Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COM2007-00133 Geotechnical Report - COM Engineering / Geo-Tech Reports - 1/8/2007
RECEVVP , J. k'9 KLEINFELDER DEC 132001 An employee owned company MASON COUNTY December 11, 2007 Kleinfelder No.: 77183 Mr. Brian McGinnis Pinnacle Real Estate LLC 22526 SE 64'Place, Suite 120 Issaquah, WA 98027 Subject: Reliance Letter Geotechnical Engineering Report Hood Canal Marina Tank Area 5101 East State Route 106 Union,Washington Dear Mr. McGinnis, The intent of this letter is to confirm that local regulatory building and planning officials can rely on the geotechnical information presented in our Geotechnical Engineering Report dated January 8, 2007 and prepared for the above-referenced property. We understand that no substantial changes have occurred on the subject property and especially to the subsurface conditions on-site since we published our report in January 8,2007. We trust this information meets your current requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or require additional information. We appreciate the opportunity to assist Pinnacle Real Estate with the redevelopment of the Hood Canal Marina. Sincerely, of Wash, KLEINFELDER INC. 0 Engineering Geologist 1573 Dennis J. O eill, LEG, LHG cehsad Principal Engineering Geologist/Hydrogeologist FENNIS J. O'NEILL Page 1 of 1 60YP2592J6011P017.doc Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder,Inc. KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue,WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax • i NICE KLEINFELDER An employee owned company January 8, 2007 Kleinfelder Project No.: 77183 TO BE KEPT IN THE Pin Brian McGinnis PARCEL FILE Pinnacle Real Estate LLC. 22526 SE 64th Place, Suite 120 Issaquah, WA. 98027 Attn: Mr. Brian McGinnis Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Hood Canal Marina Tank 5101 E. State Route 106 Union, Washington Dear Mr. McGinnis: This letter transmits 2 copies of our geotechnical engineering report for the proposed fuel tank located at 5101 E. State Route 106 in Union, Washington. We have determined that the planned structure can be founded on a concrete slab-on- grade mat foundation. Our report includes recommendations related to earthwork, concrete-slab-on-grade footing, and site drainage. To address Mason County Geologic Hazard issues, we also evaluated to existing slopes across SR 106 south of the site. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services to you on this project. Please contact the undersigned at (425) 562-4200 if you have any questions regarding this report or if we can provide assistance with other aspects of the project. Sincerely, KLEINFELDER, INC. on WNechni hb P. . rojectngin er Ro6i-V , Principal Consultant Attachment: January 8, 2007 Geotechnical Engineering Report 77183/SEA7R003.doc Page 1 of 1 January 8,2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder,Inc. KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE,Suite A101, Bellevue,WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax KLEINFELDER EXPECT MORE* Mr. Brian McGinnis Pinnacle Rea Estate LLC. 22526 SE 64t Place, Suite 120 Issaquah, WA. 98027 Geotechnical Engineering Report Hood Canal Marina Tank 5101 E. State Route 106 Union, Washington W W '�� Prepared by: 02 h� 41 P,79� ,,�V I Ja '� shburn, P.E. Srorau.E '� P ect Geo ec ical gine EXPIRES a j 10/Og i Robert,L. P um, P.E. Principa rofessional KLEINFELDER, INC. 2405 140th Ave NE, Suite A101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 January 8, 2007 Kleinfelder Job No. 77183 Copyright 2007 All Rights Reserved UNAUTHORIZED USE OR COPYING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE CLIENT FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT. KLEINFELDER EXPECT MORE' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE............................................................................1 1.1 GENERAL..................................................................................................1 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROGRAMS...........................................................1 FIELD EXPLORATION .........................................................................................1 2.1 LABORATORY TESTING ..........................................................................2 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS...............................................................................................2 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS...........................................................................2 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................2 2.2.3 Groundwater.....................................................................................3 4.0 SITE IMPROVEMENT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................4 4.1 TANK FOUNDATION SUPPORT...................................................................4 4.2 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................4 4.3 EARTHWORK............................................................................................4 