GEOTECH REPORT
......~~
'W Il>lGOOl_G
May 19, 20113
Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc.
601 21 51 Street, Suite 400
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Attn: Mr. Todd Howder, P.E.
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Services
Proposed Arby's Restaurant
Boynton Beach, Florida
TIERRA File No. 6611-03085
Dear Todd:
TlERRA, Ine, is pleased to transmit our Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for the
referenced project. This report includes the results of field and laboratory testing, geotechnical
recommendations for foundation and pavement design, as well as general site development.
We appreciate the opportunity to perfoml this Geotechnical Study and look forward to continued
participation during the design and construction phases of this project. If you have any questions
pertaming to this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact our office.
Respectfully submitted,
TlERRA,INc'
yf/!-=-~
/
Raj Kris asamy, P.E.
Princip Geotechnical EngineerNice President
FL Registration No. 53567
RK.: wes
6611-01085.Arbys-Boymon Beach
Attachment
'.
~
1100 BARNETT DRIVE. SUITE 35 . LAKE WORTH. FLORIDA 33461
(5611547-1232. FAX (561) 547-1250
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............,.................................................. .......................
2,0 PROJECT INFORMATION . ....................................................................................
.#" 2.1 Project AuthOli7.ation ................................ .................................. .................
~. 2.2 Project Description.......................................................................................
~. 2.3 Purpose and Scope of Services ....................................................................
3,0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................
fi" 3.1 Site Location and DescriptlOn......................................................................
/3.2 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................
~. 3.3 Groundwater Information ............................................................................
4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................
/4.1 Geotechnical Discussion ............................................................ ...................
/4.2 Site Preparation .......................................................................
/4.3 Foundation Recommendations ..............................................
,,4' 4.4 Floor Slab Reconnnendations......................................................................
"" 4.5 Lateral Earth Pressure ..................................................................................
5.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................
/ 6.1 Excavations ..................................................................................................
7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS .........................................................................................
APPENDIX - BORING LOCATION PLAN SHEET 1
SOIL PROFILES SHEET 2
Page No.
2
2
~
2
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
7
8
8
9
10
10
11
-1-
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An exploration and evaluation of the subsurface conditions have been completed for the design and
construction of thc proposed Arby's restaurant to be constructed on Wal-Mart Out Pareel A2 in
Boynton Beach, Florida.
111 general, beneath the topsoil, the subsurface conditions consisted of sandy soils. Groundwater
depth in borings ranged from 9.5 to 10.0 fcct below existing grade.
The results of this exploration indicate that the subsurface conditions at the site arc generally
suitable for the use of shallow foundations for support of the proposed structurc. The proposed
Arby's restaurant floor slab ean be grade supported. Geoteehnical details related to site
development, foundation design and constmction considcrations are included 111 subsequent sections
oflhis report.
The owner/designer should not rely solely on this Exeeutive Summary and must read and evaluate
the entire contents of this report prior to utilizing our engineering recommendations in preparation
of designlconstmction documcnts.
- 2-
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Proiect Authorization
TIERRA has completed a geotechnical exploration for the proposed Arby's restaurant to be
constmcted in Boynton Beach, Florida. Mr. Todd Howder, P.E. of Kimley-Hom & Associates
verbally authorized our services.
2.2 Proieet Description
Our understanding of the project is based on general information obtained from Mr. Todd Howder,
P.E., as well as a "Site Plans" indieating the proposed building location.
The proposed constmetion will include single story restaurant and associated parking. The
proposed site will cover an area of approximately one acre.
Maximum column and wall loads arc not expected to exceed 100 kips and 2.5 kip per linear feet,
respectively. Floor slab loads will be less than 1 SO psf.
A final site-grading plan was not available at this time. For the purpose of this report, we have
assumed that the strueture will be huilt near the existing grade.
