HomeMy WebLinkAboutWTR2700489(4) W-489 WEST HILL RESERVOIR WTR-11 1
Soils Report & Cesign Study
UM-4 StoQaGe � � i�ties
BEGINNING
OF FILE
FILE TITLE
snow y gf9
lest F�� II peseg 00 � Q
Rook+ y-
Er+�G � Nee�2i NG �es�Gyl
�dy
1
Subsurface Exploration and
Geotechnical Engineering Design Study
Proposed West Hill
' Reservoir and Booster Station
' Renton, Washington
August 24, 1983
J-1215-01
HART
' *C CROMiER &
associates inc.
GEOTECNNICAL& NYOROGEOLOGIC CONSULTANTS
1910 fnry a EMI•Umtl�Ma 98102 9W9.608109.9530
J-1215-01
' 'X NTENTS
Page No.
' INTRODUCTION i
SUMKAKY OF FINDINGS I
' Reservoir 2
Booster Station 2
_General 2
' SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
Reservoir Site 3
Booster Station Site 3
' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECM1E17D7.TIONS 4
Foundation Design Criteria_ 4
' --Reservoir-- 4
—Booster Station-- 6
--General Considerations-- 7
' Drainage Considerations 7
Structural Fill and Back£ill 8
Lateral Pressures 8
Seismi, Considerations 9
' Additional-Reconmendations 9
' FIGURES
1 Site Exploration Plans
APPMDIX A
FIELD E-MORATIONS A-1
FIGURES
A-1 Boring Log B-IA
A-2 Through A-5 Boring Logs B-1 through B-4
' APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING PROCRA.M B-1
FIGURES
' 5-1 and 8-2 Grain Size Classifications
J-121S-Oi
t
SUBSURFACE E)rPL0;ATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN STUDY
' PROPOSED w°ST HILL RESERVOIR AND BOOSTER STATION
RENTON, WASHINGTON
INTRODUCTION
Included in this report are the results of subsurface explorations and
geotechnical engineering design studies completed for the proposed West
' dill Reservoir and Hoosier Station planned for the City of Renton Public
Works Department. This work was preceded by a geotechnical feasibility
study of the reservoir site completed by Hart-Crowser A Associates with the
' results presented in a letter to the City of Renton dated March 11, 1983
(HC J-12,,).
' The purpo8c8 of this study were to:
o Perform additional explorations to better define the depth to
spp.opriate foundation support soil;
o Consider in greater detail the foundation support alternatives
presented in our initial site feasibility study;
' o Prori,e the geotechnical parameters and recommendations
necessary for design and construction.
The scope of the study Included the completion of four hollow-stem auger
borings (three at the reservoir site and one at the site of the pump
station), laboratory classification tests and engineering stud!=s required
to determine geotechnical deaign criteria. This study has been prepar^d in
general accor&ice Witt, our proposal of March 18, 1983. This report has
been prepared for the exclusive use of RM2 Engineering, P.S., the City of
Renton Public Works Department and their design consultants for specific
application to the aabject project and sates. The study has been performed
in accordance with gets+rally accepted geotechnical engineering practices.
No other warranty, expresed or Implied, is made.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
' The following is a suaunary of the principle conclusions and recommendations
presented in this report. The subsequeat sections of the report should be
t consulted for discussion of each point as well as for other recommenda-
tions.
J-1215-01
Page 2
Reservoir
o Subsurface coalitions at the reservoir site corals[ of
previously pliced fill or loose natural soil to a depth
of 6.5 to 10 .eet overlying dense glacial soils;
t o Existing fill and loose soils are unsuitable for founda-
tion support and should be overexcavated and removed;
o Shallow foundation support may be attained using either
a rigid concrete mat bearing on compacted select fill,
or a ring footing bearing on dense natural soil.
' Booster Station
c Subsurface conditions at the booster station site consist
' of loose deposits of silt and sand near the surface with
denser deposits at depth;
o The booster station may be supported on shallow continuous
footings provided each footing is directly underlain by a
thickness of compacted fill equal to the width of the footing;
o The floor slab may be designed as slab-on-grade above
compacted fill.
tGeneral
o Total and diffetential aettiements for each structure are
expected to be less than one inch;
o Subsurface drainage at each location should be provided
using perimeter foundation drains;
o The on-site soils are generally unsuitable for use as com-
pacted struetezal rill. All materials required for
' structural fill should be Imported;
o 0eotechnicil services should be provided during construction
to verify the suitability of the foundation subgrade to
support the applied loads,
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The two sites included in this study are both located in Renton. The
reservoir tank would be constructed near the Intersection of 82nd Avenue
South and South '_2bth Street south of the athletic field south of Dimmitt
Junior High School. The tank location is grass-covered and fairly flat,
with a current ground surfac.• elevation of about 399 feet. The area is on
' the east edge of a recently filled, north-south trending ravine. The
proposed reservoir would have a top elevation of about 492 feet and a
diameter of 52 feet. The height of the tank has not yet been determined,
i
i J-1215-01
Page 3
i
and could depend on the foundation support alternative selected. We expect
i the reservoir base to be less than about 10 feet below the existing grade.
