HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEO2014-00028 GRD2014-00007 City of Shelton Pressure Zone - GRD Engineering / Geo-Tech Reports - 6/4/2014 �Eo ►`� - D002.9
curl
RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 2014
426 W. CEDAR ST,
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
CITY OF SHELTON UPPER MOUNTAIN PRESSURE ZONE
SCHEDULE A RESERVOIR
SHELTON, WASHINGTON
FOR
MURRAY, SMITH &ASSOCIATES, INC.
MARCH 2O14
1
l�aa�
ROBINSON
NOBLE
March 3, 2014
Mr. Chris Uber
Murray, Smith &Associates, Inc.
1145 Broadway Plaza, Suite 1010
Tacoma, Washington 98402-3542
Geotechnical Report for
City of Shelton Upper Mountain Pressure Zone
Schedule A Reservoir
Shelton, Washington
RN File No: 1840-005A
Dear Chris:
This letter serves as a transmittal for five copies of our report for the City of Shelton Upper
Mountain Pressure Zone Schedule A Reservoir project. The site is flat and well suited for use
as the reservoir location. This report is confined to the reservoir site and nearby road crossing.
We did not explore the alignment between the reservoir site and the well field that will serve
the reservoir.
We appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this project. If you have any questions
regarding this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
L,
Charles P. Couvrette, PE
Principal Engineer
CPC:am
Five Copies Submitted
Fourteen Figures
Appendix A
3011 South Huson Street, Suite A 17625 130th Avenue NE, Suite 102
Tacoma,Washington 98409 www.robinson-noble.com Woodinville,Washington 98072
P 253.475 7711 1 F: 253.472.5846 P. 425.488 0599 1 F 425 488.2330
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................
PROJECTDESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................................1
SCOPE...........................................................................................................................................................1
SITECONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................2
SurfaceConditions.....................................................................................................................................2
Geology......................................................................................................................................................2
Explorations ...............................................................................................................................................3
SubsurfaceConditions...............................................................................................................................3
LaboratoryTesting ..................................................................................................:..................................4
HydrologicConditions................................................................................................................................4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................4
General.......................................................................................................................................................4
GeologicHazards.......................................................................................................................................4
ErosionHazard .......................................................................................................................................4
SeismicHazard.......................................................................................................................................5
Site Preparation and Grading ......................................................................................... .............. ...........5
RoadSurfacing Material.............................................................................................................................6
Temporary Excavation Slopes....................................................................................................................6
Foundations ...............................................................................................................................................6
Lateral and Overturning Loads...................................................................................................................7
Drainage.....................................................................................................................................................7
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION.................................................................................................................7
USEOF THIS REPORT..................................................................................................................................7
Robinson Noble, Inc
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation within the Upper
Mountain Pressure Zone for the City of Shelton. The portion of the project that this report
addresses has been labeled as Schedule A, which includes an elevated water tower and the
pipeline as it leaves the site. Our services were authorized in Task Order No. 2 which is part of
our Continuing Services contract with MSA.
The site is near the location of the Mason County Public Works facility located on West Public
Works Drive, just off of Highway 101, north of the City of Shelton. You have provided us the
planned location for the reservoir, which is shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. At this time
you have also requested that we also explore in the area where you anticipate boring under
West Public Works Drive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will consist of design and construction of two elevated tanks located in the general
area as shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. The height and size of the tanks are currently in
design. We understand that an immediate need is a single tank to supply the Washington
State Patrol Academy. A second tank, planned for the future, may get funding to enable
concurrent construction. The second tank is expected to be within the same vicinity of the first
one. We were only aware of the first tank at the time of our explorations and our exploration
program was designed accordingly. However, we did observe similar conditions over the entire
site, including the road crossing.
We have been informed that the tank is expected to be supported on shallow pedestal type
foundations that can use overlying soil weight to resist uplift. The foundations are anticipated
to be on the order of eight feet deep and 16 foot square. The foundation configuration is to be
six 16 foot square exterior footings with an interior single 18 foot square footing. Sustained
foundation loads for the exterior foundations are 400 kips for the exterior footings and 1500
kips for the interior. These values are increased to 800 kips and 2000 kips for design wind and
seismic events.
SCOPE
The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the subsurface conditions and present
recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the
following:
1. Review available geologic maps for the element sites.
2. Visit the site and discuss exploration locations with City Staff.
3. Explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions in the area of the planned
elevated reservoir.
4. Evaluate pertinent physical and engineering characteristics of the soils resulting
from the explorations.
5. Prepare a geotechnical report documenting the results of subsurface explorations,
and conclusions and recommendations for geotechnical design elements of the
project. The report will include:
• Description of the geologic materials encountered.
Robinson Noble, Inc
Geotechnical Report for
City of Shelton Upper Mountain Pressure Zone
Schedule A Reservoir
March 3, 2014
RN File No: 1840-005A
Page 2
• Description of depth to groundwater, if encountered.
• Discussion of seismicity at the site along with seismic design parameters
including Site Class and site coefficients based on current IBC criteria.
• Foundation support recommendations.
Our initial subtask included both borings and test pits. Following our on-site discussion, we
completed additional drilling, including two shallow borings at the tank site and two borings at
the road crossing. These explorations were completed in lieu of test pit explorations. We have
also been requested to provide recommendations for the preliminary design of a storm water
infiltration facility.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The ground surface within the site is generally flat. The site is vegetated mostly with heavy
grass with some areas more barren indicating past traffic and/or use. Where barren, the
ground surface exposed a gravelly texture. The site appears to have been previously graded
with no signs of original vegetation. Standing trees in the general area provide an indication of
the pre-cleared state. The surrounding topography indicates minimal grading occurred.
Geology
Most of the Puget Sound Region was affected by past intrusion of continental glaciation. The
last period of glaciation, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, ended approximately 14,000
years ago. Many of the geomorphic features seen today are a result of scouring and overriding
by glacial ice. During the Vashon Stade, areas of the Puget Sound region were overridden by
over 3,000 feet of ice. This area is mapped as being much nearer to the glacier terminus and
has a much thinner section of ice. Even still, soil layers overridden by the ice sheet were
compacted to a much greater extent than those that were not. Part of a typical glacial
sequence within the area of the site includes the following soil deposits from newest to oldest:
Artificial Fill (af) — Fill material is often locally placed by human activities, consistency
will depend on the source of the fill. The thickness and expanse of this material will be
dependent on the extent of fill required to grade land to the desired elevations. Density
p q g Y
of the fill will depend on earthwork activities and compaction efforts made during the
placement of the material.
Recessional Outwash (Qgo)—These deposits were deposited by the Puget Lobe of
the Cordilleran glacier and consist mostly of sand, gravel and cobbles. Recessional
deposits were not compacted by the glacier and are typically not as dense as those that
were.
