HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEOTech Review Kitchen Bldg - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 9/10/2018 Geotechnical Report
Union, Washington, Residences
Proposed Kitchen Building Project
Union, Washington
September 10, 2018
SFMNNON •
GEOTECNNICAI AND FNVIRONMFNTAL CONSULTANTS
Excellence. Innovation. Service. Value.
Since 1954.
Submitted To:
Mr. Ray Nelson
Watermark Estate Management Services, LLC
10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 200
Kirkland, Washington 98033
By:
Shannon &Wilson, Inc.
400 N 34th Street, Suite 100
Seattle, Washington 98103
21-1-22423-001
SHANNON MWILSON,INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................1
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS...............................................................................4
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING...................................................................................................4
5.1 Water Content Determinations...................................................................................5
5.2 Grain Size Analyses...................................................................................................5
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................................................5
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................6
7.1 Foundations................................................................................................................6
7.2 Floor Slabs..................................................................................................................6
7.3 Earth Pressures...........................................................................................................7
7.4 Temporary and Permanent Slopes..............................................................................7
7.5 Rockeries....................................................................................................................7
7.6 Groundwater Control..................................................................................................8
7.7 Seismic Design Considerations..................................................................................8
7.8 Drainage and Infiltration............................................................................................9
7.8.1 Subsurface Drainage....................................................................................9
7.8.2 Infiltration Testing.....................................................................................10
7.9 Falling Head Results and Recommendations...........................................................11
7.10 Pavement Design......................................................................................................11
7.10.1 General.......................................................................................................11
7.10.2 Subgrade Condition ...................................................................................12
7.10.3 Design Traffic............................................................................................12
7.10.4 Hot-mix Asphalt (HMA) Pavement Design Recommendations................12
7.10.5 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement Design Recommendations..13
7.10.6 Pavement Materials and Construction Considerations..............................14
7.10.7 Frost Conditions.........................................................................................15
7.10.8 Utility Considerations Under Pavement ....................................................15
7.11 Site Grading and Excavation....................................................................................15
7.12 Structural Backfill and Compaction.........................................................................16
7.13 Wet Weather Earthwork...........................................................................................17
7.14 Review of Plans and Construction Monitoring........................................................18
7.15 Additional Considerations........................................................................................18
21-1-22423-001-R2F/wp/lkn 21-1-22423-001
i
SHANNON MMILSON.INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
8.0 LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................18
9.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................20
TABLES
1 International Building Code 2015 Parameters for Seismic Design of
Structures .................................................................................................................9
2 Recommended Long-Term Infiltration Rate for Bio-Infiltration Facilities...........11
3 Input Data for Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement Analysis.............................................13
4 Input Data for Portland Concrete Cement Pavement Analysis..............................14
FIGURES
1 Vicinity Map
2 Site and Exploration Plan
3 Generalized Subsurface Profile A-A'
4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Permanent Wall Design
5 Recommended Surcharge Loading for Temporary and Permanent Walls
6 Typical Below-Grade Wall and Floor Slab Subdrainage and Backfill
7 Typical Rockery Detail
APPENDICES
A Subsurface Exploration Logs
B Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
C Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report
21-1-22423-00 1-final report.domwp/lkn 21-1-22423-001
ii
SHANNON MVILSON,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
UNION,WASHINGTON, RESIDENCES
PROPOSED KITCHEN BUILDING PROJECT
UNION, WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This geotechnical report presents the results of our geotechnical explorations, laboratory testing
and engineering analyses to develop design recommendations for the Union, Washington,
Residences, Kitchen Building Project. The project is located at 51 East Waterwheel Place in
Union, Washington, as shown in Figure 1.
Included in this report are a site and project description, results of our geotechnical explorations
(test pits and borings), laboratory testing, infiltration testing results, and a description of the
subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. Geotechnical recommendations for design of the
proposed building foundation, retaining wall, pavements, and site development are provided.
The services detailed in this report were provided in general accordance with the scope of
services as outlined in our contract with the Watermark Estate Management Services, LLC,
dated May 25, 2017.
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site, known as the West Parcel, consists of an undeveloped parcel adjacent to the
west side of a large residential compound (Union, Washington, Residences) on the south shore of
Hood Canal, near Union, Washington. The residential compound consists of multiple residences
and associated outbuildings including the Operation Building that is currently being remodeled
and expanded. State Route 106 (SR-106) extends in an east-west direction through the property,
separating the Operations Building from the residential compound. The Alderbrook Resort
development is situated to the east of the main residential compound.
The Kitchen Building site is currently densely forested with Cedar and Fir trees, as shown in
Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan. The site is located on a gentle, north-facing slope with
about 11 feet of topographic relief from south to north (elevation 40 feet to elevation 29 feet).
The south side of the site is bordered by SR-106, and the north side is bordered by East
Waterwheel Place. Dalby Creek, located approximately 50 feet east of the proposed Kitchen
Building, flows south to north through the property, as shown in Figure 2. The Kitchen Building
site is located on a north-facing slope that extends down to the north for approximately 300 feet
to the shoreline of Puget Sound. Overall, the ground slopes down to the north at about 2 to
21-1-22423-001-R2F/wp/lkn 2 1-1-22423-00 1
1
SHANNON WLSON,ING.
5 percent, but is broken into segments of different inclination due to previous grading for
Waterwheel Place and existing residences between the subject property and the shoreline. The
upslope ground surface is inclined down to the north at 7 to 10 percent. The geomorphic features
upslope from the subject property are typical for alluvial fan deposits. We observed the
remnants of an old concrete slab and stone-masonry foundation wall within a relatively flat-
graded portion of the site along East Waterwheel Drive. We understand (based on anecdotal
information received from the neighbor, Mr. Abrams) that the old concrete and masonry was
intended be the foundation for a roadside cafe that was never completed. Additionally, we
observed the presence of a 1-inch-diameter rubber hose that extends through the property and
reportedly supplies irrigation water from Dalby Creek to the neighboring(Abrams) property.
The plans and site layout by James Davison Architects shows the new building as a two-story
structure with a small parking area on the north, an access drive on the east, and a loading/
delivery area on the south, as shown in Figure 2. The finished floor of the building will be at
elevation 31.33 feet. To achieve the finished floor elevation will involve making temporary
excavations to depths of up to 7 feet. We understand that some relatively low retaining walls and
fill placement will be needed to achieve grades for the proposed access drive and delivery area.
The project will not involve constructing a new septic system for wastewater disposal as it will
utilize the existing facilities on the east side of Dalby Creek. Stormwater management will
include use of bio-infiltration swales designed by the project Civil Engineer, MKA.
3.0 GEOLOGY AND HAZARDS EVALUATION
The geology and topography at the site are a legacy of the last glaciation of the Puget Lowland
and geologic processes in the ensuing 13,000 years. Ice initiated in British Columbia and in the
Olympic Mountains during the Pleistocene Epoch at least six times, covering all or portions of
the lowland. During the last advance of continental ice, the project area was covered with about
2,500 to 3,000 feet of ice. During its advance, it blocked the Strait of Juan de Fuca, causing a
lake to form in the basin and glacial lake sediments to be deposited. As the ice moved
southward, the deposition changed to sand and gravel outwash, and eventually till was plastered
over the underlying landscape. After melting of the ice, present-day geologic processes took
over, such as landsliding, erosion, alluvial deposition, and pond sedimentation.
The project site is underlain by Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Qaf), as shown in the Geologic
Map of the Skokomish Valley and Union 7.5-minute Quadrangles., Mason County, Washington
(Polenz and others, 2010). Soils borings at this location encountered 21.5 feet of this material.
Landslide hazards are defined in the Mason County Resource Ordinance Section 8.52.140,
geologically hazardous areas, to include areas:
21-1-22423-001-KF/wp/lkn 21-1-22423-001
2
L
Y
SHANNON 6WILSON.INC.
■ With any indications of earth movement
■ Areas oversteepened by cuts or fills
■ Areas with soft or potentially liquefiable soils
■ Areas oversteepened or unstable by stream or wave action
■ Slopes greater than 15 percent with relatively permeable sediments over impermeable
sediments or bedrock
■ Any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper
Potential landslide hazard areas generally have a threshold of 15 percent or greater slope. The
subject site does not contain any of the above-mentioned hazard indicators.
Additionally, the Mason County Code 8.52.140 identifies hazard areas as those areas susceptible
to landslides or the effects of erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geologic events that are
published in the following publications:
■ Landforms and Hazard Ratings—Mason Watershed (Sarikhan and Walsh, 2007)
■ The Mason County Soils Survey(U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], 1951)
■ The Coastal Zone Atlas, Volume 9, of Mason County
■ Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood Canal Area, Washington, (Smith and
Carson, 1977)
■ Various published geologic maps within the Washington Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) Geologic information Portal: https:Hgeologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/
Section 8.52.150 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance addresses seismic hazard areas.
Potentials seismic hazards include areas with seismic faults, poorly compacted fill, artificially
steepened slopes, postglacial streams, river deltas, potential landslide areas, bluff areas, and areas
underlain by liquefiable soils. The subject site does not contain any of the above-mentioned
hazard features. Based on our review of the DNR Geologic Information Portal, we understand
that the western end of the Tacoma Fault (an inferred fault trace)is mapped by DNR at a
distance of 5.3 miles northeast of the subject property. The Hood Canal Fault is approximately
4 miles to the northwest of the property. The Lucky Dog fault is approximately 3.6 miles to the
southwest. None of these fault zones is close enough to the subject property to represent a fault
rupture hazard and they are not listed as active faults.
Section 8.52.160 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance addresses erosion hazard areas. The
site does not contain erosion hazard areas and we saw no erosion hazards during our field
reconnaissance and exploration work.
21-1-22423-001-R2F/wp/Ikn 21-1-22423-001
3
S N> WI N HANNO LSO ,INC.
In summary, we did not observe any evidence of slope instability on or near the subject site. The
published geological information in the above-mentioned references does not indicate the
presence of known geologic hazard areas as defined by Mason County ordinance 8.52.140. In
our opinion, the subject site is not in or near a geologically hazardous area and does not contain
steep slopes over 15 percent.
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Geotechnical investigations were conducted at the locations of proposed Kitchen Building,
proposed driveway, and delivery and parking areas to evaluate the subsurface and groundwater
conditions.
A total of four test pits and four soil borings were performed on July 28 and 31,2017, to
characterize the subsurface and groundwater conditions at the project site. Two additional pits
were excavated on September 4, 2018, to facilitate infiltration testing. The locations of the
explorations are shown in Figure 2.
The 2017 test pits were excavated using a rubber-tired excavator operated by the Whitworth
Excavating, Inc. under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson, Inc. The 2018 test pits (TP-8 and
TP-9) were excavated by RV Associates, Inc. The test pits are designated TP-4 through TP-9
and ranged from 6.5 to 8 feet deep. Test pits were backfilled using the materials excavated. A
Shannon & Wilson representative observed and logged the test pits, retrieved representative grab
samples for subsequent laboratory testing, and prepared descriptive test pit logs. The samples
were placed in plastic bags and returned to our laboratory for testing. The logs of the test pits are
presented in Appendix A as Figures A-2 through A-7. A soil description and log key is also
presented in Figure A-1.
Four soil borings, designated SW-3 through SW-6, were drilled by Gregory Drilling on July 31,
2017. These borings were advanced to depths of to 21.5 feet below ground surface(bgs).
Groundwater observation wells were installed in SW-3 and SW-5. The locations of these
explorations are shown in Figure 2. The borings logs are presented in Appendix A as
Figures A-8 and A-10. Figure A-1 presents a key to our classification of the soils summarized in
the boring logs.
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples retrieved from the test pits. The
laboratory testing program included a variety of tests to classify the soils and to provide data for
engineering studies. Classification and index laboratory tests included visual classification and
21-1-22423-001-R2F/wp/lkn 21-1-22423-001
4
SHANNON 6WILSON.INC.
tests to determine natural water content, grain size distribution. Two samples were submitted to
an independent laboratory, Fremont Analytical, for Cation Exchange Capacity testing. The
results from the laboratory tests are included in Appendix B.
