum of 4½ to 5 feet below site grade, and the remainder 12 to 18 inches of existing fill
be reworked and compacted to the requirements of this report prior to placing new Structural Fill.
Based on our analyses, some of the native sandy soils below the groundwater table are
susceptible to liquefaction due to their relatively low density. The potential for seismic-related
settlement is considered to be low during the design earthquake. We estimate that liquefaction
total settlements would be on the order of one inch or less and resulting differential settlements
on the order of ½ to ¾ of the total settlement over 50 horizontal feet.
Fine-grained near-surface soils may become susceptible to disturbance under the weight of
construction equipment, especially when wetted. The contractor is responsible for protecting the
subgrade from disturbance. Pumping and disturbed soils are not suitable for supporting
foundations, floor slabs, and pavements. Pumping and disturbed soils should be removed and
replaced with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill. Stabilization of soft subgrade soils

may require the use of angular stabilization rock in combination with separation fabric and
geotextiles to provide a stable platform for construction. Special measures may be required to
complete earthwork activities, such as minimizing repetitive trafficking of the ground surface and
grading to prevent ponding of surface water during construction.
We recommend that the geotechnical engineer be retained to evaluate the bearing material for
the foundations and floor-slab subgrade soils.
Geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation systems and other earth-connected

phases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this report are based
upon the results of data presented herein, engineering analyses, and our current understanding
of the proposed project.
4.2 Earthwork
The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation
and placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented for design and
construction of earth-supported elements, including foundations and slabs, are contingent upon
following the recommendations outlined in this section.
Terracon should be retained during construction to observe stripping, site preparation, removal of
existing fill, and subgrade preparation. Terracon can assist in identifying existing fill soils or low-
strength native soils that should be undercut and removed, as well as identifying additional corrective
measures that may become apparent during construction. We should be retained to evaluate
proposed fill materials, to monitor fill placement, and to perform field density tests as each lift of fill is
place, in order to evaluate compliance with the design requirements.
4.2.1 Site Preparation
All topsoil, asphalt, fill, loose, soft, or frozen soil, and other unsuitable materials should be removed
from beneath proposed buildings, and floor-slab areas. After stripping of unsuitable materials, and
prior to the start of fill operations, we recommend that Terracon’s geotechnical engineer be
retained to observe the bearing material for the foundations and floor-slab subgrade soils.
A building previously occupied portions of the proposed site. During site preparation, existing
foundations, floor slabs, utilities, and other demolition debris and materials, if encountered, should
be completely removed from below new construction areas. Excavations resulting from the removal
of these materials should be backfilled with compacted structural fill.
Although evidence of underground facilities, such as septic tanks, building components,

cesspools, and unknown utilities, was not observed during the site reconnaissance, such features
could be encountered during construction. If unexpected underground facilities are encountered,

such features should be removed and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill
placement and/or construction.
4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation
Following removal of unsuitable materials, the exposed subgrade below foundations and concrete
slabs, including areas that will receive fill, should be proof rolled to aid in assessing subgrade
conditions, if they are fine-grained. Proof rolling should be performed using rubber-tired
equipment, such as a dump truck. Soft, pumping or otherwise unsuitable conditions, identified
during proof rolling, should be removed and replaced with Structural Fill or stabilized using
geotextiles and Stabilization Fill. Backfill of excavations should be completed using properly
placed and compacted Structural Fill.
Based on the subsurface exploration results, groundwater seepage into foundation excavations
could occur, especially where significant cut thicknesses are performed as a part of the removal
of existing fill materials. The base of all foundation excavation should be free of water and loose
soils prior to placement of concrete. Control of groundwater by means of sump pits and pumps
appears to be feasible where clay soils exist. However, a more extensive dewatering program will
be required where water-bearing sand seams and layers are encountered. “Quick” conditions can
result in excavations performed in sand seams and layers contained in sandy clay or existing fill
soils below the groundwater table, and this could significantly reduce the soil’s bearing capacity
and contribute to additional settlement.
Should the soils at the bearing level become disturbed, the affected soil should be stabilized or
removed prior to placement of concrete. If high moisture content and deflecting subgrade
conditions are encountered, it may be necessary to place 12 to 18 inches of Stabilization Fill in
combination with geotextiles to form a firm non yielding surface for construction. Groundwater
should be maintained at least 1 foot below the excavation depth. Concrete should be placed as
soon as possible after excavating to minimize disturbance of bearing soils.
The site should be initially graded to create a relatively level surface to receive fill and to provide
a relatively uniform thickness of fill beneath the proposed building and pavement areas.
The moisture content and stability of subgrade soils should be maintained until slab or pavement
construction.
4.2.3 Material Requirements
Acceptable fill material designations for various locations on the project are outlined in the
following table:

Requirements
Gradation
Fill Type 1 Application
Percent finer Plasticity
Size
by weight
Required for all fill
under foundations 3 inch 100
Liquid Limit 30 max
Structural Fill2 and floor slabs and No. 4 Sieve 25 - 60
Plasticity Index 6 max
within 5 feet of the No. 200 Sieve 15 max
building perimeter
Fill in areas of soft,
4 to 6 inch 100
Stabilization Fill3 potentially pumping --
No. 200 Sieve 5 max
subgrade
1. All fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material should
not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type should be
submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation.
2. Fill should be suitable for compaction testing – less than 30 percent retained on the ¾ inch sieve, and well
graded.
3. Crushed angular rock with more than 50 percent with two fractured faces as per ASTM D 5821.
Based on samples collected during the subsurface exploration, the existing fill does not appear
to be suitable for use as Structural Fill. Materials proposed for use as Structural Fill should be
tested to verify conformance with the materials requirements presented above.
4.2.4 Compaction Requirements
Item Description
Fill lift thickness 8 inches or less in loose thickness
 95% of the material’s maximum dry density (modified Proctor
- ASTM D 1557) in foundation, pavement and floor slab
Compaction 1 areas;
 92% of material’s maximum dry density (ASTM D1557) in
other areas of fill and backfill
Within 2% of the range of optimum moisture content value as
Moisture content during determined by the modified Proctor test at the time of placement
compaction and compaction
1. Fill should be tested frequently 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 compaction is
achieved. This may require adjustment of the moisture content.
Where light compaction equipment is used, as is customary within a few feet of retaining walls
and in utility trenches, the lift thickness may need to be reduced to achieve the desired degree of
compaction.

Placement of the first lift of Stabilization Fill, if used, should be done by dumping approved fill
material and then pushing it out onto the subgrade ahead of the equipment. The first lift (12 inches)
should be statically compacted by rolling; excessive dynamic compaction should not be used in the
first lift. Additional lifts of Structural or Stabilization Fill with or without geotextiles may be required
to create a stable working surface. Once a firm and stable surface has been created, Structural or
Grading Fill may be placed and compacted to report requirements.
If stabilization is required, Terracon should be notified to visit the site, observe subgrade conditions
and assist in developing a stabilization section.
4.2.5 Utility Trench Backfill
All trench excavations should be made with sufficient working space to permit construction, including
backfill placement and compaction. If utility trenches are backfilled with relatively clean granular
material, they should be capped with at least 18 inches of cohesive fill in non-pavement areas to
reduce the infiltration and conveyance of surface water through the trench backfill.
4.2.6 Grading and Drainage
Any areas of standing surface water should be drained as far in advance of construction as possible.
Any saturated soils should be removed prior to placing fill or proceeding with construction.
Surface water should not be allowed to pond on the site and soak into the soil during construction.
Construction staging should provide drainage of surface water and precipitation away from the
building and pavement areas. Any water that collects over or adjacent to construction areas should
be promptly removed, along with any softened or disturbed soils. Surface water control in the form
of sloping surfaces, drainage ditches and trenches, and sump pits and pumps will be important to
avoid ponding and associated delays due to precipitation and seepage.
4.2.7 Earthwork Construction Considerations
It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with
conventional earthmoving equipment.
Upon completion of grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade moisture content prior
to construction of floor slabs and pavements. Construction traffic over the completed subgrade
should be avoided to the extent practical. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of
surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become
frozen, desiccated, saturated, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed or these
materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to floor slab and
pavement construction and observed by Terracon.

Excessively soft or deflecting areas may require the use of geotextiles in combination with
crushed stone (stabilization fill) to develop a firm surface for construction. If stabilization fill is
used, a separation fabric such as Mirafi® X or N series products should be placed directly on top
of native subgrade to reduce fines migration. A geotextile product such as Tensar® TriAX TX140
should be placed under the stabilization fill for stabilization support.
All excavations should be sloped or braced as required by the current Occupational Health and
Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations to provide stability and safe working conditions.
Temporary excavations will probably be required during grading operations. The grading
contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary
excavations and should shore, slope or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain
stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should comply with applicable
local, state and federal safety regulations, including OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety
Standards.
Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the means,
methods and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the
information provided herein be interpreted to mean that Terracon is assuming any responsibility
for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied
nor inferred.
4.3 Foundations
4.3.1 Shallow Spread Footing
In our opinion, the proposed Central Park Restroom and Canopy can be supported by lightly
loaded shallow spread footing foundation bearing on properly prepared native soil or on properly
placed and compacted Structural Fill. This option would require removal of the existing fill soils
as previously described and replaced with compacted structural fill. Design recommendations for
shallow foundations for the proposed structure are presented in the following paragraphs.
Design for uplift and overturning forces will be required. Thickening the footing or greater
embedment depths will provide additional weight to resist these forces.
DESCRIPTION COLUMN
Net allowable bearing pressure for footing
bearing on properly prepared native soil or 2,000 psf
properly placed and compacted Structural Fill 1
Minimum dimensions 20 inches
Minimum embedment of external footings
30 inches
below finished grade for frost protection 2
Approximate total settlement 3 <1 inch