The tank will be construe,-ed of a steel shell..
i The booster station is to be located along Perimeter Road across from the
Renton airport control tower. The station would be one story, about 25 by
30 feet in plan and built into the hillside. The back wall would be
i completely buried and the aide walls partially burled. Anticipated wall
loads for the station are approximately 4 kips per lineal foot. Some
hurled pipes may be required near the pump station with burial depths on
the order of 3 feet.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
i The subsuface conditions at the project sites were evaluated on the basis
of hollow-stem auger borings completed at the general locations shown on
Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan. Four borings were completed at the
reservoir tank site (including one boring from our feasibility study) and
ione at the booster station site. The field exploration procedures and
results are presented in Appendix A and the laboratory test procedures and
results are presented in Appendix '3.
iReservoir Site
i The explorations disclosed previously placed fill material to depths
ranging from 5 to 10 feet below the existing ground surface. The fill was
in a loose to medium dense state and was generally very silty sand with
variable amounts of clay and gravel. In some cases scattered organics were
i noted near the bottom of the fill, possibly indicating a former zone of
topsoil. In its present condition, the existing fill material is not
acceptable for support of shallow foundations. In addition, because of the
i high percentage of fine-grained soil (silt and clay) and the high moisture
content, it is our opinion that it would not be possible to recompact the
material to a suitably dense and non-yielding condition for foundation
isupport. As a result, this material should be excavated and removed.
The primary support soil at the reservoir location consists of medium dense
i to dense silty sand underlying the existing fill. This soil has probably
been overcor.solidated by glacial ice and would be capable of supporting the
recommended foundation pressures with only minor preparation. Ground water
was encountered In the explorations well below the level of the existing
i ground surface, although some standing surface water has been observed
during periods of heavy rainfall.
' Booster Station Site
The boring at the booster station site disclosed several feet of clayey,
i sandy silt in a medium to stiff condition underlain by medium dense sand.
Numerous orgaules were observed in the upper 4 to 5 feet. The near-surface
soil would generally not be suitable for direct support of shall.,w
1
' J-1215-01
Page 4
foundations. However, the material would not require complete
overexcavation if the foundations for the booster station are designed and
constructed as subsequently recommended.
' Grousd water was encountered at a depth of about 13 feet at the time of
exploration. Because of the potential for surface runoff and subsurface
drainage from the higher elevation, to the west, we expect the level of the
' ground water to rise during periods of vet weather.
For a specific description of the conditions encountered in the
explorations, plea3e refer to the logs presented in Figures A-1 through
A-5. Variability of the soils and the tendency for gradational change
within the soil units have made necessary a degree of interpretation and
gener:,lization regarding contact between various soil units. In some
' ^_saes, the contact between units is well established in the exploration
logs, whereas at other locations the contact has been estimated.
' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECONNENDATIONS
Geotechnical engineering studies focused on an assessment of the subsurface
conditions at the specific structure locations and appropriate methods of
providing foundation support. The studies were based on the current plans
and locations for the reservoir and booster station and on the subsuriace
condition as disclosed in the explorations. The design recommendations
included in this report are sensitive to the size and location of the
proposed facilities. If any changes are made prior to construction, we
should be consulted to determine the appropriateness of these
' recomaendationo and discussions.
Variation in the subsurface conditions should be expected during
construction. Our recommendations are dependent on geotechnical
' involvement and observation during construction. In some cases
determination of actual foundation depths may be possible only in the field
at the time of construction.
' Foundation Design rriterla
' —Reservoir--
Two methods of providing shallow foundation support appear most
appropriate. Structural loads for the reservoir would vary depending on
the height, but we expect uniform loads to be on the order of 5.5 to 6.5
kips per square foot across the base due to the weight of the water only
With a concentrated perimeter line load at the shell. Because of these
' relatively high loads, and the apparent low density of the near-surface
soil, we recomnend complete overexcavatlon and removal of all existing fill
or previous topsoil from the tank location. Foundation support could then
' be attained by 1) backfilling with compacted structural fill and
constructing a rigid concrete mat beneath the reservoir, or 2) founding a
perimeter ring footing on the dense natural soil, backfllling with
Page 5-01
Page 5
compacted structu• fill, and using the steel tank bottom as a flexible
' mat.