The geotechnical recommendations presented in tl11S report are based on the available project
infol111ation, building location, and the suhsurface materials described in tllis report. If any of the
noted informatlOn is incorrect, please inform TIERRA in writing so that we may amend the
reconnl1endations presented in tllis report if appropriatc and if desired by the client. TIERRt... will
not be responsible for the implemcntation of its recommendations when it is not notified of changes
in the proj ect.
2,3 Purpose and Scope of Services
The purpose ofthis study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site to enable an evaluation
of aeceptable foundation and pavement systcms for the proposed construction. This report briefly
outlines the testing procedures, dcscribes the site and subsurface conditions, and presents
geolechnical rccommendations for foundation design and general site devclopment.
Killlley-Horn & Associates, JilL
TIEHHA rile No. 6611-0JORS
Ticrra, Inc.
- 3
Our scope of services included a total of five borings, three (3) Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
borings were drilled within the proposed building (0 a depth of 15 feet and the remainder two (2)
borings were drilled within the proposed parking area to a depth of 10 feet below existing grade,
plus the preparation of this geotechnical report. This report briefly outlines the testing procedures,
presents available projcct infom1ation, describes thc site and subsurface conditions, and presents
geolechnical recommendations regarding the following:
",' - Foundation soil preparation requirements.
f - Foundation lypes, depths, allowable bearing capacities, and an estimate of potential
settlement.
f'- Pavement recommendations.
~'_ Comments regarding faclors that may impact constmction and perfonnanee of the
proposed constmction.
The scope of services did not include an enviromnental assessment for determining the presence or
absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, bedroek, surface water,
groundwater, or air on or below, or around this sileo Any statements in this report or on the boring
logs regarding odors, colors, and unusual or suspicious items or conditions arc strictly for
information purposes only.
Kimley-Horn & As.~ociatcs, Inc.
TIERH.A Fill' No. 661 1-03085
Ticrra, Inc.
- 4-
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Location and Description
The subject site is locatcd near the southwest comer of Old Boynton Road and Winehestcr Park
Boulevard in Boynton Beach, Florida. The proposed restaurant will be constmcted on Wal-Mart
Out Parcel A2, located on the north side of the property. At the time of field exploration, the site
was observed to be fairly level and covered with grass.
3.2 Subsurface Conditions
Review of "Soil Survey of Palm Beach County Area, Florida", prepared by the United States
Dcpartment of Agncultllfe (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS), indicates the site is mapped
as Pompano fine sand (Po). This is umt is nearly level. poorly drained, deep sandy soil.
Subsurface conditions at the site were explored with engineering borings located as shown on the
Boring Location Plan, Sheet I. The study included the drilling of three (3) SPT and two (2) auger
borings at thc proposed site.
The SPT borings were drilled using aCME 55 drill rig, and mud rotary procedures. Samples of the
in-place materials were recovered at frequent intervals using a standard split spoon driven with a
140-pound han1I11er freely falling 30 inches (the SPT sampling after ASTM D 1586). The samples
of the in-place soils wcrc returned to our laboralory for classification by a geotechnical engineer.
The samples were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classifieation System
(ASTM D 2488).
The soils beneath the topsoil are predominantly sand. Based on visual classifications, the materials
eneountered beneath the topsoil in the bOlings typically consisted of sand (SP), sand with organic
stain (SP) in accordance with the USCS. The Standard Penetration Test (N-values) in the soils
indicates the materials to he in loose to dense conditions.
The above subsurface description is of a generalized nature intended to highlight the major
subsurface stratification features and material characteristics. The boring logs should be reviewed
for specific infomlation at individual boring locations. These records include soil descriptions,
stratifications, and penetration resistances. The stratifications shown on the boring logs represent
the conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected
between boring locations. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between
subsurface materials, and the actual transition may be gradual. Water level information obtained
during field operations is also shown on the boring logs. The samples that were not altered by
laboratory testing will be retained for 30 days from the date of this report and then will be discarded.