5.1 Water Content Determinations
Water content was determined on selected samples in general accordance with ASTM D2216,
Test Method for Determination of Water(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock (ASTM, 2010).
The water content is shown graphically in each test pit and boring log(Appendix A).
5.2 Grain Size Analyses
The grain size distributions of selected samples from TP-5, TP-6 and TP-7 were determined in
general accordance with ASTM D422, Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils
(ASTM, 2007). Results of these analyses are presented as gradation curves in Appendix B.
Gradation sheet provides the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) group symbol, the
sample description, and water content. The USCS for samples with fewer than 50 percent fines
were classified in general accordance with ASTM D2488, Standard Recommended Practice for
Description of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure) (ASTM, 2009).
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The geology and subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from soil samples and
information obtained from borings and test pits, data gathered from prior reports by Shannon &
Wilson, and geologic maps of the area. The following is a summary of the general geology and
the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the project site.
The sediments encountered in test pits and borings at the Kitchen Building site consist of a
surficial layer approximately 1 foot thick of forest duff, topsoil, and variable fill materials. This
is underlain by variable layers of Holocene alluvium (Ha) consisting of medium dense to dense
Gravel with sand and silt (well-graded and poorly graded gravel with silt and sand). Cobbles are
also present in the gravel layers. A Generalized Subsurface Profile through the project site is
presented in Figure 3.
Groundwater was observed in all the soil borings and in test pit TP-4 at a depth of 5.5 feet
(approximate elevation 23.5 feet). Groundwater in the borings was observed at variable depths,
as shown in the boring logs. The groundwater level in observation wells installed in SW-3 and
SW-5 was measured at elevations 24.3 and 25.14 feet on September 20, 2017; however, these are
likely dry-season lows and the groundwater elevation is likely to rise during the rainy winter
months. A water level data logger was installed in observation well SW-5 to record the rise in
21-1-22423-001-R2F/wp/lkn 21-1-22423-001
5
SHANNON bWILSON.INC.
groundwater through the 2017/2018 winter months and it measured a seasonal high groundwater
level on November 24, 2017, at elevation 28.5 feet (5.5 feet bgs).
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Foundations
The test pit and boring explorations indicated that competent bearing soils consisting of dense to
very dense native soils are present at the proposed Kitchen Building site. Based on the results of
our subsurface explorations and engineering studies, we recommend the structure be supported
on the spread footings bearing on undisturbed, dense, sandy gravel deposits present below the
surficial forest duff. An allowable bearing pressure of 4 kips per square foot (ksf) is
recommended for design. The minimum depth of building foundations should be 18 inches
below the lowest adjacent grade. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for
short-term seismic loading. The base of all excavations should be dry and cleared of loose soil
and organic matter at the time of concrete placement.
Foundation subgrades that become disturbed during the excavation process should be
systematically compacted to a dense condition prior to placing steel and concrete. All subgrades
should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer(or representative) from our firm during
construction to confirm the presence of competent bearing soil.
Assuming a foundation loading of approximately 4 ksf or less on the dense native soils, we
estimate that the total settlement of the proposed foundations would be less than '/2 inch, with
maximum differential settlement, amounting to less than half the value of the total settlement.
These settlements would occur as the foundation is loaded during construction.
7.2 Floor Slabs
We recommend that floor slabs be supported by dense, native soil or compacted structural fill
placed directly onto dense, native soil. If existing fill as described herein or unanticipated loose,
soft, or unsuitable soil is encountered, it should be removed and replaced with compacted
structural fill. Structural fill should be compacted to a dense, unyielding condition according to
our recommendations presented in Section 6.11, Structural Backfill and Compaction. A modulus
of subgrade reaction of 200 pounds per cubic inch may be used to design the slab, assuming
dense structural fill or native subgrades will be present.
We recommend placing a capillary break consisting of a minimum 4-inch layer of washed pea
gravel (%-inch to No. 8 sieve size), or%-inch minus crushed rock and a vapor retarder consisting
of 10 mil plastic sheeting.
21-1-22423-001-R2F/wp/lkn 21-1-22423-001
6
SHANNON WALSON.INC.
7.3 Earth Pressures
Lateral forces would be resisted bYpassive earth pressure against the buried portions of the
structures and friction against the bottom of spread footings. Figure 3, Lateral Earth Pressures
for Permanent Wall Design, resents our recommendations for static and at-rest earth pressures
P
for wall design. In our opinion,passive earth pressures developed from compacted granular fill
could be estimated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pounds per cubic feet, as shown
in Figure 3. This value is based on the assumption that the structures extend at least 1.5 feet
below the lowest adjacent exterior grade and are properly drained, and that the backfill around
the structure is compacted in accordance with the recommendations for structural fill described
in Section 6.11. The above equivalent fluid unit weight includes a factory of safety(FS) of
1.5 to limit lateral deflection.
Recommended wall surcharge loading diagrams are presented in Figure 4, Recommended
Surcharge Loading for Temporary and Permanent Walls.
We recommend that a coefficient of friction of 0.35 be used between foundation cast-in-place
concrete and compacted native soil. This value includes a FS of 1.5.
7.4 Temporary and Permanent Slopes
All excavations should be made in accordance with the safety requirements of the Washington
State Department of Labor and Industries. According to these standards, temporary excavation
slopes are to be no steeper than 1 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (1 H:1 V) for the dense, granular soils
and 1.5H:1 V for loose soils. All slope cuts of temporary unsupported excavations should be the
responsibility of the Contractor, as should the safety of the people working in or near the
excavation slopes.
Permanent cut slopes could be used in combination with permanent retaining walls to achieve
site grading. We recommend that permanent slopes be cut no steeper than 2.511:1 V in the
colluvium soils. Flatter slopes may be required if clean, granular soils and/or groundwater is
encountered.
7.5 Rockeries
In addition to permanent cut slopes,the rockeries(stacked boulders)may be used as permanent
soil retention structures. We recommend that rockeries at this site be restricted in height to no
more than 6 feet. Rockeries should be constructed in accordance with the Typical Rockery
Detail provided in Figure 6. Rockeries should be used for protection of stable cut slopes in the
glacial till-like soils or dense granular soils and generally not to retain fill.
21-1-22423-001-OF/wp/Um 21-1-22423-001
7
SHANNON WLSON.ING.
7.6 Groundwater Control
The excavations will be primarily in coarse-grained alluvial soils. In general, the alluvial soils
have high permeability that will produce groundwater inflow if the excavations extend below the
water table, e.g., 5.5 feet deep at test pit TP-4 location. In our opinion, the amount of
groundwater inflow into excavations below the water table would be significant and a
dewatering plan should be prepared by the Contractor prior to construction, if applicable. A
dewatering system for excavations that extend 1 to 2 feet below the water table could consist of
shallow sump pumps installed within a slotted plastic pipe casing and/or sumps placed in lower
elevations within the excavation. The Contractor should be responsible for the control of any
ground- or surface water that could be encountered during excavation activities. For all
excavations, it is recommended that drainage ditches, sumps, wells, or other techniques be
employed as necessary to provide suitable working conditions.
7.7 Seismic Design Considerations
The project is located in a moderately active seismic region. While the region has historically
experienced moderate to large earthquakes (i.e., April 13, 1949, magnitude 7.1 Olympia
Earthquake; April 29, 1965, magnitude 6.5 Seattle-Tacoma Earthquake; and February 28, 2001,
magnitude 6.8 Nisqually Earthquake), geologic evidence suggests that larger earthquakes have
occurred in the prehistoric past and will occur in the future(e.g., magnitude 8.5 to 9.0 Cascadia
Subduction Zone Interplate events, magnitude 7.5 Seattle Fault events).
We understand that the proposed Support Building will be designed in accordance with the
International Building Code(IBC) 2015 (International Code Council, Inc. [ICC], 2014). For the
IBC 2015, the seismological inputs are:
■ Short-period spectral acceleration, Ss
■ Spectral acceleration at the 1-second period, S I
The coefficients, Ss and S1, are for a maximum considered earthquake, which
corresponds to a ground motion with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, or a
2,475-year return period (with a deterministic maximum cap in some regions). For our
geotechnical engineering analyses, we also considered the peak ground acceleration of the
maximum considered earthquake. The coefficients are based on regional probabilistic ground
motion studies completed in 2008 by the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS).
The spectral response acceleration values are scaled by site soil response factors to
account for site amplification/damping effects. The site classification determines the site soil
response factors. Based on the soil conditions encountered in the borings, a Site Class D would
21-1-22423-001-R2 F/wp/lkn 2 1-1-2242 3-00 1
8
s
SHANNON MMILSON,INC.
adequately characterize the site subsurface conditions. Seismic design parameters for a Site
Class D are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE 2015
PARAMETERS FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF STRUCTURES
Peak Ground
Spectral Response Acceleration(SRA)and Acceleration
Site Coefficients (PGA) Short Period 1-Second Period
Mapped SRA(',')(Site Class B) PGA=0.69 S,= 1.43 Si =0.59
Site Coefficients(Site Class C)t2> N/A(1) F.= 1.00 F,= 1.50
Design SRA(',') SDp,a=0.38 SD,=0.95 SDi=0.51
Notes:
Mapped SRA and Design SRA values are in units of gravity.
cz) The Mapped SRA values are based on regional probabilistic ground motion studies conducted by the USGS and
determined using the USGS Java ground motion parameter calculator.
(3) IBC 2015 does not explicitly include PGA as a design parameter. We calculated the design SDpp by following IBC 2015
procedures for constructing the design response spectrum.
N/A=not applicable
We have also evaluated potential seismically induced geologic hazards(i.e., ground rupture,
liquefaction, and slope instability) and have found these to be negligible at the site. The potential
for ground rupture is minimal at the subject site due to the long recurrence interval of nearby
faults. Liquefaction is not a concern at the project site as the underlying alluvial soils are
sufficiently dense to preclude liquefaction. Finally, the site is relatively flat or gently sloped and
underlain by medium dense to dense granular soils with no history of instability. Therefore,
slope instability is not a design issue for this project in our opinion.
7.8 Drainage and Infiltration
7.8.1 Subsurface Drainage
We recommend installing a 4-inch-diameter,perforated drainage pipe around the
perimeter of the building foundation to prevent the buildup of standing water against the
foundation. The drainage should connect into a tightline and be conveyed to suitable stormwater
discharge location. The perimeter footing drain should consist of a perforated, 4-inch-diameter
plastic pipe, sloped to drain and bedded in%-inch to No. 8 size washed pea gravel or%-inch
minus crushed gravel. Cleanouts should be provided at convenient locations along such as at the
building corners. Because the groundwater at this site is relatively high during the winter months
we recommend that a single perforated, 4-inch drain pipe also be installed beneath the floor slab
of the building interior. This should be conveyed through the footing to connect with the
21-1-22423-001-RH/wpNm 21-1-22423-001
9
SHANNON MUILSON.INC.
exterior perimeter footing drain and be sloped away from the building. Figure 6 shows typical
below-grade wall drainage recommendations.
Precipitation water from roof downspouts should be collected into tightlines and routed
away from the building to suitable infiltration locations using tightline pipes. Downspout water
should not be introduced into foundation backfill. Provisions should be made to divert surface
water away from structures and prevent it from seeping into the ground adjacent to structures or
excavations. Surface water should be collected in catch basins and, along with downspout water,
should be conveyed in a nonperforated pipe(tightline)to a suitable discharge point.
The site is underlain by alluvium (Ha) consisting of medium dense to dense, poorly
graded to well-graded sandy gravel. Infiltration rates within the alluvium underlying the site are
relatively high and stormwater infiltration is feasible, as discussed below.