Vashon Till (Qgt) —The till is a non-sorted mixture of clay, sand, pebbles, cobbles and
boulders, all in variable amounts. The till was deposited directly by the ice as it
advanced over and eroded irregular surfaces of previously deposited formations and
Robinson Noble, Inc
i
Geotechnical Report for
City of Shelton Upper Mountain Pressure Zone
Schedule A Reservoir
March 3, 2014
RN File No: 1840-005A
Page 3
sediments. The till was well compacted by the advancing glacier and exhibits high
strength and stability. Drainage is considered very poor in the till.
Advance Outwash (Qga) —The advance outwash typically consists sand and gravel
with some lacustrine silt and clay. These were deposited by the advancing ice sheets
and subsequently overridden by glacial ice. The advance outwash was placed by the
advancing glaciers and was overridden and well compacted by the glacier.
The geologic units for this area are mapped on the Geologic Mar) of the Shelton Quadrangle,
by Robert L. Logan, 2003. The site is mapped as being underlain by the recessional outwash
(Qgo). Our site explorations encountered fill and recessional outwash.
Explorations
We explored subsurface conditions within the site on December 24, 2013, by drilling five
borings with a truck mounted hollow stem auger drill rig. Three borings were drilled to a depth
of 14 feet, one to 15.5 feet and one to 50.75 feet below the ground surface. Samples were
obtained from the borings at 5-foot intervals by driving a split spoon sampler with a 140-pound
hammer dropping 30 inches. The number of blows required for penetration of three 6-inch
intervals was recorded. To determine the standard penetration number at that depth the
number of blows required for the lower two intervals are summed. If the number of blows
reached 50 before the sampler was driven through any 6-inch interval, the sampler was not
driven further and the blow count is recorded as 50 for the actual penetration distance. We
have converted those blow counts to 60 percent energy (Nso) using data supplied by the driller.
This conversion is used to compare blow count data with data found in the literature.
The borings were located in the field by an engineer from this firm who also examined the soils
and geologic conditions encountered, and maintained logs of the borings. The approximate
locations of the borings are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. The soils were visually
classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, a copy of which is
presented as Figure 3. The logs of the borings are presented in Figures 4 through 10..
Subsurface Conditions
A brief description of the conditions encountered in our explorations is included below. For a
more detailed description of the soils encountered, review the Boring Logs in Figures 4 through
10.
A well developed topsoil zone was not observed in our explorations. We expect that this was
stripped off during original grading. However, the underlying sand and gravel is expected to
have a minimal topsoil zone. Past grading may have mixed any topsoil into the upper soil zone
such that a highly organic topsoil zone is not identifiable. Our explorations encountered
granular soils with varying amounts of sand and gravel with the silt content varying from slight
to some. We encountered on the order of zero to 4 feet of fill over most of the site, except
Boring 3. This depth of fill further indicates some type of mixing during past grading. Our first
sample occurs at 2.5 feet and due to the soil conditions, it is difficult to identify fill in the first
few feet before sampling. In Boring 3 we encountered about 10 feet of fill. Based on the sand
and gravel type of deposit we suspect this may have been an old borrow pit. Boring 3 is the
Robinson Noble, Inc
Geotechnical Report for
City of Shelton Upper Mountain Pressure Zone
Schedule A Reservoir
March 3, 2014
RN File No: 1840-005A
Page 4
tank site, closest to the fence line of the Mason County maintenance facility, suggesting the pit
may extend onto that property. The fill was the same soil type but with more organics and
much lower blow count data indicating it was loosely placed, most likely just pushed into place.
We note that the gravelly soils encountered on site are difficult to sample as significant portions
of the gravel are larger than the opening in the sampler. Therefore, the classification of sand or
gravel was difficult and sometimes impossible to determine. A classification was chosen for
our logs based on materials obtained and the amount of recovery of the sampler.
Laboratory Testing
We completed moisture content and grain size testing on selected samples from our
explorations. The moisture contents are shown on the boring logs. We note that in general the
moisture contents were low indicating that the samples were above the water table. Where
samples were taken below the water table, increases in moisture content are observed.
However, the very granular nature of the soils allowed drainage and even the moisture
contents below the water table are lower than what would be expected if the samples were
saturated.
We completed three grain size tests on samples that we felt would represent on site infiltration
characteristics. The results of the grain size tests are shown on Figures 11 through 13.
Hydrologic Conditions
We measured a groundwater depth in Boring 1 at 25 feet below the ground surface at the time
of drilling. We suspect that this represents a regional groundwater table, and that this
groundwater fills the old channel that the recessional outwash is in. We have not completed a
study to determine the local gradient.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
It is our opinion that the site is compatible with the planned development. The underlying
medium dense to very dense outwash is capable of supporting the planned reservoir and
associated access way and utilities. The foundations will have to be excavated through any fill
and founded on native soils or structural fill that extend to those soils. This should not pose a
significant impact to the project as the expected foundation depths are close to the maximum
recorded fill depth.
The on site soils have a relatively high infiltration capacity. We suspect that storm water could
be effectively infiltrated in dry wells, ponds or infiltration galleries. Some type of pre-settling is
recommended to reduce the risk of plugging. We provide infiltration rates based on grain size
and D,o values.
Geologic Hazards
Erosion Hazard: The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas includes
soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and groundwater conditions. The erosion sensitivity
is related to vegetative cover and the specific surface soil types (group classification), which are
related to the underlying geologic soil units. We reviewed the Web Soil Survey by the Natural
Robinson Noble, Inc
Geotechnical Report for
City of Shelton Upper Mountain Pressure Zone
Schedule A Reservoir
March 3, 2014
RN File No: 1840-005A
Page 5
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to determine the erosion hazard of the on-site soils.
The site surface soils were classified using the SCS classification system as Grove gravelly
sandy loam. The corresponding geologic unit for these soils is outwash, which is in agreement
with the soils encountered in our site explorations. The erosion hazard for the soil is listed as
being slight for the near flat conditions at the site.
Seismic Hazard: It is our opinion based on our subsurface explorations that the Soil Profile in
accordance with the 2009 and 2012 International Building Code (IBC) is Site Class C. We used
the US Geological Survey program "U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application." The design
maps summary report for the 2012 IBC is included in this report as Appendix A. The site meets
the criteria for a Design Category D.
Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground
motions by soft soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand with a high
groundwater table. The underlying dense outwash soils are considered to have a very low
potential for liquefaction and amplification of ground motion.
Site Preparation and Grading
Site preparation should require minimal grading. The grass should be stripped from the road
and reservoir locations. This stripping is anticipated to be on the order of 2 to 6 inches. We
recommend that the resulting surface be thoroughly compacted to a dense configuration with a
large vibratory roller. Areas observed to pump or weave should be repaired by overexcavating
and backfilling with material that can be compacted to 95 percent of its maximum dry density.
