Geotechnical Report Ammon VillageBuilding on Excellence
January 21, 2022
P22296
Mr. Michael Knight
Connect Engineering
2296 North Yellowstone Hwy, #6
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
RE: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Geotechnical Evaluation
Ammon Village
Idaho Falls, Idaho
Michael:
Xcell Engineering has performed the authorized geotechnical evaluation for the Ammon
Village in Idaho Falls, Idaho in accordance with our proposal Dated November 9, 2021. This
evaluation was performed to assess the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the
proposed site. Geotechnical information in this report will be used to assist project planning,
conceptual design and construction.
This report summarizes the results of our field evaluation, provides laboratory test results
and presents our geotechnical findings, opinions and recommendations. Specific geotechnical
information is included in this report for soil and groundwater characteristics encountered during
our field exploration. The report provides information based solely on our understanding of the
project concept. If project plans are modified or if anticipated conditions change, Xcell
Engineering Should be notified. Site dewatering during and post construction may be a significant
component of design and construction for the project. Geotechnical input with respect to design
and construction of a dewatering system can be provided to the contractor as part of a separate
scope of work during the contractor’s design of the dewatering systems. Individual portions of this
report cannot be relied upon without the supporting text throughout the report and in subsequent
addendums.
It has been our experience that maintaining geotechnical design continuity through all
phases of the project reduces the potential for soil-engineering related errors during design and
construction and contributes to overall project success and economy. We appreciate the
opportunity to work with you on this project. Please contact our office if you have questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
Xcell Engineering, LLC
J. Paul Bastian, PE
Project Engineer
Xcell Engineering, LLC
260 Laurel Lane
Chubbuck, ID 83202
Phone (208) 237-5900
Fax (208) 237-5925
E-mail: paul@xcelleng.com
1/21/22
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 1
SITE EVALUATION .................................................................................................. 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 2
LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................................................................... 2
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................ 3
GEOTECHNICAL OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 4
Foundations ....................................................................................................... 5
Lateral Earth Pressure and Coefficient of Friction .............................................. 5
Seismic Considerations...................................................................................... 7
Concrete ............................................................................................................ 7
Utility Trench Backfill .......................................................................................... 7
Surface Drainage and Erosion ........................................................................... 7
Site Maintenance ............................................................................................... 7
Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Section Design ....................................... 8
REVIEW OF PLANS ................................................................................................. 9
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ................................................. 9
EVALUATION LIMITATIONS .................................................................................... 9
Building on Excellence
REPORT
Geotechnical Evaluation
Ammon Village
Idaho Falls, ID
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the
Ammon Village site as shown on the attached site plan, plate 1. The parcel consists of
two relatively flat parcels located north and south of E49th South (Township Road). The
purpose of this evaluation was to characterize the subsurface soil and water conditions
to prepare geotechnical opinions and recommendations for planning, design and
construction of the residential community. To accomplish this evaluation, we performed
the following services:
1. Reviewed data from evaluations near the site and subsurface soil and water
conditions in the area.
2. Coordinated with Digline and City personnel to avoid existing utilities at the site.
3. Observed 19 exploratory test pits at the site to depths of up to 11 feet. The soils
encountered were described and classified referencing ASTM D 2488 and D
2487, Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Select soil samples were
obtained for laboratory testing and the soil profiles logged. Test pit logs
accompany this report in the appendix.
4. Analyzed soil test data to provide engineering and construction earthwork
recommendations.
5. Performed analyses based on project plans and prepared geotechnical
recommendations for foundation bearing soil, allowable bearing pressure, static
and dynamic lateral earth pressures, excavation characteristics, temporary
excavations, structural fill and earthwork, seismicity and pavement design.
6. One unbound copy and one electronic copy of this report have been provided for
your use.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
We understand construction may include multiple one to three story wood
buildings, access roads, ancillary community service buildings, retaining walls, partial
basements and open spaces.
Ammon Village
Idaho Falls, ID
P22296
Page 2
Building on Excellence
SITE EVALUATION
Xcell Engineering observed nineteen test pits on the site on January 13, 2022.
Samples recovered from the test locations were returned to our laboratory for testing.
Soil types encountered in the test pits were evaluated and logged in the field by an
engineer from our office referencing the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A
thorough explanation of the USCS is presented on Plate 2. The USCS should be used
to interpret the terms on the test pit logs and throughout this report.
Subsurface Conditions
Soil conditions are relatively uniform across the site both north and south of
Township Road. The soil profile observed consists of 1 to 4 feet of dark brown clay
underlain by light brown loose to medium dense fine sandy silt having 64 to 65% by
weight passing the No. 200 sieve. The silt is underlain by dense sandy gravel having a
unit weight of approximately 135 to 138 pounds per cubic foot when compacted.
Maximum aggregate observed in the gravel was approximately 4-inches. Groundwater
was not encountered in any of the test pits. However, this is unsurprising as the gravel
is highly permeable and groundwater levels in the area are most influenced by spring
water levels and irrigation neither of which was a factor at the time the test pits were
excavated.
Laboratory Testing
Select soil samples were tested to assess friction angle, moisture content,
Atterberg Limits and grain-size distribution. Lab test results are summarized in this
section and impact on the project are presented in the following section.
The dark brown clay is moderately to highly plastic having a plasticity index
ranging from 28 to 42. The percentage by weight retained on the No. 200 sieve is small
enough that it does not material effect the engineering properties of the soil. Correlation
of the Plasticity Index and the % by weight passing the No. 200 Sieve indicates a
modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of about 130 pounds per square inch per inch. This
also correlates to subgrade “R” value of 15 with 70 being the highest value and 11 the
lowest possible.