7.8.2 Infiltration Testing
A representative of Shannon &Wilson was on site on September 4, 2018, to perform test
pit explorations and pilot infiltration tests (PITS). RV Associates, Inc., under subcontract to
Shannon& Wilson, excavated two test pit locations, designated TP-8 and TP-9, shown in
Figure 2. TP-8 was excavated to an approximate depth of 5 feet bgs and TP-9 was excavated to
an approximate depth of 3.5 feet bgs. Both test pits were excavated to a layer of silty sand with
gravel or silty gravel with sand. PITs were conducted at each test pit following excavation and
soil sampling. After the infiltration testing was complete, RV Associates, Inc. backfilled the test
pits with excavated native soil. Subsurface details of TP-8 and TP-9 are shown graphically in
the test pit logs, Figures A-6 and A-7.
The purpose of the PITs was to evaluate stormwater infiltration for proposed bio-
infiltration facilities. We conducted testing in general accordance with the guidelines and
procedures for determining design infiltration rates set forth by the Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW, 2012 —Amended December 2014) and the Low
Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (2012). During testing, we
made the following observations:
■ Because of rapid infiltration rates, the test pits did not collect(pond) water to a depth
of 12 inches or more at their base for a total of six hours.
■ Constant head testing was also not possible due to the rapid infiltration rates and rapid
flow rate from the water truck. Due to these conditions, we performed falling head
tests at TP-8 and TP-9 to determine uncorrected (initial) infiltration rates. In our
opinion, the falling head tests provided more reliable data given the conditions
encountered during testing.
21-1-22423-001-R2F/wp/lkn 21-1-22423-001
10
SHANNON 6WILSON.INC.
■ Following data collection, we applied correction factors as recommended in the
SMMWW to estimate long-term (design) infiltration rates.
7.9 Falling Head Results and Recommendations
After terminating water flow at TP-8 and TP-9, we observed the initial falling head infiltration
rates at both test pits to be approximately 33 inches per hour(in/hr). We recommend installing
bio-infiltration facilities to depths consistent with the granular, silty sand and gravel layer
exposed at the base of TP-8 and TP-9 and using the allowable design infiltration rate for flow
control summarized in Table 2, below. Table 2 summarizes the correction factors used in our
analysis and our estimation of a design corrected long-term infiltration rate at the project site
(correction factors for infiltration structures applied in accordance with the SMMWW, Table
III-3.3.1).
TABLE 2
RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM INFILTRATION RATE FOR
BIO INFILTRATION FACILITIES
Falling
Depth Head Total Corrected
Test of Initial Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended Long-
Pit PIT IR Correction Correction Correction Correction Term IR
No. (feet) (in/hr) Factor,CFt Factor,CFv Factor,CF. Factor,CFT (in/hr)
TP-8 5 33 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.4 13
TP-9 3.5 33 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.4 13
Note:
IR=Infiltration rate
7.10 Pavement Design
7.10.1 General
The proposed Project will include of a connection driveway and a two small parking lots.
It is our understanding that the driveway and parking lots may be paved with flexible hot-mix
asphalt (HMA) or rigid Portland concrete cement (PCC).
For pavement design, we used the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO)method for flexible and rigid pavement design (AASHTO,
1993). The AASHTO method conforms to Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) and American Public Works Association (APWA) requirements (WSDOT/APWA,
The AASHT i method is an m performance test 2010 . e Odes empirical design based on actual e fo t
� p � p
that considers the strength of materials and traffic stresses in each layer of the pavement cross-
21-1-22423-001-R2F/wp/lkn 21-1-22423-001
11
SHANNON 6VALSON.INC.
section as well as the strength of the subgrade below the pavement. Our recommendations for
pavement alternatives options are presented below.
7.10.2 Subgrade Condition
The subsurface soil conditions logged in the test pits excavated on site were used to
evaluate the properties of the subgrade required for pavement design. We considered the
subsurface conditions based on test pits TP-4 and TP-6. In general, the test pits encountered Fill
(Hf) and Colluvium (Hc) consisting of medium dense, silty sand with gravel and silty gravel with
sand over a thick deposit of glacial till and till-like deposits. In accordance with the WSDOT
Pavement Design Guide, we recommend assuming an "average" subgrade condition and using a
Resilient Modulus MR= 10,000 pounds per square inch and a k value of 200 pounds per cubic
inch for designing the pavement sections.
7.10.3 Design Traffic
Vehicle usage for the Kitchen Building project was estimated based on the proposed
operational activities at the subject site and the proposed number of parking spaces. The vehicle
type for the Kitchen Building project will consists mainly of passenger cars, pickup trucks, and
occasional small delivery trucks. For HMA pavements, we assumed a 30-year design life with
no growth. For PCC pavement thickness calculations, we used 40-year design life and assumed
axle loads as presented below.
7.10.4 Hot-mix Asphalt(HMA) Pavement Design Recommendations
Standard HMA pavement section consists of HMA, a crush surfacing top course(CSTC)
and subgrade. Table 3, Input Data for Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement Analysis,presents our
assumptions for designing HMA pavement in accordance with the 1993 AASHTO Flexible
Pavement Guide(AASHTO, 1993).
21-1-22423-001-R2F/wp/lkn 21-1-22423-001
12
• SHANNON 6WILSON.INC.
TABLE 3
INPUT DATA FOR HOT-MIX ASPHALT PAVEMENT ANALYSIS
Parameter Value
Design Life ears 30
Estimated Design Traffic Load ESALs Less than 10,000
Reliability R (percent) 85
Overall Standard Deviation So .45
APSI 1.5
Sub grade Resilient Modulus,MR ksi 10
Asphalt Layer Coefficient,al .44
Base Course Layer Coefficient,a2 .13
Base Course Drainage Coefficient,m2 1.0
Base Course Resilient Modulus,Base MR ksi 28
Notes:
APSI=change in pressure(pounds per square inch)
ESALs=equivalent single axle loads
ksi=kips per square inch
Based on our analysis of the above design input parameters, we recommend following
HMA pavement thickness sections:
HMA Pavement for Access Driveway and Parking Lots:
3 inches: Asphalt Pavement, HMA
6 inches: Crushed Surfacing Base Course
7.10.5 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement Design Recommendations
A standard PCC pavement section consists of PCC, a CSTC, and subgrade. Table 4,
Input Data for Portland Concrete Cement Pavement Analysis, presents our assumptions for
designing PCC pavement in accordance with the 1993 AASHTO Rigid Pavement Guide
(AASHTO, 1993).
21-1-22423-001-R2F/wp/lkn 21-1-22423-001
13
SHMNON MI.SON,INC.
TABLE 4
INPUT DATA FOR PORTLAND CONCRETE CEMENT
PAVEMENT ANALYSIS
Parameter Value
Design Life(Years) 40
Design Traffic Load(ESALs) Less than 10,000
Modulus 20,000
Concrete(ksi) 4,000
Modulus of Rupture(Flexural Strength),k 700
(psi)
Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, 200
ken,(pci)
Base Course Resilient Modulus,MR(ksi) 28
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR(ksi) 10
Notes:
pci=pounds per cubic inch
psi=pounds per square inch
Based on our analysis of the above design input parameters, we recommend the following
PCC pavement thickness sections:
PCC Pavement for Access Driveway and Parking Lots:
5 inches: PCC Pavement
6 inches: Crushed Surfacing Base Course
7.10.6 Pavement Materials and Construction Considerations
Aggregate top course, HMA, and PCC pavements should be constructed in accordance
with the WSDOT and APWA, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
Construction(WSDOT/APWA Standard Specifications, 2010). HMA and PCC should conform
to Sections 5-04, and 5-05 in the WSDOT/APWA Standard Specifications, respectively.
Aggregate for PCC and HMA should meet the requirements of Sections 9-03.1 and
9-03.8, respectively. HMA should consist of HMA Class '/2-inch aggregate in accordance with
Section 9-03.8(2). Base course should meet the requirements of WSDOT Standard
Specifications Section 9-03.9(3) for crushed surfacing base course. The base course should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density(ASTM D1557).
21-1-22423-001-R2F/wp/Ikn 21-1-22423-001
14
• SHANNON 6WILSON.INC.
7.10.7 Frost Conditions
Frost-susceptible soil is generally regarded as having greater than 3 percent finer than
0.02 millimeter(mm). Soil with a fines content not exceeding 7 percent passing the
No. 200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction, can normally be expected to have 3 percent
or less fine than 0.02 mm. Based on the grain size analyses presented in Appendix A and soil
classification presented in the logs, in our opinion, most of the near-surface fill soils could be
considered nonfrost-susceptible. Based on information provided in the WSDOT Pavement
Guide, we recommend assuming the frost depth would be about 12 inches. WSDOT
recommends that the total pavement section be at least 50 percent of the frost depth. In our
opinion, the recommended pavement sections should provide adequate protection against
potential frost heave damage.
7.10.8 Utility Considerations Under Pavement
All utility trenches should be backfilled with clean granular material, such as sand, sand
and gravel, or crushed rock with a maximum 2-inch-diameter and with not more than 5 percent
passing the No. 200 sieve (wet sieve analysis, ASTM D 1140). Any fines should be nonplastic.
The backfill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 4 inches if compacted with hand-operated
equipment or 8 inches if compacted with heavy equipment. Each lift should be compacted to a
dense, unyielding condition and to at least 92 percent of the maximum dry density(ASTM
D 1557) 18 inches or more below the pavement subgrade, and 95 percent within 18 inches of the
pavement subgrade. We recommend a minimum cover over utilities of 2 feet from the crown of
the pipes or conduits to the top of the pavement subgrade. This could vary depending on the
utility type, size, and depth and should be evaluated by the design engineers. Catch basins,
utility vaults, and other structures installed flush with the pavement should be designed and
constructed to transfer wheel loads to the base of the structure.
7.11 Site Grading and Excavation
Based on our explorations, stripping depths to remove unsuitable, organic-rich soils will range
between about 0.5 and 1.0 foot. The Fill (Hf) containing organics and wood, glass, and brick
debris should be removed when encountered during preparation of subgrade for the proposed
Kitchen building(see test pits TP-5 and TP-7). Excavations are likely to be dry during the
summer months. If excavation takes place during the wet weather season, then it will be
necessary to employ a sump pump to control seepage into the excavations that extend below
about elevation 29.5 feet.
21-1-22423-001-R2F/wP/urn 21-1-22423-001
15
m � BREMENTON
attle
acd
Project
. .� -
Location
3.1
l F••
PROJECT
' •� �+
• . .•i •-}} r • •
it •
is "�► ii_•'r ' • '•1 « t'i r ,'.. t �s
SHLLTON ; .. ^ •f • r
t -, a, YOMAN -'
;• A i
.�. , 16' :,�
KAMILCHE • � ,�'� GOO
Union • • Residences
Support • • Project
• • •
VICINITY MAP
October 201711
r
-p OO 1 ` �_ �,� ��G�' = — NCE a
WHEEL -�
HOUSES
LOLINB�309 FT TO — I
35 EXCEP
s
\ � � TP-8D To PROPOSED TION O�'���P L ,� � � I � /^� �
1 PROPOSED 47'to
\ F, TIP-9
SW-4
o TPA
J
SW-6 / I /� EXIST
J TIP-6 ` / \ SHED
N \ N
Proposed EXIST , l
Kitchen Building / % 1 SEPTIC
N ) I TIP-7 FIE D I
LAN
LL
Yt OSED 5'S Y Co
o LOT LIN FT
r10
Cli
C� Ilk
0
LEGEND
Boring Designation and Union Washington Residences
SW-1 �9 Approximate Location,2017 Proposed Kitchen Building
Union, Washington
Test Pit Designation and
TP-1 NOTE
Approximate Location,2017,2018 0 30 60
LL A Site layout adapted from client files SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN
Generalized Subsurface Profile HDCL aSP00 topo.dwg and HDCL aSP00.dwg
Scale in Feet received July 19,2018. September 2018 21-1-22423-001
E
=111SwwNON&WILsoKINCL FIG. 2
...-C..,..L IND-.......-er..uu..r.