Maximum dry density in this report refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D 1557
compaction test procedure. The on-site granular material is expected to require minimal repair
providing the site work is not attempted in very wet conditions.
We anticipate that one large excavation will be used to construct the foundations. The
proximity of the foundations to eachother would make cut slopes in between foundations very
difficult to construct and maintain stability. It will be critical to thoroughly compact the backfill
in the foundation area as the soil in this area will be providing lateral support of the structure
and vertical support of the pipe. Any settlement in this area would create stresses in the pipe
as it passes from the rigid tank structure to being supported on the compacted soil. We
anticipate that the tank foundation excavation will remove most if not all of the fill found in our
Boring 3. However, this should be evaluated at the time of the foundation excavation. If
deeper fill is observed, it should be removed down to undisturbed native soils and replaced as
structural fill compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density.
The on-site outwash soils should be suitable for use as backfill. They should not be as
sensitive to moisture due to their granular nature. The large gravel/cobble size fraction would
not be suitable for bedding or backfill immediately over the pipe, as it is expected to contain
material over the 2 inch particle size which does not meet WSDOT pipe bedding specifications.
Imported bedding and immediate backfilling material should be used. An alternative would be
to process material on site for pipe bedding.
Robinson Noble, Inc
Geotechnical Report for
City of Shelton Upper Mountain Pressure Zone
Schedule A Reservoir
March 3, 2014
RN File No: 1840-005A
Page 6
Road Surfacing Material
The on-site soils are expected to perform well in all weather conditions. They may be used as a
surface material provided they can be compacted to a dense non-yielding state. If a smooth
road is desirable, a 4 inch layer of crushed rock surface course may be placed as a running
surface. The existing surface did not have a problem supporting our drill rig during the wet
winter months.
Temporary Excavation Slopes
Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors, such as the type and consistency of
soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains
open, and the presence of surface or groundwater. It is exceedingly difficult under these
variable conditions to estimate a stable temporary cut slope geometry. Therefore, it should be
the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations, since the contractor is
continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able
to monitor the subsurface materials and groundwater conditions encountered.
For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the soils found on site be no
steeper than 1 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (1 H:1V). If the soil has been disturbed such as in the fill
found in Boring 3, we would recommend flatter slope cuts of 1.5H:1V. In general, with the
relatively shallow depth of trenches, we anticipate that a 1:1 slope can be used in most areas.
Foundations
The tank foundations are expected to be founded on the order of 8 feet below the ground
surface. For the most part that is expected to place the foundations in medium dense or better
soil. Where fill extends beyond the depth of the footing, the fill should be overexcavated and
replaced with structural fill compacted to 95 percent of its maximum dry density. The
maximum lift thickness of the fill being placed should be adjusted based on the type of
equipment used. Maximum lift thickness for placing structural fill is one foot. All loose or
disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete.
Foundation bearing capacity is determined by allowable structural capacity of the underlying
soils and also performance criteria based on expected settlement. The allowable bearing
pressure is much higher than that which will cause 1 to 2 inches of settlement. We used the
Schmertmann's method to calculate settlement with respect to bearing capacity. From that,
we have developed a settlement verses bearing capacity chart for resulting settlements of 1
and 2 inches. These plots are shown on the Performance Criteria graph shown in Figure 14.
Bearing values may be obtained by linear interpolation between the two plots. These Bearing
Capacities verses Footing Width for resulting settlement values are based on foundations being
on the order of 16 foot square and 8 feet deep. If significantly larger or deeper footings are
considered we should review our recommendations. For structural design of the foundations,
we recommend using a subgrade reaction coefficient, k, of 150 tons per cubic foot. This value
was obtained from Navfac 7.1-219 Figure 6 and adjusted for groundwater.
Robinson Noble, Inc
Geotechnical Report for
City of Shelton Upper Mountain Pressure Zone
Schedule A Reservoir
March 3, 2014
RN File No: 1840-005A
Page 7
Lateral and Overturning Loads
Lateral and overturning loads will be created by wind and seismic events. The lateral loads may
be resisted by passive pressure on the sides of the foundation and friction on its base. We
recommend a passive resistance equal to a pressure created by an equivalent soil weight of
300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This assumes that all backfill is placed against the foundation
as structural fill compacted to 95 percent of its maximum dry density. We do not anticipate
disturbance of the ground surface in the area of the tanks. Therefore we recommend
neglecting only the upper one foot of the passive pressure wedge. A truncated wedge may be
used below that. Because of the proximity of the foundations to one another, we recommend
only using the foundation width in calculating the passive resistance. The friction at the base of
the foundation may be calculated using a coefficient of friction of 0.6. These passive and
friction values contain reduction factors of 0.5 and 0.8 respectively. The passive pressure value
may be increased by 33 percent for temporary loads such as wind or seismic. We do not
recommend increasing the friction value.
Overturning may be resisted by the weight of the soil on top of the foundation. We
recommend that a prism of soil directly over the foundation be used to resist uplift. A soil unit
weight of 130 pcf should be used. These recommendations assume native soils compacted to
95 percent of their maximum dry density. An appropriate safety factor should be applied.
Drainage
The on site soils are well suited for infiltration. We anticipate that drainage galleries, dry wells
or ponds will be suited for this site. We recommend that some type of pre-settlement system
be used to reduce plugging of the surface infiltration system. These facilities may be sized
based on the design infiltration rate given below.
The results from the grain size testing shown on Figures 11 through 13 indicate a D,o size on
the order of 0.4 to 0.5 mm. That correlates to the maximum allowable infiltration rate given by
the 2003 DOE Storm Water manual of 9 inches per hour. Higher rates may be obtainable but
that would require in situ testing. We note that this infiltration rate does not provide filtration
for removal of pollutants, should pollution generating impervious surfaces be incorporated into
the project.
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
We should be retained to provide observation and consultation services during construction to
confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the
explorations, and to provide recommendations for design changes, should the conditions
revealed during the work differ from those anticipated. As part of our services, we would also
evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract
plans and specifications.
USE OF THIS REPORT
We have prepared this report for Murray, Smith &Associates, Inc. and the City of Shelton and
their agents, for use in planning and design of this project. The data and report should be
provided to prospective contractors for their bidding and estimating purposes, but our report,
Robinson Noble, Inc
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME
SYMBOL
GRAVEL GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL,FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
COARSE - CLEAN GRAVEL
GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL
GRAINED MORE THAN 50%OF
COARSE FRACTION GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL
SOILS RETAINED ON NO.4 WITH FINES
SIEVE GC CLAYEY GRAVEL
SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL-GRADED SAND,FINE TO COARSE SAND
MORE THAN 50% SP POORLY-GRADED SAND
RETAINED ON
NO.200 SIEVE MORE THAN 50%OF
COARSE FRACTION SAND SM SILTY SAND
PASSES NO.4 SIEVE WITH FINES
SC CLAYEY SAND
FINE - SILTAND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT
GRAINED CL CLAY
SOILS LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50% ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT,ORGANIC CLAY
SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY,ELASTIC SILT
MORE THAN 50%
CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAY
PASSES NO.200 SIEVE LIQUID LIMIT 50%OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY,ORGANIC SILT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT
NOTES:
SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS
* 1) Field classification is based on Dry-Absence of moisture,dusty,dry
visual examination of soil in general to the touch
accordance with ASTM D 2488-93.