The underlying light brown silt has friction angle of 32˚ when compacted and
saturated. An ASTM D-698 maximum dry unit weight of approximately 105 pounds per
cubic foot and a modulus of subgrade reaction of 165 corresponding to an “R” Value of
30. Particle shape is angular to subangular and the void ratio can vary from 10 to 40%.
The sandy gravel underlying the entire site inclusive of both parcels is dense
having 0.2 to 10% by weight passing the No. 200 sieve. Aggregate comprising the
gravel is largely microcrystalline quartz that is both hard and durable with little to no
crushing at stresses up to 15,000 pounds per square foot. The gravel is a depositional
Ammon Village
Idaho Falls, ID
P22296
Page 3
Building on Excellence
stratum that was originally deposited during the Lake Bonneville outwash event(s) and
subsequently consolidated by seismic acceleration presumable when in a saturated or
near saturated condition.
DISCUSSION
The dark brown clay soil on the site is moderately to highly plastic and will undergo
a significant loss of shear strength when saturated. While it is not frost sensitive to any
great degree it is moisture sensitive. This means the clay soil is (1) unsuitable for support
of foundations and (2) will require heavier pavement sections to prevent premature failure
of paved surfaces when subjected to the anticipated traffic. Access gravel driveways
during construction should consist of at least 24-inches of gravel to support construction
traffic. The upper 2-3 inches of the clay contains roots and a higher percentage of organic
material and must be removed in all building, road, pavement and improvement locations.
The underlying native silt has much lower plasticity and a higher shear strength. It is
both frost and moisture sensitive. This means that due to its gradation it will be prone to
develop ice lenses and subsequent heaving when liquid water in the soil occurs in
conjunction with freezing ground temperatures. In addition, the silt is prone to collapse
consolidation when wetted. Collapse typically occurs quickly and is accompanied by a 2-
5% reduction in overall volume. This is perceived as differential settlement or general
settlement and results in unsatisfactory performance of foundations and pavements. Dry
silt with in-situ moisture content less than 7% by weight is most prone to collapse and
resulting property damage. For the conditions indicated above it is imperative that good
site grading and drainage be achieved to prevent ponding of water near any and all
improvements. Failure to achieve adequate drainage will result in frost heaving and poor
foundation performance.
The dense underlying sandy gravel is hard and durable. It is neither frost nor
moisture sensitive. Gradation of the sand component of the gravel varies from fine sand to
fine to coarse sand. When the sand component is fine to coarse the gravel has higher
stability and is less prone to shoving and lateral movement under compaction equipment.
The native gravel is suitable for use as structural fill. The design infiltration rated
recommended for the underlying gravel is 10-minutes per inch. Shear wave velocity of the
sandy gravel in a dense condition is estimated to be between 1200 and 2400 ft/sec.
Depth to seasonal high groundwater is not known and the potential risk to basements
and buried structures posed by seasonal high water is undefined. Construction in the
area does not indicate high seasonal groundwater. However, it should be understood
that the underlying gravel is highly permeable and water will flow through the gravel at
an estimated rate of 1x10-2 cm/second. Installation and monitoring of piezometers to a
depth of 10-feet is recommended this spring to verify ground water information in the
depth of anticipated construction.
Ammon Village
Idaho Falls, ID
P22296
Page 4
Building on Excellence
GEOTECHNICAL OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Provided the following recommendations are implemented excavations
constructed no steeper than 1:1 H:V will be stable in static conditions. However, the
contractor will ultimately be responsible for excavation stability and site safety. Isolated,
local flattening of slopes should be expected. Introduction of water on the slope will
result in instability in the form of surficial mass movement (sloughing) and flow.
Therefore, site drainage should be performed to prevent water from any source flowing
over or exiting any slope.
Temporary deep trench excavation support in the form of steel trench boxes, and
other means of trench wall protection can be used for trenches on the project. If trench
boxes or other means of temporary support of pipe excavations is used, the trench box
or shoring should be of sufficient width to be able to install the pipe, pipe bedding, and
provide safe and productive working conditions. We recommend a licensed engineer
design any shoring plans required for excavation.
Minor sloughing of the soil, represented in this report, could occur for excavation
side slopes at 1:1H:V, requiring appropriate maintenance and protection for workers
and equipment. Caving may cause trench boxes to become lodged, requiring additional
time to remove soil debris adjacent to, and confining the box and to move the box to a
new location. Rain and other water sources will increase the potential for caving and
sloughing of the soils. Excavation equipment and other construction procedures must
be selected to avoid inducing dynamic loading (vibration) which could increase soil pore
water pressure causing local instability, which may lead to both side slope and
foundation soil instability of excavations.
Structural Fill
Structural fill should not contain debris, frozen clods, vegetation or organic matter
and should consist of granular soil classified as GW, GP or GM soil types as designated
by the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), Plate 2. Structural fill should not
contain rocks or aggregate larger than 6 inches in diameter. Granular drain rock should
be 1 to 2 inches in diameter and should be free draining. The on-site sand and gravel
may be used as structural fill, but will require sufficient moisture conditioning to allow the
contractor to achieve compaction. The contractor should anticipate moisture
conditioning when using the native soils. Imported structural fill must meet the above
criteria and should be moisture conditioned to achieve compaction.
We recommend structural fill be placed in maximum eight-inch-thick, loose lifts at
near-optimum moisture content. Structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to
at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the soil as determined by ASTM D
698 (standard Proctor). Xcell should provide initial construction observation to help
establish compaction methods and parameters and to verify that compaction
specifications are met.
These compaction requirements assume large (five-ton drum weight or larger)
compaction equipment such as sheep’s-foot rollers or smooth-drum rollers will be used.
