1401 MERRILL CREEK PKY #10 2016-01-01 MF Import

. .IT Development LP Deccmber 1.2006 Pagc 2 reports has been provided to you during consvuc�ion and also has been fon�arded to ihe on-site PF Developmcnt Construction o�ce. FILL MATERIAL EVALUATION AND REQUIRED COMPACTION On-sitc soils were used as fill and backfill at the site. We evaluated fill placement activities within the Pod 2 area where Duilding Nos. 10 and 15 arc located during the mass grading period on 7 occasions behvicen July I9, and July 28. 2005 (refer �o ficld report Nos. ?4 qirough 31). We also completed I site visit on August 3, Z005 (refer to field report No. 35) to evaluatc compaction of the fill placed within building No. 10 in the Pod ?arca. We evaluated thc fill soii by performing laboratory testing �hut generally consisted of ma�imwn dq� density (MDD) evaluations per American Society for Tes�inr, and Materials (ASTM) D1557 testing procedure. The fill ueed within the building footprint arca, gererally consisted of the on-site glacial till and advance ocr.vash soils. We evalua�ed ihc compaction af fill by obscrving placcment procedures, by performing in-place density tests and by n�on��,� ��,n a %:-inch diameter probe rod. Pill �vas generaliy compacted to at least 95 percent ofihc MDD in areas bcneath Building Nos. 10 and IS during the mass grading period. Dascd on our observations and c��aluations, it is our opinion thal ihe fill placed within thc footprint of 13uilding Nos. 10 and IS during the mass gradin� period were compacted in general accordance with our recommendations and the project plans and specifications. SOIL BEARING VERIFICATION Building Nos. 10, 12 through 15 We evaluated the foo�ing subgrade soils at [3uilding Nos. 10 and 12 through I S m�d verified soil bearing on 12 occasions bet��-een September 6, 2005 and May 10. 2006 (reler to field report Nos. 57, 58, 67, 76, 112. I 14, 1 I5, 125, 126. 13G, 139 and la0). �Ve also evaluatcd the backfill placed to suppon the upper building slab for building Nos 10 and 12 through IS on 13 occasions bchvecn Novembcr 18. 2005 and April ?7. 2006 (rcfcr tn field report Nos. 93 through 97, 101, 102, I�7, 129, 130, I32, 133. and 137). 13:�.sed on our evaluation, the footing subgrade soils ��ere firm and the backfill placed are compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD. 13ascd on our ohscrvations. it is our opinion that soil bcaring pressurc of 2.500 psf��ms achicved in the footing subgrade o(Duilding Nos. 10 and 12 through 15 and the slab subgrade was prepared in general accordance wiih our recommendations and the project plans and specifications. \Uc trust this Icucr mccis your curreni needs and provides the necessary infonnation for the certificatc of occupancy for T3uilding Nos. 10 and I'_' through 15. Please call if you have any questions or when we mav bc ot furthcr scrvicc. �3 r,ie.�'�� %r3n-nna.n3 GEoEMciw��s