In the rigid mat alternative, the mat could be constructed at any level
above the dense natural soil. Following overexcava:ion of the existing
fill or loose material, the subgrade should be prepared and backfill placed
in accordance with our subsequent recommendations (section on Structural
Fill and Backfill). The fill material should be a select, sand and gravel
' with a fines content of less than 5 percent by weight. We recommend the
select fill for the mat foundation alternative be well-graded and contain
at least 30 percent gravel. The lateral extent of the compacted fill
' beyond the perimeter of the rigid mat should be as defined by a line
extending from the edge of the mat at a l:l slope out and down to the
level of the dense natural soil.
' We recommend a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 6 kips per square
foot be used for the design of a rigid mat placed on compacted select fill.
For design of a mat foundation, the modulus of subgrade reaction for
' compacted select fill or dense natural granular soils would be on the order
of 250 to 350 pounds per cubic Inch for a one foot square loaded area.
Total and differential settlements using this method are expected to be
' less than about 1 to 1-1/2 inches. This settlement estlmate is based on a
small or moderate thickness of compacted fill beneath the slab and careful
placement and compaction procedures. Higher settlement values would be
expected if the mat is placed above large thicknesses of fill.
Differential settlements may be reduced by limiting the difference in
compacted fill thickness across the mat through overexcavacion of natural
soil and subsequent backfilling.
1 The second method of foundation support would be to construct a perimeter
ring footing on the dense natural soil and locate the tank bottom also on
' the natural surface or on compacted fill confined by the perimeter ring
wall. The ring footing would support the weight of the steel shell in
addition to transient loads caused by wind or seismic events. The steel
' bottom of the reservoir would act as a flexible mat and distribute the
water load evenly across the compacted fill. We recommend that the ring
footing be founded at a consistent level around the tank. Based on the
conditions in the borings, we recommend the perimeter ring footing be
founded on the dense natural soil at a depth of 10 feet or more below the
existing grade. This would thus require some overexcavation of the
existing natural soil. The footing should also be at least 3 feet below
the Surrounding final grade and at least 24 Inches vide.
If it is desired to locate the reservoir base at some level above the
' natural material, the perimeter ring wall could be constructed to transfer
the load from the reservoir shell to the footing and to confine the
compacted structural fill. The fill material should be a select sand or
' sand and gravel but it is not necessary to extend the boundary of fill
placement as with the rigid mat alternative. The ring wall should be
designed to withstand surcharge lateral pressures from the reservoir.
J-1215-01
Page b
' The ring wall should be reinforced circumferentially to resist the hoop
stresses resulting from lateral pressures of the confined loaded earth
beneath the tank. The lateral earth pressure could be approximated by 25H
pounds per square foot at the top of the ring wall and (25H + 55h) at the
base of the wall where H is the maximum water height of the tank and h is
the height of the ring wall (both in feet).
We recommend all allowable soil bearing pressure of 7 kips per square foot
be used for the ring footing bearing on dense natural soil. Total
settlement from this method of support is expected to be less than about
1 one inch. Some minor differential settlement, probably lees than one-half
inch, could occur between the center of the reservoir and the edge,
depending on the height of the ring wall.
' The base of the steel tank could be placed directly on a specially prepared
oil-sand mt. This sand base would serve as a leveling course to provide
uniform support for the steel tank bottom. We recommend this oil-sand mac
' have minimum 6-Inch thickness. The sand mat should be placed only ov_r
densely-compacted structural fill or the properly prepared natural subgrade
materials.
tThe sand should consist of clean material with less than 5 percent fines
and be free from organics, clay lumps, or other deleterious substances.
t Concrete sand or other commercially available send should be suitable for
this purpose.
This sand base should be treated with oil or asphalt to maintain stability
' and inhibit corrrsion of the tank bottom. The oil or asphalt should
thoroughly penetrate the sand blanket.
t —Booster Station--
Because the near-surface soil at the booster station location is generally
' not capable of providing direct support for shallow foundations we
recommend the tall footings and floor slab be constructed on compacted
structural fill. The in-place soils, need to be ov.rexcavated only as
necessary to provide for the fill placement. By placing fill beneath the
footings, the foundation loads my be distributed within the fill,
resulting in a lower applied pressure to the underlying soil. We recommend
a thickness of compacted fill equal to the width of the footing directly
' underlie the tooting. We recommend the footings be at least 18 inches vide
and founded at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent ftaished grade.