The lift thickness must be reduced when using light compaction equipment with less
Ammon Village
Idaho Falls, ID
P22296
Page 5
Building on Excellence
than five-ton drum weight. If earthwork and structural fill placement is completed under
wet conditions, we recommend the contractor have contingencies for replacing soft, wet
soil with structural fill or drain rock. Structural fill should never be placed over disturbed
or frozen subgrade. We recommend Xcell be retained to evaluate the condition and
suitability of on-site soil for reuse as structural fill and to monitor compaction during
structural fill placement.
Foundations
A modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 350 pounds per square inch per inch (pci)
can be used for design of foundations supported by the native gravel. The native clay
will only provide a subgrade modulus of 150. If subgrade becomes saturated soft or
disturbed replacement should be in accordance with the Structural Fill and Site section
of this report. The modulus presupposes at least 6-inches of compacted sand below
concrete floors or slabs. If the upper 12-inches of native soils are compacted to at least
95% of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM test D-698 the design bearing
capacity for foundations supported by dense, native gravel and compacted native
clay/silt is 5000 psf and 1500 psf respectively. All footings must be at least 36-inches
below outside adjacent grade. If native gravel is not encountered at footing subgrade
elevation, we recommend the native silty clay be removed to contact the native gravel
or to a depth of 2 feet below footing subgrade whichever is less. In this case the design
bearing value should be reduced to 2500 psf.
Under no circumstances should part of a building be supported by the native
dense gravel and part on silt/clay or compacted gravel over silt/clay. This will increase
the potential for differential settlement and Xcell should be contacted to provide
direction prior to proceeding. We estimate total and differential static foundation
settlement for shallow conventional spread footings will be less than 1-inch and 1/2-inch
in 30 feet, respectively.
All placed structural fill shall be maintained to line and grade and traffic shall be
limited to essential light material handling equipment having a gross vehicle weight of
10,000 pounds or less. All building pad surfaces shall be re-graded or dressed prior to
placement of forms or reinforcing steel and all traffic shall be prohibited on dressed
surfaces.
Lateral Earth Pressure and Coefficient of Friction
Friction angle of the sandy gravel was determined by Direct Shear Testing in a
saturated condition. The friction angle was determined to be at least 32˚ All retaining
and foundation wall systems should be designed to resist lateral earth pressure from the
retained soil behind the structure, hydrostatic pressure and surcharge from equipment,
slopes or vehicles adjacent to the walls. We recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.45
Ammon Village
Idaho Falls, ID
P22296
Page 6
Building on Excellence
be used for footing and wall design for concrete cast directly on the silty sand or well
graded sand.
We recommend lateral earth pressures for conventional wall systems are
estimated using the following equivalent fluid pressures from Table 1.
Rankine Lateral Earth Pressure Case *Equivalent Fluid Pressure (EFP)
At rest case
(No wall movement)
Native Gravel Silt/ Clay
65 pcf 70 pcf
Active case
(Wall movement away from soil mass) 45 pcf 50 pcf
Passive case
(Wall movement toward soil mass) 425 pcf 300 pcf
*Does not include the unit weight of water. If subsurface retaining structures are undrained lateral earth pressures
must be increases by the fluid weight of water and the depth retained (62.4 pcf)
Table 1. Rankine Lateral Earth Pressures
Lateral surcharge pressures, due to equipment, slopes, storage loads or
hydrostatic pressure below the water table have not been included in the above lateral
earth pressure recommendations. The lateral earth pressure coefficient of 0.5, acting
over the entire wall height could be used to estimate the lateral earth pressure induced
on walls due to adjacent surcharge loads from equipment and the slope behind the
structure. Below-grade walls will be subject to load influences from adjacent equipment
structures and foundations.
The design of below-grade walls should account for seismic load using an
equivalent, dynamic lateral load of 15(H) where H is the wall Height. The dynamic
pressure will act at an angle of approximately 15 below perpendicular. The seismic
pressure acts as an inverted triangle with its resultant acting 0.6 times the wall height
measured from the base of the wall. The above estimated passive equivalent fluid
pressure should be reduced to 340 and 175 pcf for gravel and silt/clay respectively
during earthquake loading conditions without liquefaction effects. While liquefaction at
this site is not anticipated, in the event that groundwater is encountered Xcell should be
notified immediately.
Care must be taken in the use of heavy equipment near the face of walls (in a
zone extending 5 feet back from the wall) to avoid creating an undesirable degree of
over-compaction in the soil immediately along the walls and imposing high stresses on
the walls. Walls designed for little or no wall movement should be monitored during the
backfilling process through survey and string line methods. Below-grade walls should
adhere to the compaction requirements described in the structural fill section of this
report. All soil retaining walls should include wall drainage systems to prevent
Ammon Village
Idaho Falls, ID
P22296
Page 7
Building on Excellence
accumulation of water on the soil side of the wall. This is especially important with
regard to basements and water that may be deposited from downspouts.
Seismic Considerations
We understand the 2021 International Residential Building Code (IRC) will be
used in conjunction with the 2021 International Building Code (IBC) for project design.
Section 1613 of the 2020 IBC outlines the procedure for evaluating site ground motions
and design-spectral response accelerations. Soil and geologic data and the project
location was used to establish earthquake-loading criteria at the site referencing the
IBC. Based on the results from initial exploration, and our review of well logs in the
area, a Site Class D can be used indicating a site category of IV. Spectral response
information is included in the appendix to this evaluation.
Concrete
Based on our past experience in the vicinity of the, Type I/II cement is expected
to be suitable for use in concrete at the site. However, corrosivity to uncoated steel is
expected to be low to moderate within the top 10 feet of the soil profile. Depending on
intended use higher sulphate resistance may be required
Utility Trench Backfill
All saturated, loose, or disturbed soil should be removed from the base of utility
trenches prior to placing pipe bedding. Bedding of pipes in utility trenches should be
performed to uniformly bed and provide haunches for pipe placed.