LL
A Proposed Access Road Proposed Support Building
As
East West
60 p 60
Proposed Building R
Finish Floor El. 31.33' S -3
$ -5 ( (Y)
(Proj. 4'S) -6
40 -—4---
(P 39'S) 40
Dalby _ - - — — — — I
- -J—
Creek .001 I35
/ 116
I12 I24
117 Its20 - _ -— - 20
8 1,127
28 158
LL I 42 31 20
c 26 12
07 1-17
C 07-3 -17 17
},
m 0 ,31-17
W 0 — --- 0
-20 -- --- ---- -20
S'
J
O -40 -40
N
O
o Distance
0
LL
O
T
LEGEND
m
SW-5 - Boring Designation
a (Proj.41'N) — Projection Distance in
Feet and Direction
o 124 Standard Penetration Test
N Approximate Geologic Contacts? Sample in Blows/Foot Union Washington Residences
Proposed Kitchen Building
_ , f Standard Penetration Test Union, Washington
5W5o Groundwater Level During Drilling Sample in Blow/Inches Driven NOTE
N - f Grab Sample 0 20 40 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE
N Filter Pack USCS Symbol Site surface adapted from client file
Well Screen HDCL aSP00 topo.dwg received July 19,2018. PROFILE A—A'
Bottom of Boring Scale in Feet
07-31-17 Date Completed Horizontal=Vertical September 2018 21-1-22423-001
e
Ground Surface
Colluvium/
Wall Below Grade 5 Ft.
Fill
35H
55H H
Till-Like H-5 Ft.
Deposits Bottom of
Excavation
15H
Seismic 28H ` Ignore Passive
Increment 46H Resistance in D
Upper 1 Ft.
Wall Footing (Typical)
(Approximate) 350D
Not to Scale
U
Q
N
o NOTES LEGEND
t
Q' 1. All earth pressures are in units of pounds per souare foot. H = Wall Height(Ft.)
The earth pressure diagram applies to the permanent walls
c at the Kitchen Buidling site. D = Embedment Depth(Ft.)
N
2. Passive pressure values include a reduction factor of 1.5. 35H = Static Active Earth
o Pressure for Compacted
m 3. Lateral pressures for traffic and other surcharge loads Structural Fill
° should be added to the earth pressures given above. See
Figure 4. 55H = Static At-Rest Earth
Pressure for Compacted
a 4. If a sloping ground surface exists,the earth pressures Structural Fill
should be adjusted.
LL 5. The recommended pressure diagrams are based on a
continuous wall system. Union Washington Residences
6. Free drainage is assumed behind the wall. Kitchen Building Project
N Union, Washington
N
o
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
Cq
FOR PERMANENT WALL DESIGN
i
N
Sep 2018 21-1-22423-001
111 SHANNON&WILSON.NQ FIG. 4
CXOIC.I AND.NVINONNENTAL COODOLTIDTD
LL
II�
Ip, Influence Factor
0 0.5 to
�x=mH ❑p �x=mH ❑i 14
W
' Earth LIB=0.25
' /Point Load Line Load in Berm HS UB=0.5
z: z=nH Pounds/Foot UB=1
' in Pounds '
(see Note 3) (see Note 3)
� 0.56 UB=�
Note: y< <_33°
H aH (Psfl H 3 a" (Psi Hs D 15 Feet N Lateral Footing
Pressure on Wall
aH = Lateral Pressure Y of Earth Berm= Unit Weight o 1 0B aH= (Ip) os
3 3 Bearing
Pressure
aH = (K)(Y)(Hs) Wall Line r6
2 1.56- IN
Bottom of Bottom of
Excavation Excavation (see Note 4) 1 L T
TJ Bottom of B-�
Excavation
2.06 Z
Ir ELEVATION VIEW ELEVATION VIEW
For m ❑0.4: a =0.28 ° n2 s )see Note 3 Form-0 0.4: c, =0.20 n 2 2 (psf) (see Note 3) EARTH BERM
" H2 (0.16 ❑n2)3(p ( H (0.16 ❑n ) E) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE
Form ❑0.4: aH = 1.77 Hz zl❑n2 Form ❑0.4: aH = 1.28 H (m 2❑n2)2 (psi TO ADJACENT FOOTING
(m )s (psf) D�(pso (derived from NAVFAC DM 7.2,
B) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE TO LINE LOAD 1986[land Sandhu, Earth Pressure
i.e. NARROW CONTINUOUS FOOTING on Walls Due to Surcharge, 1974)
PARALLEL TO WALL
(NAVFAC DM 7.2, 1986) MR'\
NOTES
0
1. Figures are not drawn to scale.
a —
r Point Load Bearin 2. Applicable surcharge pressures should be
N in Pounds g added to appropriate permanent wall lateral
m
Pressure earth and water pressure.
aH 3. If point or line loads are close to the back of
o - ❑a - - - - a" _(K)4 (see Note 4) the wall such that m<-0.4, it may be more
6 , appropriate to model the actual load
3 a (3�' �' distribution(i.e., Detail E)or use more
Bottom of rigorous analysis methods.
Excavation
76
B i X, 4. For fill walls(e.g. open cut excavation and
V
structural backfill), use Ko=0.41 for at-rest
UNIFORM SURCHARGEcondition. For walls that will be allowed to
rd bo
move at least 0.001 times the wall height,
H ` " use Ka=0.26 for active condition.
dH =aH cost (1.10) (psf) D) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE TO EARTH BERM
LL OR UNIFORM SURCHARGE Union Washington Residences
o di in raans
Cl) (derived from Poulos and Davis,Elastic Solutions for Kitchen Building Project
N PLAN VIEW a" =11((3-sin R cos2a) (psf) Soil and Rock Mechanics, 1974❑and Terzaghi and Union, Washington
Peck,Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 1967)
RECOMMENDED SURCHARGE
co
A) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE TO POINT LOAD C) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE TO STRIP LOAD LOADING FOR TEMPORARY AND
N i.e.SMALL ISOLATED FOOTING OR WHEEL LOAD (derived from Fang,Foundation PERMANENT WALLS
(NAVFAC DM 7.2, 1986) P
Engineering Handbook, 1991) Se 2018 21-1-22423-001
=111%^"��10N&^!r.L- �nic FIG 5
• Sloped to Drain Below-Grade Wall
away from
Structure
Drainage Sand ❑Gravel
Pavement or 18"
Impervious Soil
Wall Backfill 18" Damp Proofing
(See Note 2) Min.
10 mil (minimum)
Excavation Slope Vapor Retarder
Contractor's Responsibility Floor Slab
°
° o ° o D°
° 18"Min. •o
•° O° DDT O D 0 � °• ° ° °
8"Min. Cover of Pea Gravel °°° °a° °
(6"min. on sides of pipeE2"below) °
- 6"Min
Washed Pea Gravel 4"Min. Crushed Gravel
2"Max. or Pea Gravel
Perimeter/Subdrain Pipe
Not to Scale
NOTES
1. Crushed gravel should consist of 1"minus, uniformly 5. Drainage sand and gravel may be replaced with a
graded, crushed rock with less than 2 percent passing the geocomposite core sheet drain placed against the wall
No. 200 sieve. See WSDOT Specification 9.03.12(4). and connected to the subdrain pipe. The geocomposite
Washed pea gravel should consist of 3/8"to No. 8 core sheet should have a minimum transmissivity of 3.0
standard sieve. gallons/minute/foot when tested under a gradient of 1.0
2. according to ASTM D4716.
Wall backfill should meet WSDOT Gravel Backfill for
a Walls Specification 9-03-12(2). 6 The subdrain should consist of 4"diameter(minimum),
w 3. slotted or perforated plastic pipe meeting the reairements
t Drainage sand and gravel backfill within 18"of wall should of AASHTO M 304111/8-inch maximum slot widthm/16-to
a be compacted with hand-operated e❑uipment. Heavy 3/8-inch perforated pipe holes in the lower half of pipe,
e❑uipment should not be used to compact backfill,as with lower third segment unperforated for water flowdight
such e❑uipment operated near the wall could increase jointsasloped at a minimum of 6"/100'to drain❑cleanouts
N lateral earth pressures and possibly damage the wall. to be provided at regular intervals.
4.
o All wall backfill should be placed in layers not exceeding 7. Surround subdrain pipe with 8 inches(minimum)of
4"loose thickness for light eDuipment and 8"for heavy washed pea gravel(2"below pipe)or clean 1"-minus
o e❑uipment and should be densely compacted. Beneath crushed gravel.
paved or sidewalk areas, compact to at least 9511
Modified Proctor maximum density(ASTM: D1557). In 8. See report text for floor slab subgrade preparation.
landscaping areas, compact to 9011 minimum.
ca
m
T MATERIALS
Drainage Sand ❑Gravel: 1"-Minus Crushed Gravel:
U.
❑ Passing ❑ Passing Union Washington Residences
9 Sieve Size by Weight Sieve Size by Weight Kitchen Building Project
N
N 1-1/2" 100 1" 100 Union, Washington
3/4" 90 to 100 3/4" 80 to 100 TYPICAL BELOW-GRADE
� 1/4" 75 to 100 3/8" 0 to 40
$ No.8 65 to 92 No.4 0 to 4 WALL AND FLOOR SLAB
N No. 30 20 to 65 No. 200 o to 2 SUBDRAINAGE AND BACKFILL
No. 50 5 to 20 (by wet sieving) (non-plastic)
No. 100 0 to 2 September 2018 21-1-22423-001
(by wet sieving) (non-plastic) _
="1 SHANNON 6WIL.SOK ING
LL
..D..°..,D., D D°•.DL,..,. FIG. 6
16"Min. Width
for Top Rock
8"Compacted Native
(Impervious Surface Layer)
Stable Excavation Slope
(Contractor's Responsibility)
Opening Chinked with
2 to 4-inch ❑uarry Spalls
H =4 H. Max.
4
• Undisturbed Native Soil
;�• Backfill
ti
• Clean,well-graded sand and gravel or
crushed rock,2-inch maximum size,40 to
Medium 600 gravel, less than 5❑ fines(passing
dense to 12 Min. E200 sieve). Fines shall be non-plastic.
Very Dense
Native Soil p' '• ?_� Compact in 4"lifts with minimum of 4
6"Min. ?'►< <'� coverages by hand-operated tamper.
Compact to at least 92❑ of Modified
dry density roctor maximum d
< � H/3 Min.Width PASTM(
0 �— for Base Rock D-1557). Backfill and rock placement
a should be built up together.
m
N 6" Diameter Slotted Pipe
All loose soil at rockery foundation should be Bedded in washed 3/8"to No.8 sieve size
0 overexcavated down to medium dense to very dense pea gravel(6"cover around pipe), sloped to
soil and replaced with compacted backfill as described drain and connected by tightline to storm
o above. The excavation shall be kept free of water. drain outfall. No fabric around pipe.
The prepared foundation shall be evaluated by a Maximum slot width is 1/8".
a
soils engineer prior to placement of rock.
a
0
Y
Not to Scale
m
i_
Union Washington Residences
M Kitchen Building Project
N MINIMUM WEIGHT OF ROCK Union, Washington
N
Rock shall be sound and have a minimum
0
density of 160 pounds per cubic foot. TYPICAL ROCKERY DETAIL
N
V
N
September 2018 21-1-22423-001
=JJJ FMNONbV1M..�"SM1NCL FIG.
SHANNON MMILSON,INC.
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGS
21-1-22423-001
SHANNON MMILSON,INC.
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES
A-1 Soil Description and Log Key(3 sheets)
A-2 Log of Test Pit TP-4
A-3 Log of Test Pit TP-5
A-4 Log of Test Pit TP-6
A-5 Log of Test Pit TP-7
A-6 Log of Boring SW-3
A-7 Log of Boring SW-4
A-8 Log of Boring SW-5
A-9 Log of Boring SW-6
A-10 Log of Test Pit TP-8
A-11 Log of Test Pit TP-9
21-1-22423-001-R2f-AA-ACx.docx/wp/Ikn 21-1-22423-001
A-i
PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS
Shannon&Wilson, Inc. (S&W), uses a soil DESCRIPTION SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE
identification system modified from the Unified Soil FINES <#200(0.075 mm=0.003 in.)
Classification System(USCS). Elements of the SAND
USCS and other definitions are provided on this Fine #200 to#40(0.075 to 0.4 mm;0.003 to 0.02 in.)
and the following pages. Soil descriptions are Medium #40 to#10(0.4 to 2 mm;0.02 to 0.08 in.)
based on visual-manual procedures(ASTM Coarse #10 to#4(2 to 4.75 mm;0.08 to 0.187 in.)