The lateral extent of the fill should be equal to at least twice the
' thickness of the fill beneath the footing. In other words, a footing 2
feet wide should be underlain by at least 2 feet of fill over an area at
least 4 feet wide.
1
' J-1215-01
Page T
Using this method, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2 kips per square
foot may be used for design of the footings. Expected total and
differential settlements would be on the order of one Inch and one-half
' inch, respectively.
The building floor slab may be designed as slab-on-grade and should be
' underlain by at least 18 inches of compacted fill including the drainage
blanket and capillary break to be subsequently discussed.
—General Considerations—
Water pipes may be constructed underground in conjunction with both the
reservoir and booster station. In order to provide uniform aupport along
the line of the pipes, we recommend they be installed on 4 to 6 inches of
^ompocted, well-graded, sand and gravel bedding material.
The allowable foundation pressures presented in this report may be
Increased by up to one-third for loads of short duration such as those
"used by wind or seismic events. In general, we expect the soils at each
' site to behave elastically, that Is, settle essentially as the load Is
applied, rather than in a time-dependent manner. Disturbance of the
foundation base during construction could result in larger settlements due
to the loosening effect of the soil. He therefore recommend that disturbed
' areas be excavated and cleaned or recompacted prior to concrete placement.
We recommend that Hart-Crowser a Associates observe foundation excavations
prior to concrete placement to verify the suitability of the soils for the
design bearing pressures.
Bra maps Cone l de rat Sans
' Because thee. is a potential for an inflow of precipitation runoff at each
site we recommend perimeter foundation drains be installed around the
reservoir, if ring footings are used, and booster station. Drains should
also be installed behind all retaining walls backfilled on one side only.
The drains should be Installed at the base of the foundations and should
consist of 4-inch dlameter perforated pipe placed on a bed of. and
' surrounded by freely-draining sand and gravel having a fines content of
less than l percent. the free-draining material should extend vertically
to within 6 inches of the surface and be at least 12 inches in width. The
drains should be eloped to carry the water to a sump or other suitable
discharge location. Final site grades should be designed to carry surface
water away from the structure in crder to prevent it from accumulating and
ponding next to the structure.
Heasu:es should be. taken to prevent water from accumulating within the fill
enclosed by a ring wall beneath the reservoir in order to reduce the
possible rusting and corrosion of the bottom of the steel tank. This may
be accomplished by installing a drain pipe In Cu drainage material beneath
the oil-sand mat (as subsequently recommended) and providing a connection
' through the ring wall to the perimeter foundation drain.
' 1215-01
Page S
' The floor slab at the booster station and the rigid mat for the reservoir
(if selected) should be directly underlain by a miuimum o-inch thickness of
freely-draining sand and gravel with a fines content of less than 3
percent. Placement of this drainage layer beneath the steel tank bottom
for the ring wall reservoir alternative (if selected) should be directly
beneath the oil-aand mt. This layer serves as a "pillory break and,
except for the rigid met, as a drainage layer to the subgrade drains.
Structural Fill and Backfill
' All fill placed for slab, foundation or pavement support should be placed
as structural fill. The structural fill. should be placed to lifts not
exceeding 10 inches loose thickness and thoroughl;+ compacted to at least '15
percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density as determined by ASTM
D-1557 test procedure. Pill in pave" areas should be compacted to 92
percent. The moisture content during compaction should be controlled
' within 2 percent of optimum moisture. Optimum molacure is that water
content which results in the highest compacted dry density. It is
recommended that a representative of our firm be present during placement
to monitor filling and perform field density tests.
We recommend all structural fill material placed in foundation areas
consist of select, well-graded sand sr sand and gravel with less than 5
' percent fines. The on-site soils are generally not suitable for this
purpose. As the amount of fines (that portion passing the No. 200 sieve)
increases, the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in
moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve.
Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines cannot be consistently
compacted to a dense, nonyiel:" a cond'tion when the water content is
significantly above or below op
' Prior to the placement of fill the exposed subgrade should be preefrolled
to a dense and nonytel.ding surface. Soft or yielding areas should be
overexcavated and removed. because of the nature of the soil at the
booster station, proofrolling could result in unnecessary further
disturbance of the materials. In this case, proofrolling should not take
place. Same drying of the exposed material may be required, however, prior
to fill placement.
Prerequisite to fill control is the determination of the compactive
characteristics from representative samples. Samples should be obtained
from the borrow area as soon as work begins. A study of the compaction
characteristics should include determination of optimum and natural
' moisture contents of these soils at the time of placement.