Surface Drainage and Erosion
We recommend the ground surface around the proposed facilities be sloped at
least 2-3 percent away from the structures. This will reduce the potential for ponding
and water infiltration into the subsurface soils around the structures. Water shall not be
permitted to pond stand or collect near any improvements. Transport and collection
grading and/or facilities for stormwater and runoff are required. Establishing and
maintaining appropriate vegetation types at the site will also reduce erosion concerns.
Care should be taken to adequately compact backfill against basement wall to avoid
subsequent settlement and ponding near the structure.
Site Maintenance
Site maintenance should be expected and included in planning of facilities and
operating budgets, etc., as appropriate. This may include maintaining grades to drain
properly, patching/sealing asphalt surfaces, restoring soils or erosion control materials
removed from slope or foundation areas by animal activity, wind or water erosion, etc.
The on-site personnel (e.g., maintenance staff, etc.) should be informed of these
concerns, and be made aware that the costs of on-going maintenance are generally
much less than repairs after periods of neglect.
Ammon Village
Idaho Falls, ID
P22296
Page 8
Building on Excellence
Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Section Design
We estimate traffic total volumes will be approximately 34,400 Equivalent Axle
Loads (EAL) during the life of pavement. This traffic estimate is based on 1000
automobiles, 10 two axel trucks 4 three axel-trucks, and 1 four axel trucks per day. We
anticipate the subgrade will consist of sandy silty clay with an estimated R-value of 15
or slightly better. Xcell must evaluate soil imported to raise site grades to the pavement
subgrade and the pavement sections presented below should be amended to reflect the
changed condition. Specific R-value testing of imported structural fill could economize
the pavement section presented below.
Factors used to design this pavement section were based on empirical data
obtained through field and laboratory testing, our estimates of traffic volumes for the
proposed pavement areas and our understanding of the use for the pavement. Our
pavement design and subgrade preparation recommendations reflect these anticipated
loading applications and no construction traffic. If subgrade conditions appear
significantly different during construction, if traffic loading conditions change or traffic
volumes increase, Xcell should be notified to amend our recommendations accordingly.
If construction equipment or traffic will access portions of the planned structures, the
pavement section will require an evaluation specific to planned equipment.
The pavement subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density of the soil as determined by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor) as
discussed in the Site and Subgrade Preparation section. Xcell should be retained to
verify the native subgrade has been re-compacted to structural fill requirements.
Providing the site preparation procedures are accomplished as described above, the
following minimum pavement sections are recommended for light duty and heavy-duty
traffic areas:
Light Duty Asphalt Pavement
2.75”- Class III asphalt concrete top course
4.5”- ¾-inch-minus, crushed sand and gravel base course
14.0”- Pit-run sand and gravel subbase course
or
2.75”-Class III asphalt concrete top course
15.0” –3/4-inch-minus crushed sand and gravel base course
The above-recommended flexible pavement sections are based on a maximum 20-
year design life. Asphalt and aggregate support characteristics were estimated based on
our experience with aggregate materials in the area.
The subbase should consist of 4-inch-minus, well-graded sand with less than 9
percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The base course should consist of 3/4-inch-minus,
well-graded, crushed sand and gravel with less than 9 percent passing the No. 200 sieve.
The subbase and base course should be compacted to structural fill requirements.
Asphalt concrete for flexible pavement should have material properties as
specified in ASTM D 3515 and have a mix design with a maximum aggregate size from
½ to ¾ inches. The asphalt concrete should be compacted to at least 92% of the
maximum theoretical density but not more than 96% as this can damage the pavement
and lead to raveling and unsatisfactory performance.
Ammon Village
Idaho Falls, ID
P22296
Page 9
Building on Excellence
We recommend crack maintenance be accomplished in all pavement areas as
needed and at least every three to five years to reduce the potential for surface water
infiltration into the pavement section and underlying subgrade. Therefore, we
recommend the subgrade, base and asphalt surfaces slope at no less than two percent
to an appropriate storm water disposal system or other appropriate location that does
not impact adjacent structures. The life of the pavement will be dependent on achieving
adequate drainage throughout the section, especially at the subgrade, since water that
ponds at the subgrade surface can induce heaving during freeze-thaw processes.
REVIEW OF PLANS
Xcell must be retained to review final plans for the proposed project to evaluate
our geotechnical recommendations and provide amendments to this report based on
actual structure configurations and loading conditions. Without reviewing the project
plans, we cannot be responsible for the geotechnical recommendations provided herein,
since we do not have an understanding of the planned project.
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
It is our opinion the success of the proposed construction will be dependent on
following the report recommendations, good construction practices and providing the
necessary geotechnical construction observation, testing and consultation to verify the
work has been completed as recommended. We recommend Xcell be included on the
construction testing distribution list to verify our report recommendations and related
project specifications are being followed. If we are not retained to perform the
recommended services, we cannot be responsible for geotechnical related construction
errors or omissions.
EVALUATION LIMITATIONS
The opinions and recommendations contained herein are based on findings and
observations made at the time of our subsurface evaluation. Our services consist of
professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with generally
accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This acknowledgement is
in lieu of all warranties, either expressed or implied.
This document has been prepared to provide preliminary geotechnical
information to the engineering design team during the initial stages of project design. It
is understood that changes and modifications to the proposed project are likely. We
recommend contractors verify the soil and groundwater conditions that have been
represented in this report by performing the necessary evaluation and design to obtain
the data they feel are necessary to complete construction design and planning,
specifically dewatering. This report shall not be used as a stand-alone tool to facilitate
bids, project submittals and construction planning. Also, we recommend a pre-
Ammon Village
Idaho Falls, ID
P22296
Page 10
Building on Excellence
construction survey be completed on all nearby structures that are considered to be
potential candidates for disturbance, settlement or other adverse performance
associated with the planned construction.