Kimley-Horn & '\fo.sociates,lnc,
TIERRA File No. h6tl-03085
Tierra,lllC.
- 5-
3.3 Groundwater Information
Groundwater levels were measured in the borings upon completion of the drilling activities. The
depths to the fi'ee water surface at the timc of drilling ranged from 9.5 to 10 feet below the ground
surface. According to SCS, the normal wet season groundwater tablc is expected to be 12 to 24
inches higher than lhe levcl encountered during drilling. Groundwater is not expected to impact
proposed constmction.
Dewatering will be reqll1red for in-the-dry construction over those sections of the site where the
invert/bottom elevations of the pipelincs fall below the water table. Should sections of the
exeavation eneounter the groundwater table, we expect that groundwater control can be
accomplished through open pumping in those areas where draw down requirements are 1 foot or
less. Open pumping dewatering can most positively be accomplished by over-excavating the trench
by 6 to 12 inches and backfilling thc over cui section with coarse gravel. Water whIch flows
through the gravcl should be directed to a sump where it can be collected and pumped to a suitable
discharge point. Precautions should be taken during open pumping to assure that fines arc not
withdrawn from the surroundmg soils since this could result in undesirable settlement occurring. If
the draw down requirements is greater than 1 foot, we believe well point dewatering may be
required.
In general, the seasonal high groundwater level is not intended to define a limit or ensure that future
seasonal fluetuations in groundwater levels will not exceed the estimated levels. Post-development
groundwater levels could exceed the normal seasonal high !,'I'oundwater level cstimate as a result of
a series of rainfall events, changed conditions at the site that alter surface water drainage
characteristics, or variations in the duration, intensity, or total volume of rainfall. We rccommend
that the Contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the constmction to
detenmne groundwater Impact on his or her construction procedures.
Tierra, Inc.
Kimle~'-H()rn & Associates, Jlle.
TIElmA File No. 6611-UJOS5
-6-
4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDA nONS
4.1 Geotechnical Disenssion
The gcotechmcal study complcted for the proposed Arby's restauranl confim1s that the site IS
suitable for the planned construction when viewcd from a soil mechanics and foundation
engineering perspective. Subsurface conditions at the site are not expected to impose any major
geoteehnical constraints or limitations on the proposed structure. The stmcture may be supported
on shallow spread foundations and employ conventional slab-on-grade for the ground floors.
However, densification of the surficial soils ofthe site will be needed to increase shear strength and
reduce foundation and floor slab settlements to tolerable values.
Recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of site preparation, foundation design and related
constmction are presented in the following sections ofthis report.
4.2 Site Preparation
To prepare for construction, we recommend that all topsoil should be stripped from the proposed
new building and parking areas and either wasted or stockpiled for later use in landscape area.
Utilities should bc located and rerouted as necessary. The stmctural footprint of the proposed
stmctures should be compacted with a self-propelled roller (Dynapac CA-15 or equivalent) l1l1til the
subsoils achieve 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) 10 a depth of at least 12
inches below the stripped grade. The soil densification should encompass the entire footprint of the
structures plus a 10-foot wide perimeter that extends beyond the maximum lines of the
superstmctures.
Near existing buildings (within 50 feet), proofrolling should consist of compaction with a large
diameter smooth dmm roller operating in static mode. The drum roller should have a static drum
weight on the order of eight (8) to ten (10) tons and should be capable of exerting a mininmm
impact force of 36,000 pounds (DYNAP AC CA-25 or equivalent is expected to provide acceptable
results). The subsoils should be compacted to achieve 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM
D 1557) to a depth of at least 12 inches below the stripped grade. Ground vibrations induced by the
compaction operations should be closely monitored to assess if there is a potential impact to the
existing buildings.
