HomeMy WebLinkAboutGRD2005-00017 17,000cy Geo Report, Review - GRD Engineering / Geo-Tech Reports - 7/25/2005 you STAToc F0 MASON COUNTY
Q'
s Nu = PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORICOUNTY ROAD ENGINEER
Y O T Shelton,Washington 98584
2
Y2�oo N Y aoy DATE: July 25t', 2005
7H64 `,
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS
TO: Tami Griffey, PAC—Bldg Inspector
FROM: Alan A. Tahja, P/W- Co. Hydr. Engr. WO#BLD-05
SUBJ: Grading Review NAME: Sand Hill Park 2 Belfair
GRD2005-00017
The plans and contract documents prepared for the proposed Sand Hill Park renovations proposed to be
constructed on Mason County Tax Parcel No. 12330-14-60000 has been received and reviewed by Public
Works.
The grading plan(plan sheet L-3)appears acceptable,but should bear the engineer's stamp and signature.
The volume of grading proposed seems vague, with its destination somewhat uncertain. The volume of
material graded is of secondary concern so long as silt and erosion are minimized at both the excavation
site, and at the receiving site. The contract bid document (Section SP-I I WASTE SITES page SP-5)
indicates that"A stockpile site has been designated on the adjacent Sand Hill Elementary School site south
of the park. The contractor must stockpile 9000 CY of sandy, gravel embankment excavation in the
designated stockpile area."This requirement should not be enforced. As we discussed at our meeting
today, excess excavation material should be required to be kept on the subject property, unless the
contractor can produce a valid grading permit which covers the receiving property. Waste material may be
allowed to be delivered to the school property if it has an active (engineered since> 5000 cubic yards)
grading permit to cover the import of material. It appears that a portion of the un-developed property
immediately north of the currently proposed improvements contains closed depressions that could be
cleared of vegetation in preparation of receiving waste material. Contaminated materials should be hauled
to a permitted solid waste site,or other properly permitted soil-receiving site.
The stormwater management plan(Plan Sht C-1)has been reviewed, and given the applicant's claim that
no new imperviousness results from the proposed park improvements, may be considered adequate and
acceptable. The Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control(TESC) features promoted on plan sheet C-2
should be implemented as necessary to protect neighboring properties and State waters from potential
adverse stormwater runoff impacts.
I feel these concerns can be addressed as conditions on the grading permit. Please feel free to contact me at
County extension 461 if you have any questions regarding these comments, or if you feel any features need
further discussion or attention.
Sinc rely, FILE
a.— ( Z
Al n A. Tahja COPY
Cc: McCoy
File: H:\WP\Grading\Sand Hill Prk.doc
t ;
L-
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Sandhill Park Improvements - Phase 1
_ Mason County, Washington
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
C DDD/�
Prepared for
rMacLeod-Reckord
k.
July 6, 2005
w
HVIAGEOSCIENCES INC.
• Geotechnical Engineering
•Hydrogeology
Geoenvironmental Services
•Inspection d- 'Testing
SCYENCES INC.
gtneetitig•Hydrogeology•'Geoenvironmental Services •Inspection 6- Testing
P�
1
z ,l� rJect No. 2005-069-21
` McLeod-Reckord
` 231 Summit Avenue E
Seattle, WA 98102
Attention: Mr. Edward MacLeod, P.E.
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Report
Sandhill Park Improvements—Phase I
Mason County,Washington
Dear Sir:
As authorized, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA)has completed a geotechnical engineering
investigation for the planned Phase I improvements at Sandhill Park, in Mason County,
Washington. The attached report summarizes the results of our investigation and
provides recommendations for design and construction of the new improvements.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project.
Sincerely, _
HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
Bryan K. Hawkins,P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
Enclosure:Geotechnical Report '
x
"�� �5 ��0 b4tEia4
ices,e0itla
r•
F
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F. 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................... ..............................................:I
I-I GENERAT...............................................................:...................:....................1
1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING............................................................................I
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING............................................................................1
2.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION.........................................................:.
F
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING.:.......................................................................
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS................................................:.......:.......................>.....................2
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION..................:......................................................................2
t3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGY.......................:..............................................................
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS...................................................:............:....:......3
4.0 RECOMmENDATIONS:.................:.........................................:....................................4
4.1 GENERAL..................... ............................... . ........................................4
4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS......................................................................4
4.3 FOUNDATIONS..............:..................................................................:.............5
4.4 EXCAVATIONS........................................................:......................................6
4.5 DEWATERING..............:................. .......................:......................... .:........6
4.6 STRUCTURAL FILL.........................................................................................6
4.8 SLOPE STABILITY....................................................... ..............7
4.9 SEPTIC SYsTEM......................................................................................:......7
4.10 EROSION CONSIDERATIONS.....................
.........................................:............7
5.0 CONDITIONS AND LmranONS...................................................:.............................8
LIST OF FIGURES(FOLLOWING TEXT)
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site and Exploration Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Field Exploration
- Figure Al. Legend of Terms and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs
Figures A2—A6. Logs of Test Pits TP-1 through TP-5
Figures A7—A9. Logs of Handholes HH-1 through HH-3
Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results
Figures B I —B8. Particle Size Analysis of Soils
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
SANDHILL PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT-PHASE I
MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
r 1.1 GENERAL
t_
This report summarizes the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation undertaken
by HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA)in support of design efforts related to the Sandhill
Park Improvements Project(Phase 1)in Kittitas, Washington.