Lateral Pressures
' The lateral soil pressures applied to the buried walls of the booster
station may be computed using either at-rest or active conditions. It Oe
J-1215-01
Page 9
Walla are considered nonytelding, at-rest conditions should be used with a
mobilized soil pressure of 55 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), expressed as an
equivalent fluid Weight. For walls allowed to yield a minimum of 0.1
percent of their height, active conditions would be appropriate with an
equivalent fluid weight of 35 pcf.
Other subgrade walls backfilled on one side only may also be designed using
' these conditions and soil pressures and could use the passive resistance of
the soil in conjunc•Lou with active pressures. The allowable passive
resistance used in design may he computed using an equivalent fluid weight
' of III pcf, including a factor of safety of about 2, which is considered
standard geotechnical practice.
Seismic Considerations
' The Puget Sound r-.gion is seismically active and has a Unified Building
Code designation of Zone 3. During a seismic event, the structures would
' be subject to ground shaking and should be designed accordingly. No known
earthquake fault, potential landslide features, or other seismic hazards
are locared in the Imediate vicinity of the project.
Additional Racommendations
It is recommended that Hart-Crowser d Ass,. .ices, Inc. be provided the
' oppa•tunity for a general review of the final design and specifications in
order that foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and
implemented in the design and specifications.
' It is recommended that Hart-Crowser d Associates be retained to provide
full-time or intermittent geotechnlcal services during the more critical
phases of earthwork and foundation runstruction. We would expect our
e services to be required especially during fill placement and excavation and
construction of foundation units. This observation is necessary because of
the variable subsurface condittona and would be to observe compliance with
' the deli Jn concepts, specifications and recommendations, and to allow
design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those
anticipated prior to the start of construction.
tRART--CROWSER 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
114VID G. WINTER
Senior Staff EEnngineeerrr lk. $ '''
O m 9
' DENNIS R. STETTLER, P.E. � e
Vice President `
1 v
C
' DGW;DRS:lk sae ON-' k��/
1 Site Exploration Plans
1 Reservoir Site
_. 4w01
/
/ G
( '
/ N
1 1// B-1
c
°
1 0° RESERVOIR a'
� 0 TANK
B-2 402 /
1 , 400
396
1
\ Scale in Feet
1 Pump Station Site
1 _
2s 8-4 9
1 28— P+xnp Station
1 32 ---
3 —
34—
�I 31F— —
1 38
a0—
N
0 20 40
Scale in Feet
1 B— Boring Location and Number J- 1215-01 August 1983
HART-CROWSER & associates Inc.
1 Reproduced from site plans prepared by Figure t
RH2 Engineering dated June 1983.
M
u
1
1
' J-1215-01
1 APPtNOIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
1 A total of four hollow-stem auger borings were drilled on July 18 and 19,
1983 to depths ranging from 12 to 29 feet below the ground surface. The
borings were advanced with a t::ck-mounted M 750 drill rig under
1 subcontract to Hart-Crowser 6 Associates using a 3 and 3/3 inch inside
diameter hollow auger. The drilling wag accomplished under the continuous
observation of an engineering geologist from our firm. A preliminary
1 boring (B-LA) was completed on February 17. 1983 in conjunction with our
site feasibility study. Detailed field logs were prepared of ea.n boring
and representative disturbed samples were obtained on a 2 and 1/2 to 5 foot
sample depth interval.
1 The samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test procedure
as described in ASTM D-1587. The number of blows required to drive the
1 sampler with a 140 pound hammer free-falling 30 inches was recorded in
three 6-inch intervals. The number f blows required to drive the sampler
the final 12 inches is the Standar eenetration Resistance which is plutted
1 on the boring logs at thn respective sample elevations. The Penetration
Resistance or 'N' value is a measure of the In-place density of the sampled
soils and is used to classify the aamples Into relative density categories.
1 Samples were recovered from the 6�lit-barrel sampler, clasbifled and placed
in watertight jars and transported to our laboratory for further testing.
Although the Standard Penetration Test is a useful tool, the results most
be used in conjunction with other teats and with engineering judgement.
1 The boring logs presented in Figures A-1 through A-5 are a graphic
representation of the in ormation laterpreted from drilling action, samples
recovered, and laboratory rests. The depth where the soils, or
1 characteristics of these soils changed, is noted. The change may be
gradual.