The rolled subgrade should be visually observed for signs of pumping, weaving or other types of
instability. Signs of such instability could be noted due to existence of weak and compressible
subsoils. Corrective action for this condition should include excavation of the weak subsoils
followed by the replacement with clean granular fill compacted to 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557
maximum dry density. Structural fill used to raise the site to stmcture bottom levels should consist
of clean sand and/or sand and gravel (ASTM D 2487), with a maximl1l11 of 12 percent passing the
U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve. The structural fill should be placed in thin lifts (12-inch thick loose
measure), near the optimum moisture content for compaction, and be compacted to at least 95
percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557).
Kimlcy-Horn & '\<;\flciate~, Inc.
TlERR.\ File No. 6611-030H5
Ticrra,llIc.
-7-
Following site preparation as discussed herein, the foundation areas should be excavatcd and thc
footings formed and poured in-lhe-dry. Soils loosened by excavation should be recompactcd to
meet the compaction reqUIrement prescribed earlier for the fill. Loose or organic soils (if any)
found at foundatIon bottoms should be removed and replaced wIth stmctural fill, constructed as
discussed in this report.
If stmctural fill is required to achieve design f,'I'ade, each 11ft of compacted engineered fill should be
tesled by a reprcsentative of the geotechnical engineer Plior to placement of subsequent lifts. The
edges of compacted fill should extend 5 feet beyond thc edges ofbuildmg prior to sloping.
4.3 Foundation Rceommendations
Conventional spread footmgs are generally most economical when the existing soil conditions allow
them to be founded at shallow depths. Following completion of site preparation as discussed herein,
we recommend supporting the planned stmctures on conventional sprcad foundations based in
engineered fill and/or the surficial granular soils of the site. The footings may be designed and
proportioned for a maximum bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Footings
should bottom at least 18 inches below final grade. Footings supporting individual colul1111s should
have a minimum WIdth of 36 inches and continuous footings a minimum width of 24 inches, cvcn if
the geometry produces a bearing pressure less than the allowable.
The recommended bearing pressure refers to service loads (i.e., dead and live load) and may be
ll1creased by 25 percent for total load, including wind forces. The weight of foundation concrete
may be neglected m the SIzing computations.
Settlemenl of fOLmdations based in the in-situ granular soils and/or engineered fill will occur as an
elastic response of the soils to the building loads applied. For foundations that are based on soils
prepared as discussed herein, we estimate that total and differential foundation settlements should be
less than 1 inch and l;; inch, respectively. In our opinion, these scttlements are within the range
considered tolerable for the type of structure planned. The settlement forecast is based on imposed
soil bearing pressure from structural loadings not exceeding 3,000 pounds per square foot and
maximum column loads on the order of 100 kips. Because the subsoils at thc site are f,'Tanular in
nature, settlement should occur as the loads are applied to foundations and should essentially be
complete by the time the building construction is finished.
Excavating equipment may disturb the granular bearing soil in foundation areas. The upper 12
inches of foundation bottom soils should be compacted to achieve not less than 95 percent of the
maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 immediately prior to reinforcing and
concrete placement.
The foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of TIERRA prior to steel or
concrete placement to assess that foundation materials are capable of supporting the design loads
and are consistent with the materials discussed in this report. Loose soil zones encountered at the
bottom of the footing cxcavations should be removed to the level of medium dense soils or
adequately compacted structural fill as direcled by the geotechnical cngineer. Cavities formed as a
rcsult of cxcavation of loose soil zones should be backfilled with lean concretc or densc graded
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
rJERRA File No. 6611-030H5
Ticrra.lnc.
- 8-
compacted cmshed stone.
4.4 Floor Slab Recommendations
Following stripping and surface soil preparation as described herein, the building pad area should he
leveled and filled to suhfloor elevalion heforc placing concrele. Our experience indicates that floor
slabs constructed without a vapor barrier will often experience future prohlems associated with
moisture and mildew. Therefore, we recommend interior floor slab subgrade soils be covered with
a vapor barrier (such as visqueen, normally 6 mil thick) before constructing the slah-on-b'Tade floor.