DESCRIPTION COLUMN
Estimated differential settlement 3 <1/2 inch between columns
Ultimate coefficient of sliding friction 0.40
1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding
overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. Assumes any unsuitable fill or soft soils, if encountered, will
be undercut and replaced with engineered fill.
2. And to reduce the effects of seasonal moisture variations in the subgrade soils. For perimeter footing and footings
beneath unheated areas.
3. The foundation settlement will depend upon the variations within the subsurface soil profile, the structural loading
conditions, the embedment depth of the footings, the thickness of compacted fill, and the quality of the earthwork
operations.
The net allowable foundation bearing pressures apply to dead loads plus design live load
conditions. The design bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering total
loads that include wind or seismic conditions. The weight of the foundation concrete below grade
may be neglected in dead load computations. Finished grade is the lowest adjacent grade for
perimeter footings and floor level for interior footings.
Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer. If the soil conditions
encountered differ from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations will be
required.
4.3.2 Foundation Construction Considerations
The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose or soft soil prior to
placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing material
disturbance. If the material at bearing level becomes excessively dry, disturbed, saturated, or
frozen, the affected soil should be removed prior to placing concrete. It is recommended that the
geotechnical engineer be retained to observe and test the foundation bearing materials.
If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered in footing excavations, the excavations should be
extended deeper to suitable soils and the footings could bear directly on these soils at the lower
level or on properly compacted Structural Fill extending down to the suitable soils. Overexcavation
for compacted structural fill placement below footings should extend laterally beyond all edges of
the footings at least 8 inches per foot of overexcavation depth below footing base elevation. The
overexcavation should then be backfilled up to the footing base elevation with structural fill placed
and compacted as specified in Section 4.2.3 of this report. The overexcavation and backfill
procedure is described in the following figure.

4.3.3 Drilled Piers
As an alternative to shallow spread footings, the proposed concessions and canopy structures
may be founded on a straight shaft drilled concrete pier foundation system extending through the
existing fill soil. Soil parameters and unit capacity values to be used in the design of the drilled
pier foundation are included in the following tables. The values included in the table were
estimated based on the observed drilling conditions during our field exploration, visual
classifications, and presumptive values for similar materials. Note that the soil parameters are
not intrinsic values of the soil and depend on the state of the soil (density, depositional history,
water content, etc.) and the loading conditions, among other factors.
The soil parameters presented in the table are intended to be used in the design of drilled pier
foundations at the site, assuming soil conditions are similar to those encountered during our field
exploration. The applicability of these parameters for other uses should be discussed with
Terracon’s geotechnical engineer.
The allowable end bearing pressure, skin friction, and horizontal constant of subgrade reaction
for the encountered soil layers are summarized in the table below. The allowable end bearing
pressure and skin friction values presented in the table are based on a factor of safety of 3. Also,
the allowable skin friction to resist both vertical downward loads and uplift forces assume bored
piers having concrete cast in direct contact with adjacent soil. The shafts should be embedded a
minimum of 8 feet below existing site grade. Additional depth may be required to resist uplift
forces.

SUBSURFACE PARAMETERS FOR SHAFT CAPACITY

(Boring B-1)
Approx. Allowable
Net Allowable
Moist Skin
Layer Friction Allowable Skin
Unit Cohesion, Friction;
Depth Depth Thickness, Angle, End Bearing Friction;
Weight C Compression
Interval (ft) T Pressure, Uplift,
Of Soil, (psf) ,
(ft) (degrees) Q su
sd
(psf) (psf)
(pcf) (psf)
01 2 2 130 -- -- -- -- --
22 6 4 120 30 -- -- 40 20
6 8 2 122 32 -- 2,900 70 40
8 16½ 6½ 120 600 1,800 190 190

1. Neglect soil resistance in upper 3 feet on pier due to frost action and other disturbance.
2. Top 2 feet of existing fill to be replaced with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill.
SUBSURFACE PARAMETERS FOR SHAFT CAPACITY

(Boring B-2)
Approx. Allowable
Net Allowable
Moist Skin
Layer Friction Allowable Skin
Unit Cohesion, Friction;
Depth Depth Thickness, Angle, End Bearing Friction;
Weight C Compression
Interval (ft) T Pressure, Uplift,
Of Soil, (psf) ,
(ft) (degrees) Q su
sd
(psf) (psf)
(pcf) (psf)
01 2 2 130 -- -- -- -- --
22 6 4 115 28 -- -- 40 20
6 10 4 125 32 -- 2,800 70 40
10 16½ 6½ 120 600 1,800 190 190