4.3.1 Foundation Subgrade Preparation ...................................................4 4.3.2 Structural Fill ....................................................................................5 4.3.3 Excavations and Slopes...................................................................5 4.3.4 Weather Considerations and Surface Water Management ..............6 5.0 COMMENTS ON ADJACENT HILLSIDE SLOPE HAZARDS .................................7 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES.....................................................................................9 7.0 LIMITATIONS .....................................................................................................10 FIGURES Figure 1 — Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 — Slope Subsurface Cross Section A-A' APPENDIX A Field Exploration Program B Geotechnical Laboratory Testing C XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis Input/Output Data D Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report 77183/SEA7R003.doc Page I of i January 8,2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder,Inc. 4 K L E I N F E L D E R EXPECT MOREi 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE 1.1 GENERAL This report presents the results of Kleinfelder, Inc.'s (Kleinfelder's) geotechnical engineering study conducted in support of the proposed Hood Canal Marina fuel storage tank. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions and develop geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the project. Our work consisted of test pits, hand borings, geologic mapping of the slopes, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and preparation of this report. To address Mason County Geologic Hazard issues, we also evaluated to existing slopes across SR 106 south of the site. The project site is located at 5101 E. State Route 106 in Union, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1.0ur understanding of the project is based on discussions with yourself. We understand that the project will include a 6,000 gallon fuel tank and associated gravel covered driveways and parking areas and utilities. 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROGRAMS FIELD EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions at the site and adjacent steep slope were explored by means of six test pits and two hand borings at the locations shown in Figure 2. Exploration locations were obtained by taping distances from existing site features and should be considered approximate. The test pits TP-1, TP-2, TP-3, and TP-4 and the hand boring HA-1 were excavated on the site while the remaining explorations were excavated on the adjacent steep slope. The explorations were completed under the full-time observation of a Kleinfelder licensed geotechnical engineer. Summary exploration logs and a description of the soil classification system used are presented in Appendix A. The primary purpose of the test pits TP-1, TP-2, TP-3, and TP-4 was to obtain environmental soil samples. The test pits TP-1, TP-2, and TP-3 were excavated in the vicinity of the previously removed two sets of underground fuel storage tanks to depths of 7, 7.2 and 7.5 feet, respectively. Moderate to severe caving and heavy seepage limited excavation depths. Test pit TP-4 was excavated to a depth of 4.5 feet. Hand boring HA-1 was excavated at the proposed tank location to a depth of 6.1 feet. Further excavation of HA-1 was prevented due to gravel. 77183/SEA7R003.doc Page 1 of 10 January 8,2007 copyright 2007 Kleinfelder,Inc. KLEINFELDER EXPECT MORE' Test pits TP-5 and TP-6 and hand boring HA-2 were excavated on the steep slope, the toe of which is located approximately 100 to 150 feet south of the site. Test pits TP-5 and TP-6 were excavated to depths of 14.2 and 10.5 feet, respectively. Hand boring HA-2 was excavated to a depth of 7.8 feet. Further excavation of HA-2 was prevented due to heave. T 2.1 LABORATORY TESTING Two-grain size analyses and five moisture content laboratory tests were performed on soil samples obtained from the explorations. Moisture content test results are presented on the summary exploration logs in Appendix A and the grain size analyses are presented in Appendix B. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS As shown on Figure 2 the site north of SR-106 with its northern boundary on Hood Canal. A bulkhead along Hood Canal is located along the north and east sides of the parcel. The top of the bulkhead is roughly 3.5 to 4 feet above the beach gravels. A rectangular building containing a shop, store, and offices is located along the western edge of the parcel. The southeast corner of the site contains a mobile home. A dock extends onto the water off the parcel's north edge. A restaurant/house and SR 106 borders the property to the south, water to the north and east, and a public boat launch and homes to the west. The site is covered with low cut grass and crushed rock. The site area is relatively flat with the toe of a hillside occurring just south of SR-106. The hillside south of SR 106 consists of an initial 58 percent moderate slope with a vertical relief of about 17 feet and a short steep section at about 127 percent with a vertical relief of about 14 feet. Above this steep section, the slope flattens to about 14 percent and rises another 20 vertical feet up to the buffer. The slope is vegetated with young and mature evergreen and deciduous trees and thick ivy and brush. 