�^ 1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
-The project involves expansion of the outfield of an existing baseball field requiring
L excavation into an existing slope, construction of a concession stand/restroom structure
L and associated sewage septic system. Project location and general layout are shown on
the Vicinity Map(Figure 1)and the Site and Exploration Plan.(Figure 2),respectively.
f
Authorization to proceed was provided by Mr. Ed MacLeod, P.E., of MacLeod Reckord
- in a Professional Services Agreement Contract dated May 26,2005. Our original scope
of work included two.machine borings, a percolation test,laboratory testing,geotechnical
engineering analyses and preparation of a report summarizing the investigation results_
-' and our recommendations. However, subsequent to this Agreement, information was
obtained from Mason County regarding design requirements for the septic system, which
changed the soil investigation program. The proposed borings were eliminated and five
test pits were performed instead. This draft report summarizes the results of our
explorations and provides our,recommendations for the proposed improvements.
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING
2.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Subsurface explorations consisted of five test pits, designated TP-1 through TP-5, and
were augmented by three shallow hand holes, designated HH-1 through HH-3. The test
pits were excavated in the vicinity of the proposed locations for the septic system and
near the approximate center of the new structure, as shown in Figure 2. Three shallow
hand holes were excavated along the existing slope north of Field 5, as shown in
Figure 2. The test pits were excavated by S&T Construction,under subcontract to HWA,
using a Case backhoe, and extended to between 5.5 and 9 feet below existing ground
July 6,2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
surface. The hand holes were excavated to depths of approximately 2 feet,using a
shovel, in order to assess the soil conditions of the slope.
An HWA geotechnical engineer monitored the test pit excavation and performed the hand
hole explorations. Soil samples obtained from the explorations were classified in the
field and representative portions were placed in plastic'bags and returned to our
Lynnwood, Washington, laboratory for further examination and testing.
Based on our field observations and laboratory test results, detailed logs of the
explorations were developed and are presented in Appendix A. A Legend of Terms and
Symbols Used-on Exploration Logs is presented in Figure A-1,Appendix A. Summary
soil exploration logs are presented in Figures A-2 through A-9. It should be noted that
the stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual exploration logs represent the
approximate boundaries between soil types;actual transitions may be more gradual. The
soil and ground water conditions depicted are only for the specific date and locations
reported and,therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times.
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Representative soil samples obtained from the subsurface explorations were returned to
the HWA laboratory for further examination and testing. Laboratory tests were
conducted on selected soil samples to characterize relevant engineering properties of the
on-site soils. Laboratory tests, as described below, were conducted:
Moisture Content of Soil: The moisture content of selected soil samples (percent by dry
-mass)was determined in accordance with ASTM D 2216. The results are shown at the
sampled intervals on test pit logs in Appendix A.
Particle Size Analysis of Soils: Selected samples were tested to determine the particle
distribution of material in accordance with ASTM D422. The results are summarized on
Figures B-1 through B-8,Appendix B,which also provides information regarding the
classification of the samples and the moisture content at the time of testing.
3.0- SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located along the base of an apparent cut slope(Figure 2),just northeast of
Belfair,Washington. Based on the site topography,it seems likely that the area was
quarried for'the native sand and gravel and was subsequently leveled to construct the
ballfields. We understand that the improvements to Field 5 include extending the
2005069Report.doc 2 HWA GEoScwNC,FS TNC
July 6, 2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
outfield,requiring further excavation into the toe of the slope bordering the site on the
northwest.
3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGY
Geolo 'cal infor
mation rmation was obtained from the published geological map, Geologic
Conditions Related to Waste Disposal Planning in the Southern Hood Canal Area,
FI Washington (Carson, Smith and Foxworthy, 1975). This map describes the near surface
deposits in the vicinity of site as sand and gravel of variable thickness (generally more
than 5 feet) overlying glacial till;mostly on the uplands. The map characterizes the
F deposits as having generally low slopes, good surface drainage and a generally high rate
of infiltration. The map also indicates the.water table is generally a few feet above the till
contact. Additionally, the map describes the surficial deposits.as good for septic-tank
- systems with near-surface sand and gravel generally permeable and thick enough for
good percolation,but glacial till below retards seepage to extensive,'valuable, aquifers
beneath till. The comments also indicate that excessive waste liquids can accumulate on
top of the till and seep laterally to nearby streams, lake and wells.
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The test pits excavated north of Field 6 (TP-3 and TP-4) encountered clean sand and
gravel, as indicated in the geologic map. However,in the area between Fields 5 and 6 the
explorations encountered up to 7.5 feet of variable fill with significant quantities of
organics and wood debris. Old concrete pipe, asphalt,wire and plastic debris were also
encountered in the fill. The fill typically graded from about one foot of well-compacted
sand and gravel, over several feet of well-compacted silty gravel to gravelly silt, over
loose silty sand with organics.. The one excavation that penetrated the fill (TP-5)
encountered native medium dense gravelly sand below.
- The three shallow hand excavations in the slope to the north of Field,5 also encountered
native clean sand and gravel.
No ground water seepage was observed in any of the explorations at the time of
excavation. However, it should be noted that the seasonal ground water level in the
vicinity may fluctuate with rainfall and other factors.
2005069Report.doc 3 NWA CTF01(•TF c F_v,TN('
July 6, 2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
4.0 RECONEdENDATIONS
C
4.1 GENERAL
Our geotechnical investigation shows the soil profile between Fields 5 and 6 consists of
up to approximately 7.5 feet of fill containing significant quantities of silt and organic .
debris and will not be suitable for septic system effluent percolation or structure
foundation support.
The area investigated north of Field 6 consists of clean sand and gravel to depths of at
least 6 feet. No ground water seepage was observed. This area should be suitable for
septic system development. The slope north.of Field 5 also consists of clean sand gravel,
(� which should be suitable for fill purposes, as required:
f
The following are the main geotechnical issues that will need to be addressed in
designing and constructing the new concession/restroom structure:
• Foundation Support.• The area below and influenced by the structure should
be over-excavated to remove the fill soil and replaced with properly
compacted structural fill. The new structure should be founded on spread
footings bearing in the structural fill. The foundations should be designed for
an allowable design bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot(psf).
More detailed recommendations are provided in the following sections.