The following plates accompany and complete this report:
Plate 1: Site Plan
Plate 2: Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Appendix: Exploratory Logs
Seismic Design Response Spectrum
Bearing Capacity – Meyerhof (2)
Lateral Earth Pressures (2)
Flexible Pavement Design
References:
1. Highway Engineering 5th Edition Wright & Paquette pp 482-488.
2. NAVFAC Design Manual 7.02 Foundations & Earth Structures, 1986 7.2-63 Table 1.
3. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Sep 1999 Volume 125 Seismic
Earth Pressure on Retaining Structures, Richards, Huang & Fishman pp 771.
4. International Building Code – 2020 Chapters 16, 18 and 19.
5. International Residential Code - 2021.
6. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, Braja M. Das, PWS Publishers 1985.
7. Series in Soil Engineering – Soil Mechanics, Lambe & Whitman, Wiley 1969.
8. Soil Mechanic in Engineering Practice 3rd Edition, Terzaghi, Peck & Mesri Wiley 1996.
9. NAVFAC Design Manual 7.01Soil Mechanics, 1986.
10. US EPA Siting Tool http://epamap20.epa.gov/tri/emtri.asp
11. USGS Earthquake Hazards Program OSHPD Ref ASCE7-16
12. Google Earth Mapping Software.
13. Simplified Procedure for Evaluating soil Liquefaction Potential, Izzat M. Idriss, Journal of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE Vol 97, No. SM9 September, 1971.
....................................................................................................................................
TP#1
TP#6
TP#2
TP#3 TP#4
TP#5
TP#7 TP#8 TP#9
TP#10 TP#11 TP#12 TP#13 TP#14
TP#15 TP#16
TP#17
TP#18 TP#19
AMMON VILLAGE
SITE PLAN
Plate 1
Group
Symbol
(a)
Typical Names Information Required
for Describing Soils
GW Well graded gravels, gravel
sand mixtures, little or no fines
GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel
sand mixtures, little or no fines
GM Silty gravels, poorly graded
gravel-sand-silt mixtures
Atterberg limits below
"A" line or PI<4
GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded
gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Atterberg limits above
"A" line with PI>7
SW Well graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand-
silt mixtures
Atterberg limits below
"A" line or PI<4
SC Clayey sands, poorly graded
sand-clay mixtures
Atterberg limits below
"A" line with PI>7
Dry Strength Dilatancy Toughness
None to slight Quick to slow None ML
Inorganic silts and very fine
sands, rock flour, silty or clayey
fine sand with slight plasticity
Medium to high None to very slow Medium CL
Inorganic clays of low to
medium plasticity, lean clays,
may be gravelly, sandy or silty.
Slight to
medium Slow Slight OL
Organic silts and organic silt-
clays of low plasticity
Slight to
medium Slow to none Slight to medium MH
Inorganic silts micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sandy or silty
soils, elastic silts
High to very
high None High CH
Inorganic clay of high plasticity,
fat clays
Medium to high None to very slow Slight to medium OH
Organic clays of medium to
high plasticity
Pt Peat and other highly organic
soils
Unified Soil Classification
Field Identification Procedures - (Excluding particles larger than three
inches and basing fractions on estimated weights)Laboratory Classification Criteria
Coarse Grained Soils: More than half of material is larger than No. 200 Sieve Size (b)Gravels - More than half coarse fraction is larger than 1/4 "Sands - More than half coarse fraction is smaller than 1/4 "Clean Gravels - (little or no fines)Gravels with fines- (appreciable amount of fines)Clean Sands (little or no fines)Sands with fines (appreciable amount of fines)Predominantly one size or a range of
sizes with intermediate sizes missing
Use grain size distribution curve to verify fractions as identified in the fieldDetermine percentages of gravel and sand from grain size distribution curve. Depending on percentage passing the No. 200 sieve soils are classified as follows: Less than 5% = GW, GP, SW, SP More than 12% = GM, GC, SM, SC 5% to 12% are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols(Cu=D60/D10)>4
Cc=(D30)^2/(D10*D60) between 1&3
Not meeting all the requirements for GW
Above "A" line with PI
between 4 and 7 are
borderline cases
requiring use of dual
symbols
(Cu=D60/D10)>6
Cc=(D30)^2/(D10*D60) between 1&3
Not meeting all the requirements for SW
Above "A" line with PI
between 4 and 7 are
borderline cases
requiring use of dual
symbols
Non plastic fines (for identification
procedure see ML below)
Plastic fines (for identification
procedure see CL below)
Highly Oganic Soils Readily identified by color, odor, spongy feel and
frequently y fibrous texture
Give typical
name;indicate
approximate
percentages of sand and
gravel; maximum size;
angularity, surface
condition and hardness
of the coarse grains;
local geologic name and
other pertinent
descriptive information;
symbols in ( ). For
undisturbed soils add
information on
stratification, condition,
cementation and
moisture. EXAMPLE:
Silty SAND - (SM) - Light
brown, medium dense to
dense, damp to moist.
Moderately cemented
from 2-3 feet, roots to 1
foot.
Give typical
name;indicate degree
and character of
plasticity, amount and
max size of coarse
grains; color when wet,
odor, local geologic
name, any other
information. For
undisturbed soil add
information on structure,
stratification,
consistency in
undisturbed and
remolded states and
moisture. EXAMPLE:
Clayey SILT -(ML)-
brown, stiff to very stiff,
moist, (loess).