The borings were located in the Held for as by the City of Renton (B-LA)
1 or RH2 Engineering "4-1, 2, 3, 4). The ground surface elevations were
determl,,ed based on ,. a plans and surveys prepared by the "ity of Renton
and RH2 Engineering and provided to Hart-Crowser 6 Associates by RH2.
i
1
1
i
1
1 Boring Log Q- 1A
Sok STANOAAV tAR!)RATORV
1 NTE 1►REietpN PENErRAI"RESISTANCE TESTS
•ro rsw..eN.c+e.sw�
Ciao
-ba,-,--I-Or.,,ne$.I...Erm%.a and 399 rqT taros �Aie.r e♦.reel
1 Sod rr
%eat%•dense, To at. brown, al tgntly
q
g .el ly, silty S➢e SUist e. (ills 1, S 1
1 Grades c1aYe/. very silty S-t ` 1 SS
1 S•4 i
vary dense wilt, broi, -gray, 311tetly grew•!.
fiat' SAND dN sae wee tnen ry. 10 S. q
1 Oi� so
wl so1
Ib �
1
I,
S_6 �- � f ( it Sl
Large 9*avel or cobble imitated by dr11 action,
eery dense, -at To sat.r.tev, troy, atigetiY P
silty, tine m coarse SAM wife occa"I I ..raI
Soto
I •
Am
%ore $I Ity S-8 I it. 91
1 __ __-___ _ ____ ___
➢itu by Eori%aqq at M feat. ' t
Carl<tad
1 1/ I
N
� � --1 •0 N 'W
0 XIIt,N NarN G..I.nl l{)
cwa uer u.r �f".'_?`_^➢__-...,.._.._ ila9al41 TLa!f_._-_._- wpa
a'oo tar,ea.r. s CP..Yr.•nr%a.r rW r,.r...waa+rwnN r amMFv......r..,w,vrnw w r
a.. CX C.._I., uwr� wrvr�frwaN MlM y.IW
00 9w.r I. 'Cu I,yrr C.NNm,N t .rw.Nr.re.w w .n.M
1 L�I •FMN MrW,r IN, 1MrN. r
Mnwra.4.r,,r•r..P,r.
n.,r s.-s. m a•.r,sr... �0 lIr.rrwrMa
YM IMw,JINI . 'el W.^,wN CSFVN.an
1 {rn Iw • n.+PM qwe „
I a4{%MN f w� M.N..N„ .rr.N N•a�erv"
J•1215-01 Atpust 1993
MART-CROWSER & associates. Inc.
1 Figure A-1
Boring Log B - 1
SOP. STAN041O LABORATOR,
NTEFVWTAtlo% /O lift" MIESBTAPICE tEsTS
nMe r,ft,So...N.
AIIIa.w1I1e p.awe s�sau fy,o•en m yN 999 [NM y!„yy 42'a+."I PIN
r__ __�� p •I N w{ •w
Nedfu.dome. Mist. tra+n ad gray Mttlod. III" I
SAID. (P ttt) do as
s-1
s•2;
1♦ tpl SHAD+iN Iuttmd pryant<a.I i,",C5p71 N4fy
Dome. Mnt• OrP+A am toy. 7rn IIII, 311ty. ( o 5-3
find to wit 714' +'ta+tltood roof. S_A •
I
1 j 7-s
1,
�. emado to eery, dome.
ado" of do"Pit 18.1 Peet, to
' Ca"Ittod 7/7S/83.
1 , �
Io I I
e N.IW.I W.'N GeM.nl t11
' u. • � I'00 M•Mx• .a Gn I•N 1n.ltyt eyy P.IPVy VYMtYY�M � !N NNr.YwI Va w1I1•tM1 W
e.nw+n t. !WSJ' Mnn NV INMWI •M1Y.bNN nN N YtMM
S .Od IM+t Iw IYrypVN PNI IGY M1I p.4Y P YEN•NNI..VRtW Y L IN NN
fVYr MW••N�V) ICY mn.V
Csl.ry t14r � N•N•M✓ If0 I..rw ienN•wlN •W
•y� W VfMIMILVFrN�w pWe
�P�N�O'..VI♦ Mi�i� MY.M COr.IMI I�I�
P „.«N Pr.N1 'Y ry.w'.NI Iy�i+F.r�.( ♦Tq
.:IyN.v•':h.i.Y .IWt N ht.M IWYYNIM �V ♦ + ♦wax
J-1215-01 August 1983
HART•CROWSER d associates, me
' Figure A-2
1 Boring Log B - 2
Sod. STANOARO LADORATOPY
1 NTERPRETATICN PONTRATN)N RES,•TANCE TES'S
Au.o..am a.ow.n Swuu W.pwn.rur 399 rNM Awe •ea.r Pw roel
1 0 s e Ao is ,w
Madius orss, milt b net, erowr, silty. fift f
SAND to fiu SaMy 5iV with ocasiorAt cane
SAW. tfllt),
S.t •
1 f °
5 2
5.3
1
to oeol� SAND.orge. uesi yqy. Slightly pavellys silty. ft" Sd •t
S•5 i
s T
Sottspo of Sorin3 W2 rest. ^� I -3
50
Col ebe 7/is/Sl. io
II �
iis
1 >o
)
1
I is
1 I �
1 Ae I
1 � �► it
Se I
e w e u
is M)
1 g(Q.mCyry tap �A-.�"'.9_�__ y!e ,—W TTosis � "is.
