Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeoTech Engineering Study - COM Engineering / Geo-Tech Reports - 5/12/1994 9'+� h1► r yt7 V. - 3�t iiitMR t : ... PREPARED FOR MCDONALD'S CORPORATION Dougla Lynne Sta sneer obert S. Levinson, P. ,?146 1 Fc Principal 0'tiy,,;"a`''' „� `y EXPIRES 03/07/ (. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT HIGHWAY 3 BELFAIR, WASHINGTON E-6552 May 12, 1994 Earth Consultants, Inc. " { Y " 1805 136th Place Northeast, Suite 101 Bellevue; Washington 98005 = (206) 643-3780 222 East 26th Street,"Suite 103 Tacoma, Washington 98411-9998 (206) 272-6608 .� Earth Consultants Inc. G•ou•,'hnical F:n};in,ti•rs.G<tiolo}{itiCS A F.nvimmnwnrd tii irniLtiLe May 12, 1994 E-6552 McDonald's Corporation 10220 Northeast Points Drive, Suite 300 Kirkland, Washington 98033-7865 Attention: Mr. Jerry Kesselring Dear Mr. Kesselring: We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed McDonald's Restaurant, Highway 3, Belfair, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analysis, as well as geotechnically related recommendations for the proposed site development. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our May 2, 1994 proposal. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the above referenced site, it is our opinion that the proposed restaurant may be supported by shallow spread footings bearing on competent existing fill, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the construction specifications. If you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Robert S. Levinson, P. E. President RSL/kml. [6552GES.Rpt] 1805 .136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue,Washington 98005 222 E. 26th Street, Suite 103, Tacoma,Washington 98421.9998 Bellevue(206)643-3780 Seattle(206)464.1584 FAX(206)746-0860 Tacoma(206)272.6608 TABLE OF CONTENTS E-6552 PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Subsurface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Laboratory Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Site Preparation and Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Slab-on-Grade Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Seismic Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Lateral Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Excavations and Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Site Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Utility Support and Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Pavement Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Additional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 APPENDICES Appendix A Field Exploration Appendix B Laboratory Testing ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Test Pit'Location Plan Plate 3 Typical Utility Trench Backfill Plate 4 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Plate Al Legend Plates A2 through A7 Test Pit Logs Plate 131 Grain Size Analysis Earth Coneukantt, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT HIGHWAY 3 BELFAIR, WASHINGTON E-6552 INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study for the proposed McDonald's Restaurant, Highway 3, Belfair, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1 . The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and, based on the conditions encountered, to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. Proiect Description At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed structure, and exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. Based on the preliminary plans provided to us, we understand that the site is to be developed with a one-level restaurant in the central portion of the parcel. The remainder of the area is to be asphalt paved parking areas and landscaping areas. Grade modifications are anticipated to be minimal due to existing topography. Structural loading is anticipated to fall within the following ranges, including maximum dead plus live loads: 0 Wall footings - 2-3 kips per lineal foot • Maximum column loads - 50 kips • Slab loads - 150 pounds per square foot(psf) If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final construction design. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-6552 May 12, 1994 Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site of the proposed facility is located on Highway 3 in Belfair, Washington (see Plate 1, Vicinity Map). The nearly square parcel encompasses about eight-tenths (0.8) of an acre. The site is bounded to the north, east and south by vacant land and to the west by Highway 3. On the west and south sides of the site there is a 2H:1 V slope that drains away from the parcel. Slope height ranges from four to eight feet. Due to recent grading operations, the site is clear of all vegetation. Subsurface The site was explored by excavating six test pits at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Detailed descriptions of the conditions encountered at each location explored are presented on the test pit logs, Plates A2 through A7. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. Below is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. In general, a dense fill ranging in thickness from four feet to greater than eleven (1 1 ) feet was encountered overlying a dense, gray poorly graded sand with silt (Unified Soil Classification SP-SM) to the maximum exploration depth of eleven and one-half feet. Test pit TP-4 did not extend through the fill at that location. Fill consisted of gray silty sand with gravel. Based on information provided by Ace Paving, Inc., the site was balanced with respect to earthwork cuts and fills placed during recent grading operations. Fills about fifteen (15) to sixteen (16) feet thick in some areas. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was not observed in any of the test pits during the time our site study was performed. It is important to note that groundwater seepage is not constant; thus, one may expect fluctuations in the volume and location depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, groundwater seepage is greater during the wetter winter months (typically October through May). Groundwater seepage is not expected to have a significant impact on construction unless the site is developed during periods of heavy precipitation or the winter months. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-6552 May 12, 1994 Page 3 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests, such as sieve analysis, and by moisture content tests on representative samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual test pit log or on a separate data sheet contained in Appendix B. However, it is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions; our geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results. The soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of sixty (60) days following completion of this report, unless we are otherwise directed in writing. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the site can be developed generally as planned provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the final design. In our opinion, the proposed restaurant may be supported on spread footings bearing on competent existing fill. Some overexcavation of the existing fill may be necessary depending on the actual conditions exposed in the foundation excavations. These and other geotechnically related aspects of the project are discussed in the following sections of this report. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of the McDonald's Corporation and their representatives. No warranty is expressed or implied. It is recommended that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Earth Consultants. Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-6552 May 12, 1994 Page 4 Site Preparation and Grading Due to recent grading operations at the site, the earthwork operations can commence to provide the design grades. Surfaces where fill, foundations or pavements are to be placed should be observed by a representative of ECI. Proof rolling may be required in localized areas and should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECI. Soil in any loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still excessively yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base. The soils exposed in our test pits are moderately moisture sensitive due to their fines content. As such, in an exposed condition they may become disturbed from normal construction activity especially when in a wet or saturated condition. Once disturbed, and in a wet condition, they will be unsuitable for, support of foundations or pavements. Therefore, during construction where these soils are exposed and will support new structures, care should be exercised not to disturb their condition. If disturbed conditions develop, the affected soils must be removed and replaced with a structural fill. The depth of removal will be dependent on the level of disturbance developed during construction. Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load-bearing areas. Structural fill under foundations should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum 95 percent of its maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density, except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. Laboratory tests indicate the majority of soil expected to be exposed in excavations has between 14 and 22 percent fines and a natural moisture content ranging from 5 to 10 percent. Due to the natural moisture content, which appears to be near the optimum, it is our opinion this soil would be suitable for use as a structural fill in its present condition. Any organic material present in the soil must be removed if it is to be used as structural fill. Should the moisture content increase above the optimum moisture content, the soil will need to be 'dried back' to the optimum moisture content, used in non-structural areas or removed from the site. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-6552 May 12, 1994 Page 5 It appears that fill will be placed on the northwest facing fill slope in order to provide parking lot subgrade. In our opinion, the placement of fill on slopes is generally acceptable; however, the fill should be keyed and benched into the slope. This process consists of excavating a keyway at the toe of the planned fill. The keyway should have a width of about six to eight feet and a depth of two feet into medium dense to dense native soil. The slope above the keyway should then be cut into a series of horizontal to slightly inward sloping benches. Typically, the benches are excavated with a small bulldozer as the fill is brought up. The width of the benches will vary with the gradient of the slope, usually the gentler the slope, the wider the benches. Structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular material with a maximum size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. During dry weather, most compactible non-organic soil can be used as structural fill. It is recommended that any structural fill planned for on site use be submitted for approval prior to import. Foundations Based on the encountered subsurface soil conditions, preliminary design criteria, and assuming compliance with the preceding "Site Preparation and Grading" section, the proposed restaurant may be supported on existing compacted till. Overexcavation of the existing fill may be necessary depending on actual conditions exposed in the foundation excavations. A determination regarding overexcavation must be made at the time the foundation excavations are made. Foundations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) when bearing on the existing competent fill or structural fill. The above allowable bearing value is for dead plus live loads and may be increased one-third for combined dead, live, wind, and seismic forces. It is estimated that total and differential settlements for the relatively light structure will be approximately one- half and one-quarter inch, respectively. It is recommended that all footing excavations be observed by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify that exposed soil conditions are as anticipated in this report, and/or provide suitable modifications in the design, as required. The majority of the anticipated settlement should occur during construction as the dead loads are applied. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-6552 May 12, 1994 Page 6 Footing drains should be installed around building perimeters, at or just below the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 4. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade'floors may be supported on recompacted existing fill or new structural fill, depending on final grades. Should loose soil be present at the slab subgrade elevation, it should be compacted to the requirements of structural fill. Any disturbed subgrade soil must either be re-compacted or replaced with structural fill. The slab should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free-draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane may be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Seismic Design Considerations The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal events, ranging in depth from 50 to 70 kilometers. Such deep events have exhibited no surface faulting. The UBC earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force procedure for design base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion that a site coefficient of 1 .2 should be used for the static force procedure, as outlined in Section 2334 of the 1991 UBC. For the dynamic force procedure outlined in Section 2335 of the 1991 UBC, the curve for Rock and Stiff Soils (soil type 1) should be used on Figure 23-3, Normalized Response Spectra Shapes. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-6552 May 12, 1994 Page 7 Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures with foundations founded in the liquefying soils. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain to grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid for short periods of time. To have potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium-dense; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. Based- on the subsurface information obtained during our field exploration, it is our opinion that the liquefaction potential at the site is negligible due to the relative grain size distribution of the soils encountered, the dense condition, and the absence of a near-surface groundwater table. Lateral Resistance An allowable passive pressure value against the sides of foundation slabs or other subsurface foundation elements of three hundred (300) psf per foot of depth may be used for design. In order to fully mobilize the passive pressure, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the adjacent soil or the foundation excavation must be backfilled with structural fill. Friction between the base of foundations and the underlying soil may be assumed to be 40 percent of the dead load. The friction and passive pressure design values include a factor of safety of 1 .5. Excavations and Slopes You should be aware that in no case should the excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and federal safety regulations. As described in the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, the existing fill would classify as Type "C". Therefore temporary cuts greater than four feet in height, should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1 .5H:1 V. If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, or if excavations greater than twenty (20) feet in depth are required, temporary shoring may be necessary. This shoring would help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and would provide protection to workmen in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria, if requested. Earth Consultants. Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-6552 May 12, 1994 Page 8 All permanent slopes should be inclined no greater than 2H:1 V. If this inclination cannot be maintained, we should be contacted to review the design and construction criteria. We also recommend that all slopes be examined by Earth Consultants, Inc. during construction to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve the stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of drainage. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes. The above information has been provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the above information be interpreted to mean that this office is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. Site Drainage Groundwater seepage was not encountered in any of the test pits during the time our site study was performed. It does not appear that groundwater levels will present any construction related problems while excavating the foundations. However, if groundwater seepage is encountered in any excavations during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches. It is recommended that the appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, be established during grading operations by this office, at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more clearly defined. The site should be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where structures, slabs or driveways are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the structure's foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of three percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the structures in landscape areas. Earth Consultants. Inc. GEOTECNNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-6552 May 12, 1994 Page 9 Footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the building at or just below the invert of the footing with a gradient sufficient to. initiate flow. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. Cleanouts should be installed at several accessible locations to allow for the periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Utility Support and Backfill Based on the soil conditions encountered, the soils expected to be exposed by utility excavations should provide. adequate support for utilities. Utility trench backfill is a major concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line be adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed and hand tamped to about twelve (12) inches above the crown of the pipe before any heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve 0 2) inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction requirements for load supporting and non-load supporting areas is presented on Plate 3. Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, we recommend the subgrade be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. This means at least the top twelve (12) inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM 1557-78). It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. We recommend the following pavement section for lightly loaded areas: • Two inches of Asphalt Concrete (AC) over four inches of Crushed Rock Base (CRB) material, or • Two inches of AC over three inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) material. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-6552 May 12, 1994 Page 10 Heavier truck-traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement life and site traffic. As a general rule, you may consider for truck-trafficked areas the following sections: • Three inches of AC over six inches of CRB, or • Three inches of AC over four inches of ATB. Asphalt Concrete (AC), Asphalt Treated Base (ATB), and Crushed Rock Base (CRB) materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. All rock base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557-78 laboratory test standard. It should be noted that parking stall pavement sections assume no truck traffic. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us by you, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pits. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Earth Conaultanta, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-6552 May 12, 1994 Page 11 Additional Services This office will be available to provide consultation services relating to review of the final design and specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the approved construction plans and specifications. In addition, it is suggested that this office be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction to observe compliance with the design concepts and project specifications, and to facilitate design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. It should be noted that it is generally in the best interests of the owner/client to maintain the same Soils Engineer during construction in order to obtain the project objective, with optimum quality control. Earth Consultants. Inc. �� a s �:_>>�' I . � tl Q• 0 Pit•. ' '> D /' it n +� • O BM 338•'aa"1• qn O + I n q 2©© ✓ 9 dr r9+ 221� 1 + 1 I \+ Q O �I � b � �• tea+ kti� " �,a=�= �_ / " —�— a �',• '• V�/ °y._.ravel .p 352X _ Ir, ON • n o TS • n o ! tl � B �✓saa- 0 • •.. M elf air o rL q � " .• ad xl � r c O � 3 oQ I ro I Reference: Belfair Quadrangle Washington JNJ 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic) By U.S. Geological Survey Dated 1953 (Photorevised 1968) Earth Consultants Inc. Vicinity Map Vicinity Restaurant �.�,.,��,> .Fm,ffl..�,� Belfair, Washington Pro]. No. 6552 Drwn. GLS Date May '94 Checked DSL Date 5/11/94 Plate 1 4'High 2:1 Slope _ / -i-TP-3 TP_5 • TP-2 TP-6 TP-4 - Trash Enclosure TP-1 8' High \ 2:1 Slope W High 2:1 Slope LEGEND IM TP-1 -�- Approximate Location of ECI Test Pit, Proj. No. E-6552, May 1994 Approximate Scale a 0 25 50 100ft. Proposed Building Reference: Site Sketch Received From McDonald's Corp. Undated Test Pit Location Plan Earth Consultants Inc. McDonald's Restaurant C"*ch'kmiEn &Ermmrw"m""S`k"'t" Belfair, Washington Prof. No. 6552 Drwn. GLS Date May '94 Checked DSL Date 5/11/94 Plate 2 Non-Load Supporting Floor Slab or Areas Roadway Areas • C0 o• ° Varies o •so 0 0. 95 ' o 0 S 95 1 Foot Minimum Backfill 80 90: Varies IPE OOa�'oa •°o0.0 • .. Oi �.0 Beddingo. .0. ,0_•a; 0Q°• pQo '°o°•O��•;••c°:. Varies 00 LEGEND: Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab o•o °•. • o , •° • Base Material or Base Rock Backfill; Compacted On-Site Soil or Imported Select Fill Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text. 95 Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Density as Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor), Unless Otherwise Specified In the Attached Report Text. Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and °a�?