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General geologic information for the area was obtained from the Geologic Map of the Shelton 1:100,000 Quadrangle, Washington (2003). According to the map, the project area is underlain by pre-late Wisconsinan aged deposits consisting of stratified sand, gravel and cobbles. Soils encountered in our explorations are generally consistent with 77183/SEA7R003.doc Page 2 of 10 January 8,2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder, Inc. K L E I N F E L D E R EXPECT MORE' those presented on the map. A summary of the soils encountered in our explorations is presented in the following paragraphs. Detail descriptions and thicknesses of these soils are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A along with a description of exploration and sampling procedures. Soil conditions underlying the site included fill from the surface with no topsoil. The fill was observed to the completed depth of TP-1, TP-4, and HA-1 and to 6.5 feet in TP-2 and TP-3. The fill in HA-1 consisted mostly of silty sand with gravel and sandy silt with gravel. The fill observed in the remaining explorations consisted of mostly soft silty sand with some gravel, ash, fragmented shells, and trace roots. A 1-foot layer of crushed rock fill was observed in TP-1 at-a depth of 5.5 feet. We interpret this fill to be the removed fuel tank's base. Below the fill in TP-3 below a depth of about 6.5 feet, we encountered a medium dense sand similar to have is exposed at the ground surface along the beach. i Soil conditions underling the hillside slope south of SR 106 included approximately 6 to j 12 inches of topsoil consisting of loose silty sand with some gravel and roots. Advance f outwash was encountered in test pits TP-5 and TP-6 and hand boring HA-2, located in on the steep slope. The outwash consisted of medium dense sand with varying amounts of gravel and some to trace amounts of silt. Firm sandy silt layer was encountered in test pits TP-5 and TP-6 at depths of 13.5 and 9.5 feet, respectively. A north-south section of the site is presented in Figure 3 indicating the approximate geology of the adjacent hillside and its relationship to the site. 2.2.3 Groundwater Groundwater encountered on the site in test pits TP-1, TP-2, and TP-3 and in hand boring HA-1 during excavation was observed to be at depths of 4.9 to 5.9 feet. We anticipate that these groundwater levels will fluctuate somewhat with the tide. On the hillside, perched groundwater was encountered in hand boring HA-2 at a depth of 6.3 feet. The sandy silt encountered in test pits TP-5 and TP-6 at depths of 13.5 and 9.5 feet, respectively was wet, although no seepage was observed. The groundwater level at the site will fluctuate seasonally, typically being highest during the wetter winter months and lower during the drier summer months. It should be noted that Kleinfelder has not performed a hydrogeologic evaluation of the site at the time of 77183/SEA7R003.doc Page 3 of 10 January 8,2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder,Inc. 41 KLEINFELDER EXPECT MORE° 1 L i this report. The annual variability in groundwater depth at this site has not been measured. 4.0 SITE IMPROVEMENT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 TANK FOUNDATION SUPPORT Based on the site conditions encountered and our understanding of the proposed development, it is our opinion that a slab-on-grade mat foundation is an appropriate to support the tank. We recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf, modulus of subgrade reaction of 125 pci, and an allowable base friction value of 0.4. To provide proper support, we recommend that the subgrade is over-excavated, proof-rolled and compacted as recommended below in Section 4.3.1. The foundation should be placed at least 18 inches below grade. Estimated total settlement of the slab-on-grade foundation will be on the order of 1 inch, or less, with differential settlement expected to be on the order of '/2 inch, or less. Static settlement will essentially occur as the structure is constructed. Based on the 2003 IBC, the seismic design can be based on a Site Class of D. 4.2 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT In general future development consisting of light structures can be supported on normal spread footings. Due to the occurrence of fill, the subgrade preparation should consist of over-excavation, proof-rolling and compaction as recommended below in Section 4.3.1. In addition, explorations should be completed at each future structure location to evaluate the existing fills. Normal utility and pavement design and construction should be acceptable. Pavement areas should be proof-roiled and compacted to provide an adequate subgrade. 