* 2) Soil classification using laboratory Moist-Damp,but no visible water
tests is based on ASTM D 2487-93. Wet-Visible free water or saturated,
3) Descriptions of soil density or usually soil is obtained from
consistency are based on below water table
interpretation of blowcount data,
visual appearance,of soils,and/or
test data.
*Modifications have been applied to ASTM KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS
methods to describe sit and clay content.
V Ground water level
C h a Blows required to drive
N,,=blows/foot,measured in field sample 12 in. using SPT(converted to N8J
Cr= ERm/60, convert measured hammer energy
to 60%for comparison with design charts. MC(�)_% Moisture= (Weight of water)
CB=adjusts borehole diameter (Weight of dry soil)
CR= rod length, adjusts for energy loss in rods DID=Dry Density
CS=Sample liner= 1.0
— Letter symbol for soil type
SM Contact between soil strata
— (Dashed line indicates approximate
ML contact between soils)
— Letter symbol for soil type
NOTE:The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual
PM: CPC Figure 3
ROBINSON March 2014
NOBLE 1840-005A City of Shelton
Date 12/24/2013 Hole dia. (in) 6 `-E z Standard Penetration Resistance
B-1 Logged by BAG Hole depth ft 51.5 m C (D � (140 Ib. weight, 30"drop)
Driller Gregory Well dia. (in) N/A L) 0 U `��,° �°�' SPT N60(blows/ft)
Page 1 of 3 Elevation (ft) - Well depth N/A " °C S� 3 0 ■ Moisture Content M)
Sample Liner yes Hammer Eff. 86% 0- m a)LITHOLOGY / DESCRIPTION o z 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 65+
1
2
Brown sand with gravel and silt S'✓V-SM 6/18 1 3
(loose, moist) (Fill) 6 ■
4 4-
5—
Brown gravel with sand and silt GP-Gfvl 9/18 3
(medium dense, moist) 8 6 ■
13
7
Brown fine to coarse gravel with silt and sand GW-GM 6/18 4 8
(medium dense, moist) 9 ■
8 9
10
Brown silty gravel with sand GM 6/18 3
(medium dense, moist) 9 11 ■
19
12
13
14
15 — --.._..._.__.._...
Brown silty gravel with sand GM 8/18 2
(medium dense, moist) 12 16 ■
12
17
18
19
Brown silty gravel with sand GM 13/17.F 16 20
(very dense, moist) 41 21 ■
50/5"
22
23
24
25
Phone: 425-488-0599
Fax: 425-488-2330 Shelton Upper Pressure Zone
RIM
Schedule A Reservoir
ROBINSON 17625- 130th Avenue Northeast, Suite 102
NOBLE Woodinville,Washington 98072 1840-005A Figure 4
Date 12/24/2013 Hole diameter 6 c U) Standard Penetration Resistance
B-1 ' Logged by BAG Hole depth 51.5 ; g p(140 Ib. wei ht, 30"dro )
Driller Gregory Well diameter N/A 6 0 m U `��° a5 ♦ SPT Nso(blows/ft)
Page 2 of 3 Elevation (ft) - Well depth N/A Z) T S o o a ■ Moisture Content M
Sample Liner yes Hammer Eff. 86% a c m a)
LITHOLOGY/ DESCRIPTION E z 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 65+
cn o N
Brown silty gravel with fine sand 7 14/18 9
(very dense, moist) 20 26
35
27
28
29
Brown silty gravel with fine sand GM 8/1 1 30 30
■
(very dense,moist) 50/5 31
32
33
34
35
Fine to medium sand trace gravel and silt s11 6/10 25 ■
(very dense,wet) 50/4" 36
37
38
39
40 - -
Fine to medium sand trace gravel and silt 'S" 4/4 46 ■
(very dense,wet) 50/3" 41
42
43
44
45 -
Silty gravel with sand cM 4/8 44 ■
(very dense,wet) 50-2'' 46
47
48
49
50 -----L
❑_ Phone: 425-488-0599
.-:.. Fax: 425-488-2330 Shelton Upper Pressure Zone
Schedule A Reservoir
ROBINSON 17625-130th Avenue Northeast,Suite 102
NOBLE Woodinville,Washington 98072 2675-005A Figure 5
Date 12/24/2013 Hole diameter 6 �, a� Standard Penetration Resistance
B-1 Logged by BAG Hole depth 51.5 - D Y (140 lb. weight, 30" drop)
m ♦
Driller Gregory Well diameter N/A 0 ° v `��,° °��' SPT N so(blows/ft)
cc
Page 3 of 3 Elevation (ft) - Well depth N/A (15 S o o a Moisture Content W
Sample Liner yes Hammer Eff. 86% o ; m z Y o
/ E z �° 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 65+
n
LITHOLOGY DESCRIPTION o U)
Gravel with silt and sand GP-GM 4/9 27
(very dense,wet) 50/3''
51
Bottom of boring at 50.75 feet 52
Groundwater measured at 25 feet after drilling
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 --
61
62
63
64
65 —
66
67
68
69
70 _.