4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
According to seismic hazard maps produced by the United States Geological Survey
(Frankel, et al., 2002),the site is an area of moderate seismicity. The peak ground
- acceleration(PGA) associated with an event having a 10 percent probability of being
exceeded in a 50-year period(i.e., a 1:475-year event) is 0.33g.
We assume the proposed structures will be-designed in accordance with the 2003
International Building Code(ICC, 2002). For seismic design in accordance with
Section 1.615.1 of the IBC,the Seismic Site Class is required. The Seismic Site.Class is
determined based on the average properties in the upper 100 feet. Our test explorations
extended only to a maximum depth of 9 feet below ground surface. Where subsurface
properties are not known insufficient detail to determine the Seismic Site Class, 1BC
requires that Site Class D be used. Accordingly,given the available subsurface
information,we recommend Site Class D be used: For the site location,the design
maximum considered spectral response acceleration at short periods, SS,is 1.25g. The
design maximum considered spectral response acceleration at 1-second period, S,,is
2005069Reoortdoe 4 AWA CCTTFo9mF.mC'ES 174C
I July 6, 2605
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
0.45g. For Site Class D, the corresponding SMS and Sm, values are 1.25g and 0.70g,
Crespectively.
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein loose, saturated, granular deposits temporarily
lose strength and behave as a liquid in response to moderate to strong earthquake shaking.
Based on the results of our field exploration program and published information,the
medium dense, sandy,gravel and cobbles supporting the foundations is considered to
have,a low to negligible liquefaction potential under design earthquake conditions.
4.3 FouNDATIoNs
The excavation near the center of the proposed structure(TP-5) encountered variable fill
to approximately 7.5 feet below ground surface. Below 4 feet,the fill contained
—s significant quantities of organic debris, including root balls and large logs. Because of
the abundant presence of organic debris,the fill soil is not suitable to provide adequate
long-term foundation support.
In view of of the small size of the building footprint and the abundance of high quality
sand and gravel available on site from excavation into the slope north of Field 5,we
recommend that the fill beneath the footprint of the structure be excavated and replaced
with properly compacted structural fill. The structural fill should consist of native, clean,
sand and gravel soils as described in Section 4.6 of this report.
The excavation should extend through all fill soils,terminating in the native clean sand
and gravel below. We recommend a geotechnical engineer or experienced field
technician monitor the excavation to determine when suitable bearing soils are reached.
The excavation should extend beyond the structure footprint at an inclination of 1H:1V
(horizontal:vertical)from the underside of the footings to the base of the excavation. The
excavation should be provided with backslopes extending back to grade to avoid an
=w abrupt transition between new'and old fill materials. Based on the available site plans
showing a building footprint of approximately 22 feet east-west by 42 feet north-south,
and assuming an-excavation depth-of 8 feet and excavation side-walls sloped to 1-%2H:-1 V_
(per Section 4.4), the top of the excavation will be on the order of 62 feet east-west by 82
feet north-south.
We recommend that the footings be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of
1,5 00 psf,which may be increased by 1/3 for transient loading conditions contributed by
wind or seismic events,subject to a minimum footing width of 18 inches. The exterior
footings should bear a minimum depth of 18 inches below surface grade, for frost
protection considerations, and interior footings should bear not.less than 12 inches below
finished floor level.
2005069RewrLdoc 5 HWA GEoSciENcEs INC
July 6, 2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
We estimate that total settlement of the foundations will be less than 1-inch and will
occur rapidly as the structure load is applied;however, this value will depend on the
quality of structural fill placement and compaction, which should be monitored on a full-
time basis during construction.
4.4 EXCAVATIONS
We anticipate that excavations onsite can be accomplished with.conventional-equipment
such as backhoes and trackhoes. The maximum depth of excavation to replace the fill
beneath the structure is anticipated to be about 8 feet. Excavation must be performed in a
manner that will not adversely impact any adjacent structures or utilities. If any existing
utility lines or structures are present, temporary support and protection must be provided
and maintained during construction.
Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability,is the
responsibility of the Contractor. All temporary excavations in excess of 4 feet in.depth
must be sloped in accordance with Part N of.WAC(Washington Administrative Code)
296-155, or be shored. The material encountered onsite generally classifies as Type C
soil,for which WAC requires that unsupported excavation must be inclined no steeper
than 1.5H:IV.
4.5 DEWATERING
No ground water was encountered in the test pits at the time of excavation. We do not
anticipate ground water during construction,however,the Contractor should be
responsible.for control of ground and surface water and provide all measures as necessary
to allow safe construction.
4.6 STRUCTURAL FILL
For purposes of this report,material used as backfill directly under structures,pavement,
sidewalks, or used as backfill behind below grade structures such as catch basins or pipes,
is classified as structural fill. Structural fill should-consist-of clean,-non-plastic, sand and
gravel free from organic matter or other deleterious materials. Such materials should
contain particles of less than 4 inches maximum dimension,with less than 7 %fines
(based on the%-inch fraction).as described in Section 9-03.14(1) Gravel Borrow of the
2004 WSDOT Standard Specifications. The native soils excavated from the slope north
of Field 5 and the soils excavated for the septic system north of Field 6 should be suitable
for reuse as structural fill. Oversized material should,however,be removed prior to use
as structural fill. Additionally,the upper approximately 1 foot of fill between Fields 5
and 6 consists of clean sand and gravel and may be reused as structural fill.
2005069Report.doc 6 HWA GEOSCMNCES INC
r
t July 6, 2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
Structural fill should be placed in loose,horizontal,lifts of not more than 8 inches
thickness and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum dry density, as determined
using test method ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor). At the time of placement,the
moisture content of structural fill should be at or near optimum. The procedure required
to achieve the specified minimum relative compaction depends on the size and type of
compaction equipment,the number of passes,thickness of the layer being compacted,
II , and the soil moisture-density properties.
lT
(� 4.8 SLOPE STABILITY
(. Based on rough field measurements and the site drawings,the existing slope stands at a
maximum inclination of about 2H:1 V(25 degrees). No signs of deep-seated instability or
surficial shding/sloughing were observed. Additionally,no ground water seepage was
observed from the slope.