1. Neglect soil resistance in upper 3 feet on pier due to frost action and other disturbance.
2. Top 2 feet of existing fill to be replaced with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill.
Allowable pier capacity in compression (Qallow) can be calculated by the following equation:
n
Qallow = (Q)(d2)/4 +  ∑ (sd)(d)(ti) [pounds]

i=1
Where: Q = allowable bearing pressure (psf)

d = pier diameter (ft)
sd = allowable skin friction in compression (psf)
ti = ith soil layer thickness in contact with pier (ft)
i = individual layer
n = total number of layers

su = allowable skin friction in uplift (psf)
The first and second terms in the above equation represent allowable end bearing and skin friction
components of pier capacity, respectively. The allowable uplift capacity can be calculated by
substituting su for sd in the second term of the equation, neglecting the end bearing component
and adding the weight of the pier.
4.3.4 Foundation Construction Considerations
Following drilling, soft, loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the bottom of the
excavation prior to construction of the pier. Temporary casing will be required to maintain an
open hole and prevent sloughing during excavation and placement of the pier. The contractor
should be aware of this and provide the necessary provisions to maintain stability of the
excavation during construction. Use of temporary casing will require special care during
construction to ensure a high quality foundation. Construction of drilled pier foundations should
only be performed by contractors experienced in installation of this type of foundation, and in the
use of temporary casing.
Reinforcing steel and concrete should be placed inside the casing. The casing should be pulled
as the concrete is placed to provide final contact between the soil and the concrete. Care should
be taken during placement of concrete to prevent intrusion of soil during extraction of the
temporary casing.
Concrete should be placed into the excavation through a tremie pipe extending to the bottom of
the excavation. An uninterrupted supply and placement of concrete should be performed to
produce a monolithic pier.
4.4 Floor Slabs
4.4.1 Floor Slab Design Recommendations
ITEM DESCRIPTION
A minimum of 4 inches of crushed gravel underlain by a minimum
of 24 inches of properly placed and compacted Structural Fill. All
Floor slab support
undocumented fill beneath floor slabs should be removed and
replaced with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill.
240 pounds per square inch per in (psi/in) for point loading
Modulus of subgrade reaction
conditions
Where appropriate, saw-cut control joints should be placed in the slab to help control the location
and extent of cracking. For additional recommendations, refer to the ACI design manuals. Joints
or any cracks that develop should be sealed with a waterproof, non-extruding compressible
compound specifically recommended for heavy duty concrete pavement and wet environments.

The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade that will be
covered with wood, tile, carpeting, 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.
4.4.2 Floor Slab Construction Considerations
On most project sites, the site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase.
However as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations,
construction traffic, desiccation, rainfall, etc. As a result, the floor-slab subgrade may not be
suitable for placement of crushed gravel and concrete and corrective action will be required.
We recommend areas underlying floor slabs be rough graded and then thoroughly proof rolled
with a dump truck prior to final grading and placement of Floor Slab Base Course. Particular
attention should be given to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas
containing backfilled trenches. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired
by removing and replacing the affected material with properly compacted Structural Fill. All floor
slab subgrade areas should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted to the
recommendations in this report immediately prior to placement of the gravel and concrete.
4.5 Seismic Considerations
Based on the results of our exploration, the subsurface soil profile is best represented by Site
Class E according to the 2012/2015 IBC. The National Seismic Hazard Map database was
searched to identify the peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral accelerations for 0.2 second
(Ss) and 1.0 second (S1) periods for a 2% probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years at the
project site for Site Class B. These values should be adjusted for site effects using appropriate
site class factors from the 2012 IBC.
DESCRIPTION VALUE
2012/2015 International Building Code Site Classification (IBC) 1 E2
Site Latitude N 40.71020
Site Longitude W -111.88454
So PGA 0.672 g
Ss Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.534 g
S1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.550 g
Fa Site Coefficient for a Short Period 0.900
Fv Site Coefficient for a 1-Second Period 2.400

1. Note: In general accordance with the 2012 International Building Code, Table 1613.5.2. IBC Site Class is
based on the average characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile.
2. Note: The 2012 IBC requires a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic
site classification. The current scope does not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination.
Borings extended to a maximum depth of 16½ feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that
encountered soils continues below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration
to deeper depths would be required to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration.
The site is located in an area mapped as having a high potential for liquefaction. Based on the
subsurface soil conditions and boring information, soils vulnerable to potential liquefaction were
encountered at various depths between 6 to 12 feet below existing site grade. Liquefaction-
induced vertical settlement at the ground surface on the order of one inch or less is expected
during an earthquake event. To evaluate whether soils below 16 ½ feet are liquefiable, additional
field exploration would be required along with laboratory testing.
The projected ground deformations should be reviewed by the structural engineer. If the projected
deformations are considered to be excessive consideration should be given to mitigating the
potential using ground improvement methods such as rammed aggregate piers or stone columns
or use of a geogrid reinforced pad. Additional information regarding mitigation alternatives will be
provided upon request.
4.6 Chemical Testing
Chemical testing completed on selected soil samples is summarized in the following table.
Results have also been included in Appendix B.
TEST RESULTS
Sample Location Resistivity Sulfate
pH
(ohm-cm) (ppm)
B-1 @ 10 ft. 7.24 1,540 182
An aggressive subsurface environment where corrosion can deteriorate the buried steel over their
design life can generally be identified by soil resistivity and pH tests. The following criteria for
corrosive soil are specified in AASHTO LRFD Section 10.7.5.
 Electrical resistivity less than 2,000 ohm-cm

 pH less than 5.5
 pH between 5.5 and 8.5 in soils with high organic content
On-site soils are considered aggressive to buried steel based on laboratory test results. Based
on the test results, sulfate exposure to concrete appears to be low. A corrosion engineer should
be retained to provide additional corrosion protection recommendations