4.3 EARTHWORK 4.3.1 Foundation Subgrade Preparation The fuel tank subgrade should be prepared by overexcavating to a depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the slab and a horizontal distance from the edge of the slab equal to the overexcavated depth (i.e. 2 feet). The overexcavated soil surface should then be systematically proof-rolled with a fully loaded ten wheel dump truck, Any soft or yielding areas should be further over-excavated and backfilled. After proof-rolling the surface should be thoroughly compacted with a heavy vibrating drum compactor. Hand 77183/SEA7R003.doc Page 4 of 10 January 8,2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder,Inc. KLEINFELDER EXPECT MORE' operated equipment will not provide sufficient compactive effort to densify soils as is needed to eliminate the shallow liquefaction hazard. This phase of the work should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. 4.3.2 Structural Fill Structural fill consists of the soil materials used to establish grade beneath footings, floor slabs, and pavement sections, and backfill basement walls. Structural fill should consist of onsite soil and/or imported select fill. The onsite soils in the vicinity of the proposed tank are expected to be suitable for use as structural fill provided they are excavated from above the water table and placed and compacted during dry weather. However, the soils observed in test pits 'excavated elsewhere onsite were highly moisture sensitive and contained organics and thus, would not be suitable for use as structural fill. Imported select fill material should consist of clean, free-draining material conforming to the requirements of Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specification 9-03.14(1), Gravel Borrow. All material placed behind walls should conform to WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(2), Gravel Backfill for walls. Structural Fill should be moisture conditioned to within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content, and should be compacted to the following minimum relative compaction based on the modified proctor (ASTM D1557) compaction test methods: Foundations and Floor Slabs: 95 Percent Pavement Subgrades: 95 Percent (upper 2 feet) Pavement Subgrades: a 90 Percent (below 2 feet) Utility Trenches: 95 Percent (upper 4 feet) Utility Trenches: 90 Percent (below 4 feet) 4.3.3 Excavations and Slopes All excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards and WISHA Safety Standards for Construction Work. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. We are providing the information below solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the information be interpreted to mean that Kleinfelder is assuming responsibility for construction site 771MSEA71ROMADC Page 5 of 10 January 8,2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder,Inc. KLEINFELDER EXPECT MORE* safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. The on-site soils are expected to be classified as Type C soils, and should be inclined no steeper than 1%H:1V. Conditions that may warrant flatter slopes can include, but not limited to, soft/loose soil conditions, groundwater seepage, and/or weather conditions. Heavy construction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should not be allowed within one-third the slope height from the top of any excavation. Temporary slopes should be protected from the elements by covering with a protective membrane consisting of plastic sheeting or some other similar impermeable material. Sheeting sections should overlap by at least 12 inches and be tightly secured with sandbags, tires, staking, or other means to prevent wind from exposing the soils under the sheeting. 4.3.4 Weather Considerations and Surface Water Management During wet weather, the exposed subgrade should be protected once the geotechnical engineer has approved it. These measures could include, but are not limited to, placing a layer of crushed rock, or lean.concrete on the Exposed subgrade, or covering the exposed subgrade with a plastic tarp and/or keeping traffic off the area. If additional overexcavation is required because the subgrade was not protected, the cost of such additional work should be borne by the contractor. After a rainfall, construction equipment travel on the exposed site subgrade should be minimized until the soils have been allowed to dry sufficiently. Otherwise, traffic activity on the wetted subgrade will degrade the exposed materials and result in additional excavation of the disturbed materials. During wet weather, earthen berms or other methods should be used to prevent runoff water from entering all excavations. All runoff water should be collected and.disposed of properly. Measures may also be required to reduce the moisture content of on-site soils in the event of wet weather. These measures can including, but are not limited to, air drying and soil 'amendment. A storm water control plan should be developed to prevent sediment-laden run-off from leaving the site. We anticipate that this will be particularly critical due to the close proximity to Hood Canal. Furthermore, a discharge plan should be developed for discharge of water collected from sumps and/or dewatering wells. 