Slab-on-grade constmction may be used for the ground floor slabs of the structure. The slabs
should be adequately reinforced to carry the loads that are to be applied The floor slab design, if
hased on elastic methods, should employ a modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 pounds per cubic
inch (pci). To hclp avoid potential problems with cracking because of differential loadings, the
floor slabs should be liberally jointed and separated from columns and walls.
The friction factor between the soil and floor slabs should be taken as 0.35 without the vapor
barrier. A friction factor of 0.21 should be used for the vapor barrier-soil inlerface.
4.5 Lateral Earth Pressure
Based on lhe borings, the upper soils at the site consist primarily of sandy soil with loose to dense
consistencies. For dramed loading conditions, lateral earth pressure coefficients may be taken as 0.5
at-rest, 0.33 for active pressure, and 3.0 for passive pressure. Assuming a moist soil weight of 125
pcf, then equivalent fluid pressures of62.5 pcf, 41.25 pcf, and 375 pcfmay be used for the at-rest,
active, and passive earth pressure cases. A coefficient of sliding friction of 0.35 is recommended.
Kimlcy-Horn & Associates, Inc.
TIERRA File 1\'0. 6611-030HS
Tiena.Inc
-9-
5.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The parking lot and dnveway areas should be prepared and densified as indicated in the Site
Preparation section of this report. Flexible pavement seclions in this geographic area typically
consist of an asphaltic concrete weanng course, limerock base course and a stabilized sub grade.
The following pavement component thicknesses are bascd on a design lifc of 20 years.
TYPE OF MATERIAL LAYER THICKNESS (INCHES)
PAVEMENT DESClUPTION PARKING DlUVEWAY
AREAS AREAS
Flexible Asphaltic Concrete 1.5 2.0
Base Course 6 8
iLBR 1001
Stabiltzcd Subgrade 6 R
(LBR - 40)
The base course materials in the pavemcnts should consist of limerock, having a minimum
Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 100. Base materials should meet the requirements presented in
the latest revisions of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) "Specifications for Road
and Bridge Constmction", Section 911 (limerock). The base course should be compacted to at least
98 percent of maximum dry density (AASHTO ] 80).
The sub grade should be stabihzed to a depth of 6 to 8 inches to achieve a minimum LBR of 40. This
can be achieved by blending base material (limerock) with the existing sandy sub grade soils. The
required mixing ratio should be determined by laboratory testing. The stabilized subgrade should be
compacted to at least 98 percent of maximum dry density (AASHTO 180)
If dumpsters are to be parked on lhe pavement, it is reconm1ended that rigid concrete pavement be
constmcted. In additlOn, the apron utilized for unloading the dumpsters by heavy-duty trucks
should also be provided with a rigid pavement. A mininmm Portland concrete pavement thickness
of 6 inches is recommended for the project if a rigid pavement is employed. The concrete should be
reinforced to withstand the traffic loadings anticipated and should be jointed to reduce the chances
for crack development. The minimum rigid pavement thickness recommended above is based upon
concrete with an unconfined compressive strength of3,500 psi and a modulus ofmpture of 450 psi.
Actual pavement section thickness should be provided by the Design Civil Engineer based on traffic
loads, volume, and the owner's design life requirements. The noted sections represent minimum
thickness representative of typical local constmction practices and, as such, periodic maintenance
should be anticipated. All pavemcnt matcrials and construction proccdures should confonn to
FDOT, American Concrete Institute (Ae!), or appropriate city/county requirements.
hirnley-Born & Associates, Inc.
'BERRA File [\,0. 6611-03085
TiclTa,lnt'.
-10
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
It is recommended that TlERRA be retained to provIde observation and testing of constmction
activities involved in the foundation, earthwork, and related activities of this project. TlERRA
carulOt accept any responsibility for any conditions that deviate from those described in this report,
nor for the performance of the foundation if not engaged to also proVIde eonstruction observation
and testing for this project.