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 exploration locations performed at the indicated locations and from other information
discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between exploration
points, 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.
Support of footings, and floor slabs, on or above existing fill soils is discussed in this report.
However, even with the recommended construction testing services, there is an inherent risk for
the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by the fill will not be
discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely removing
the existing fill, but can be reduced by performing additional testing and evaluation.
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 City of South Salt Lake 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
SITE
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF

THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Project Manager:
CVM
Project No.
61175002 SITE LOCATION Exhibit
QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: SALT LAKE CITY
SOUTH, UT (1/1/1999) and SUGAR HOUSE, UT Drawn by: Scale:
CMA 1”=2,000’
Central Park Restroom and Concession
A-1
(1/1/1998).
Checked by: File Name: 6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, RLC NA 2797 Sout 200 east
AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION Approved by: Date: Midvale, UT 84047-3707 South Salt Lake, UT
PURPOSES RLC 01/20/2017
Project Manager:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY
MICROSOFT BING MAPS CVM
Project No.
61175002 EXPLORATION PLAN Exhibit
Drawn by: Scale:
CMA
A-2
AS SHOWN
Central Park Restroom and Concession
Checked by: File Name: 6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, RLC NA 2797 Sout 200 east
AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION Approved by: Date: Midvale, UT 84047-3707 South Salt Lake, UT
PURPOSES RLC 01/20/2017
Field Exploration Description
The exploration locations were marked by Terracon personnel based on the supplied site drawings
in relation to the existing site features, and aerial images. Exploration locations, once completed,
were documented using a recreational-grade, hand-held GPS with an accuracy of approximately
20 feet. The locations of the exploration points should be considered accurate only to the degree
implied by the means and methods used to define them.
The borings were drilled with a truck-mounted rotary drill rig using continuous flight hollow-stem
augers. Samples of the soil encountered in the borings were obtained using the standard split barrel,
Ring sampler and thin-walled tube sampling procedures.
In the split-barrel 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 by means of a
140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches, is the standard penetration resistance value (SPT-
N). This value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and consistency
of cohesive soils.
An automatic hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the auger advanced borings
performed on this site. A significantly greater efficiency is achieved with the automatic hammer
compared to the conventional pin hammer operated with a cathead and rope. This difference in
efficiency has an appreciable effect on the SPT-N value. The effect of the hammer's efficiency has
been considered in the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report.
In the thin-walled tube sampling procedure, a thin-walled, seamless steel tube with a sharp cutting
edge is pushed hydraulically into the soil to obtain a relatively undisturbed sample. Bulk samples
were collected from drill cuttings.
The soil samples were tagged 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 evaluations, boring depths, sampling
intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings prior to the
drill crew leaving the site.
A field log of each boring was prepared by the field engineer. These logs included visual
classifications of the materials encountered during the exploration as well as the field engineer’s
interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final logs included with this report
represent the engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory
observation and tests of the samples.
Reliable Resourceful Responsive Exhibit A-3

BORING LOG NO. B-1 Page 1 of 1
PROJECT: Central Park Restroom and Concessions CLIENT: City of South Salt Lake
South Salt Lake
SITE: 2797 South 200 east
ATTERBERG
LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 STRENGTH TEST
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
SAMPLE TYPE
RECOVERY (In.)
LIMITS
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
WEIGHT (pcf)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
COMPRESSIVE
DRY UNIT
RESULTS
WATER
Latitude: 40.71042729° Longitude: -111.8843747°
STRENGTH
STRAIN (%)
TEST TYPE
(psf)
LL-PL-PI
DEPTH
FILL - SILTY CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL
GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 61175002_CENTRAL PARK RESTROOMS AND CONCESSION.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 1/20/17
(SC-SM), dark brown

17 27-20-7 32
12
7-5-12
N=17
5
12
6-7-1
6.0 N=8
SILTY SAND (SM), light brown, trace gravel
12 19 NP 26
10
10.5
LEAN CLAY (CL), brown to grayish-brown, soft, with 18
2-1-1
oxidation staining N=2
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT.
15
2-2-2
18 33
N=4
16.5
Boring Terminated at 16.5 Feet
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
Advancement Method: See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. Notes:
Hollow Stem Auger
10' - Analytical tests
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).
Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and
Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. abbreviations.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Boring Started: 1/16/2017 Boring Completed: 1/16/2017