771 B3/SEA7R003.doc Page 6 of 10 January 8,2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder,Inc. KLEINFELDER EXPECT MORE' 5.0 COMMENTS ON ADJACENT HILLSIDE SLOPE HAZARDS The project is located within 300 feet of a defined Landslide Hazard Area in accordance with Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.100 Landslide Hazard Areas. Figure 3 shows the general geometry of the hillside slope and its relationship to the project and proposed tank. Based on our explorations, slope reconnaissance, slope stability analysis and the proposed tank location, the steep slope will not adversely affect or be affected by the proposed development. These conclusions are based on the following observations and analysis: • OBSERVATIONS: The hillside south of SR 106 consists of an initial 58 percent moderate slope with a vertical relief of about 17 feet and a short steep section at about 127 percent. Above this steep section, the slope flattens to about 14 percent and rises another 20 vertical feet. The slope is vegetated with young and mature evergreen and deciduous trees and thick ivy and brush. The toe of the slope is about 140 feet south of the proposed tank location. A roughly 2-foot deep stormwater ditch is located at the toe of the slope and contained 1.5 foot of water. We conducted a reconnaissance of the slope and the slope outside of the buffer area. We traversed the slope along SR 106 and gully just east and south of the site. The gully contains a stream and a house near SR 106. The soil is exposed in a vertical cut in the gully side slope for the driveway. The soils appear to have sloughed on the surface due to weathering and appear to be silty sand with gravel. The slope was observed for any signs of earth movement. During our reconnaissance, we did not observe any indications of slope instability. No vegetation indicating seepage was observed. Given the size of the trees on the steep slope, we estimate tree ages to be 20 to 30 years. SLOPE MODEL: Based on our observations and the geology, we believe that the hillside is underlain by dense, stable glacially over-ridden deposits which are not susceptible to deep slope instability. However, as is typical in western Washington, a zone of weathered, softened soil or colluvium develops on the steeper slopes with time. These surficial soils increase in thickness with time and periodically are subjected to sloughing type of failures. We feel that the over-steepened portion of the slope may be in this type of area with the area below likely included some deposits from the sloughing. This is a natural process which is typical of steep slopes in the area. Based on the vegetation, it 77183/SEA7R003.doc Page 7 of 10 January 8,2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder,Inc. ' KLEINFELDER EXPECT MORE° does not appear that any significant sloughing has occurred in many years. Even if they do occur, these types of failure tend to be local and at the most severe might result in some mud spilling onto SR-106. STABILITY ANALYSIS: A slope stability analysis of the slope was performed using the computer program XSTABL. The analysis was performed for the static and dynamic (seismic) conditions. Four representative results are shown in Appendix C. The analysis was also performed with and without the proposed fuel tank loading in place to demonstrate the effect of the proposed development on the slope stability. Eight scenarios were analyzed. General assumptions and results included: • GROUNDWATER: Groundwater was input at the depth it was encountered in the hand boring HA-2. • ASSUMED MINIMUM EXISTING STABILITY: Since the slope is currently stable, we know that the factor of safety is greater than 1. Given the apparent lack of slope instability, we adjusted the cohesion until a factor of safety was obtained that was greater than 1.1. • CRITICAL SURFACES: The analyses indicated all critical failure surfaces occurred as shallow surfaces along the over steeped section of the slope. This failure was shown to be shallow and mostly on the surface with depths of 5 to 10 feet. • DEEP SEATED STABILITY:. In order to analyze a deep-seated failure, we adjusted the horizontal initiation and termination bounds so the shallow surface failure was excluded. It was determined that a deep-seated failure is unlikely being that the resulting factor of safety is greater than 1.5. This was the case for both the static and dynamic analysis. • SEISMIC STABILITY: A seismic analysis of the over-steeped section of the slope indicated that the slope could move during large seismic events on the order of a foot. This movement would most likely result in the upper 15 foot section to depth of 5 to 10 feet sloughing off and down onto the lower sections of the slope, possible into the drainage ditch. The deep-seated failure surfaces have adequate seismic stability even for the design event. 