Wide Range in grain size and
substantial amounts of all
intermediate particle sizes
Identification Procedures on Fraction Smaller than No. 40 Seive
Fine-grained soils: More than half the material is smaller than the No. 200 sieveSilts and clays liquid limit less than 50Silts and clays liquid limit greater than 50Predominantly one size or a range of
sizes with intermediate sizes missing
Non plastic fines (for identification
procedure see ML below)
Plastic fines (for identification
procedure see CL below)
Wide Range in grain size and
substantial amounts of all
intermediate particle sizes
“Building on Excellence”
USCS: Plate 2
XCELL ENGINEERING LLC
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid limit
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Plasticity index
CH
OH
or
MH
CL
OL
ML
orCL
ML "A "lin eComparing soils at equal liquid limit
Toughness and dry strength increase
with increasing plasticity index
Plasticity chart
for laboratory classification of fine grained soils
TEST PIT No. 1
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.0
1.0 – 4.0
4.0 – 8.0
CL
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown, medium dense, Dry to
Damp.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
Variable seams and Layers of sand in the gravel matrix
consistent with depositional outwash throughout the site.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 3.0 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 2
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.0
1.0 – 4.0
4.0 – 8.0
CL
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown, medium dense, Dry to
Damp.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 3.5 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 3
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.5
1.5 – 3.0
3.0 – 10.0
CL
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown, medium dense, Dry to
Damp.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 2.5 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 4
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 4.0
4.0 – 7.0
CL
GP
Silty CLAY – Dark brown, stiff, moist. Roots and vegetation
in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at feet
Bulk samples taken at feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 5
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.0
1.0 – 7.0
7.0 – 10.0
CL
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown, medium dense, Dry to
Damp.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 6.0 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 6
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.5
1.5 – 4.0
4.0 – 10.0
CL
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown, medium dense, Dry to
Damp. 65.0% by weight passing the No. 200 Sieve.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
Seams and Layers of sand in the gravel matrix consistent
with depositional outwash throughout the site.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet
Bulk sample taken at 3.0 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 7
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.0
1.0 – 3.0
3.0 – 10.0
CL
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown, medium dense, Dry to
Damp.
Fine Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp. Layers of
Sand less than 12-inches thick.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 4.0 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 8
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.0
1.0 – 4.0
4.0 – 10.0
CL/CH
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown, medium dense, Dry to
Damp.
Fine Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp. Typically,
2-inch minus with occasional 4-inch aggregate.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 3.0 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 9
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 3.5
3.5 – 10.0
CH
GP
Silty CLAY – Dark brown, stiff, moist. Roots and vegetation
in the upper 2-3 inches. Liquid Limit = 65, Plastic Limit = 23,
Plasticity Index = 42
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 2.0 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 10
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 4.0
4.0 – 10.0
CL/ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches. 64.6% by weight
passing the No. 200 Sieve. Grading to Silt with depth.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 3.0 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 11
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.0
1.0 – 2.5
2.5 – 10.0
CL
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown, medium dense, Dry to
Damp.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
2.5-inch minus
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at feet
Bulk samples taken at feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 12
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.0
1.0 – 4.5
4.5 – 10.0
CL
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown to reddish brown, medium
dense, Dry to Damp.
Fine to Medium Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to
damp. Fine sand layers and seams. Seam<1/2”, layer is ½
to 12” thick.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at feet
Bulk samples taken at feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 13
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.0
1.0 – 3.5
3.0 – 10.5
CL/ML
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown to orange brown, loose, Dry
to Damp.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 10.5 feet
Bulk samples taken at 3.0 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 14
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.0
1.0 – 3.0
3.0 – 10.0
CL
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches. Liquid Limit = 34,
Plastic Limit = 6, Plasticity Index = 28
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown, medium dense, Dry to
Damp. 64.2% by weight passing the No. 200 Sieve.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 1.0 and 3.0 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 15
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.0
1.0 – 3.0
3.0 – 10.0
CL
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown, loose, Dry to Damp.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
2-inch minus
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at feet
Bulk samples taken at feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 16
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.0
1.0 – 3.5
3.5 – 12.0
CL
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown, medium dense, Dry to
Damp.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet
Bulk sample taken at 4 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 17
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.5
1.5 – 4.5
4.5 – 11.0
CL
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown, medium dense, Dry to
Damp. 65.7% by weight passing the No. 200 Sieve.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 4.0 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 18
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.0
1.0 – 3.0
3.0 – 10.0
CL
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown, medium dense, Dry to
Damp.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 4.5 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
TEST PIT No. 19
Project: Ammon Village
File: P22296
DEPTH
(Feet)
SOIL
CLASS
SOIL
DESCRIPTION
0.0 – 1.5
1.5 – 7.5
7.5 – 11.0
CL/CH
ML
GP
Fine Sandy Silty CLAY – Dark brown, Stiff, moist. Roots
and vegetation in the upper 2-3 inches.
Fine Sandy SILT – Light brown, medium dense, Dry to
Damp.
Fine to Coarse Sandy GRAVEL – Gray, dense, dry to damp.