se.w as Q— .l.Aww 'w :N¢x....n.. 1 U.a[oaNa,... .w w.n....
M�ewN sw+ S.roN wa
en
�-+ T oi..„p.�r rw w•^..wq.rn .c, nN w c�sw..w i n .•u..� r.Na.N.. w rN a.r.
. G.iaay l.roN • ..,. ir.MA
pi...W topp � 04 NfwNe epaMN
Yus'lsl:ls�iLV---
1 * A srwa.rwn.e « r...... m •• a •`�"`f'•'i rNw
w. MNe
J-1215-01 August 1983
1 HART-CROWSER 3 aSSOC!ates, :mC.
Figure A-3
1 Boring Log B- 3
SOc STANDARD LABORATORY
1 NTERFBETATIpN PENETRATpN RESISTANCE TESTS
e•am ♦Bb'n ow F.e�A00<0/rOaO Gr w«+a$wrata eNpnen b FaFI 399 Ra 9amaa
1 -_._.-1 o e .e to sa .on
Nedtuadem e, gray to bream rattled, silty. Fine i
SANp. (Ells). e
S•1 i
�Re�fSca' l Ve' dam Oart yp����yynn s{�ta Fine SNNO
erjd or¢jr ics (NPSGIC.20MC.)1_
modiue Aana to Very a.". dmp.ggray. SIiNNtty f
1 graeeily, Very silty. fine to Fe41 VN SANe to s-S I !
fuky SofT. _ 10
Sd GS
i
' So Boring 1L4 feet
CalplealetMe! I/1!/87. �
i! I
1 ec
i
1 as
1 Se
1 !S
.o
♦!
1 W I s Ca in la iae
el Name Fear rNi It)
G'.una.e.,L..w _ S.nn,.Q- NOaan.r i�glf Noas
.P. t snwa wry~ c: a« n>nu. wu rry.,x yiy.aFeM>Ye i fw >
C. can.«q>.p o V lrae rox owA.w~aa waeuxa ana
r co raw. _ r<u rw.v cana>r.w t w ..u.x+aw.w V «nv sat.
• Y !+ •. ry..�ails,,ia« M4rav law
1 Of Ou.q 6Mo eo i«aow.na r
c.n-a s.me.• rai.
F•ar ceaanl(x)
1 v ..no• .r R u
• o N......' m..^µ. wem
a J-1215-01 August 1983
HART-^,R0.4SER B associates, Inc.
1 Figure A-4
Boring Log B- 4
SO& STANDARD LABORATORY
INTERPRETATION PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS
nm.p,.e..eer,op r<n e•em
�ptli ♦Blor,p
' •PPw{Mw Grow,o swN[e Eunnon�n.ol 26 1., sprnoN Re'saoot 0ron
0
very stiff• aloist, or.,, sightly clayey.aT",g0
sandy SILT with n,vmroe es organics. rTOK01l teMEl
S-i
--- _ _
Mecspn stiff, weir Crown, Sway, clayey SILT S
CecYaea St-If.If!/, gray,
Vary>nwy M root dis. $"2 ' •� I GS
' ' J $ 1 I •I
o45e, +eigraY• very kZTiy.�nj(y oaftics. 50
with tlsin 1Mta5 of dark Crown.s5lty organics. Q $•1 I
♦T°
' ' Medico dense, sa Nrated, gray Crown, silty. fine
I SAMn S-S I •
is
5-6
Grades W very silty, very fine SAMI). S-7 •
ap S e
f-S •
Changes [c aKse Ef
----- - •
Bottom o1 Dori
11�y 29 Eeet, 30
completed 711B/B7.