771831SEVR003.doc Page 8 of 10 January 8,20D7 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder,Inc. KLEINFELDER EXPECT MORE' 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be made during construction to verify compliance with these recommendations. Testing and observations performed during construction should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: i . Observations and testing during subgrade preparation, earthwork, structural fill, and drainage installation. . Consultation as may be required during construction. We further recommend that project plans and specifications be reviewed by us to verify f compatibility with our conclusions and recommendations. i Also, Kleinfelder maintains fully accredited, WABO-certified laboratory and inspection j personnel, and are available for this project's testing and inspection needs. Information concerning the scope and cost for these services can be obtained from our office. i i i i i i i I 1 I 77183/SFA7R003.doc Page 9 of 10 January 8,2007 j copyright 2007 Kleinfelder,Inc. i KLEINFELDER EXPECT MORE* 7.0 LIMITATIONS Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that soil and groundwater conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil or groundwater conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those described herein, we should be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the I proposed loads or structural locations, changes from that described in this report, our i recommendations should also be reviewed. We have prepared this report in substantial accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice, as it exists in the site area at the time of our study. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be conducted by Kleinfelder during the construction phase in order to evaluate compliance with our recommendations. Other standards or documents referenced in any given standard cited in this report, or otherwise relied upon by the author of this report, are only mentioned in the given standard; they are not incorporated into it or "included by referenced", as that latter term is used relative to contracts or other matters of law. i This report may be used only by Pinnacle RE and their design consultants and only for the purposes stated within a reasonable time from its. issuance, but in no event later than 12 months from the date of the report. Kleinfelder has conducted subsurface exploration and provided recommendations for this project. We recommend that j Kleinfelder be given the opportunity to provide final design for this project, if required. In the event Kleinfelder is not, at a minimum, retained to review the final project plans and specifications to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly interpreted, we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. i Further guidelines and information regarding the use of this geotechnical report can be found in the ASFE publication entitled Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report, which is included in Appendix D of this report. 77183/SEA7ROD3.doc Page 10 of 10 January 8,2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder,Inc. I i I s r 171 ; . y, 4. tIj #� s a i t �44 O A F D O g M ti r W J LL Q 0 100 ..2 U Scale in Feet Reference: Google Maps, 2007. E DRAWN BY: J.Stewart K L E I N F E L D E R site vicinity W rn REVISED BY: a U. 2405 140th Avenue NE,Suite A101 x Bellevue,WA 98005-1877 CHECKED BY: ww PH:(425)562-4200 FAX:(425)562-4201 Hood Canal Marina Figure x x www.klelnfelder.com 5101 East State Route 106 a UQ Union,Washington QQDRAWN:January 2007 APPROVED BY;.-- PROJECT NO. 77183 1 FILE NAME:Site Viclnit .dw ©by Klelnfelder Inc.,2007 EXIREME LOW 'YIOE 4,50 <"vy�4NP 4� 3 4ON 9"F04 RUMW TO AY'k I 0&PIAT or worrmvu".M.wr.4- At iM'AND VWWCVRM 9*wy By Sw7 , BLOCK A % W.MTY'SIA............. ... ......... CANAL T. LINE TABLE (VACAIM) ...... AJ�JTP-4kN it LOCK 1 411" 1 3 2 1 BLOCK 2 Q I�Tp-iWrOJVS.a17 C. 4� M FAWCAM C~'— Ole$11 aF-1 16 �t w 71 CAM 0~ IL7 1 .. ... ......... ................. FIR Vok S" 0 70) LO K 81 2 2*OW#WW As"VA ON MAKY 21K.70 PAM IM 79% P".'Ail 64"SVRWY BK. 4'E 20, HA-2 0 TP- ru EJO""'.20 0 TP- Building 300'Landslide Hazard Area Buffer Legend A TP-1-6� Test Pit Number and Approximate Location HA-1 Hand Auger Number and Approximate Location U. A—A, Cross Section Location 0 100 Scale in Feet Reference: Base Map provided by Holman &Associates, dated December 2006. KLE1 N F E L D E R Site Plan DRAWN BY: J.Stewart ILI U) REVISED BY: U. LU 2405 140th Avenue NE,Suite A101 IZ CHECKED BY: X Bellevue,WA 98005-1877 In n Figure uj w PH:(425)562-4200 FAX:(425)562-4201 Hood Canal Marina www.klelnfelder.com 5101 East State Route 106 L)L) << Union,Washington rr 2 DRAWN:January 20071 APPROVED BY--- PROJECT NO. 77183 1 FILE NAME:Site Plan.dwa @)by WeInfelder Inc.,2007 Existing House (Projected) TP-6 TP-5 HA-2 Property SR 106 Line Tank 150, 140' 12�t.B.Ik�he.d Note: Cross-Section created with field measurments and are approximate. K L E I N F E L D E R Idealized Cross Section DRAWN BY: J.Stewart REVISED BY: 2405 140th Avenue NE,Suite A101 CHECKED BY: Bellevue,WA 98005-1877 PH: (425)562-4200 FAX:(425)562-4201 Hood Canal Marina Figure www.kleinfelder.com 5101 East State Route 106 Union,Washington 3 by Kleinfelder Inc.,2007 DRAWN:January 2007 APPROVED BY, PROJECT NO. 77183 1 FILE NAME: Cross Section.dwg TP-5 Top Sand with Silt and Gravel an - - - - — HA-2 Sand with Silt and Gravel SR 106 Ditch Toe Note: Cross-Section created with field measurments and are approximate. DRAWN BY: J.Stewart K L E 1 N FELDER Idealized Cross Section Slope REVISED BY: 2405 140th Avenue NE,Suite A101 CHECKED BY: Bellevue,WA 98005-1877 PH:(425)562-4200 FAX:(425)562-4201 Hood Canal Marina Figure www.kleinfelder.com 5101 East State Route 106 Union,Washington 4 CCi by Kleinmder Inc.,2007 DRAWN:January 2007 APPROVED BYL._ __ PROJECT NO. 77183 TFILE NAME:Cross Section Slope.dwg • a R * r a Q9 Capa Qyo �R Tab A' • • Qa 0 Qapo _ • 4N", s MY rH N Qgau� ^w.....: a T y L0 .. o � a m t' U -j Qgt Legend 0 0 y a A' Approximate Cross SeciOn"40cation Not to Sca e Reference: DNR,Geolgic Map of the Shelton 1:100,000 Quad, Washington (2003) m E Geologic Map DRAWN BY: J.Stewart K L E I N L' E L D E R Hood Canal Marina REVISED BY: w&i w 2405 140th Avenue NE,Suite A101 Q CHECKED BY: X Bellevue,WA 98005-1877 00 Hood Canal Marina Figure w w PH:(425)562 4200 FAX:(425)562 4201 == www.klelnfeldercom 5101 East State Route 106 QU . Union,Washington aQ DRAWN:January 2007 APPROVED BY' PROJECT NO. 77183 1 FILE NAME: ©by Klelnfelder Inc.,2007 i K L E I N F E L D E R EXPECT MORE' APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION The owner provided a trackhoe and operator to excavate the test pits. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the test pit excavations, logged the subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. Soil samples collected during the field exploration were classified in accordance with ASTM D2487. All samples were sealed to limit moisture loss, labeled, and returned to our j laboratory for further examination and testing. After logging each test pit, the operator backfilled each with excavated soil tamped into place. Some settlement of the backfill should be expected over time. I The enclosed test pit logs indicate the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each test pit, based primarily on the field classifications and supported by the subsequent laboratory testing. The relative density and consistency of in situ soils were estimated by means of the excavation characteristics and by the sidewall I stability. The logs also indicate the approximate depths of any sidewall caving or groundwater seepage observed in the test pits, as well as all sample numbers and sampling locations. Hand equipment was also used during our field exploration to explore subsurface conditions in areas inaccessible by the trackhoe. Soil samples were collected from the hand borings when soil changes were encountered. The relative density and consistency of in situ soils were estimated by means of the excavation characteristics. Soil samples collected during the field exploration were classified in accordance with ASTM D2487. All samples were sealed to limit moisture loss, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. i The hand borings were monitored by our engineer who examined and classified the materials encountered, obtained representative soil samples, and recorded pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater occurrence. Upon completion of excavating, the hand borings were backfilled with native soil. Soil classifications were made in the field in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, presented on Appendix A-1. Sample classifications and other related information were recorded on the test pit and hand boring logs, which are KLEINFELDER EXPECT MORE° included in this appendix. The stratification lines, shown on the individual logs, represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be either more gradual or more severe. The conditions depicted are for the date and location indicated only, and it should not necessarily be expected that they are representative of conditions at other locations and times. f� I . l i i i i i i i i i SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS •�� WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL- CLEAN �� �' GW SAND MIXTURES,O%TO 15% GRAVEL GRAVELS ��a��°�• FINES AND O°Op 0° POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVELLY (LITTLE OR NO FINES) pO a Op GP GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES,O%TO SOILS Op O°Op O 15%FINES COARSE 1T H 0 0 O GRAVELS p SILTY GRAVELS.SILTY GRAVEL- GRAINED MORE THAN 50% FINES p °o a° GM SAND MIXTURES SOIL OF COARSE o° a° FRACTION (APPRECIABLE 4 SIEVE RETAINED ON NO. AMOUNT OF FINES) GC CLAYEY GRA VELS,CLAYEY GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES SAND CLEAN SANDS SW WELL GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SANDS,0%TO 15%FINES MORE THAN 50% AND OF MATERIAL IS SANDY (LITTLE OR NO FINES) POORLY-GRADED SANDS, LARGER THAN NO. GRAVELLY SAND,0%TO 15% 200 SIEVE SIZE SOILS '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' Sp