Given that the slope is stable in its present configuration. we recommend that the future
slope be cut back to a maximum inclination of 2H:1 V and be suitably
y vegetated after
�4
grading.
4.9 SEPTIC SYSTEM
Two areas were investigated for septic system design. The first area is just north of the
new structure and was investigated by excavating test pits TP-1 and TP-2. The second
area is north of Field 6 and was investigated by excavating test pits TT-3 and TP4.
Amanda Reynolds of Mason County inspected each test pit subsequent to excavation.
The subsurface conditions identified in the first area,north-of the proposed structure,
consist of silty gravel to gravelly silt with organics and other debris (fill). This area is
unsuitable for septic system design.
The subsurface conditions encountered in the area investigated north of Field 6 consist of
clean sand and gravel and will be suitable for septic system design. Grain-size analyses
of the samples obtained from the test pits ayeresented in Appendix B.for reference-
purposes.
4.10 EROSION CONSIDERATIONS
Soil erosion can be minimized by careful grading practices,the appropriate use of silt
fences and/or straw bails. Surface runoff control during construction should be the
responsibility of the Contractor. Water should not be allowed to pond immediately
adjacent to foundations or paved areas. Grading measures, slope protection,ditching,
2005069ReportAm 7 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
.r
1 July 6,2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
sumps, dewatering, and other measures should be employed as necessary to permit proper
F`
completion of the work.
5.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for MacCleod Reckord and Mason County for use in design
and construction of this project. This report should be provided in its entirety to
prospective contractors for bidding and estimating purposes;however, the conclusions
and interpretations presented herein should not be construed as our warranty of the actual
subsurface conditions. Experience shows that soil and ground water conditions can vary
significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions may occur between
explorations that may not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during future site
operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those
described herein, HWA should be notified to review the recommendations made in this
report, and revise, if necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission
of this report and the start of construction, or if conditions change due to construction or
other nearby operations, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the
applicability of the conclusions and recommendations considering the changed conditions
and time lapse.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or
the owners'representative,to ensure that the information and recommendations are
^; brought.to the attention of the appropriate design team personnel and incorporated into
the project plans and specifications, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the
Contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
3 We recommend HWA be retained to monitor construction, evaluate soil and ground
water conditions as they are exposed, and verify that subgrade preparation,backfilling,
and compaction are accomplished in accordance with the specifications.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, HWA attempted to execute these
services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the
fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology at the time the report was
prepared. No warranty, express or implied,is made. The scope of our work did not
include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of
wetlands or hazardous or toxic substances in the soil, surface water, or ground water at
this site.
This firm does not practice or.consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct
the contractor's operations, and cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other
2005069Rq*mdoc 8 HWA GEoScmlcEs INc
July 6, 2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
r
than our own on the site. As such, the safety of others is the responsibility of the
0, contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if any of the recommended actions
presented herein are considered unsafe.
( � O'O
We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service, and if further assistance is
required,please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
F .
HWA GEOScIENCEs INc.
r7V
�EITH ,y9
..l W
-7l 0/05
-� OVAL
EXPIRES 03/18/06
-� Bryan K. Hawkins,P.E. Lorne Balanko, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer Principal Geotechnica.l Engineer
2005069Rcmrt.dnc 9 UW A h rr
July 6, 2005
HWA Project No. 2005-069-21
REFERENCES
Carson, Smith and Foxworthy, 1975, Geologic Conditions Related to Waste-Disposal
Planning in the Southern Hood Canal Area, Washington,US Geological Survey
l _ Miscellaneous Investigation Series, Map I-853-D.
Frankel,A. et.Al., 1996,National Seismic Hazard Maps:Documentation June 1996, US
Geological Survey Open File Report No. 96-532.
Frankel,A. et.Al., 2002,Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic
Hazard Maps, US Geological Survey Open File Report No. 02-420.
CWSDOT, 2004,Standard Specifications for Road,Bridge and Municipal Construction,
Washington State Department of Transportation.
2005069Rcmrt.dw 1(l NWA C;FnCrTPNrF-S TNC
3 ]�
r
IBMW On
mik REDO
NO
C - _ �
PROJECT SITE - F
s
300 -
z -
a
t
NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY MAP DRAWN By KS FIGURE NO.
SAND HILL PARK CHECKED BY BH 1
11�rL1 l7WSCo aS lNC IMPROVEMENTS- PHASE I DATE PROJECT NO.
.. ... . .. ... �.....�_ .. 7 n5 n5 2005-069
• • •
• .•
ONVS
�7 � ��.1 I...rl •C ilr�F�l'•�.�i�R
w•y •c
, k. tdi►
;021 ,
fz �(
r ' x0a NDu3w
L}. "V �wr�i.// i7IVE
M Yr
'Tit
_ � �� ( v 11��r�.� % iV ��. �i///,/��//�%/�'% �✓iiii%.may
Mille.