71
72
73
74
75
Phone: 425-488-0599
Fax: 425-488-2330 Shelton Upper Pressure Zone
Schedule A Reservoir
ROBINSON 17625-130th Avenue Northeast, Suite 102
NOBL 2675 005A Figure 6
E Woodinville,Washington 98072
Date 12/24/2013 Hole dia. (in) 6 a> Standard Penetration Resistance
0).E >>
B-2 Logged by BAG Hole depth ft 15.5 _ � _ (140 lb. weight, 30" drop)
Driller Gregory Well dia. (in) N/A 6 U U `�En °-> * SPT N60(blows/ft)
Ui co
Page 1 of 1 Elevation (ft) - Well depth N/A ro o o a ■ Moisture Content M)
Sample Liner yes Hammer Eff. 86% a C: m :9 o
LITHOLOGY/ DESCRIPTION o z in 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 65+
Black gravel with sand and silt GP-GM
(loose, moist)(Fill)
2
Brown gravel with sand trace silt GP 10/18 4 3
(medium dense, moist) 12 ■
10 4
Brown gravel with sand trace silt GP-GM 8/18 6
(medium dense, moist) 11 6 ■
10
7
Brown gravel with sand trace silt GW-GM 10/18 10 8
(dense, moist) 17
■
13
9
10—
Brown fine to coarse sand with gravel trace silt SW 12/18 4
(medium dense, moist) 13 11 ■
12
12
13
14
Brown silty gravel trace sand GM 10/18 8
(dense, moist) 14 15 -
18
■
16
Bottom of boring at 15.5 feet
No groundwater encountered 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Phone: 425-488-0599
Fax: 425-488-2330 Shelton Upper Pressure Zone
Schedule A Reservoir
ROBINSON 17625- 130th Avenue Northeast, Suite 102
NOBLE Woodinville,Washington 98072 1840-005A Figure 7
Date 1 2/24/2013 Hole dia. (in) 6 Standard Penetration Resistance
B-3 Logged by BAG Hole depth ft 14 (140 lb. weight, 30"drop)
Driller Gregory Well dia. (in) N/A 0 8 Z ° `m ♦ SPT N
9 rY c� so(blows/ft)
Page 1 of 1 Elevation (ft) - Well depth N/A `n °C O y ■ Moisture Content M)
9 P o
Sample Liner yes Hammer Eff. 86% a C: Fa o
E ' z co 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 65+
LITHOLOGY/ DESCRIPTION v, o in
1
2
Black silty sand with gravel SM 10/18 2 3
(loose, moist) (Fill) 4 ■
6 4-
5—
Black silty sand with gravel SM 10/18 1
(very loose, moist) (Fill) 2 6
1
7
Brown silty sand with gravel SM 7/18 4 8
(loose, moist) (Fill) 4 ■
3 9
i
----------------------------- --- -—- 10 __.._..- --
Brown gravel with sand trace silt GP 12/18 9
(dense, moist) 15 11 ■
24
12
Brown gravel with sand trace silt GP 14/18 8 13
(dense, moist) 14 ■
11 14
Bottom of boring at 14 feet 15 —
No groundwater encountered
16
17
18
19
20 -
21
22
23
24
25
L
Phone: 425-488-0599
Fax: 425-488-2330 Shelton Upper Pressure Zone
Schedule A Reservoir
ROBINSON 17625- 130th Avenue Northeast, Suite 102
NOBLE 1840-005A Figure 8
Woodinville,Washington 98072
Date 12/24/2013 Hole dia. (in) 6 Standard Penetration Resistance
B-4 • Logged by BAG Hole depth ft 14 c J°' (140 lb. weight, 30"drop)
Driller Gregory Well dia. (in) N/A 0 0 v `�°�, a� w ♦ SPT Nso(blows/ft)
Page 1 of 1 Elevation (ft) - Well depth N/A c o o Y Moisture Content(%)
a
Sample Liner yes Hammer Eff. 86% Q a m g o
LITHOLOGY/DESCRIPTION V) o z �;, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 65+
1
2
Brown gravel with sand trace silt GP 13/18 3
(dense, moist) 2,1 ■
23 4-
5—
Brown gravel with sand trace silt GP 12/18 5
(dense, moist) 17 6 ■
21
7
Brown gravel with sand trace silt GP 12/18 8 8
(dense, moist) 19 ■
25 9
Brown silty gravel with sand GM 14/18 6
(medium dense, moist) 8 11 ■
12
12
Brown silty gravel with sand G'\J 12/18 10 13
(dense, moist) 14
16 ■
14
Bottom of boring at 14 feet 15
No groundwater encountered
16
17
18
19
20
21
22-
23-
24-
25j, j
1� Phone: 425-488-0599
Fax: 425-488-2330 Shelton Upper Pressure Zone
Schedule A Reservoir
ROBINSON 17625-130th Avenue Northeast, Suite 102
NOBLE 1840-005A Figure 9
Woodinville,Washington 98072
Date 12/24/2013 Hole dia. (in) 6 i Standard Penetration Resistance
B-5 Logged by BAG Hole depth ft 14 (140 lb. weight, 30"drop)
o i
Driller Gregory Well dia. (in) N/A 0 U `�°,° • SPT N60(blows/ft)
Ui Page 1 of 1 Elevation (ft) - Well depth N/A o o a ■ Moisture Content (%)
Sample Liner yes Hammer Eff. 86% a m g o
E ? z O 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 65+
LITHOLOGY / DESCRIPTION ccc o (�5
1
2
Brown gravel with sand and silt GP-GM 8/',13 6 3
(medium dense, moist) 8 ■
7 4-
5—
Brown gravel with sand trace silt GP 10/118 6
(dense, moist) 20 6 ■
23
7
Brown gravel with sand trace silt cN £3/`� 2 8
(dense, moist) 7
■18
9-
10—
Brown gravel with sand trace silt CIP 12/113 5
(very dense, moist) 18 11 ■
40
12
Brown gravel with sand trace silt G' 8/18 3 13
(dense, moist) 16 ■
18 14
Bottom of boring at 14 feet 15
No groundwater encountered
16
17
18
19
20 ..