6.1 Excavations
In Federal RegIster, Volume 54, No. 209 (October 1(89), the Umted States Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Constmction Standards for
ExcavatIOns, 29 C'FR. part 192G, Subpart P." This document was issued to better ensure thc safety
of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that
excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavations or footing excavations, be
conslrllcted in accordance with the new OSHA guidelines. It is our understanding that these
regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely adhered, the owner and the
contractor could be liable for substantial penalties.
The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constmcting 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 bottoms. The contractor's "responsible person", as defined in 29 CFR
Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavalions as part of the contractor's safety
procedures. In no case should slope height, slope ll1clination, or excavation depth, including utility
trcnch excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.
Weare providing this information solely as a service to our client. TIERRA docs not assume
responsibility for construction sIte safety or thc contractor's or other parties' compliance with local,
state, and federal safety or other regulations.
Killllcy-l(lJrn & As\ociatl'~, Inc.
TIERRA Fill' No. 66] 1-0JOR5
Tierra, In(~.
-11-
7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS
The recommendations submitted are based on the available subsurface inf0lll1atlon obtained by
TIERRA and desIgn details furnished by Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc. for the proposed project.
If there arc any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions
noted in this report are encountered during construction, TIERRA should be notified inunediately to
deteI111inc ifchanges in the foundation recommendations are required. IfTIERRA is not retaincd to
perform these functions, TIERRA will not be responsiblc for the impact of those conditions of the
proj ect.
The gcoteclmical engineer warrants that thc findings, reconnnendations, specifications, or
professional advice contained herein have been made in aecordance with generally accepted
professional geolechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties are implied or
expressed.
After the plans and specifications arc more complete, the geotechnical engineer should be retained
and provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to check that our
engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents. At that
time, it may be necessary to submit supplementary recommendations. This report has been
prepared for the exclusive use of Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc. for the specific application to the
proposed Arby's restaurant to be constructed in Boynton Beach, Florida.
Kimlcy-lIonl & Associates. IlIc.
TIERRA File No. 6611-03085
Ticrra, Inc.
o
LD
o
LD
~
~
N
I
m
<(
~
I
m
<(
n
I
m
zl
N
I
m
zl
~
zl
I
m
o
z
CJ
Z
(Y
o
m
(3
(3
(3
011
~I ~I
.~~
Ow
6-
'-
~ ~
o
.~~
"'~
. '-
m~
o
.
~I ~I
.~~
o~
0,
~ ~
o
I
~I
(3
r--I ~I ~I
LDI ~I ~I ~I
8
~I
I
~I
I
~I
.~~
o~
0,
~ ~
o
(3
~I
.~~
o~
0,
~ ~
o
I
~I
LD
o
LD 0
~
133.:l NI Hld30
>
tD
II
~
w
-'
<(
o
(f)
"':cn
~c
-.-
'0
Co
.- (]J
..c....
~
0._
~O
....(]J
2~
00
'"'0
't:J
S.c
o~
0'~
-~~
~~
0-
-~
o
o
z
w
CJ
w
-'
E
OJ
~
'"
^~
(f)!Xl
!Xl
c....
0'"
:;::;0
o
."" :::;;
-c-
.- U1
"'<
"'~
o
00
.n
'6 E
(f)^
(f)
"20.
~:)
.- 0
c ....
:::JCJ
~
ll.
(f)
~
~
ll.
(f)
~
~
ll.
(f)
~
o
w
z
;::
(f)
U
Z
<(
CJ
n:::
o
o
z
<(
(f)
w
z
~
z
:;:
o
n:::
(I)
o
f-
Z
:;:
o
n:::
(I)
f-
J:
Cl
:::J
o
z
<(
(f)
w
z
~
z
:;:
o
n:::
(I)
~
n:::
<(
o
88
DO
n~
Oc
,---OJ
tDE
~ 0..