�s9, I.� �1•I% � ,
C .
j APPENDIX A
C FIELD EXPLORATION
Y
RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE TEST SYMBOLS
COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS %F Percent Fines
f Approximate Approximate AL Atterberg Limits: PL=Plastic Limit
1 Density N(blows/ft) 9 Relative Density(%) Consistency N(blows/ft) Undrained Shear LL=Liquid Limit
Strength(psf) CBR California Bearing Ratio
Very Loose 0 to 4 0 - 15 Very Soft 0 to 2 1250 CN Consolidation
Loose 4 to 10 15 - 35 Soft 2 to 4 250 - 500 DD Dry Density(pcf) -
Medium Dense 10 to 30 35 - 65 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 500 - 1000 DS Direct Shear
Dense 30 to 50 65 - 85 Stiff 8 to 15 1000 - 2000 GS Grain Size Distribution
( Very Dense over 50 85 - 100 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 - 4000 K Permeability
Hard over 30 >4000 MD Moisture/Density Relationship(Proctor)
USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MR Resilient Modulus
PID Phototonization Device Reading
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS PP Pocket Penetrometer
Approx.Compressive Strength(tsf)
Coarse Gravel and Clean Gravel •IL GW Well-graded GRAVEL SG Specific Gravity
Gravelly Soils TC Triaxial Compression
Grained (little or no fines) 151
_ Soils o GP Poorly-graded GRAVEL TV Torvane
More than Approx.Shear Strength(tsf)
50%of Coarse Gravel with o GM Silty GRAVEL. UC Unconfined Compression
Fraction Retained Fines(appreciable
on No.4 Sieve amount of fines) GC Clayey GRAVEL SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS
Sand and Gean Sand p SW Well graded SAND ® 2.0'OD Split Sp
oon(SPT)
More than Sandy Soils (little or no fines) (140 lb.hammer with 30 in.drop)
SP Poorly-graded SAND
50%Retained 50%or More Shelby Tube
on No. - Sand with -
Fr Coarse SM Silty SAND
200 Sieve �. with Brass Rings
Spoon 1/4`OD S- lit
3 S
_. Fraction Passing Fines(appreciable P P
Size No.4 Sieve amount of fines) SC Clayey SAND O
Small Bag Sample '
ML SILT
Fine Sift � Large Bag(Bulk)Sample
_ Grained. and Liquid Umit
Soils Gay Less than 50% — CL Lean GAY n Core Run
C — OL Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Non-standard Penetration Test
MH Elastic SILT (3.0'OD split spoon)
50%or More Silt
and Liquid Lim it
SYMBOLS
Passing 50%or More CH Fat CLAY
No.200 Sieve Gay
L7 Groundwater Level(measured at
Size OH Organic SILT/Organic GAY
time of drilling)
Highly Organic Soils ` PT PEAT 1 Groundwater Level(measured in well or
open hole after water level stabilized)
COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT PROPORTIONS
COMPONENT SIZE RANGE PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS
u.1
Boulders Larger than 12 in
Cobbles 3 in to 12 in
<5% Clean
- Gravel 3 in to No 4(4.5mm)
- 5-12% Slightly(Clayey,Silty,Sandy)
Coarse gravel 3 in to 3/4 in
Fine gravel 314 in to No 4(4.5mm)
Sand No.40.5 mm to No.200 0.074 mm Clayey,Silly,Sandy,Gavolly
Coarse sand No.4(4.5 mm)to No.10(2.0 mm) ——
Medium sand No.10(2.0 mm)to No.40(0.42 mm) 30-50% Very(Clayey,Silty,Sandy,Gravelly)
Fine sand No.40(0.42 mm)to No.200(0.074 mm)
Silt and Gay Smaller than No.200(0.074mm) Components are arranged in order of increasing quantities.
NOTES: Soil classifications presented on exploration logs are based on visual and laboratory observation.
Sal descriptions are presented in the following general order. MOISTURE CONTENT
Density/consistency,color,modifier(if any)GROUP NAME,additions to group name(if any),moisture DRY Absence of moisture,dusty,
content Proportion,gradation,and angularity of constituents,additional comments. dry to the touch.
(GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION) MOIST Damp but no visible water.
Please refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration logs for a more WET Visible free water,usually
complete description of subsurface conditions, soil is below water table.
=A I I Sandhill Park Improvements Project LEGEND OF TERMS ANDSYMBOLS USED ON
Phase
fMGEOSCIENCES INC Mason County, Washington EXPLORATION LOGS
.,..,..�,._. ,. 7nnc non A 4
EXCAVATION COMPANY: S&T Construction
LOCATION; See Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case Backhoe DATE COMPLETED: 6/21/05
SURFACE ELEVATION: i Feet
LOGGED BY: B.Hawkins
vi
5 m W
U a cn
_ co co z z D SKETCH OF East SIDE OF PIT
a w
w
� O
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet)
o co DESCRIPTION ti ff OU O 0 0 3 6.
0 9 12 1b o
GP Medium dense,light brown,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse S-1 3 GS p
° GRAVEL,moist. Some cobbles. i
SM F LL .. ., ..
;. ;..
Very dense,dark brown,silty,fine t,coarse gravelly,fine to coarse S-2 9 GS M1
ML SAND,.mpfst•..$omvw*cemented............... ......•...... ...... ..................... .. ... ....::....:......
Very stiff,mottled tan and light gray,fine sandy SILT,moist. Wood
S-3 21 GS
3 SM •:and•Qrganic dearl$.noted.,•Pggkets/lense�,gf cleansQrid noted.•
e
Loose to medium dense,brown and dank yellowish brown,silty,fine S-`t 18 GS 3
to medium SAND,moist, Trace fine to arse gravel noted. Wood
..;.....;...... ........
and roots noted. Pockets of mottled tart and red brown silt noted. .••
... .. .. .. .. ..
6
6
Total depth=6 feet.
No ground water seepage observed dudn®excavation. %•••••:•••••• ......•.•......... . ..
No sloughing or caving of test pit sidew�lla observed. ;............
... .. .y.... I
9
9 ?
.. ... .. .............. ... .. ..
... ... .. ... .1.. ..
12
12 I
......;....... ......%............ ......%.....;......
15
15
Sandhill Park Improvements Project LOG OF TEST PIT
Phase I TP- 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1
TPIT15 2005068.GPJ 7/6/05
PROJECT NO.: 2005-069. FIGURE: A-2
I t [—a —�
EXCAVATION COMPANY: S&T Construction
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case Backhoe LOCATION: See Figure 2
I.