21
22
23
24
25
Phone: 425-488-0599
#_.. Fax: 425-488-2330 Shelton Upper Pressure Zone
Schedule A Reservoir
ROBINS_ON 17625- 130th Avenue Northeast, Suite 102 1840-005A Figure 10
NOBLE Woodinville,Washington 98072i I ......j
U.S.Standard Sieve Opening in Inches U.S.Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer Results
100% 20 6 4 3 1'A % % % #4 10 16 20 30 40 50 100 200 0%
1_1___LI L: J-I-__1___I_L I J J-I-L_1___1-1LI J J-I-L_1___11 LI J J-J-L_L___
III I I I I 1 ,I I I I 1 1 1 1
90% r I-I-I-T-T__-rl r I-I -1 T-7---(l r 11 1-1---T_--r r 11-I-I-r-T---n r I 1-1-I-r-T_--IT 1-1-1-1-1-r-r--- 10%
L I_I-1_I_1_1-__LI L IJ J_ -.1___U L IJ J_I__-1_-_L L I J J_I_L_1___11 LI J J-J-L-L___11 LI J J J-L_L__
1 1 1 I I I I i 11 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 11 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I IIII I I I I I 11 1 I 1 1 1 I
80% n�-r,_T_T_--nn-,�-1-r- ---nrl��_I___T___r rn�-l-r-r---nn-1�-I-r-r---rtrn�-I_r_r___ 20%
I I I_L 1 J J_I_L_L___11 LI J J J_L_1___11 LI J J J_L_L__
I I I I I I I II111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIII I I I I I IIII I I I I I
.0 70% I r I -,-1-T-T---n r, I-I-T-T---Cl r 17-1-1---T--- r n 1-I-r-T---n r I-I 1-1-r-T---n r l 1 1-I-r-T--- 30%
1 I-I_I-I-+_.t___LI L I-I J-I-1_1_ _H L 1 J J_,___+___ L I J J-1-L_1___IJ L I J J_I_L_1___14 LI J J_I_L_L___ L
IIIII I I - I-_ ill III 1- I _ I-_ Ill III I -- I --_I-IIII I I I -- Ill III I-I I I I I I I I I I - 1 --
60% IIII-1-1'T I -nrl-I-i-I I I nr1-I-1-I_ T I II-1 1-,-r- 1 -IIII T T I1117-I-I I - 40%
T L,-1 J_I_1--4___H L,-!J-I-1-}__ H L 1 J J_,___+___1-L,J-1-1-L_+___IJ L I J J J_L-+___11 W J J J_L_}-__
a ° 1 1 I I I
Ol 50% 1r,i-,-,-7_7___lirl i--,-T-.1 r1 i i-,---7---ii,i -,-r-T---,ii,i i--r-r---,Ti,il-,-r-r--- 50%
C },_I_I_,_4._4__-H4-I _,_+_}___H
1I-II-1_1 ,1-II-_I JI_-I-+T_-+I _-_-__1,I-II HI I-41 4I 1I -_}_II _-_____-_III}IIIIII-I1II J1I 41I--4
1I_-L�I --}III _-_-_
I I - I- II 1---, _---_ 1 -I -
60%40% IFI1I aI _I 1 I
y.I_I_,_I_}_4__ + -:1'
1 11 1 1 _ +___I4I H�1 1
1 11- 4-___ 70%30% 1II11I-I I_1____---IIII 1I1_I1_I_ ______II 1-__ _ I ___II I- _I_, _____ I __
a'
+I-1-I-I-}_4___H F,-I H-1-}_4-__H F I-,H_,_-_ ___I-1-I H-1_,_}_4'_-_H H I-1-�_,-1"_}__-:4 t-1-4-4-1_1"
20% III I I I I I I I I I 1 111 1 1 0
__I_____ __,_I-_I_______I_-,_-_I_______,_i 1--_1______ _. 80
H+1-,1_,-+-4___H h l-1-1_,-__+___,_ ..I_,_f._+___H FI1 1_I_ _}___14 f-I 1-i-f-+--
10% iLI-Ii-_-_i___iiiii_�J_1_i___iiii_�J____1__-1-iiii 1 _ __i_1___iiiiii-i-i i 90%
+I +
0% 100%
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
Gravels Sands
Cobbles Silts Clays
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Date: 12/24/13 D10=OA8 USCS Classification %Gravel %Sand
Sample#: B-1 D30=3.39 GW,Well-graded Gravel 64.1% 33.0%
Sample ID: 5.0-6.5 D6o= 13.00 Specifications
Source:native CC= 1.85 No Specs
Project: 1840-005A Cu.27.22 Sample Meets Specs %Silt&Clay
Location: Shelton Liquid Limit--n/a No 2.9%
Boring#: 1 Plastic Limit--n/a Fineness Modulus
Depth: 5.00 Plasticity Index=n/a 5.68
oarse Actual Interpolatedmes Actual Interpolated
Section Cumulative Cumulative Section Cumulative Cumulative
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs
US Metric Passing Passing Max Min US Metric Passing Passing Max Min
6.00" 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 35.9% 35.9%
4.00" 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 25.5%
3.00" 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 23.9% 23.9%
2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.180 18.9%
2.00" 50.00 100.0% #20 0.850 16.8% 16.8%
1.75" 45.00 100.0% #30 0.600 12.2%
1.50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 9.0%
1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 0%
1.001, 25.00 100.0% #60 0.250 5.8% 5.8%
7/8" 22.40 100.0% #80 0.180 4.7%
3/4" 19.00 79.6% 79.6% #100 0.150 4.2% 4.2%
5/8" 16.00 69.8% #140 0.106 3.4%
1/2" 12.50 58.4% #170 0.090 3.2%
3/8" 9.50 48.5% 48.5% #200 0.075 2.9% 2.9%
1/4" 6.30 40.0% #270 0.053
#4 4.75 35.9% 35.9%
Copyright Spears Engingering&Technical Services PS,1996-00`
Robinson Noble, Inc. Figure 11
U.S.Standard Sieve Opening in Inches U.S.Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer Results
100% 20 a 4 3 1% V. 3L . #4 10 18 20 30 40 50 100 2 p%
L I-I J_I_1_1__ U I_:_:J_I_L-A___U L I J J_I___1___I_L I J J_I_L_1___IJ LI J J_I_L_L___11 LI J J J_L_L
° I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 11 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 °
90% rl-I -I-T-l--- 1-11-I-T-1---nrl-Il-I---T---f�I I 1-I-r-T---n r11l-I-r-T---ITrl�1-1-r-T 10%
L I_I J_I_1_1___U L I J_I_L_.!___U L I J J_I___1___I-L I J J_I_L_L___U L 1 J J J_L_L___11 L I J J J_L_L_--
° I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 11
1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I °
80% rrI-1-1-T-1---nr1-1 -I-T-T---n r111'I---T---rrl"11-I-T-T---11"11-I-r-T---1T r1�4 -r-r--- 20%
U L IJ J_ L_1___U L IJ J_I___1___L-L IJ J_I_L_1___IJ LI J J-J-L-L___11 LI J J J_L_L___
.L 70% II11 1 1 I I IIII 1 1 1 I I1111 1 1 I I I I I I I I I IIII 1 1 1 1 I I1111 1 1 1 1