D2488)and laboratory testing procedures(ASTM
D2487), if performed. GRAVEL
Fine #4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm;0.187 to 0.75 in.)
S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS Coarse 3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm)
FINE-GRAINED SOILS COARSE-GRAINED
CONSTITUENT' (50%or more fines)' SOILS COBBLES 3 to 12 in.(76 to 305 mm)
less than 50%flnes'
Silt,Lean Clay, BOULDERS > 12 in. (305 mm)
Major Elastic Silt or Sand or Gravel°
Fat Clay RELATIVE DENSITY/CONSISTENCY
Modifying 30%or more More than 12% COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS
(Secondary) coarse-grained: fine-grained:
Precedes major Sandy or Gravelly Silty or Clayey N,SPT, RELATIVE N,SPT, RELATIVE
constituent BLOWS/FT. DENSITY BLOWS/FT, CONSISTENCY
15%to 30% 5%to 12% <4 Very loose <2 Very soft
coarse-grained: fine-grained:
with Sand or with Silt or 4- 10 Loose 2-4 Soft
Minor
Follows major _with Gravel°_ ___with CIaLr3__ 10-30 Medium dense 4-8 Medium stiff
constituent 30/°or more total 30-50 Dense 8- 15 Stiff
coarse-grained and 15%or more of a >50 Very dense 15-30 Very stiff
lesser coarse- second coarse- >30 Hard
grained constituent grained constituent:
is 15%or more: with Sand or
with Sand or with Grave/5 WELL AND BACIG ILL SYMBOLS
With Gravels Bentonite r, y, Surface Cement
All percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3-inch sieve. ® Cement Grout Seal
2The order of terms is:Modifying Major with Minor.
Determined based on behavior. ® Bentonite Grout Asphalt or Cap
Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage.
5Whichever is the lesser constituent.
Bentonite Chips Fl��11 Slough
MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS Silica Sand Inclinometer or
Dry Absence of moisture, dusty,dry = Non-perforated Casing
to the touch Perforated or
Screened Casing IT]
Wire
Moist Damp but no visible water Piezometer
Wet Visible free water,from below PERCENTAGES TERMS''s
water table Trace <5%
Few 5 to 10%
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST(SPT) Little 15 to 25%
SPECIFICATIONS Some 30 to 45%
Hammer: 140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall. Mostly 50 to 100%
Rope on 6-to 10-inch-diam.cathead
2-1/4 rope turns,> 100 rpm 'Gravel,sand,and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents,such as
NOTE: If automatic hammers are organics,cobbles,and boulders,estimated by volume.
used,blow counts shown on boring zReprinted,with permission,from ASTM D2488-09a Standard Practice for
logs should be adjusted to account for Description and Identification of Soils(Visual-Manual Procedure),copyright
o efficiency of hammer. ASTM International,100 Barr Harbor Drive,West Conshohocken,PA 19428. A
q copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International,
3 Sampler: 10 to 30 inches long www.astm.org.
Z Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches
Barrel I.D.=1.5 inches Union Washington Residences
a Barrel O.D.=2 inches Kitchen Building
N-Value: Sum blow counts for second and third Union,Washington
N 6-inch increments.
N Refusal:50 blows for 6 inches or
N less; 10 blows for 0 inches. SOIL DESCRIPTION
AND LOG KEY
> NOTE.Penetration resistances(N-values)shown on
Y boring logs are as recorded in the field and
have not been corrected for hammer September 2018 21-1-22423-001
efficiency, overburden, or other factors.
SHANNON&WILSON, INC. FIG. A-1
p Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 3
v)
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM(USCS)
(Modified From USACE Tech Memo 3-357,ASTM D2487,and ASTM D2488)
MAJOR DMSIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC SYMBOL TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS
GW .'• Well-Graded Gravel;Well-Graded
Gravel with Sand
Gravel
(less than 5%
Gravels fines) GP a& Poorly Graded Gravel;Poorly Graded
(more than 50% o p Gravel with Sand
of coarse fraction
retained on No.4
sieve) Silty or Clayey GM ' Silty Gravel;Silty Gravel with Sand
Gravel
COARSE- (more than 12%
GRAINED fines) GC Clayey Gravel;Clayey Gravel with Sand
SOILS
(more than 50%
retained on No. SW Well-Graded Sand;Well-Graded Sand
200 sieve) Sand with Gravel
(less than 5%
fines) Poorly Graded Sand;Poorly Graded
Sands SP Sand with Gravel
(50%or more of
coarse fraction
passes the No.4 SM Silty Sand;Silty Sand with Gravel
sieve) Silty or Clayey
Sand
(more than 12%
fines) SC Clayey Sand;Clayey Sand with Gravel
ML Silt;Silt with Sand or Gravel;Sandy or
Gravelly Silt
Inorganic
Silts and Clays
(liquid limit less CL Lean Clay;Lean Clay with Sand or
than 50) Gravel;Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay
FINE-GRAINED =— Organic Silt or Clay;Organic Silt or Clay
SOILS Organic OL _ _ with Sand or Gravel;Sandy or Gravelly
(50%or more =__ Organic Silt or Clay
asses the No.200 Elastic Silt;Elastic Silt with Sand or
sieve) MH Gravel;Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt
Inorganic
Silts and Clays Fat Clay;Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel;
(liquid limit 50 or CH Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay
more)
Organic Silt or Clay;Organic Silt or Clay
Organic OH with Sand or Gravel;Sandy or Gravelly
Organic Silt or Clay
HIGHLY- Primarily organic matter,dark in Peat or other highly organic soils(see
ORGANIC SOILS color,and organic odor PT ASTM D4427)
NOTE: No.4 size=4.75 mm=0.187 in.; No.200 size=0.075 mm=0.003 in.
0
c�
J
3
z
NOTES Union Washington Residences
Kitchen Building
1.Dual symbols(symbols separated by a hyphen,i.e., SP-SM,Sand with Union,Washington
Silt)are used for soils with between 5%and 12%fines or when the
N liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the
N plasticity chart. Graphics shown on the logs for these soil types area SOIL DESCRIPTION
acombination of the two graphic symbols(e.g.,SP and SM).
AND LOG KEY
Y 2.Borderline symbols(symbols separated by a slash,i.e., CL/ML,Lean
g Clay to Silt,SP-SM/SM,Sand with Silt to Silty Sand)indicate that the September 2018 21-1-22423-001
sal properties are close to the defining boundary between two groups.
SHANNON S WILSON, INC. FIG.A-1
r0 Geotechnical and Env ronmental Consultants Sheet 2 of 3
GRADAT10N TERMS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Poorly Graded Narrow range of grain sizes present or,within ATD At Time of Drilling
the range of grain sizes present, one or more Diam. Diameter
sizes are missing(Gap Graded). Meets criteria Elev. Elevation
in ASTM D2487, if tested.
Well-Graded Full range and even distribution of grain sizes ft. Feet
present. Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if FeO Iron Oxide
tested. gal. Gallons
CEMENTATION TERMS Horiz. Horizontal
HSA Hollow Stem Auger
Weak Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight I.D. Inside Diameter
finger pressure.
Moderate Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger in. Inches
pressure. lbs. Pounds
Strong Will not crumble or break with finger pressure. MgO Magnesium Oxide
s mm Millimeter
P MnO Manganese Oxide
APPROX. NA Not Applicable or Not Available
PLASITICITY NP Nonplastic
DESCRIPTION VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA INDEX
RANGE O.D. Outside Diameter
Nonplastic A 1/8-in.thread cannot be rolled at <4 OW Observation Well
any water content. pcf Pounds per Cubic Foot
Low A thread can barely be rolled and 4 to 10
a lump cannot be formed when PID Photo-Ionization Detector
drier than the plastic limit. PMT Pressuremeter Test
Medium A thread is easy to roll and not 10 to 20 ppm Parts per Million
much time is required to reach the
plastic limit. The thread cannot be psi Pounds per Square Inch
rerolled after reaching the plastic PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
limit. A lump crumbles when drier rpm Rotations per Minute
than the plastic limit.
It takes considerable time rolling SPT Standard Penetration Test
High and kneading to reach the plastic >20 USCS Unified Soil Classification System
limit. A thread can be rerolled q, Unconfined Compressive Strength
several times after reaching the
plastic limit. A lump can be VWP Vibrating Wire Piezometer
formed without crumbling when Vert. Vertical
drier than the plastic limit. WOH Weight of Hammer
WOR Weight of Rods
ADDITIONALWt. Weight
Mottled Irregular patches of different colors.
Bioturbated Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or animals. STRUCTURE TERMS'
Interbedded Alternating layers of varying material or
Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel in silt color with layers at least 1/4-inch thick;
Diamict and/or clay matrix. singular: bed.
Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or
Material brought to surface by drilling. color with layers less than 1/4-inch thick;
Cuttings singular: lamination.
Material that caved from sides of borehole. Fissured Breaks along definite planes or fractures
Slough with little resistance.
Disturbed texture, mix of strengths. Slickensided Fracture planes appear polished or glossy;
Sheared sometimes striated.
Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down into
PARTICLE ' small angular lumps that resist further
breakdown.
Angular Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces. Lensed Inclusion of small pockets of different soils,
such as small lenses of sand scattered
Subangular Similar to angular, but with rounded edges. through a mass of clay.
Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout.
Subrounded Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.
3 Rounded Smoothly curved sides with no edges.
n Flat Width/thickness ratio>3. Union Washington Residences
Kitchen Building
Elongated Length/width ratio>3. Union, Washington
N
Q
N
N 'Reprinted,with permission,from ASTM D2488-09a Standard Practice for Description and SOIL DESCRIPTION
Identification of Soils Visual-Manual Procedure).copyright ASTM International,100 Bar Harbor
a Dnoe,West Conshohocken,PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from AND LOG KEY
w ASTM International,www.astm.org.
Y
N 2Adapted,with permission,from ASTM D2488-09a Standard Practice for Description and September 2018 21-1-22423-001
Identification of Soils(Visual-Manual Procedure),copyright ASTM International,100 Bar Harbor
Drive,West Conshohocken,PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from SHANNON 8r WILSON, INC. FIG. A-1
O ASTM International,www.astm.org. Geotechnical and Erwonmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 3
N
SHANNON&WILSON, INC. JOB NO: 21-1-22423-001 DATE: 7/28/17 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan
s Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-4 PROJECT: Union Washington Residences, Union, Washington
Sketch of West Pit Side Surface Elevation: 29 Feet
SOIL DESCRIPTION :3 0 CL c
2 o cEa Horizontal Distance in Feet
o U U) 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 --- 1
1O Concrete slab(4 to 5-inches thick).
03 Medium dense, light brown, O2
Well-Graded Gravel with Silt and S-1
Sand(GW-GM); moist; 2
Fill (Hf) 0
O3 Loose to medium dense, S-2
orange-brown, Silty Gravel with
Sand(GM); moist; scattered roots;
(Ha) 4 a
io
® Medium dense, orange-brown, cc
Well-Graded Gravel with Silt
and Sand(GW-GM); moist to Z
wet; some cobbles. Cn6
(Ha) O
8
10
O
D
N
12
Q11 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. JOB NO: 21-1-22423-001 DATE: 7/28/17 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan
ti Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-5 PROJECT: Union Washington Residences, Union, Washington
a,�- U_ Sketch of West Pit Side Surface Elevation: 34 Feet
SOIL DESCRIPTION � �' a
o c E a Horizontal Distance in Feet
O o U 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 �
1O Forest Duff.