•oaij Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected. TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL Eal"th COI"LSl dtat"1tS Inc. TYPICAL Restaurant Belfair, Washington Prof. No. 6552 Drwn. GLS Date May '94 Checked DSL Date 5/11/94 Plate 3 APPENDIX A E-6552 FIELD EXPLORATION Our field exploration was performed on May 3, 1994. The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating six test pits to a maximum depth of eleven and one-half (11 .5) feet below the existing ground surface. The test pits were excavated by Ace Paving, Inc. using a rubber-tire backhoe. The approximate test pit locations were determined by pacing from existing property corners. The locations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineer from our firm, who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative samples, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate Al , Legend. Logs of the test pits are presented in the Appendix on Plates A2 through A7. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory tests on field samples. The strati- fication lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Earth Consultants, Inc. • 3 MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL SYMBOL ° a � GW Well-Graded Gravels,Gravel-Sand Gravel :°a •a gW Mixtures,Little Or No Fines And Clean Gravels ° 'O Gravelly (little or no fines) ' '40: :�: : GP Poorly Graded Gravels,Gravel- Coarse Soils • ' • ' 0. GI'ained ! ' gp Sand Mixtures,Little Or No Fines Soils More Than I I I GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand- 50% Coarse Gravels With I gm Silt Mixtures Fraction Fines(appreciable Retained On amount of fines I Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand- No. 4 Sieve GC gc Clay Mixtures 0 0 00 Sand °; °O°°°e°, SW Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly And Clean Sand a°,o a °Oe°O SW Sands, Little Or No Fines Sandy (little or no fines 1 More Than Soils SP Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly 50:. Material Sp Sands, Little Or No Fines Larger Than More Than •' SM Silty Sands, Sand-.Silt Mixtures No.200 Sieve 50% Coarse Size Fraction Sands With ;.:I;;;;;;I SM Passing No.4 Fines(appreciable amount of fines) Sieve SC Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures M(- Inorganic Silts 3 Very Fine Sands,Rock Flot r,Sitty- rrtl Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/Slight Plasticity Fine Silts Liquid Limit CL' Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, Grained And Less Than 50 CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean Soils Clays I I I I I I OL Organic Silts And Organic I I I I I of Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity More Than MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire 50% Material Mh Sand Or Silty Soils Silts Liquid Limit Smaller Than And W�"10 Inorganic Clays Of High No.200 Sieve Clays Greater Than 50 Plasticity, Fat Clays. Size Organic Clays Of Medium To High Plasticity, Organic Silts Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils Highly Organic Soils With High Organic Contents Topsoil Humus And Duff Layer Fill Highly Variable Constituents The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented In the attached logs. DUAL SYMBOLS are used to Indicate borderline soil classification.UPPER CASE LETTER SYMBOLS designate sample classifications based upon laboratory testing; LOWER CASE LETTER SYMBOLS designate classifications not verified by laboratory testing. C TORVANE READING,tsf I 2'O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf W MOISTURE,%dry weight 24'I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED i WATER OBSERVATION WELL pcf DRY DENSITY,lbs.per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT,% SZ DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION T SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/DATE Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND I� t (iur3�IriLl l3 gtl,r�.•,�,(:u*ry�sit33vkunt.wJ sckauFs[y Proj. No.6552 Date May'94 Plate Al Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of McDonald's Restaurant 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: - Test Pit No: 6552 1 Doug Lynne 5/3/94 TPA'1 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Ace paving Notes: (W `—'— L °' cn o Surface Conditions: Bare ) T$E mau. E u)E SM FILL: Light brown silty fine to medium SAND with 1 gravel, dense, moist 5.6 2 3 4 5 5.8 6 7 sm Brown silty coarse SAND with gravel, dense, moist to wet 5.3 8 Tlttll 9 Test pit terminated at 9 feet below existing grade. No 10 groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT BELFAIR, WASHINGTON Pfoj. No. 6552 DWn. GSL Date May'94 Checked DSL Date 5/10/94 Plate A2 Subsurface conditions depicted represenl our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole.modified by engineervq lasts.Analysis and Ndyment.They are not necessarily representative of other limes and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use of interpretation by others of information eresented on mn ten Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of McDonald's Restaurant 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: TP-2 6552 Doug Lynne 5/3/94 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Ace Paving Notes: W L,5 _ n cn 5 Surface Conditions: Bare t7 rn rn SM fILL: Light brown silty fine to medium SAND with 1 gravel, dense, moist 5.2 2 3 6.4 4 sp- Brown poorly graded medium to coarse SAND with silt and Sm gravel, dense, moist 5 8.3 6 7 8 8.9 9 Test pit terminated at 9 feet below existing grade. 10 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Cornsultants inn. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT cAmsedwdew "' BELFAIR, WASHINGTON . Pfoj. No. 6552 DWn. GLS Date May'94 Checked DSL Date 5/10/94 Plate A3 Subsurface conditions depicted represent Our observations at the time and(!cation of this exploratory hole,modified by engo aw"tests.anatysia and Odgmem.They are not necessanty -# — m t—mnt We r nmt accoot resoonsibitity for the use of nterprolikhm by other of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of McDonald's Restaurant 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: �—� 6552 DougLynne 5 3 94 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Ace Paving Notes: W o t °' to o Surface Conditions: Bare CL a Cl' 0-0 (% m E, of u_ E vt E, �C U �U sm FILL: Light brown silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, 1 dense, moist 5.7 2 3 5.4 4 5 9.8 6 7 :�: GP— Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, dense, 7.3 .i Ify 8 GM wet r. . :i 9 Test pit terminated at 9 feet below existing grade. 