rrl I-rr-7---nn 1-1- - r---nrn1-1---T---rrnl-I-r-T---nrnl�-r-r- rtr11�1-r-r--- 30%
.� L 1-I J-I_1_;___LI L 1-1 J-I_1 ___U L I J J____1___L.L I J J_I-L_1___U L I J J_I_+_1___11 L I J J J-
° I-I I I-1_I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I-I _ 1 -__III I I 1-,-
I I I III I I I I I I (T
____ __- 0 .-
° III I I I I I III I I I-I-I-1 _ r l_I_1_1______ I r l I I-I I 1 I I 111 1-I-r- 1 11 I I I I-I-r 1 40/0
�., 1:-:-4
I-i J_ 1-4___uJJ_ 1_4-_-1 1JJ U IU LI J J_ 1___Il 1-I J J J-LL-
01 II -Ij-j- Ilrl�I 1 1r 111 __I___ 50%I 1 1 I T �r111r T 1 r50/
C +1-1-4-1-}-4__-H+1-1-4-1-+-}___14 L I -1-1___}--_1-N I-♦J-1-+-}- -14 1-14 J-4-1.-+___14 F I-4 4-1-1,._+___
y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I III 1 1 I I I I III I I I I I I I 1 1 I 11 1 1 I I 1 I 11 1 1 1 I I 1 I
40% 1 1 I -I-- - ---I I I 1-1-1- - ---I I I-1 -I--- ---I I I 1 I_I_r_ I - _I I r 1 I-I-r-r---1 1 r 1 1 1_r_r-- 6 0% C
d +I-I 1-:-+-4---H 41-I-I-I-+-}---H L I-1-♦- --+---I-F 11�-1-+-+- -H F 1-7 1-1-+-+---H L I 1 1 1-H-L- 'Ip
30°/C 11 1 1 I I I I 11 1 1 I I I I I III I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I "
I I I j_I________1_r I _1_I___i___III I_1 ____-r I-I i-1- - - - j 1 j j_I_r_____I I I i -I-i- - 70
+I-I-4-:-}_4___H+H 1_I_}_'+___H+11 _I___ ___1-F I1 -I-}-}- -H H I 1 1-I_+_}___H F-11 4-1-F--+- - o
20% 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I i 1 I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 0
I��I-I-I- - ---�1�I -I-1- - ---I��I-I-I-I---�- --III I_1_ I .. _IIIII I-I-I - I ---IIIII -I-I -I
--' 80%
}-4___Hfl-I-1_I_}_i___H 11-li_I___+___r HH-I-f-+- -H FI1�_1_h_}___H FI1�H-F-+
10% I I I-1-I I I (I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 -_ 1---i-1 I- I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 ) I I °
I I 1 1 1_1_______1__I_I_I_i_i____ III I-I_I-I- I I I I I I ____.. _I__I I I_I___'__ I I I I I-I-1-7- - 90
+-+---H+I-I I-1-+-+---H h-I 1-1---+---I-F I 1 1-I- -+- -H F I 1-1-1-+-+--- -
0% 41 1 Ill I I I I I 1100%
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
Cobbles Gravels Sands Silts Clays
Coarse I Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Date: 12/24/13 D10=0.55 USCS Classification %Grave %Sand
Sample#: B-2 D30=3.04 GW,Well-graded Gravel 61.1% 38.9%
Sample ID: 5.0-6.5 D60= 15.20 Specifications
Source:native Cc= 1.10 No Specs
Project: 1840-005A Cu.27.46 Sample Meets Specs %Silt&Clay
Location: Shelton Liquid Limit--n/a No 0.0%
Boring#: 2 Plastic Limit--n/a Fineness Modulus
Depth: 5.00 Plasticity Index=n/a 5.80
Coarse Actual Interpolatedroes Actual Interpolated
Section Cumulative Cumulative Section Cumulative Cumulative
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs
US Metric Passing Passing I Max Min US Metric Passing- Passing Max Min
6.00" 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 38.9% 38.9%
4.00" 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 26.5%
3.00" 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 24.6% 24.6%
2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.180 18.9%
2.00" 50.00 100.0% #20 0.850 16.7% 16.7%
1.75" 45.00 100.0% #30 0.600 11.0%
1.50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 7.1%
1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 4.3%
1.001, 25.00 100.0% #60 0.250 3.2% 3.2%
7/811 22.40 100.0% #80 0.180 2.1%
3/4" 19.00 61.9% 61.9% #100 0.150 1.6% 1.6%
5/8" 16.00 60.4% #140 0.106 0.7%
1/2" 12.50 58.6% #170 0.090 0.3%
3/8" 9.50 57.1% 57.1% #200 0.075 0.0% 0.0%
1/4" 6.30 44.8% #270 0.053
#4 4.75 38.9% 38.9%
Copyright Spears Engineering&Technical Services PS,1996-200'
Robinson Noble, Inc. Figure 12
U.S.Standard Sieve Opening in Inches U.S.Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer Results
100% 20 6 4 3 11A % % % #4 10 16 20 30 40 50 100 200 0%
L I_I J_I_1_1___LJ L IJ J_I___1___1_L:J J_I_L_1___11 LI J J_I_L_1___11 LI J J J_L_L
° 1 1 1 I I I I 1 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 11 1 I I I I I I Q
90k rl I-ITT-T---n rl -I-T'T--_nf111-I---T---r rill-I-r-T---I'T r111-I-r-T'--I'T r1111-r'T--- 10�o
L 1_I_I_I_1_1___U L 1_I J 1_1___LI L IJ J_I___1_-_I_LI J J_I-L_1__-:I LI J-1_I_L_L___11 LI J J J_L_L_
° I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 °
80/o rI�1-I T-T---nr1'1-1-1-T ---n r111-1---T---�r111-I-r-T---IT r111-I-r-T---IT rill--r-r- 20/0
L I_I J_I_1_1___LI L I_I J_I_1_ __LI L I J J_I___1___ L I J J_I_L_1__-:-4 LI J J_I_L_L___11 LI J J J_L_L _
L 70°� III 11 1 1 1 IIII I I I I I III I I I I I I 11 I I I I I 11I 1 1 I I IT
11 11 1 Iit
I I IT
°
r 111--T-T-'-n r111-I-T-T --n r111-I---T---i r111-1-r-T---n n1T-1-r-T---IT nlll-r-T- 3O/o
1 1-1-1-1-1-1-_-LI I.- J-I-1_1_ _N L I J-1_I---1_--I-L I J J_I_L_1---LI L-:-4 J J-L-1---IJ L-:J J-4-L-1
?j 60°/ II111 I I I -_IIII11 I I I I1111 I I-_- 1 ---I IIII 11 1 1111I I I I 11111 I I I
,U ---- ------ ---- ° -
I r l I-I-I- I - I- IIII 1 1-I- I -I- -n r 11 1-I I I I I I I_r_T__ I I i l l I I I T___III I I I-i-I I 40 0
), +I-1-I_I_1_1___4J!_I-I-1-I-1_1-- H 1-IJ J-1___1___h L I J 4_I_1_1___I1 LI J J-1-1-_1__-:4 LI J J J-1--4 - - -.