O2 Loose to medium dense, dark
brown to brown, Silty Sand with
Gravel(SM); moist; scattered roots S-1 2
and organics. Z
(Ha) 0
O
O3 Medium dense, orange-brown, o
Silty Gravel with Sand(GM); moist; z
some cobbles. 4
(Ha)
® Medium dense, orange-brown,
Well-Graded Gravel with Silt
and Sand(GW-GM); moist;
some cobbles. S-2 6 3
(Ha)
S-3
: 4 ;
8
10
D
w
12
W"SHANNON &WILSON, INC. JOB NO: 21-1-22423-001 DATE: 7/28/17 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-6 PROJECT: Union Washington Residences, Union, Washington
C: � a� LL Sketch of West Pit Side Surface Elevation: 38 Feet
SOIL DESCRIPTION = m m CL r
o o Horizontal Distance in Feet
o U U 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 1
10 Forest Duff. S-1 0
O2 Loose, light gray, Silty Gravel with
Sand(GM); moist; numerous roots 0
and organics. S-2 2
(Ha)
O3 Loose to medium dense, O
orange-brown, Well-Graded
Gravel with Sand(GM; moist. z° 0
(Ha) 4
® Medium dense, orange-brown,
Silty Gravel with Sand(GM);
moist; some cobbles.
(Ha)
O5 Medium dense, brown, 6
Well-Graded Gravel with Silt 0
and Sand(GW-GM); moist; S-3
some cobbles.
(Ha)
8
10
D
12
r
.R"SHANNON &WILSON, INC. JOB NO: 21-1-22423-001 DATE: 7/28/17 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-7 PROJECT: Union Washington Residences, Union, Washington
a�— to Sketch of West Pit Side Surface Elevation: 32 Feet
SOIL DESCRIPTION °� m Q t
o c E a Horizontal Distance in Feet
o U U) o 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 1
10 Forest Duff.
O2 Loose, brown to light brown, Silty
Gravel with Sand(GM); moist; 0 numerous roots and organics; 2 3
scattered brick, glass and metal
debris.
Fill O S-1
m
0 Medium dense, orange-brown, z
Well-Graded Gravel with Sand 4
(GM; moist. 0
(Ha)
® Medium dense, orange-brown,
Well-Graded Gravel with Silt
Sand(GW-GM); moist. 6
(Ha) 5
O5 Medium dense, orange-brown, 0
Well-Graded Gravel with Sand
(GM; moist. S-2
(Ha) 8
10
D
rs
12
• Total Depth: 21.5 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diam.: 8 in.
Top Elevation: —36 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Gregory Drilling Rod Diam.: BJZ749
Vert.Datum: Station: Drill Rig Equipment: CME 55 Hammer Type: Automatic
Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments:
SOIL DESCRIPTION ct� o m -o ct� PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowstfoot)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the t n � :: xf A Hammer Wt.&Drop: 140 lbs/30 inches
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification o. E E o a
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries m � 3
between material types,and the transition may be gradual. 0 N
0 20 40 60
Forest duff. 0.3
Medium dense, light brown, Poorly Graded °
Gravel with Silt and Sand(GP-GM); moist to
wet. :. : . . .
° �
O .:.:.: .:.:.
°
O TT
3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O 10
°
4I
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
o _ :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ...:.:.:. .:.:
r W
TN
:
°
N . . . . . . . .
° — 15
� 60� . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O�')c
7I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
)0 1
T 20
e
21.5 °
. . . . . . . . . .
BOTTOM OF BORING
COMPLETED 7/31/2017
................... ................... ........
Y
J
................... ................... ...................
25
k ................... ................ .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
k
. . . .
................... ................... ......
rn
0
J
0 20 40 60
LEGEND O % Fines(<0.075mm)
Sample Not Recovered � Well Screen and Sand Filter
a
12.0°O.D.Split Spoon Sample ® Bentonite-Cement Grout • % Water Content
m ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
Ground Water Level ATD Union, Washington, Residences
_ T Ground Water Level in Well Kitchen Building
NOTES Union,Washington
1.Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols,codes,abbreviations and definitions.
0 2.Groundwater level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary.
N 3.USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF BORING SW-3
N
LLJ
o September 2018 21-1-22423-001
Uj
w SHANNON&WILSON, INC.
FIG.A-6
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
f
REV 3 -Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 21.5 R. Northing: Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diam.: 8 in.
Top Elevation: —37 R. Easting: Drilling Company: Gregory Drilling Rod Diam.: BJZ749
Vert.Datum: Station: Drill Rig Equipment: CME 55 Hammer Type: Automatic
Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments:
SOIL DESCRIPTION ct� o m a PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding or the r M a :� s ♦ Hammer Wt.&Drop: 140 Ibs/30 inches
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification a E E 0 Cc a
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries to cn 0
between material types,and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60
Forest duff. 0.3
Meidum dense, light brown, Silty Gravel with
Sand(GM); moist.
1
Medium dense to dense, light brown, Poorly 4.0
Graded Gravel wiwth Silt and Sand(GP-GM); ° 5
moist to wet; some cobble range material. zI
o
................... .:.:.:.. :.:.:.:.:. .:
3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
°
. . .. ............... ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 41V 10
................... ..
................... .
0 -1
I �
5 c
. . .
O : .
° 15
6I
° . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0
................... ................... ...................
. . . . . . . . . . . : .
°% 7
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. .:.. .. ..:.:. .
0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
: : : : : : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BOTTOM OF BORING
1 20
21.5 ° e
COMPLETED 7/31/2017
................... ...........:....... .
Y
25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o,
................... ................
0
J
0 20 40 60
LEGEND
* Sample Not Recovered 2 Ground Water Level ATD O % Fines(<0.075mm)
S I 2.0"O.D.Split Spoon Sample % Water Content
m
0
Union,Washington, Residences
Kitchen Building
NOTES Union, Washington
1.Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols,codes,abbreviations and definitions.
of
2.Groundwater level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary.
N g g. LOG OF BORING SW-4
3.USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.
ZV
LLl
o September 2018 21-1-22423-001
SHANNON&WILSON, INC. FIG.A-7
CO Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
REV 3 -Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 21.5 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diam.: 8 in.
• Top Elevation: —34 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Gregory Drilling Rod Diam.: BJZ749
Vert.Datum: Station: Drill Rig Equipment: CME 55 Hammer Type: Automatic
Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments:
SOIL DESCRIPTION o o PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowstfoot)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the .r CL ♦ Hammer Wt.&Drop: 140 Ibs/30 inches
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification Q T Q
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries U) t j
between material types,and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60
Forest duff. 0.3
Loose, light brown, Poorly Graded Gravel with °
Silt and Sand(GP-GM); moist.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : .
o
Medium dense, light brown, Poorly Graded 4'5 5
Gravel with Silt and Sand(GP-GM); moist to 0 21 _
wet; some cobble range material.
°
1 .�:
31
.................
o _
c
0 0 10
4IN
o
. . . . . . . . .
................... ..... . . . . . .:. .:
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
° T ,5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
o :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. .:.:.:.:
................... ............. . .
°
. . ...........
701
................... ................ .. ..........
T 20
1 ................... .... ............ ...................
BOTTOM OF BORING
21.5 °
COMPLETED 7/31/2017
................... .........
Y
25
k ................... ...................
.
a0
................... ............ ...... ...................
k
................... ..........
S'
LEGEND O % Fines(<0.075mm)
Sample Not Recovered � Well Screen and Sand Fitter
o = 2.0"O.D.Split Spoon Sample ® Bentonite-Cement Grout • %Water Content
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
0
$Z Ground Water Level ATD Union, Washington, Residences
z T Ground Water Level in Well
= Kitchen Building
h NOTES Union, Washington
CL
1.Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols,codes,abbreviations and definitions.
Q 2.Groundwater level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary.
g
3.USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF BORING SW-5
N
Li
o September 2018 21-1-22423-001
LU
SHANNON&WILSON, INC. FIG.A-8
Geotechnicat and Environmental Consultants
f
REV 3 -Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 21.5 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diam.: 8 in.
• Top Elevation: -29 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Gregory Drilling Rod Diam.: BJZ749
Vert.Datum: Station: Drill Rig Equipment: CME 55 Hammer Type: Automatic
Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments:
SOIL DESCRIPTION o -0 4= PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowstfoot)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the t a � :3 s A Hammer Wt.&Drop: 1401bs/30 inches
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification p. E E o a
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries 0 � j W
between material types,and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60
Forest duff. 0.3
Medium dense, light brown, Poo►1y Graded °
Gravel with Silt and Sand(GP-GM); moist to '
wet;some cobble range material.
o
Q 5
0
o c .
3I ..
0
I 10
4
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................... ......... ......... ...................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O ................... .. ................ ...................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o I 15
. . . . . . . . . . .
O
a
0 ................... ................... .................:.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O T
7
0
I 20
21.5 o e
BOTTOM OF BORING
................... ................... ...................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COMPLETED 7/31/2017
................... ........
Y
J ................... ................... .............:.:.:.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
' 25
k ................... ............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................... ................
S'
J
0 . . . . . . . .20. . . . . . . . .40. . . . . . . 60
LEGEND O % Fines(<0.075mm)
Sample Not Recovered y Ground Water Level ATD
o I 2.0"O.D.Split Spoon Sample • %Water Content
m
0
Union,Washington, Residences
Kitchen Building
NOTES Union, Washington
1.Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols,codes,abbreviations and definitions.
2.Groundwater level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary.
N 3.USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF BORING SW-6
N
W
o September 2018 21-1-22423-001
LU
SHANNON&WILSON, INC. FIG.A-9
N Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
E
REV 3 -Approved for Submittal
Q11 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. JOB NO: 21-1-22423-001 DATE: 9/4/18 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-8 PROJECT: Union Washington Residences, Union, Washington
u`, `� U- Sketch of West Pit Side Surface Elevation: _Feet
SOIL DESCRIPTION � m y CL s
U E o Horizontal Distance in Feet
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
1O Forest Duff/Roots. 1)
2 Dense brown Silty Sand with
Gravel(SM) and Silty Gravel with
Sand(GM); dry to moist; scattered 2 -
cobbles; some roots.
(Ha)
O
4 O
O
6
8
NOTES 10
4'x5'at BOH
PIT
D
0 12
f
Q11 SHANNON&WILSON, INC. JOB NO: 21-1-22423-001 DATE: 9/4/18 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-9 PROJECT: Union Washington Residences, Union, Washington
-0 �,w N ILL Sketch of Southwest Pit Side Surface Elevation: _Feet
SOIL DESCRIPTION 'o m c E o
Horizontal Distance in Feet
U 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 z
1O Forest Duff/Roots. 1O
2O Medium dense, brown, Silty Sand
with Gravel(SM) and Silty Gravel O
with Sand(GM); dry; some 2 0
cobbles.
(Ha)
O
4
6
8
NOTES 10
6'x4.5'at BOH
G� PIT
D
12
SHANNON&WILSON,INC.
APPENDIX B
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
21-1-22423-001
SHANNON WLSON,INC.
APPENDIX B
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
B.1 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION .........................................................................................B-1
B.2 WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION......................................................................B-1
B.3 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS..................................................................B-1
B.4 CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................................B-2
B.5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................B-2
TABLES
Laboratory Terms
Sample Types
Laboratory Test Summary, Boring SW-3
Laboratory Test Summary, Boring SW-4
Laboratory Test Summary, Boring SW-5
Laboratory Test Summary, Boring SW-6
Laboratory Test Summary, Test Pit TP-5
Laboratory Test Summary, Test Pit TP-6
Laboratory Test Summary, Test Pit TP-7
TESTS
Grain Size Distribution Plot, Test Pit TP-3
Grain Size Distribution Plot, Test Pit TP-5
Grain Size Distribution Plot, Test Pit TP-6
Grain Size Distribution Plot, Test Pit TP-7
21-1-22423-001-R2f-AB/wp/lkn 21-1-22423-001
B-i
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
APPENDIX B
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
We performed geotechnical laboratory testing on selected soil samples retrieved from the four
borings and four test pits completed for the Support Building Project. The laboratory testing
program included tests to classify the soil and provide data for engineering studies. We
performed visual classification on all retrieved samples. Our laboratory testing program
included water content determinations and grain size distribution analyses.
The following sections describe the laboratory test procedures.