SURFACE ELEVATION: i Feet DATE COMPLETED: 6/21/05
LOGGED BY: B.Hawkins
vi
w
v S a. M eEn uJ
_ ° ui Z v ° SKETCH OF East SIDE OF PIT
d a. � z
<_n w o s
p p iE [if0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) a N DESCRIPTION N M V O p 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 O
SP Medium dense,dark yellowish brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to 8-1 4 GS p
coarse SAND,moist.
[FILL] ..... ... ...... ............ ...... .. .. ..;.. ... ..
SM Medium dense,dark brown and dark gray,fine to coarse gravelly, .•• •....;..
S-2 17 GS .... ......:....1:...... .
silty,SAND,moist. I
3 � :•�• i i p
ML ' Asphp}t,deb fis and,nail$o¢serv�d•�t,28,Inphe�..••,.........
Very stiff,dark brown and dark gray,fine to coarse gravelly,sandy S-3 20 GS g
•:SL�T,moist, .. ...... ...
•S. sM Medium dense,mottled dark brown an prayy,, • •silty,fine to coarse ...... .
S-4 14 GS "" "."
t
gravelly,SAND,moist. c
Large lo at5feet. ..:...;..:......... ......,.........
Total depth=5.5 feet.
No ground water seepage observed during excavation. 6
No caving/sloughing of test pit sidewalls observed. '... .. .. .. .. ... .. ... ... ji
9
9
.. .. ..
12
12
.. .. ...
15
115
Sandhill Park Improvements Project LOG OF TEST PIT
Phase I TP 2
HWMAOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1
TPIT15 2005069.GPJ 7/6/05
PROJECT NO.: 2005-069, FIGURE: A-3
EXCAVATION COMPANY: S&T Construction
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT:.Case Backhoe '
LOCATION: See Figure 2
DATE COMPLETED: 6/21/05
SURFACE ELEVATION: t Feet LOGGED BY: B.Hawkins
w W�
U uJ o F F
m w Cr SKETCH OF East SIDE OF PIT w
W cL a. � W o =
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) a~
O N DESCRIPTION ai co 2 OU O 0 0 3 6 9 W
12 15
GP Medium dense,strong brown,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse S-1 3 G5 I 0
° GRAVEL,moist. Occasional cobbles to 6 inches in size.
o ;.....:..•... . .
.......... ........................ 0
GW Medium dense/dense,gray,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse :
'S GRAVEL,moist. Cobbles noted to 6Inches In size. •••... '•••••• >•••••I...... ......,............ ......;..,.. ......
3
S O S-2 2 GS 3
............. ......:.....:.....GP Medium dense/dense,gray,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse O S-3 2 GS "" ""'
6 ° GRAVEL,moist. Cobbles noted to 6 Inches in size.
Total depth=6 feet.
6
No ground water seepage observed during excavation. ...... ......•••••• •••••.••••. ...... . ....g. ;...... ......:.....;......
No caving/sloughing of test pit sidewallsj observed.
9
9
............ .. ... ... .. .. ..
12
12
.. .... .................. .. .• ...
15
• 1
Sandhill Park Improvements Project LOG OF TEST PIT
Phase I TP- 3
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1
TPIT15 2005069.GPJ 7/6/05
PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: A-4
_
EXCAVATION COMPANY: S&T Construction
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case Backhoe LOCATION: See Figure 2
SURFACE ELEVATION: t Feet DATE COMPLETED: 6/21/05 I
LOGGED BY: B.Hawkins
i
W LU
co
= cc o ° w w D a Z SKETCH OF West SIDE OF PIT w
a U a. a W Z) x
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) F-
DESCRIPTION ILO
ai ai �U O C9 0 3 6 9 12 15 0
6 Q GP Medium dense/dense,dark grayish brown,fine to coarse sandy, 0
° fine to coarse GRAVEL,moist. Cobbles noted to approximately 6
O Inches in size. S 1 3 GS .....;...•.. ......:.....;...... ......;.....;...... ... .. .. ...
,.
°� }.... .. ... ... .. .. ... ...
3 .............................................................
SP Medium dense,gray,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND,
moist. S-2 2 GS
3
.. .. .. .. ............ ... ...
6 .. .. .. .. ... ... :....
-------------------
Total depth=6 feet.
6
No ground water seepage observed du ngexcavation. ......%•••••:•••••• ......:••...;...... ..
....
.....;...... ;..
1p' .:..i...
No caving/sloughing of test pit sidewall¢observed.
I I
9
9
.. .. ............. ............
12 .. ..
12
... ... ... ...
15
15
Sandhill Park Improvements Project LOG OF TEST PIT
Phase I TP- 4
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1
TPIT15 2005069.C.P.1 7iem5 PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: A-5
EXCAVATION COMPANY: S&T Construction
LOCATION: See Figure 2 c
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case Backhoe DATE COMPLETED: 6/21/05
SURFACE ELEVATION: t Feet LOGGED BY: B.Hawkins
gW
U W W
o z �F w 3 G
co W W w z° SKETCH OF West SIDE OF PIT d
a. a Ca W o h
¢ ¢ O 0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet)
0 DESCRIPTION U O 0 0 3 6
0 g 12 16
5P Medium dense,light brown,slightly sil ,fine gravelly,fine to coarse S-1 3 GS p
SM SAND,moist. Some cobbles. S-2 8 GS
SM FILL] .. ..
...
:,•:. Dense/very stiff,strong brown,fine to coarse gravelly,very silty S-3 17 GS
SAND to sandy SILT,moist. Cobbles noted. Wood and organics ••.•••+••••.:...... ......:.....;...... .
noted. Lenses/pockets of stiff silt noted.
3
S-4 18 GS 3
GP Loose to medium dense,dark brown to' ...... �'black,slighlty silty,fine to 5-5 12 GS """ """ """""""""' ""
° coarse sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL,moist. Abundant roots and
oO organics noted. Large root balls and logs to several feet in size ... ••%...... ...... •••••%.••••• •....j.....:...... ...... ..
observed.