'--- .-
tD ::J
00-
W
C OJ
o c .
.- (J>
]~'1:
"i:: 0 D1
't:J .... C
~ .-
mC=
.... OJ ....
OJO't:J
'"
{J)o~
~{J11
.- c w
c"en ~
(I)::JU
....
OJ
E~L
E.c OJ
o o"G) .
'<=.~ E:fl
. 0'<=
..00.- U
-1'")'"'0 C
o '+-.c 0_
VOON
~ c~
OJ'-
a u I,+-
cN 0
_0
O-+J 0 Q)
.~ 0
(1)"'0 Q) C
3: > 0....-
~ o'cCil to
....0 ""'0.- CO
(J> 't:J tD
_co
o=+-' 0
~~'"'O ,-0
OJ OJOJ
....0 >-.~ (i~
Ea;::JEf-
:) ego~
Z4-L 00..............
z
!1
@ N
"
(f)
w
-'
;:;:
o
'"
CL
-'
(5
U1
<(
.:0
rOo:
zO
D2~
"',
~I
(f)U
1;!i:5
rn
(f)
>-z
rno
"'c-
<z
>-
o
rn
~
@
"
i
I
co
.1 ~
!/, 1
~. '"
;0
, 1
....!,.....
'"
I'"
i
-T---~
I
U
~ i:5
11 <Il
,,;
~
<(
"-
!1
~ i I
~
'"
j
~
"
~
o
u
w
~
~
"
~
a: 1>.'
o ~
to '
i!J ~M
~ ~8~~
i5 F;:~~
~
o
J a a
;g!"if g
,
~
Jon
I
,i
1
I ~]; 1;"1>
~] q 1
,j!~6
t
il
I~
~,
6~ .
~H
[,
!
1<,
i.l,
, '
i
1
C-----"
i~
.
OOl8dH\qdM.L\\ '~I;I ~SOl6. [ooS:6'.SO '6Mp~O-S ",,,
,
----.- - --- -- -
-~-----.--
Ii
: i
0.
<
d
lI:'~
z'
Q'
1--1
"71
>--1
''=-;1
CDI
--I
'::j,
0,
I
,
I
I
~
~ -
[JJ
W
[JJ
0 0
W 0..
'" '"
W '" <{
0 0..
Uj Z 0
Z W :'5 f-O::
0 > 0.. zO
0 ~ Q2G:"
W '" z
'" f- 0 ::J
[JJ ~ <(..,.'
'" f-~
0 ..J (f)U
..J ~ U i:!L5
'"
0 0 ro
:I: '" -' (f)
[JJ 0 ,>-z
"- <::i
Z Z "'0
f!! "'f-
0 '" <(z
~. '-' 0 >-
OW Z ro 0
o!;;: ~ ro
..J::;; ~ ~
,-,5<
zO 0
U) -'" ~~ ~ i
W "'0..
f- 00.. :I:Z
0 'l'<{ f-O
I
Z '"
"'
'"
010
~; I
r~
;;;
<D
Z
0
Z ~
0 :I:
~ U "
0 I~ i'.\
u -' OJ
0 <::i 8
-' ~ :::;
~ ..J
<::i <(
'" U) 0..'
0 Z 0 c-;
0:: ro
z 0 Z
m '" 0
w W 2
f- <::i I
0.. ::J ~
(:) (f) <{
W I
-' ++
~
~
" j
"
9
" ~
~
0 0
0 ~
<( W
~ . ~
0 ~ c
Do:: 0 E .
~ U2 ~
w a:i~fi
U1 w
z
U1 " ~8~-
w z ~::~~
U w
u
..z 1 ~ ~ "
"
1 (
In
~
li'li'li'li'
iHH
It
II
!
!~
m
Z,.
08
m
~
~
!
I
I,
, '
I~
~_.
OO~9dH\qdMl\\'I^l'o'LQ:~~6 E :i'5,/so'EMrcos 't