Excavated on 1/13/22
Groundwater not encountered
Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet
Bulk samples taken at 6.0 feet
Excavation Equipment: Backhoe
Logged by: JPB
“Building on Excellence”
XCELL ENGINEERING, LLC
Project:Ammon Village
Date:1/19/22
Engineer:JPB
Material:Native Gravel
Inclination=0 Degrees
C =0 psf Ø Nq Nc Nﻻ (m)
Ø =32 degrees 0 1.0 5.14 0.0
Unit Wt - ﻻ=130 pcf 5 1.6 6.49 0.1
FTG Depth=3 feet 10 2.5 8.34 0.4
FTG Width=1.5 feet 15 3.9 10.97 1.1
FTG Length=30 feet 20 6.4 14.83 2.9
Kp=3.255 25 10.7 20.71 6.8
Nq=23.2 26 11.8 22.25 8.0
Nc=35.47 28 14.7 25.79 11.2
Nﻻ (m)=22 30 18.4 30.13 15.7
Sc=1.032545883 32 23.2 35.47 22.0
Dc=1.721619102 34 29.4 42.14 31.1
Sq=1.016272942 36 37.7 50.55 44.4
Dq=1.360809551 38 48.9 61.31 64.0
Sﻻ =1.016272942 40 64.1 75.25 93.6
Dﻻ =1.360809551 45 134.7 133.73 262.3
50 318.5 266.50 871.7
For Silt/Sand/Gr Soils Qult =15479 psf
Ø>10 Inclination=0 Q Allow = 5160 psf Ic=Iq=1.00
Iﻻ for Ø>0 1.00
For Clay Soils Qult =11193 psf Iﻻ for Ø=0 0.00
Ø=0 Inclination=0 Q Allow = 3731 psf
For Silt/Sand/Gr Soils Qult =15232 psf
Ø>10 Inclination>0 Q Allow = 5077 psf
For Clay Soils Qult =9048 psf
Ø=0 Inclination>0 Q Allow = 3016 psf
NOTE:
1) C = Unconfined Compressive Strength
2) q = Over burden Pressure - ﻻ*Depth of Footing
3) B = width of Footing
4) Unit weight = effective unit weight
Bearing Capacity - Meyerhof
Qult = cNcScDc+qNqSqDq+0.5ﻻBNﻻSﻻDﻻ
Inclination Factors
Qult = cNcIcDc+qNqIqDq+0.5ﻻBNﻻIﻻDﻻ
Vertical Footings
Inclined Footings
Project:Ammon Village
Date:1/19/22
Engineer:JPB
Material:Native Silt
Inclination=0 Degrees
C =0 psf Ø Nq Nc Nﻻ (m)
Ø =28 degrees 0 1.0 5.14 0.0
Unit Wt - ﻻ=103 pcf 5 1.6 6.49 0.1
FTG Depth=3 feet 10 2.5 8.34 0.4
FTG Width=1.5 feet 15 3.9 10.97 1.1
FTG Length=30 feet 20 6.4 14.83 2.9
Kp=2.770 25 10.7 20.71 6.8
Nq=14.7 26 11.8 22.25 8.0
Nc=25.79 28 14.7 25.79 11.2
Nﻻ (m)=11.2 30 18.4 30.13 15.7
Sc=1.027698262 32 23.2 35.47 22.0
Dc=1.665711793 34 29.4 42.14 31.1
Sq=1.013849131 36 37.7 50.55 44.4
Dq=1.332855896 38 48.9 61.31 64.0
Sﻻ =1.013849131 40 64.1 75.25 93.6
Dﻻ =1.332855896 45 134.7 133.73 262.3
50 318.5 266.50 871.7
For Silt/Sand/Gr Soils Qult =7307 psf
Ø>10 Inclination=0 Q Allow = 2436 psf Ic=Iq=1.00
Iﻻ for Ø>0 1.00
For Clay Soils Qult =5408 psf Iﻻ for Ø=0 0.00
Ø=0 Inclination=0 Q Allow = 1803 psf
For Silt/Sand/Gr Soils Qult =7207 psf
Ø>10 Inclination>0 Q Allow = 2402 psf
For Clay Soils Qult =4542 psf
Ø=0 Inclination>0 Q Allow = 1514 psf
NOTE:
1) C = Unconfined Compressive Strength
2) q = Over burden Pressure - ﻻ*Depth of Footing
3) B = width of Footing
4) Unit weight = effective unit weight
Bearing Capacity - Meyerhof
Qult = cNcScDc+qNqSqDq+0.5ﻻBNﻻSﻻDﻻ
Inclination Factors
Qult = cNcIcDc+qNqIqDq+0.5ﻻBNﻻIﻻDﻻ
Vertical Footings
Inclined Footings
Project:Ammon Village
Date:January 21, 2022
Soil Type: Fine Sandy Gravel 5 to 10% passing No. 200
Friction Angle (Deg) Friction Angle (Rad) Ko Ka Kp
Ø 32 0.55851 0.470 0.307 3.255
Cohesion 0
Wall Height 8 1.00
Horiz Acceleration - Kh 0.455
Vert Acceleration - Kv 0.228 0.74
Unit Wt. (pcf)136 0.70
Wall Inclination-Theta 0
Slope of retained fill - a 0 0.73
Wall Friction Angle - Delta 15 0.03
Beta=Tan^-1(Kh/1-Kv)30.51 0.53
Alpha'=a+Beta 30.51
Theta'=Theta+Beta 30.51 0.71
K'a 0.72 1.00
1/cos (B19)1.16 0.16
Pae 2805 1.35
Static Equivalent Fluid Pressure in Pounds per Cubic Foot = 63.9 41.8 442.6
Active Seismic Forces Using the *Mononobe-Okabe Equations elaborated by Seed and Whitman (1970)
Indicate an additional thrust of 2805 Pounds per linear foot of wall for the wall height shown,
during the seismic event specified. The force acts at1/3 the wall height at an angle of 15 degrees
below perpendicular to wall face as shown below.
Maximum depth to which tensile cracks in the soil may be anticipated is 0.0 Inches
*Ref: Das Section 9.10 pp337
Rankine Lateral Earth Pressures Including
Coulomb's Analysis for Active Force During Seismic Acceleration
Project:Ammon Village
Date:January 21, 2022
Soil Type: Fine Sandy Silt 64 to 65% passing No. 200
Friction Angle (Deg) Friction Angle (Rad) Ko Ka Kp
Ø 26 0.45379 0.562 0.390 2.561
Cohesion 0
Wall Height 8 0.99
Horiz Acceleration - Kh 0.455
Vert Acceleration - Kv 0.228 0.74
Unit Wt. (pcf)125 0.70
Wall Inclination-Theta 0
Slope of retained fill - a 0 0.66
Wall Friction Angle - Delta 15 -0.08
Beta=Tan^-1(Kh/1-Kv)30.51 0.53
Alpha'=a+Beta 30.51
Theta'=Theta+Beta 30.51 0.71
K'a 0.81 1.00
1/cos (B19)1.16 #NUM!