S9 i
eC
1 as i
•W mN wrier Co unt It+l
S!_QY^_ ase,tm1 S.-J!ng lepo.alpry taan Not',
Y OP ".1 ShI °a be.W..nah4{ rW Ir,arNl yNp•Np4«pp 1 apM Eep<rYlNn{erp nl«pNx.p{M
IMI see. ® s.w,p" ex e.••.«N.rN...,l .rw,..Na e<r„«en.ve...,we II
9 rcp •r.rrw
s'oo sn.,ep Iw. w.1—se+N r... w wnyw
2 s.Nw 0 ro.• e..a .r.«.-•,n N.1.
m cie",a.,•w oa o+«,alr.e• 4o a .,u C.rNew«.a
b«www
w °V 1K nN VpMre.e..M w bpeMp 1 1
pl M•l.rM pr bau.a
ev v a«wNl n,..n.a rH 1 . NI .N.;±,_,_, M.°se{im N f�r5q Na1bbN.nlN. Po<p«eM«•p.Hr« .11
«e 1<M•rl
J-1215-01 August 1983
HART•CROWSER 3 associates, Inc.
Figure A-5
J-1215-01
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
1 A laboratory testing program was performed for this study to +luate the
basic index properties of the site soils and to aid in cladsificatlon.
Soil samples recovered in the explorations were visually classified in the
field and then transported to the laboratory where the classifications were
verified L, a relatively controlled environment. Classifications were made
' in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual
classifications included soil consistencv or density, color, moisture
content, major soil type and the modify fractions in the sample. The
classifications of selected samples were checked by performing laboratory
' tests such as grain size analyses and Atterberg limit determinations on the
samples.
Moisture contents were determined for each sample recovered in the
ex,lorations in general accoraance with ASTM D-2216 as soon as possible
following their arrival in our laboratory. 'rhe results of these tests are
' shown adjacent to each soil samp'.e on the boring logs, Figures A-1 through
A-5. In addition, the moisture contents of samples subjected to other
testing have been determined and are presented along with the various test
' results which follow In this appendix.
' Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples generally In
accordance with test procedures described in ASTM D-422. The vet sieve
analysis method was used for moat samples and determined the size
' distribution greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve size. The size
distribution for particles less than the No. 200 mesh sieve was determined
by the hydrometer method for a selected sample. The results of the tests
are presented as curves in Figures B-1 and B-2, plotting percent finer by
' weight versus grain size. Each curve is identified as to exploration
number and sample number with a complete written description presented in
tabulated form at the bottom of the figure.
1
Grain Size Classification
' Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sirs of Gpamny :n MM� N b'al Mam wr m.,us $tmC I Wa,n 5¢, m mm g
� o
\ _ q
1 b _
20
w
LL q
_ w _ O
q
u w
0 A 0
a �
m — m
q
10
0
cov.a Fwa ca.lo r.egn, Fin.
' Cobbles —._____ __.__ ..._... ... —_ Fllces
Wa•a Sae
LINE BORING SAMPLE DEP7H UNIFIED WATER
SYNIBOL NUMBER NUMBER IN FEET CLASSIFICATION SOIL C. NTENT
' CLASS. P, ICENT
B-IA 5-2 5.0- Slightly gravelly, SM 6
6.5 very silty SAND
' —— B-I S-3 7.5- Silty, very oravelly SM 11
9.0 SAND
----- B-2 S-3 7.5- Slightly gravelly, ML 15
9.0 very sandy SILT
J-1215-01 August 1983
HART-CROWSER 6 associates, inc.
tFigure 8-1
t Grain Size Clas-ification
' Sieve Analysis Hydrometer A1lolysis
[ Sv�gl (q.�unq rn—ncM� NUMw W AN�n q. n u5 Sla�ae.d Gwn yir , m_r
w a.
w � L
L 0
U
0 — - _ •
} � T
Sj
D w D
m w i
C N �
LL O
w O
m — m
p _ p
q M n n • n p
GreM LN s MIIIpn.N+r
COTrM _ __ MM/pT FT� 7 '" '—� rllllS
WgrM S,M
LINE BORING SAMPLE DEPTH UNIFIED WATER
SYMBOL NUMBER NUMBER IN FEET SOIL CONTENT
CLASSIFICATION
CLASS. PERCENT
B-3 S-4 10.0- Very Sandi SILT MI 11
I1,5
B-4 S-2 5.0- Clayey, very Sandy ML 28
6.5 SILT
tJ- 1215-01 August 1983
HART-CROWSER 8 associates, inc.
' Figure B-2
WTRL If Stolk4Ge. Fairwi it ties
ENDING
F FIL
FILE TITLE
ov 411
W fl Y Ift // klip5ejo. Va � R
Soi is �ePoR1' �t-
� A> eee iNC+ Des iG71
Spud�/