6
0 6
;.....;...... . .. ..
SP Medium dense,light brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse
S-6 6 GS
,•.,•..:...... .....:i......'..... ... .. 2
••.•: SAND,moist. O
9 d
Total depth=9 feet. _ 9 I
No ground water seepage observed during excavation. ••'• <•••••• ,,. .. ...
Some caving observed In organic layer below.4.feet.
.. ... ... %. ... ..•
12
12
.. .. . ... ...
... ... ............. ..
15
15
got ,
Sandhill Park Improvements Project LOG OF TEST PIT
Phase I TP 5
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1
PROJECT NO.: 2OO55-069 FIGURE: A-6
TPIT15 2005069.GPJ 7/6/05 '
7-7
Z '
L N o DEPTH'(feet) r y
EP
61� InC Z Z
t3� :'• SYMBOL z z c�
t� USCS SOIL CLASS
z
� Sc �o error (ao q
N
CD
O
)" 40
a y
s o
_
o C
S m
QQ 3 r
W O O
CD
M o
m o z
? = 7
N SAMPLE TYPE
a
SAMPLE NUMBER �*
PEN.RESISTANCE
(blows/6 Inches)
ti OTHER TESTS
GROUNDWATER o o a
_v m m
ooO C w
3 l W � �
zx . o ................... ! ...............................................................................................:............................
m = _ ..............................................................:.........................................
......................................................
$. �l O C a: C •...................�. ..................................................................;................................................................ N
a C
3 . . ......... ...................................................................................
Q� ......................i. ..................................... ................................................................................. .....
: 8
N
o DEPTH(feet)
op
mA " ^' • o DEPTH(feet) p
D 'Z F C
SYMBOL z Z cZi
O � �Q O r � n0
c m USCS SOIL CLASS
O
� Q >
gg W a
. o CD
CD
90
0 - o o c
�Cr z0 AL
n
C � m
=r B mm
(D < Q g
3 F. o
(�_ N SAMPLE TYPE
O SAMPLE NUMBER
7
CD
n PEN.RESISTANCE
a (blows/6 inches)
OTHERTESTS
GROUNDWATER
� 1
O m m
m n
............................ o a
o
m
W
z
_ ....... .................................................................... .....
y Z
2Z 0g
= g ................................................................:..........................................................................................
tV � C ................... .................................................... ......................................................................I.....
3 c .................. ..........................................................................................
X ........................................... ...................I.......
g
DEPTH(feet)
DRILLING COMPANY: HWA GeoSciences SURFACE ELEVATION: ± feet DATE STARTED: 6/21/2005
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Excavation DATE COMPLETED: 6/21/2005
SAMPLING METHOD: Grab Samples LOGGED BY: B.Hawkins
LOCATION: See Rgure 2
co O
W
w
g m
O }as h t-
_ O F Z C)9 1-- O w
2 O Co J J cn of Z
2 2 z 3 = O
w > m o o_
o D DESCRIPTION ai ai a.z 0 0 Lu
o
0 = SP Loose/medium dense,grayish brown,fine to coarse S-1 GS 0
gravelly,fine to coarse SAND,moist Cobbles noted to 6
inches in size.
C
1 1
F, 2 ::•.:. i 2
Total depth=2 feet-
No ground water seepage observed.
3 3
--s
4 4
5
i i 5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Content
Plastic Limit 1 —0 Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessanly be indicative of other times and/or locations.
Sandhill Park Improvements Project HAND HOLE:
HN- 3
Phase I
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC Mason County, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1
r
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
l
c
c
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY
J.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1-1/2" 5�8" 3/6" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
90 I I 1i I I I I I I
80 I I I I I
70
W I II
co I I I I 1
W 50
1— 40 I I I I I I
U
� 30
0- I 1 1 I I I I ( I I
20
I I I I I 1 I I I I
10
0
50 10' 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 GroupSymbol and Name %MC LL PL pi Gravel Sand Fines
Y o 0 0
0 HH-1 S-1 0.0-2.0 (SP)Grayish Brown,Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 4 2% 7% %
■ HH-2 S-1 0.0-2.0 (GP)Dark Yellowish Brown,Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand 3 72.0 27.0 1.0
HH-3 8-1 0.0-2.0 (SP)Grayish Brown,Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 4 32.1 67.1 0.7
i
Sandh ill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
Phase I OF SOILS
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington METHOD ASTM D422
WINGnDC7 onnanaono, via,- PROJECTNO.: 2005-069 RmJRPF R-1
A 4 I .. J 1 1
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY
3/4"
S.. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1-1/2" 1 51 3/ " #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
' # 1 1 ,
100 i
I I I I I I I I
90
I I I 1 I I I I
80
I I I I I I I
I I I If I I I I
w 70 I I I I
I I i I
coLLJ
� 50 I I I I I I I
�
Z 40
W I I I I I I I I I
U I I I I I I I I
30
UJI
20
I I l I I I I I I
10
I I I ti 1 I I I I
I 11 I ' I I I I i
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines
• TP-1 S-1 0.0-1.3 (GP)Light Brown,Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand 3 49.5 47.2 3.3
■ TP-1 S-2 1.3-�-O (SM)Dark Brown,Silty Sand with Gravel 9 28.6 54.9 16.5
A� TP-1 S-3 2.0-3.0 (ML)Strong Brown,Sandy Silt 21 0.1 33.2 66.7
Sandhill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
® Phase I OF SOILS
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington METHOD ASTM D422
HWAGRSZ 2005069.GPJ 7/6/05 PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: B-2
7-71; �
I... ... = � _.