B.1 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
We visually classified soil samples retrieved from the borings and test pits using a system based
on ASTM D2487-11, Standard Test Method for Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes
(ASTM, 2011), and ASTM D2488-09a, Standard Recommended Practice for Description of
Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure) (ASTM, 2009). We summarize our classification system in
Appendix A. We assigned a Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) group name and
symbol,based on our visual classification of particles finer than 76.2 millimeters (3 inches). We
revised visual classifications using results of the index tests discussed below.
B.2 WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION
We tested the water content of selected samples in accordance with ASTM D2216-10, Standard
Method for Laboratory Determination of Water(Moisture) Content of Soil, Rock, and
Soil-Aggregate Mixtures (ASTM, 2010). Comparison of the water content of a soil with its
index properties can be useful in characterizing soil unit weight, consistency, compressibility,
and strength. We present water content test results in the Laboratory Test.Summary table in this
appendix, and graphically on Appendix A exploration logs.
B.3 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
We performed mechanical sieve analyses on selected soil specimens to determine the grain size
distribution of coarse-grained soil particles, in accordance with ASTM C136/C136M-14,
Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates (ASTM, 2014). Grain
size distribution analyses separate soil particles through mechanical or sedimentation processes.
Grain size distributions are used to classify the granular component of soils and can correlate
with soil properties, including frost susceptibility, permeability, shear strength, liquefaction
21-1-22423-001-R2f-AB/wp/lkn 21-1-22423-001
B-1
. SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
potential, capillary action, and sensitivity to moisture. We plot grain size distribution analysis
results in this appendix. Grain size distribution plots provide tabular information about each
specimen, including: USCS group symbol and group name; water content; constituent(i.e.,
cobble, gravel, sand, and fines)percentages; coefficients of uniformity and curvature, if
applicable;personnel initials; ASTM standard designation; and testing remarks. Constituent
percentages are presented in the Lab Summary Table in this appendix and fines contents are
plotted as data points on Appendix A exploration logs.
B.4 CONSIDERATIONS
Drilling and sampling methodologies may affect the outcome of prescribed geotechnical
laboratory tests. Refer to the field exploration discussion in this report for a discussion of these
potential effects. Instances of limited recovery may have resulted in test samples not meeting
specified minimum mass requirements,per ASTM standards. Test plots show which samples do
not meet ASTM specified minimum mass requirements.
B.5 REFERENCES
ASTM, 2009, Standard practice for description and identification of soils(visual/manual
procedure), D2488-09a: West Conshohocken,PA.,ASTM International,Annual book of
standards,v. 04.08, soil and rock(I): D420—D5876, 12 p., available: www.astm.org.
ASTM, 2010, Standard test methods for laboratory determination of water(moisture) content of
soil and rock by mass, D2216-10: West Conshohocken, Pa.,ASTM International,Annual
book of standards,v. 04.08, soil and rock(I): D420-D5876, 7 p., available:
www.astm.or .
ASTM,2011, Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes(unified soil
classification system), D2487-11: West Conshohocken, Pa.,ASTM International,Annual
book of standards,v. 04.08, soil and rock(I): D420- D5876, 12 p., available:
www.astm.org.
ASTM, 2014, Standard test method for sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates, C136-14:
West Conshohocken, Pa.,ASTM International,Annual book of standards, v. 04.02, concrete
and aggregates, 5 p., available: www.astm.org.
21-1-22423-001-R2f-AB/wp/1kn 21-1-22423-001
B-2
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC.
LABORATORY TERMS
Abbreviations,
Symbols,and Terms Descriptions
% Percent
* Sample specimen weight did not meet required minimum mass for the test method
Inch
FF Test not performed by Shannon&Wilson Inc.laboratory
ASTM Std. ASTM International Standard
C� Coefficient of curvature
Clay-size Soil particles finer than 0.002 mm
cm Centimeter
cm, Square centimeter
Coarse-grained Soil particles coarser than 0.075 mm cobble-,gravel-and sand-sized articles)
Cobbles Soil particles finer than 305 mm and coarser than 76.2 mm
C. Coefficient of uniformity
CU Consolidated-Undrained
E Axial strain
Fine-W,ained Soil particles finer than 0.075 mm silt-and clay-sized articles)
ft Feet
YM Wet unit weight
Gravel Soil particles finer than 76.2 mm and coarser than 4.75 mm
G, Specific gravity of soil solids
Ho Initial height
OH Change in height
OHS End of load increment deformation
in Inch
in Cubic inch
LL Liquid Limit
min Minute
mm Millimeter
µm Micrometer
MC Moisture content
MPa Mega-Pascal
NP Non-plastic
OC Organic content
Total stress
' Effective stress
Pa Pascal
cf Pounds per cubic foot
PI Plasticity Index
PL Plastic Limit
sf Pounds per square foot
psi Pounds per square inch
Deviatoric stress
Sand Soil particles finer than 4.75 mm and coarser than 0.075 mm
sec Second
Silt Soil particles finer than 0.075 mm and coarser than 0.002 mm
t„ Time to n%primary consolidation
tload Duration of load increment
tsf Short tons per square foot
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
UU Unconsolidated-Undrained
WC Water content
21 1-22423-001-R 1-A-i able 2 1-1-22423-00 1
SHANNON 6WILSON.INC.
SAMPLE TYPES
Abbreviations,
Symbols,and Terms Descriptions
2SS 2.5-inch Outside Diameter Split-Spoon Sample
2ST 2-inch Outside Diameter Thin-Walled Tube
3HSA 3-inch CME Hollow-stem Auger Sampler
3SS 3-inch Outside Diameter Split-Spoon Sample
4SS 4-inch Inside Diameter Split-Spoon Sample
6SS 6-inch Inside Diameter Split-Spoon Sample
CA MC Modified California Sampler
CA SPT Standard Penetration Test SPT
CORE Rock Core
DM +3.25 inch Outside Diameter Split-Spoon Sample
DMR 3.25-inch Sampler with Internal Rings
GRAB Grab Sample
GUS 3-inch Outside Diameter Gregory Undisturbed Sampler(GUS)Sample
OSTER 3-inch Outside Diameter Osterberg Sample
PITCHER 3-inch Outside Diameter Pitcher Sample
PMT Pressuremeter Test failed
PO Porter Penetration Test Sample
PT 2.5-inch Outside Diameter Thin-Walled Tube
ROCK Rock Core Sample
SCORE Soil Core as in Sonic Core Borings)
SH1 1-inch Plastic Sheath
SH2 2-inch Plastic Sheath with Soil Recovery
SH3 2-inch Plastic Sheath with no Soil Recovery
SPT 2-inch Outside Diameter Split-Spoon Sample
SS Split-Spoon
ST 3-inch Outside Diameter Thin-Walled Tube
STW 3-inch Outside Diameter Thin-Walled Tube
TEST Sample Test Interval
TW Thin Wall Sample
UNDIST Undisturbed Sample
VANE Vane Shear
WATER Water Sample for Probe Logs
XCORE Core Sample
21-1-22423-001-R1-A-Table 21-1-22423-001
LABORATORY TEST SUMMARY
y �
Boring USCS WC 2 Cu C, LL PL Soil Description
SW-3 2.5 S-1 SPT 11 3.2
SW-3 5 S-2 SPT 35 2.2
SW-3 7.5 S-3 SPT 11 3.3
SW-3 10 S-4 SPT 24 3.6
SW-3 12.5 S-5 SPT 19 13.0
SW-4 2.5 S-1 SPT 15 5.7
SW-4 5 S-2 SPT 25 2.4
SW-4 7.5 S-3 SPT 29 2.3
SW-4 10 S-4 SPT 27 5.3
SW-4 12.5 S-5 SPT 42 9.9
SW-5 2.5 S-1 SPT 9 6.6
SW-5 5 S-2 SPT 16 3.5
SW-5 7.5 S-3 SPT 18 8.3
SW-5 10 S-4 SPT 17 10.2
SW-5 12.5 S-5 SPT 20 13.4
SW-6 2.5 S-1 SPT 12 4.1
SW-6 5 S-2 SPT 17 7.6
SW-6 7.5 S-3 SPT 21 11.7
SW-6 12.5 S-5 SPT 31 14.2
EP_6T�-52 S-1 GRAB GM 8.5 43* 42* 15* Sil Gravel with Sand
2 S-2 GRAB SP 3.1 36 62 2.0 Poorl Graded Sand with Gravel
3 1 S-1 I GRAB GW-GM 4.5 51 42 6.8 28.6 2.7 Well-Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand
21-1-22423-001-R1-A-EDIT.xlsm 21-1-22423-001
SHANNON WALSON,INC.
LABORATORY TFST SUMMARY
Y .n
L+ :J
Boring = r = CSCS WC (%) C„ C.. Ll, P1, Soil Description
TP-3 1.5 S-1 GRAB SC 14.7 14* 48* 38* 43.23 25.48 Clayey Sand
TP-5 2 S-1 GRAB GM 8.5 43* 42* 15* Silty Gravel with Sand
TP-6 2 S-2 GRAB SP 3.1 36 62 2.0 Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
TP-7 3 S-1 GRAB GW-GM 4.5 51 42 6.8 28.6 2.7 Well-Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand
21-1-22423-001-R1-A_EDIT 21-1-22423-001
it r
-111 SHANNON WILSON,INC. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
Union Washington Residences
Union,Washington BORING SW-1
Gravel Sand Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay- l e
Mesh Opening in Inches Mesh Openings per Inch,U.S.Standard Grain Size in Millimeters
,� �� a .o ,tio �8 cP cY' cY o"'
100 h O' O' O' O' O'O' O' O' O' W O'0
95 5
90 10
85 15
80 20
75 25
70 30
65 35 -0
N Q)
60 40
a 55 45 0
O
C 50 50 a)
U. 0)
C 45 55 Q
61 40 60
a N
35 65 y
30 70
25 75
20 80
15 85
10 90
5 95
0 yp 100
^by ry0Q 0 10' It, ti I
O O O O OIV
O' O' O' O,
Grain Size(mm) O' O' O'
Sample Depth USCSS USCS Gravel Sand Fines <20pm <2pm WC Tested Review ASTM
Identification A Syrror A I Group Name % % % % % % By By Std.
SW-1,S-2 5.0 SM Silty Sand with Gravel 39 40 21 8.3 ACP AKV C136
0
Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
0
t7
J
3
x
v,
a
C0
N
Q
N
N
N
Z
Q
Q
to
U'
Q
O
N
V
N
N
N
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. 400 NORTH 34TH STREET SUITE 100 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98103 MAIN(206)632-8020 FAX(206)695-6777
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
Union Washington Residences BORING SW-2
Union,Washington
Gravel Sand Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClaySize
Mesh Opening in Inches Mesh Openings per Inch,U.S.Standard Grain Size in Millimeters p
,ry �O ^O o o O ^00 00 o�O Ob Oo Ory O OOo 000 06 Oo0 00~ Oo
^� b ry b 0 ry O" O' O' O O O" Q. O" O' O' W
100 0
95 5
90 10
85 15
80 20
75 25
70 30
65 35
to ry
cN0 60 40
>'55 45 �
c50 50N
lL (p
C 45 55 Q
d �
I y 40 60 �
d N
I y
35 65 y
30 70
25 75
20 80
15 85
10 90
5 95
0 100
h �O p0 ry0 ,�O 0 •o ^b P ^� 'Y ^ 0 ' P ^� h ^y
o 0 0 00
0 0
o• o o o o o• o
Grain Size(mm)
Sample Depth USCS Gmup USCS Gravel Sand Fines <2Wm <2pm WC Tested Review ASTM
Identification (ft) Symbol Group Name % % % % % % By By Std.