10 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT COO1x1v*,ziEnoine 'coolosois a& Mimnm'tws""wi' BELFAIR, WASHINGTON !Proj. No. 6552 Dwn. GLS I Date May'94 Checked DSL Date 5/10/94 Plate A4 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole.modified by engmaeriny tests.analysis and p,dgment.They are not necessanty representative of other times and locations.We cannot anew responsibWlM for the use of mteroretatan by otners of mtdmannn nresented on mK lnn Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of McDonald's Restaurant 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: �� 6552 DougLynne 5 3 94 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Ace Paving Notes: u)o Surface Conditions: Bare W a ag a v.n (% m T a)ti E to E 0� o (Al �U) SM FII:L: Light brown silty fine to medium SAND with 1 gravel, dense, moist 5.4 -boulder 2 3 4 5 5.9 6 7 6.0 8 9 10 11 Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade. 12 No groundwater seepage encountereed during excavation. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 � � Test Pit Log i�a h Consultants Inc. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT c4cowc i"Enaricemcoaoosts;a&worimcnew +e>ww BELFAIR, WASHINGTON rP_roj. No. 6552 Dwn. GLS I Date May'94 Checked DSL I Date 5/10/94 1 Plate A5 subsurface Conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exptaatory hole.modified by engineering tests,analysis and judgmant.They are not necessary representarve of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use of interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: ffSho—etof McDonald's Restaurant 1 Job No.: logged by: Date: Test Pit No: �—� 6552J D 3 94 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Ace Paving Notes: W 06 L n cn.n Surface Conditions: Bare (%) m 0-u E in E cn cn SM FILL: Light brown silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, 1 dense, moist 7.0 2 3 6.1 4 5 Test pit terminated at 5 feet below existing grade. 6 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 y, Test Pit Log Eanh Consultzants Inc. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT GOded"f`~ew"nc4amos"a BELFAIR, WASHINGTON rprol. No. 6552 DWn. GLS Date May'94 Checked DSL I Date 5/10/99 1 Plate A6 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory tole,modified by engineering tests.analysts and judgment.They are not necessary representative of other limes and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use of interpretation by others of informalion presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of McDonald's Restuarant 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: - Test Pit No: TP--6 6552 1 Doug Lynne 5 3 94 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Ace Paving Notes: W S?o -C d' co*5Surface Conditions: Aare LCL. CL 5 > SM FILL: Light brown silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, dense, moist to wet 1 7.7 2 3 4 8.6 5 6 7 9.1 8 9 10 11 sm Dark brown silty medium to coarse SAND with gravel, 8.9 dense, moist to wet 12 Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth y,1 Consultants Inc. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT Gewec+.tfc'et EnarGtatopte`F+,were+.w+�af sdmttets BELFAIR, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 6552 1 Dwn. GLS Date May'94 Checked DSL Date 5/10/94 1 Plate A7 substidwe conditions depicted represent our observations at the lime and Location of this explwatory hole.modified by oNineorinq tests.analysis and px*nem.They are not necessanty ------- ___r:.._mstia t,m erha at imermation wesented on this", IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I� IIIIII I II IIIIIIIIII II . 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ., 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 , " 11111�1111�1�111�11111�1111��1111111111�1111111�11 • ■■■tit■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ : . • • , 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 , • , 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 , 11111�11�1�11111�1111111111��11�1111111�1111111�11 III � •IIII IIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIIII I IIIII_,y il_IIII . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGIIiilllllllllle . • 11111111111111111111111111111111!I!�1111111111111: • I1111111111111111111111111111111'I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII : _ • 0 . 1111111111111111111111111111111.._►.1111111111111111. ■■■■.■■■■■■■■.■■■■.■..■..■......................■■■ 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 . GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES . 1111111111111111111!�:y11111111111111111111111111= 1111111111111..��.�Ii11111111111111111111111111111 11111111��:r!�i1�11111�1111�1111111111111111�1��11 1111�%:i11i11111111111111111111111111111111111111i ' I��i/11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111! , 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111� ;: . • IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII: . 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111: ;; I11111lI111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 . 1 „ II .III IIII II IIIII III IIIII III I IIIII I 1 i�uil) .. DISTRIBUTION E-6552 4 Copies McDonald's Corporation 10220 Northeast Points Drive, Suite 300 Kirkland, Washington 98033-7865 Attention: Mr. Jerry Kesselring Earth Consultants, Inc.