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse I Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY
3/4" O.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3 1-1/2" 5/8'' 3/!R" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
i
90 I I I I I I I I
I I I I I i I I I
= 80
I I I I I I I I
� 70
I i r I
m 60 I I I I I I I I
I II I
ry
z 50 I I I
F- 40 I I I 1 I I I I I I
W I I I I I I I I I
cl� 30 Lli
I I I 1 I I I I I I
IL I I I 1 I I I I I I
20
I I I I I
I I I I I I i I
10 14-4
I I I I I I I I I I
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Y °/°Symbol and Name MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines
o ° °
• TP-1 S-4 3.0- ,0 (SM)Dark Yellowish Brown,Silty Sand 18 3.7 58.8 37.5
® TP-2 S-1 0.0- .8 (SP)Yellowish Brown,Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 4 44.4 51.7 4.0
♦ TP-2 S-2 2.0- .0 (SM)Dark Olive Brown,Silty Sand with Gravel 17 1 15.3 36.4 48.4
r
Sandhill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
Irv, I Phase I OF SOILS
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington METHOD ASTM D422
Nwncnc� onnRnn❑r_o viarna PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: B-3
l —) r
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse I Fin Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY
3/4" S..STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1-1/2" 5�8" 3/8r #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I I I I I I I I I
90 I I 1 1 I I I I
80 1 I I I I
I-- I I I 1
U 70
W
m 60 1 1 1 I I I I I I
II I I
I I
� 50 I I I I I I I I I
Z 40
W
30 I I I I I
II- I I I I I I i I I I
20
i t I I I i I I
I 1 1 I I I I I I
10
1 1 1 I I I I i
D I I I
L
0 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL- SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) . CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 GroupSymbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines
y o %
• TP-2 S-3 3.0- 0 (ML)Dark Brown,Sandy Slit with Gravel 0 20
20.0 27.7 52.3
® TP-2 S-4 4.0-51
0 (SM)Dark Brown,Silty Sand with Gravel 14
32.9 40.2 26.9
♦ TP 3 S-1 0.0-1.5 (GP)Strong Brown, Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand g
— 55.5 40.7 3.8�
Sandhill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
Phase I OF SOILS
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington METHOD ASTM D422
anien�e� onncnen co i „�,,,� PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 Flr,l1RF. R-d
r .
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fin Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY
T ,
U. .3!4" STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8"1 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
II I I e
90 I I I I
I I I I I -J I
I
I I I I I I
80 k
r.rJn- I I I I I I I I I I V
W .70
- m so I I I I
W 50 I I I I I I
I
I s
I I I I I I I I
Z 40 IuJ
I I 1 ( ( I 1 ( I
U
30
uJ
F
>Z I I I 1 I I I I I I I
20
I I I I j I I I I
10
I I
I I I I I I I
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name /MC LL PL pl Gravel Sand Fines
A TP-3 S-2 3.0-4. (GW)Gray,Well Graded Gravel with Sand 2
1 62.8 36.2 0.9
® TP-3 S-3 5.0-6. (GP)Gray, Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand 2
66,7 32,5 0.8
A TP-4 S-1 1.0-3. (GP)Dark Grayish Brown,Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand 3
54.3 42.8 2.9
Sandhill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
Phase I OF SOILS
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington METHOD ASTM D422
^^^` -1. -.1- PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: B-5
_7 F7777
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Flne SILT CLAY
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1-1/2" 3/45/8" 3/8�' #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I I I I I I I I I
90
II
80
70
w I I I I I I 1
} 60
co
UJ 50 I I I I I I 1 I 1
I— 40 1 I I 1 I I I I I I
Z I 1 I
W 1 I I I I I
30 1
20
10
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0,005 - 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL. pl Gravel Sand Fines
% % 0
• TP-4 S-2 3.0-6`0 (SP)Gray,Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 2 39.2 60.1 0.7
■ TP-5 S-1 0.0-0�5 (SP-SM)Light Brown,Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel 3 24.5 69.9 5.6
TP-5 S-2 0.5-1,0 I(SP-SM)Strong Brown,Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel 8 41.9 51.9 6.3
Sandhill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
Phase I OF SOILS
HMGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington METHOD ASTM D422
(WAGRR7 90(1.50BR GRI nnms PROJECT NO.: 20055-069 FIGURE: B-6
GRAVEL_ SAND
Coarse Fide Coarse Medium �F�ne � SILT CLAY
3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
,
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/ "I #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200,
100�
90
I I I I I I I I
1 l l I I I I 1
I I I I I I I
80
70
W I I I I I
>- 60
� I LLJ
I I Ij I I I 1 I I
z 50 I ITT
I I I
F— 40 I I 1 I I I
I II I
(Wj 30 I I I li I I 1 1 I
20
I I I I
I 1 1 I I I a I I 1 I I I I I I
10
Li!I I I I I I I
I I I �' � I � 1I I I I 1 I
01.
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0,001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines
• TP-5 S-3 1.0-�.0 (SM)Strong Brown,Silty Sand with Gravel 17 _%_ % 38.5
■ TP-5 S-4 3.0-�-0 (SM)Dark Olive Brown,Silty Sand with Gravel 18 15.2 40.2 44.6
♦ TP-5 S-5 4.0- .0 (GP)Very Dark Brown,Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand 12 65.0 32.2 2.8
Sandhill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
Phase I OF SOILS
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington METHOD ASTM D422
4war.R.¢7 :Wr1nAQ nP 1 77Rm5 PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: B-7
' f
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fin Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY
3J4" U.S: STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
I ,
100
I I I I j I I I I I
90 I I I I 1
80 I I I I I
H
= I I I I I I I I I(D 70
� so
W 50 I I I I I I
F-- 40 I I I I I I I I 1
uJ I I I I I I I I I I
L) 30 I I I I I I 1 I ( I
20
I I I I I I I I I
10
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
-GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTHI(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines
® TP-5 S-6 8.0-9}0 (SP)Light Brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 8
24.5 71.2 4,3
c Sandhill Park Improvements Project PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
Phase I OF SOILS
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Mason County, Washington METHOD ASTM D422
---- -- PROJECT NO.: 2005-069 FIGURE: B-8
r (/
i
Z-3
�5