8' While drilling
Drill Rig: Geoprobe Driller: DPS
6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100
Midvale, UT Project No.: 61175002 Exhibit: A-4
BORING LOG NO. B-2 Page 1 of 1
PROJECT: Central Park Restroom and Concessions CLIENT: City of South Salt Lake
South Salt Lake
SITE: 2797 South 200 east
ATTERBERG
LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 STRENGTH TEST
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
SAMPLE TYPE
RECOVERY (In.)
LIMITS
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
WEIGHT (pcf)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
COMPRESSIVE
DRY UNIT
RESULTS
WATER
Latitude: 40.71020327° Longitude: -111.8845445°
STRENGTH
STRAIN (%)
TEST TYPE
(psf)
LL-PL-PI
DEPTH
FILL - SANDY ELASTIC SILT (MH), dark brown
GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 61175002_CENTRAL PARK RESTROOMS AND CONCESSION.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 1/20/17
2-2-2
14 44 54-38-16 62
N=4
4.5
FILL - LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, with plastic and wood
fragments 5
14
2-2-2
6.0 N=4
SANDY SILT (ML), light gray, soft to medium-stiff
7.0
SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), light gray, soft to
medium-stiff
8.0
SILTY SAND (SM), light brown, medium dense 2-7-9
12 20
N=16
9.5
SILT WITH SAND (ML), grayish-brown to gray, soft
10
24 29 NP 77
12.0
LEAN CLAY (CL), grayish-brown to gray, soft, with
oxidation staining, trace gravel
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT.
15
18
1-2-2
N=4
16.5
Boring Terminated at 16.5 Feet
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
Advancement Method: See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. Notes:
Hollow Stem Auger
10' - UU Triaxial, Consolidation
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).
Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and
Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. abbreviations.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Boring Started: 1/16/2017 Boring Completed: 1/16/2017

6' While drilling
Drill Rig: Geoprobe Driller: DPS
Midvale, UT Project No.: 61175002 Exhibit: A-5
APPENDIX B
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Laboratory Testing
As part of the testing program, all samples were examined in the laboratory by experienced
personnel and classified in accordance with the attached General Notes and the Unified Soil
Classification System based on the texture and plasticity of the soils. The group symbol for the
Unified Soil Classification System is shown in the appropriate column on the boring logs and a
brief description of the classification system is included with this report in the Appendix.
At that time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable
laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface
materials.
Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in
this appendix. The laboratory test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses,
and the development of foundation and earthwork recommendations. Laboratory tests were
performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards.
Selected soil samples obtained from the site were tested for the following engineering properties:
 Dry Unit Weight  In-situ Water Content

 Sieve Analysis  Consolidation
 Atterberg Limits  Unconsolidated Un-drained
 Sulfates Triaxial
 Percent Fines  pH
 Resistivity
Reliable Resourceful Responsive Exhibit B-1

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D422 / ASTM C136
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140
100 0
95
90 10
85
80 20
75
70 30
65
GRAIN SIZE: USCS 1 61175002_CENTRAL PARK RESTROOMS AND CONCESSION.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 1/25/17
60 40
PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
55
50 50
45
40 60
35
30 70
25
20 80
15
10 90
0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL SAND
COBBLES SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine coarse medium fine
BORING ID DEPTH % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % FINES % CLAY USCS

B-1 0-2 0.0 18.3 49.5 32.1 SC-SM
LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT.
SIEVE PERCENT FINER SOIL DESCRIPTION

(size) SILTY, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL
(SC-SM)
GRAIN SIZE
D60 0.587
D30 REMARKS
D10
COEFFICIENTS
CC
CU
PROJECT: Central Park Restroom and

Concessions PROJECT NUMBER: 61175002
SITE: 2797 South 200 east CLIENT: City of South Salt Lake
South Salt Lake, Utah South Salt Lake
Midvale, UT EXHIBIT: B-2
Consolidation Test Data (ASTM D 2435-04 )
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
VERTICAL STRAIN, %
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
0.1 1 10 100
VERTICAL STRESS, ksf
Before Consolidation
Sample Diameter (in): 2.50 Moist Unit Weight (pcf): 119

Sample Height (in): 1 Moisture Content (%): 32
Sample Volume (cf): 0.0028 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 90
After Consolidation
Sample Diameter (in): 2.50 Moist Unit Weight (pcf): 133

Sample Height (in): 0.8591 Moisture Content (%): 27
Sample Volume (cf): 0.0024 Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 105
Liquid Limit: NP Percent Fines: 77.1

Plasticity Index: NP Classification: ML
Project Name: Central Park Restroom and Conce

Project No.: 61175002
Location: Salt Lake City
Sample: B-2 @ 10
Exhibit: B-3
INORGANIC ANALYTICAL REPORT
Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Contact: Charles Molthen
Project: Central Park Restroom and Concessions / 61175002
Lab Sample ID: 1701237-001
Client Sample ID: B-1 @ 10
Collection Date: 1/16/2017 950h
Received Date: 1/17/2017 910h
Analytical Results
Date Date Method Reporting Analytical

Compound Units Prepared Analyzed Used Limit Result Qual
3440 South 700 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119 pH @ 25° C pH Units 1/17/2017 1423h SW9045D 1.00 7.24 H
Resistivity ohm-cm 1/17/2017 1400h 1/19/2017 539h SM2510B 10.0 1,540 &
Sulfate mg/kg-dry 1/17/2017 1400h 1/19/2017 633h SM4500-SO4-E 66.6 182 &
& - Analysis is performed on a 1:1 DI water extract for soils.