50% 1 I I I I I I I IIII 11 1 1 I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i l l l l I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 I I
T_T___I I I I I_I_I_T_T___ _I_i__1___ I ---I r 1 1 I 1 1-T___I_11___1_1 _1___1T_1___1_1 _1 ___ 50% T
C
.- 4- -1-}-i---H 41-1'4-I-+-;--- 1"'I4-I---+---H t-I-4 4-1-+-}---H FI'4'4-1-F-+--N I I I I I I I I IIr I II 1TT I III j1 T II111 rT IT r11 j1 LT -lIiI HIII 4
1 41-4-1'L-+
I
W 40% II II-1 -I- I - I---II I -I--- I ---1- 1 -1-I - I ---I I I -I - I --- I 1 i-I -I --- 60/T �
C
0
a +I-1-4_I-1-{___H F I-1-4-I-}_4___H✓-I H -1__-1---1--1-1-4-1-1-4--+--_H H I-4 A-1-♦--}-__14 1-I-4 4-I-L-
IIII 11 1 I I III I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 12 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I --- °
0 1111_I1111_1_I I111_I_1_1 _1___I___T___illlj j_1_1_T___111II -I-I-� 7O/0 a'
♦•I_i-1-I-+-4---1-1♦-I-I H-I-+-{---H 1:-1-1-1-- ---I-1'11 1-1-+-+---H H I 1-4-I-1-+---I{HI{{H-F-I--
20% IIIIIII I 1 I 1 1I III I 1111I II 1111111 I I1111111 I I111111I I c
111 I-I-1- ---IIII I-I-I-T-�-- IIIII -I---�-- -- -I-�-T-- IIIII -I-�-T-- 11111 -I-�-T- 80%
-
10% iiiiJ_i_i_i___11LI ii_i_1_---1-Iii i_i_1___1---i- ii-i-i i _ i _i___IIII ii-i-i 90%
+I-1-1 +-{---H"I",
1-I-4 +-+---H'I-1-1-1---{---I-F I-I I-I-h-+---I{F I i{-1-h-+---11 111,i-1-1-+-
0% w 100%
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
Cobbles Gravels I Sands Silts Clays
Coarse I Fine I Coarse I Medium Fins
Date: 12/24/13 D10=0.21 USCS Classification %Gravel %San
Sample#: B-2 D3o=3.86 GP-GM,-Poorly graded G 66.9% 25.2%
Sample ID:7.5-9.0 D60= 13.49 Specifications
Source: native Cc=5.20 No Specs
Project: 1840-005A Cu-63.62 Sample Meets Specs %Silt 8c Clay
Location: Shelton Liquid Limit--n/a No 7.9%
Boring#:2 Plastic Limit--n/a Fineness Modulus
Depth: 7.50 Plasticity Index--n/a 5.62
Coarse Actual InterpolatedFines Actual Interpolated
Section Cumulative Cumulative Section Cumulative Cumulative
Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs
US Metric Passing Passing Max Min US Metric Passing Passing Max Min
6.00,, 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 33.1% 33.1%
4.00" 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 24.9%
3.00" 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 23.6% 23.60/9
2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.180 19.7%
2.00" 50.00 100.0% #20 0.850 18.1% 18.1%
1.75" 45.00 100.0% #30 0.600 14.9%
1.50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 12.7%
1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 11.1%
1.00t1 25.00 100.0% #60 0.250 10.5% 10.5%
7/8" 22.40 100.0% #80 0.180 9.6%
3/4" 19.00 76.9% 76.9% #100 0.150 9.2% 9.2%
5/8" 16.00 67.7% #140 0.106 8.4%
1/2" 12.50 57.0% #170 0.090 8.1%
3/8" 9.50 47.8% 47.8% #200 0.075 7.9% 7.9%
1/4" 6.30 37.9% #270 0.053
#4 4.75 33.1% 33.1%
Copyright 1 Spears Engineering&Technical Services PS,1996-200'
Robinson Noble, Inc. Figure 13
Bearing Capacity of 8 ft Depth for Performance
Criteria of 1 " and 2" of Settlement
70000
60000
50000
can 40000 - 1
2„
L
30000 Allowable
a 20000
00
10000
0
10 15 20 25
Footing Width (ft)
.� PM: CPC Figure 14
ROBINSON March 2014
NOBLE 1840-005A City of Shelton
34/2014 Design Maps SunvmryReport
Design Maps Summary Report
User-Specified Input
Report Title Shelton Upper Mountain Pressure Zone
Tue March 4, 2014 16:43:56 UTC
Building Code Reference Document 2012 International Building Code
(which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008)
Site Coordinates 47.255550N, 123.1539°W
Site Soil Classification Site Class C - "Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock"
Risk Category IV (e.g. essential facilities)
IIIV .ryQ'a
2mi o
5000m
9
0101 tU2 , O m, N 0 R TRH
Dayton y
AMERICA ;A..
Sheltor , E
0 `
ma uest 2
� (Ja•,tnn Peak 02014 ' ,,,� ®MapQuest
USGS-Provided Output
Ss = 1.434 g Sms = 1.434 g Sps = 0.956 g
S1 = 0.600 g SM1 = 0.780 g SDI = 0.520 g
For information on how the SS and S1 values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and
deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application
and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document.
MCER Response Spectrum Design Response Spectrum
1.65 1.10
1.50 1.00
1.35 0.90
1.20 0.20
1.05 0.70
0 0.90 CR 0.60
y 0.75 LA 0.50
0.60 0.40
0.45 0.30
0.30 0.20
0.15 0.10
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.20 2.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.90 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.20 2.00
Period, T(sec) Period, T(set)
Although this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied,
as to the accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical subject-matter
http://g eohazards.usg s.go%ddesig nmaps/us/summary.php?template=minimal&latitude=47.25555&long itude=-123.1539&siteclass=2&rislacategory=3&edition=ibc-... 1/2
------ i -----" G ------- --_- - - i ,,, Figure 2
420021000010
.illC�
i City of Shelton, Washinaton
120 W PUBLIC WORKS DRIVE Reservoir- Siting Analysis
SITE PLAN ; Conceptual Site Plan - Site
; 11 i Option No. 3
-_ PRO ,OSED APxIL 201 t
�, -' - ==_�urragSmrth&Assaiattes,Inc
---�- 1611 PROPOSED - �
- WATER = - _ -� = 111 i�m a�.o,=, w�im raovc �s�i:zu
------- �> 400,000 GALLON _T�oL,r�, tu91 ►Xs7 -1 13-1505.201
—. ---- _j ( ELEVATED WATER ;.K
aY STORAGE TANK
_— DAYTON AI POR RD_ PROPOSED PROPOSED
— 16" DIA WATER =, '! JACK & BORE
EXISTI G CROSSING OF
12° DIA �: ' B- ROADWAY
co
WATER - - --- B-4
DO VICINITY MAP B'
. 9
SCALE:1'=1,000'
, I PROPOSED �0' '
- - WIDE ACCESS AND'
UTILITY EASEMENT k I
Z PROPOSED ADDITIVE BID
r ALTERNATE 400,00 GALLON
ELEVATED WATER STORAGE
N TANK
W S I
CD
r_
j PROPOSED 200'x310' (�
3 LEGEND PERMANENT EASEMENT , .
Ln
0
O
O 1 _
B-1 PROPOSED STORMWATER
Ln
Li Number and Approximate MITIGATION/RESERVOIR N ,
Location of Soil Boring OVERFLOW ', _ ,L
U
0 100 200 1 Z
420021000020 1T1 _ {
•_
d
1 r f
Scale 1" = 100' '
Ln
Note: Basemap taken Figure 2
from DRAFT Conceptual PM: CPC
Site Plan prepared by Site Plan
Murray,Smith& April 2014
R O B I N S O N Associates,Inc.dated
NOBLE April2014. 1840-005A City of Shelton