Pae 2896 #NUM!
Static Equivalent Fluid Pressure in Pounds per Cubic Foot = 70.2 48.8 320.1
Active Seismic Forces Using the *Mononobe-Okabe Equations elaborated by Seed and Whitman (1970)
Indicate an additional thrust of 2896 Pounds per linear foot of wall for the wall height shown,
during the seismic event specified. The force acts at1/3 the wall height at an angle of 15 degrees
below perpendicular to wall face as shown below.
Maximum depth to which tensile cracks in the soil may be anticipated is 0.0 Inches
*Ref: Das Section 9.10 pp337
Rankine Lateral Earth Pressures Including
Coulomb's Analysis for Active Force During Seismic Acceleration
Flexible Pavement Design
Auto
Project:
Date:
Engineer:
Vehicle Enter EAL 20 Total 20 yr
Type ADT Yr Const Constant
Automobile 1000 1.38 1380
2-Axle Truck 10 1380 13800
3-Axle Truck 4 3680 14720
4-Axle Truck 1 5880 5880
5+-Axle Truck 0 13780 0
All Trucks=18 kip axle TOTAL EAL =34400
Traffic Index (TI) = 9.0(EAL/1,000,000)^0.119 =6.0
Enter R-Values:
Aggregate Base: 80
Aggregate Subbase: 60
Basement Soil: 15
Select a Recommended Safety Factor:Enter
Class A Cement Treated Base: 0.24 Selected
Class B Cement Treated Base: 0.18 FS Value
Asphalt Treated Base: 0.18 0.18
Lime Treated Base: 0.18
Soil Cement: 0.18
Aggregate Base: 0.16 Equivalent Actual
Calc GE Thickness Required Design
GE = .0032(TI)(100-R) + FS Thickness Ratio Thickness Section
(feet)(Value:1)(feet)(Inches)
GE for AC = .0032(TI base)(100-R) +FS = 0.57 2.5 0.23 2.72
GE for Base = .0032(TIsubbase)(100-R) +FS-Pavement = 0.39 1 0.39 4.63
GE Subbase = .0032(TI soil)(100-R)+FS-Pavement -Base = 0.87 0.75 1.16 13.89
Notes:
1) If frost depth is greater than the design pavement section it may be required to increase the section thickness
2) The California Method is based on experience and fatigue analysis may be required
3) If basement soil is expected to become saturated it may be required to increase the section thickness
Ammon Village
January 21, 2022
JPB
2
Gravel Equivalents of Structural Layer in Feet
From Highway Design Manual, Part 7-651. California DOT, December 1,1981
Class Aggre-
B Class Aggre- gate
5 & 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 ATB A gate Sub-
AC Less 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 CS CTB Base base LCB
Layer
(ft) 2.5 2.32 2.14 2.01 1.89 1.79 1.71 1.64 1.57 1.52 1.5
0.10 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15
0.15 0.38 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.22
0.20 0.50 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.33 0.31 0.30 0.30
0.25 0.63 0.58 0.54 0.50 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.37
0.30 0.75 0.70 0.64 0.60 0.57 0.54 0.51 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.45
0.35 0.85 0.81 0.75 0.70 0.66 0.63 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.42 0.60 0.39 0.35 0.67
0.40 1.00 0.93 0.86 0.80 0.76 0.72 0.68 0.66 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.48 0.68 0.44 0.40 0.76
0.45 1.04 0.96 0.90 0.85 0.81 0.77 0.74 0.71 0.68 0.67 0.54 0.77 0.50 0.45 0.86
0.50 1.16 1.07 1.01 0.95 0.90 0.86 0.82 0.79 0.76 0.75 0.60 0.85 0.55 0.50 0.95
0.55 1.18 1.11 1.04 0.98 0.94 0.90 0.86 0.84 0.82 0.66 0.94 0.61 0.55 1.05
0.60 1.21 1.13 1.07 1.03 0.98 0.94 0.91 0.90 0.72 1.02 0.66 0.60 1.14
0.65 1.31 1.23 1.16 1.11 1.07 1.02 0.99 0.97 0.78 1.11 0.72 0.65 1.24
0.70 1.32 1.25 1.20 1.15 1.10 1.06 1.05 0.84 1.19 0.77 0.70 1.33
0.75 1.34 1.28 1.23 1.18 1.14 1.12 0.90 1.28 0.83 0.75 1.43
0.80 1.43 1.37 1.31 1.26 1.22 1.20 0.96 1.36 0.88 0.80 1.52
0.85 1.52 1.45 1.39 1.33 1.29 1.27 1.02 1.45 0.94 0.85 1.62
0.90 1.54 1.48 1.41 1.37 1.35 1.08 1.53 0.99 0.90 1.71
0.95 1.56 1.49 1.44 1.42 1.14 1.62 1.05 0.95 1.81
1.00 1.64 1.57 1.52 1.50 1.20 1.70 1.10 1.00 1.90
1.05 1.65 1.60 1.57 1.26 1.79 1.16 1.05 2.00
(Gf) 1.0 (Gf) 1.9
Asphalt Concrete
Traffic Index (TI)
Gravel Equivalent Factor
(Gf) 1.2 (Gf) 1.7 (Gf) 1.1
2