Phone: (801) 263-8686
H - Sample was received outside of the holding time.
Toll Free: (888) 263-8686
Fax: (801) 263-8687
e-mail: awal@awal-labs.com
web: www.awal-labs.com
Kyle F. Gross
Laboratory Director
Jose Rocha
QA Officer
Exhibit: B-4
Report Date: 1/19/2017 Page 2 of 2
All analyses applicable to the CWA, SDWA, and RCRA are performed in accordance to NELAC protocols. Pertinent sampling information is located on the attached COC. Confidential Business Information: This report is provided for the exclusive use of the
addressee. Privileges of subsequent use of the name of this company or any member of its staff, or reproduction of this report in connection with the advertisement, promotion or sale of any product or process, or in connection with the re-publication of this report
for any purpose other than for the addressee will be granted only on contact. This company accepts no responsibility except for the due performance of inspection and/or analysis in good faith and according to the rules of the trade and of science.
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D2850) © IGES 2005, 2017
Project: Terracon Boring No.: B-2

No: M00385-167 (61175002) Sample:
Location: Central Park Restroom and Concessions Depth: 10.0-12.0'
Date: 1/23/2017 Sample Description: Brown/grey mottled clay
By: NB Sample type: Undisturbed
Specific gravity, Gs 2.70 Assumed

Sample height, H (in.) 6.312
Sample diameter, D (in.) 2.860
3
Sample volume, V (ft ) 0.0235 Wet soil + tare (g) 280.82
Wt. rings + wet soil (g) 1255.66 Dry soil + tare (g) 246.79
Wt. rings/tare (g) 0.00 Tare (g) 140.58
Moist soil, Ws (g) 1255.66 Water content, w (%) 32.0
Moist unit wt., m (pcf) 118.0 Confining stress,3 (psf) 1150
Dry unit wt., d (pcf) 89.3 Shear rate (in/min) 0.0189
Saturation (%) 97.2 Strain at failure, f (%) 17.95
Void ratio, e 0.89 Deviator stress at failure, 1-3)f (psf) 2245
Axial d Q Shear stress at failure, qf = 1-3)f/2 (psf) 1123
Strain 1-3 1/2 d
(%) (psf) (psf) 2500
0.00 0.0 0.0
0.05 128.3 64.2
0.10 220.6 110.3 2245
0.15 303.9 152.0
0.20 372.2 186.1
0.25 437.5 218.7
0.30 493.7 246.9 Maximum data point 54
0.35
0.40
544.0
591.2
272.0
295.6 2000 Strain at Max
max deviator stress 17.949
deviator stress 2245.45
0.45 635.3 317.7 Max shear stress 1122.725
0.70 831.9 415.9
0.95 1006.6 503.3
1.20 1151.0 575.5
Deviator stress, 1-3 (psf)
1.45 1271.0 635.5

1.70 1369.8 684.9
1.95 1459.3 729.6
2.20 1530.8 765.4 1500
2.45 1590.3 795.1
2.70 1643.6 821.8
2.95 1690.8 845.4
3.20 1729.0 864.5
3.45 1767.0 883.5
3.70 1799.1 899.5
3.95 1831.0 915.5
4.20 1856.9 928.4 1000
4.45 1882.7 941.3
4.70 1902.6 951.3
4.95 1925.2 962.6
5.45 1958.7 979.3
5.95 1991.7 995.8
6.45 2015.8 1007.9
6.95 2039.6 1019.8
7.45 2065.7 1032.8
7.95 2083.2 1041.6 500
8.45 2103.0 1051.5
8.95 2117.1 1058.5
9.45 2128.1 1064.0
9.95 2136.3 1068.1
10.45 2149.4 1074.7
10.95 2159.7 1079.8
11.45 2169.7 1084.8
11.95 2179.4 1089.7 0
12.45 2186.2 1093.1
12.95 2190.2 1095.1 0 5 10 15 20
13.45 2199.2 1099.6
13.95 2205.2 1102.6 Axial strain (%)
14.45 2216.2 1108.1
14.95 2221.8 1110.9
15.45 2227.2 1113.6
15.95 2229.8 1114.9
16.45 2237.2 1118.6
16.95 2239.4 1119.7
17.45 2243.8 1121.9
17.95 2245.5 1122.7
18.45 2244.6 1122.3
18.95 2241.1 1120.5 Exhibit: B-5
19.45 2242.2 1121.1
Entered by:___________
19.89 2242.6 1121.3
Reviewed:___________ Z:\PROJECTS\M00385_Terracon\167_Central_Park\[UUv1.xlsm]1
APPENDIX C
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
GENERAL NOTES
DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
SS: Split Spoon - 1-3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger
ST: Thin-Walled Tube – 2” O.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger (Solid Stem)
RS: Ring Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger
DB: Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B RB: Rock Bit
BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB Wash Boring or Mud Rotary
The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch
penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the “Standard Penetration” or “N-value”.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:

WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling BCR: Before Casing Removal
WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling ACR: After Casing Removal
DCI: Dry Cave in AB: After Boring N/E: Not Encountered
Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other
times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In
low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations.
DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils
have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand.
Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are
plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be
added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis
of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Unconfined Standard Penetration Standard Penetration
Compressive or N-value (SS) Consistency or N-value (SS) Relative Density
Strength, Qu, psf Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft.
< 500 0–1 Very Soft 0–3 Very Loose
500 – 1,000 2–3 Soft 4–9 Loose
1,000 – 2,000 4–6 Medium Stiff 10 – 29 Medium Dense
2,000 – 4,000 7 – 12 Stiff 30 – 50 Dense
4,000 – 8,000 13 – 26 Very Stiff > 50 Very Dense
8,000+ > 26 Hard
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

Descriptive Term(s) Percent of Major Component
Particle Size
of other constituents Dry Weight of Sample
Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm)
With 15 – 29 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)
Modifier ≥ 30 Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75mm)
Sand #4 to #200 sieve (4.75 to 0.075mm)
Silt or Clay Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm)
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Descriptive Term(s) Percent of Plasticity
Term
of other constituents Dry Weight Index
Trace <5 Non-plastic 0
With 5 – 12 Low 1 – 10
Modifier > 12 Medium 11 – 30
High > 30
Rev. 4/10
Exhibit C-1
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Soil Classification
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Group
Group Name B
Symbol
Gravels: Clean Gravels: Cu  4 and 1  Cc  3 E GW Well-graded gravel F
More than 50% of Less than 5% fines C Cu  4 and/or 1  Cc  3 E
GP Poorly graded gravel F
coarse fraction retained Gravels with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H
Coarse Grained Soils: on No. 4 sieve More than 12% fines C Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H
More than 50% retained
on No. 200 sieve Sands: Clean Sands: Cu  6 and 1  Cc  3 E
SW Well-graded sand I
50% or more of coarse Less than 5% fines D Cu  6 and/or 1  Cc  3 E
SP Poorly graded sand I
fraction passes No. 4 Sands with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I
sieve More than 12% fines D Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I
PI  7 and plots on or above “A” line J
CL Lean clay K,L,M
Inorganic:
Silts and Clays: PI  4 or plots below “A” line J
ML Silt K,L,M
Liquid limit less than 50 Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay K,L,M,N
Fine-Grained Soils: Organic:  0.75 OL
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O
50% or more passes the
No. 200 sieve PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M
Inorganic:
Silts and Clays: PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M
Liquid limit 50 or more Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay K,L,M,P
Organic:  0.75 OH
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 H
If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.
B
If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles I
If soil contains  15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
or boulders, or both” to group name. J
If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
C
Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded K
If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,”
gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly whichever is predominant.
graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. L
If soil contains  30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to
D
Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded group name.
sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded M
If soil contains  30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add
sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay “gravelly” to group name.
(D 30 )
2 N
PI  4 and plots on or above “A” line.
E
Cu = D60/D10 Cc = O
PI  4 or plots below “A” line.
D 10 x D 60 P
PI plots on or above “A” line.
Q
PI plots below “A” line.
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.
Exhibit C-2

Floor Slab

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Floor Slab

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Central Park Restroom and Concessions

Reliable Resourceful Responsive

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

APPENDIX B – SUPPORTING INFORMATION

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Reliable Resourceful Responsive

 Undocumented Fill: Existing fill materials appeared to be variable in composition and

 Earthwork: Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon.

Reliable Resourceful Responsive i

Reliable Resourceful Responsive ii

 subsurface soil conditions  foundation design and construction

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 1

2.2 Site Location

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Profile

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 2

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 3

Geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation systems and other earth-connected

4.2.1 Site Preparation

Although evidence of underground facilities, such as septic tanks, building components,

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 4

4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation

4.2.3 Material Requirements

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 5

4.2.4 Compaction Requirements

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 6

4.2.5 Utility Trench Backfill

4.2.6 Grading and Drainage

4.2.7 Earthwork Construction Considerations

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 7

4.3.1 Shallow Spread Footing

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 8

4.3.2 Foundation Construction Considerations

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 9

4.3.3 Drilled Piers

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 10

SUBSURFACE PARAMETERS FOR SHAFT CAPACITY

8 16½ 6½ 120 600 1,800 190 190

SUBSURFACE PARAMETERS FOR SHAFT CAPACITY

10 16½ 6½ 120 600 1,800 190 190

Qallow = (Q)(d2)/4 +  ∑ (sd)(d)(ti) [pounds]

Where: Q = allowable bearing pressure (psf)

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 11

su = allowable skin friction in uplift (psf)

4.3.4 Foundation Construction Considerations

4.4 Floor Slabs

4.4.1 Floor Slab Design Recommendations

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 12

4.4.2 Floor Slab Construction Considerations

4.5 Seismic Considerations

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 13

4.6 Chemical Testing

 Electrical resistivity less than 2,000 ohm-cm

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 14

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Reliable Resourceful Responsive 15

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF

Field Exploration Description