SW-2,S-4' 10.0 SM Silty Sand with Gravel 39 43 18 7.0 ACP AKV C136
r
0
m Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
0
c�
J
3i
�d
x
a'
c�
ri
N
Q
N
N
N
Z
Q
cn
01
0
T
M
N
Q
N
N
N
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. 400 NORTH 34TH STREET SUITE 100 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98103 MAIN(206)632-8020 FAX(206)695-6777
r
=III SHANNON WILSON,INC. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
Union Washington Residences
Union,Washington TEST PIT TP-1
Gravel Sand Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClaySlze
Mesh Opening in Inches Mesh Openings per Inch,U.S.Standard Grain Size in Millimeters
,�
ti ^ry ^fib ^�� ^$ h$O O o Ory O^O O O 4�'� W~ 8
100 0
95 5
90 10
85 15
80 20
75 25
70 30
65 35
N (p
M 60 40
55 45
C 50 50 w
lL (D
C 45 55 V
G1 �
q) 40 60 �
(L
35 65 rn
30 70
25 75
20 80
15 85
10 90
5 95
0 100
^Oti `O ry0 ,�O 0 0'b O O O O O O O^O O O O O
O'
Grain Size(MM)
Sample Depth USCS USCS Gravel Sand Fines <20pm <2pm WC Tested Review ASTM
Gro
Identification (it) SymZ Group Name % % % % % % By By Sid.
TP-1,S-2 2.0 GM Silty Gravel with Sand 44 36 20 11.0 ACP AKV C136
n
0
Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
r-
0
J_
Z3
Q
a
of
N
Q
N
N
N
Z
<
Q�
N
<<
N
N
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. 400 NORTH 34TH STREET SUITE 100 • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98103 MAIN(206)632-8020 FAX(206)695-6777
IL
SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
Union Washington Residences
Union,Washington TEST PIT TP-3
Gravel Sand _ Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt CWySze
Mesh Opening in Inches Mesh Openings per Inch,U.S.Standard Grain Size in Millimeters
<b 0 P 7 H
ti ^ry 11 1\0 b ^O ry0 o-0 00 Oo ry O O W O O,O O Q. O O O
100 0
95 5
90 10
85 15
80 20
75 25
70 30
65 35
m 1p
m 60 40 0
O
55 45 C7
O
C 50 50 N
I.L 1p
C 45 55 6
U �
0) 40 60 �
� N i N
35 65 N
30 70
25 75
20 80
15 85
10 90
5 95
0 100
O O O O O O' ^y 00 cY O� Ory O^ 0 •o P 'h -V
w C O' O' O O' O'0 8 8 8 O O
Grain Size(mrn)
Sample Depth USCSGro USCS Gravel Sand Fines <20pm <2pm WC Tested Review ASTM
Identification (fl) Symbol Group Name % % % % % % By By Std.
TP-3,S-1' 1.5 SC Clayey Sand 14 48 38 14.7 AC P AKV C136
r
0
m Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
0
J
3
Z
a
x
rn
a
N
a
N
N
N
Z
Q
Q�
O
QI
0
9
e�
17
N
O
N
N
N
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. 400 NORTH 34TH STREET SUITE 100 SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98103 MAIN(206)632-8020 FAX(206)695-6777
mill SHANNON 6WILSON,INC. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
Union Washington Residences TEST PIT TP-5
Union,Washington
Gravel Sand Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClaySize
Mesh Opening in Inches Mesh Openings per Inch.U.S.Standard Grain Size in Millimeters
^O ryp b0 ^�Q 8 00 c�` O`h Ory O cPo f 9 .f a 00
100 h o o o o* o'o' o' o' o' W o'o
95 5
90 10
85 15
80 20
75 25
70 30
65 35 D
y
r0 60 40 Cf
1 55 45
C 50 50N
LL 0)
C 45 55 Q
d 40 60
Il N
35 65 to
30 70
25 75
20 80
15 85
10 90
5 95
0 100
^ry 00 p0 ry0 ,\O 0 0'41 1
O %
O O O O' OHO O O 00 OIV
Grain Size(mm) I
Sample Depth USCSS USCS Gravel Sand Fines <20pm <2pm WC Tested Review ASTM
roup
Identification (fi) Symbol Group Name % % % % % % By By Std.
TP-5,S-1' 2.0 GM Silty Gravel with Sand 43 42 15 8.5 ACP AKV C136
n
0
Test specimen did not most minimum mass recommendations.
a
r,
J
3
x
ti
'a
N
a
N
N
N
Z
Q
Q U)
r9
Q
1•I
N
O
N
N
SHANNON$WILSON,INC. 400 NORTH 34TH STREET SUITE 100 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98103 MAIN(206)632-8020 FAX(206)695-6777
SHANNON 6WILSON,INC. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
Union Washington Residences TEST PIT TP-6
Union,Washington
Gravel Sand Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClaySze
Mesh Opening in Inches Mesh Openings per Inch,U.S.Standard Grain Size in Millimeters
41b b ^O ry0 b0 00 00 100 O� O 00 O O�O O 00 00 o O'0
100
95 5
85 15
75 _-- —„-_- - 25
70 -. ...._ - --- - --- - — - -_. 30
65 35 N
60 40 N
�.
55 _ -_ 45 0
O
c 50 ( l — i 50 N
iL — —
m
C 45 -- - ---,--- 55 Q
N — -- - - <
o -- ---
aD 40 60
35 - -- ----- - - ---- 65 N
30 70
25 75
15 85
10 90
5 95
0 100
oo ao �o �o o m ro ^b b It, ti ^o 0 0° o 0 0 0^ o° cY o"' Q
c, o o o
Grain Size(mm)
Sample Depth USCS USCS Gravel Sand Fines <20pm <2pm WC Tested Review ASTM
Identification (ft) Symbol Group Name % % % % % % By By Std.
•TP-6,S-2 2.0 SP Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 36 62 2.0 3.1 ACID AKV C136
r`
0
N
m
C�
J
ZI
Q
N
a
M
N
N
N
N
Z
Q
E
Q
N
QI
0
R
M
N
O
N
N
N
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. 400 NORTH 34TH STREET SUITE 100 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98103 MAIN(206)632-8020 FAX(206)695-6777
SHANNON WILSON,INC. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
' Union Washington Residences TEST PIT TP-7
Union,Washington
Gravel Sand __Fines -—
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClaySize
Mesh Opening in Inches Mesh Openings per Inch,U.S.Standard Grain Size in Millimeters
IV
o
100 0
95 5
90 10
85 15
80 20
75 25
70 30
65 35 -0
n CD
co 60 40
CD
55 45
O
c 50 50 N
LL (D
C45 55Q
N 'G
`y 40 60 �
LL rn
35 65 N
30 70
25 75
20 80
15 85
10 90
5 95
0 p 100
h �o p0 �O 10 O 0^ o ^y P 'h •1 ^ 0 0 P '7 n/ ^ ^y O� O O� Oh 0 o P 'h h
o' a. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q1,
0 8 S 8 8 S 8
oo o o- o- o• o
Grain Size(MM)
Sample Depth USCP USCS Gravel Sand Fines <20pm <2pm WC Tested Review ASTM
rou Identification (tt) Symbol Group Name % % % % % % By By Std.
•TP-7,S-1 3.0 GW-GM Well-Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand 51 42 6.8 4.5 ACP AKV C136
r
rn
F
J
Z
x
a'
N
N
N
N
Z
Q
f
Q
01
0
4
n
N
O
N
N
N
SHANNON&WILSON,INC. 400 NORTH 34TH STREET SUITE 100 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98103 MAIN(206)632-8020 FAX(206)695-6777
r
SHANNON MMILSON.INC.
APPENDIX C
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR
GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
21-1-22423-001
s
- SHANNON $ WILSON, INC. Attachment to and part of Report21-1-22423-001
- Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
- Date: September 10,2018
To: Mr.Ray Nelson
Watermark Estate Management Services,LLC
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAUENVIRONMENTAL
REPORT
CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS.
Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate
for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise,your consultant prepared your report expressly
for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without
first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without
first conferring with the consultant.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS.
A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project-specific
factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and
configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the
client. To help avoid costly problems,ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report
may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise,your report should not be used: (1)when the nature of
the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated
warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one,or chemicals are discovered on or near the site);(2)when the size,elevation,
or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3)when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4)when
there is a change of ownership;or(5)for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may
occur if they are not consulted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.
Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report
is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration,construction decisions should not be based on a report whose
adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for
example,groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods,earthquakes,or groundwater fluctuations may also
affect subsurface conditions and,thus,the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept
apprised of any such events,and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.
MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS.
Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data
were extrapolated by your consultant,who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual
interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may
differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can work
together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly
beneficial in this respect.
Page 1 of 2 1/2018
A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.
The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions
revealed throughselective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can
P r5' P g g
be discerned only during earthwork;therefore,you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions.
Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the
report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable
recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's
recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION.
Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a
geotechnical/environmental report. To help avoid these problems,the consultant should be retained to work with other project design
professionals to explain relevant geotechnical,geological,hydrogeological,and environmental findings,and to review the adequacy of
their plans and specifications relative to these issues.
BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT.
Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs(assembled by site personnel),field test results,
and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in
geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not,under any circumstances,be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or
other design drawings,because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation,contractors should be given ready access to the complete
geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared for
you,you should advise contractors of the report's limitations,assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom
the report was prepared,and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared.
While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party,the contractor should discuss the report with
your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appropriate for
construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy
of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps
prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY.
Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design
disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem,
consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts,reports,and other documents. These responsibility clauses
are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant's liabilities to other parties;rather,they are definitive clauses that identify
where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and
take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report,and you are encouraged to read them closely.
Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions.
The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the
ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences,Silver Spring,Maryland
Page 2 of 2 1/2018
MASON COUNTY Submittal Checklist
COMMUNITY SERVICES Geotechnical Report
Bullding,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health
Instructions:
This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed
professional(s)who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to the Mason County
Resource Ordinance. If an item is found not applicable,the report should explain the basis for the conclusion.
Note:Unless specifically documented, this report does not provide compliance to the International Residential Code Sections
R403.1.7 for foundations on or adjacent to slopes, Section R403.1.8 for expansive soils or section 1808.7.1 of[��temational
Building Code Section for Foundations on or adjacent to slopes. ,ry
Applicant/Owner Ray Nelson, Owner Representative Parcel# 32233-50-90050 SEP tio
Site Address 51 East Waterwheel Place Union WA �j 8
(1) (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, /dLor Street
Located on page(s) 2-4
(b) A discussion of specific soil types,
Located on page(s) 4-6
(c) A discussion of ground water conditions,
Located on page(s) 5
(d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology,
Located on page(s) 2
(e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands,
Located on page(s) 2
(f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records.
Located on page(s) 3-4
(2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features.
Located on Map(s) Figure 2
(3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes.
Located on Map(s) Figure 2 , Figure 3 and Appendix A
(4) The area of the proposed development,the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall
be delineated (top, both sides, and toe)on a geologic map of the site.
Located on Map(s) Figure 2, No Hazards are present
(5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which
incorporates the details of proposed grade changes.
Located on Map(s) Figure 3
(6) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions.
Analysis should examine worst case failures.The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of
Circles.The minimum static safety factor is 1.5,the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1, and the quasi-static
analysis coefficients should be a value of 0.15.
Located on page(s) N/A. No steep slopes are present
(7) (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features,
Rev. February 2018
Located on page(s 9-10
(b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields,
Located on page(s) N/A, existing system
(c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings,
Located on page(s) 15-16
(d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
Located on page(s) N/A
(e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes.
Located on page(s) N/A
(8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies
vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation
removal.
Located on page(s) 15 -16
(9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific
mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and
harmful construction methods.
Located on page(s) 16-17
(10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
Located on page(s) 15
(11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and
buffer widths.
Located on page(s) 16
(12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation.
Located on page(s) 15-16
(13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of
existing and proposed development on the site.
Located on Map(s) Figure 2
I,_7/ /I &e'e hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the
State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engineering
geologist licensed in the State of Washington with special knowledge of the local conditions. I also certify that the
GeotecF nicgl Repo dated, o. /(J, ZO/ I;;",and e titled
rcijc c
�ti F• �` �C�' meets all the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance,
Geologically Hazardous Areas Section, is complete and true, that the
assessment demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the
303U8 ��andslide hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnical
iU �NjJ
s� Sly, �� design recommendations, and that all hazards are mitigated in such a
Z, 1 p1,� r
(Signhtwr�apdtyta manner as to prevent harm to property and public health and safety.
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report.