FINES MORE THAN 50% SANDS WITH SM SILTY SANDS,SILTY SAND-GRAVEL OF COARSE FINES MIXTURES FRACTION PASSING ON NO. (APPRECIABLE 4 SIEVE AMOUNT OF FINES) SC CLAYEY SANDS,CLAYEY SAND- GRAVEL MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,ROCK FLOUR,SILTY OR ML CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHTPLASTICITY FINE SILTS LIQUID LIMIT INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLAICITY,GRAINED AND LESS THAN 50 CL CLAYS, ANDY CLAYS,GRAVE SOIL CLAYS CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC ------- SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR OF MATERIAL IS MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE SILTYSOILS SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH AND LIQUID LIMIT CH GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY CLAYS OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS :•:• PEAT,HUMUS,SWAMP SOILS WITH PT HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE'DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS Copyright 2006 Kleinfelder, Inc.,All rights reserved. Hood Canal Marina ppendix 5101 East state Rotate 106 Soil Classification Legend Union, Washington A— 1 KLEINFELDER Project 77183 January 2007 o SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface:5/8 inch minus crushed rock a z LIDco o OTHER TESTS* U P-S SAND with silt and gravel SP-S brown, gr ( M): moist, medium dense,minus 5/8 inch crushed angular rock SM `---------- ----------� Silty SAND with gravel(SM):jumbled brown,dark brown,black,moist,soft,some gravel,ash,shells,and trace roots OO (Fill) -Severe caving up to 1.5 feet U -Difficulty excavating test pit beyond 6.5 feet due to Q N caving O� �w UW C�ti 5 S-1 11.8 q SP SAND with gravel(SP):gray,moist to wet,loose,some V silt,minus 1 1/4 inch crushed angular rock i (Fill-Probable UST Base) TP-1-1 ti ti SM -Heaves seepage at 5.9 feet _ —— —J Silty SAND with gravel(SM):jumbled brown,dark p7 trace roots Test pit completed to a depth of 7 feet below ground O surface. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 5.9 feet below ground surface during excavation. Test pit pwas not excavated fiuther to caving soil and heavy ti seepage. Test pit was backfilled with excavated soil. O Lq NQ� ti �U D. Q) 0.p i �O y �w �O I Q DATE EXCAVATED:11/7/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: LOGGED BY: J.Washburn REVIEWED BY:Jason Washburn o EQUIPMENT:Excavator +SAMPLE TYPE: ®Bulk m Grab n Shelby Tube *TESTS:M=Moisture Content(%),D=Dry Density(pgq, Tv—Torvane, =Pocket Penetrometer, aln Size, G2%P sinz No.200 Sieve A r=Atterber Limits 9 RH KLEENFELDER Hood Canal Marina Appendix Washington GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS Union, _ a cn SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING A PROJECT N0.77183 TEST PIT LOG TP-1 0 w a SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface:5/8 inch minus crushed rock and sparse low cut O O * a z grass OTHER TESTS 0.0 p_S SAND with silt and gravel(SP SM):brown,moist, medium dense,minus 5/8 inch crushed angular rock sM .':`.';: . - ---0 ---------- Silty SAND with gravel(SM):jumbled brown,dark brown,black,moist,soft some gravel,ash,shells,and trace roots, O (Fill) U -Moderate caving up to 2 feet QN e -2 abandoned utility lines at 3 feet-appeared to be v� electrical Aq -4 pieces of 24 feet broken concrete ti 5 S-1 16.3 GSA Q) ryc -Heavy seepage at 5.7 feet O W T7-2-1,TP-2-2 ----------------------- ti SP SAND with gravel(SP):dark gray,wet,medium dense, some silt,up I inch diameter rounded rock h� 7'2 Test pit completed to a depth of 7.2 feet below ground `r�C surface. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 5.7 UO feet below ground surface during excavation. Test pit •t was not excavated further to caving soil and heavy seepage. Test pit was backfilled with excavated soil. U� O Lq �(5 H 0.0 �O W LO� �ti �O N DATE EXCAVATED:I IM2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: LOGGED BY: J.Washburn h REVIEWED BY:Jason Washburn EQUIPMENT: Excavator +SAMPLE TYPE: ®Bulk ®Grab n Shelby Tube *TESTS:M=Moisture Content(°/),D=Dry Density(pco, Tv=Torvane, Pp=Pocket Penetrometer,G=Grain Size, G2—%PasstneNo.200 Sieve AAaerber Limits NHood Canal Marina Appendix M RH 12 KLEINFELDER Union, Washington GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS A _ i p SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NO.77183 TEST PIT LOG TP-2 w a SOIL DESCRIPTION a x o a aW - a Surface:Low cut grass a R _ o OTHER TESTS* 0.0 P-SIV SAND with silt and gravel(SP-SM):brown,moist, medium dense (Fill) SM Silty SAND with gravel(SM):jumbled brown,dark brown,black,moist,soft,some gravel,ash,shells,and ti '. trace roots, y (Fill). -moderate caving up to 2 feet Q Oti q U`W� C5 0. 5 N ML SILT with sand(MI):brown,moist,soft to fum,some W Q gravel O ti (Fill) TP-2-3 x -Heavy seepage at 5.7 feet SP SAND with gravel(SP):dark gray,wet,medium dense, W some silt,up 1 inch diameter rounded rock (Native-Same Soil as Observed on Beach) O7.5 Test pit completed to a depth of 7.5 feet below ground O surface. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 5.7 feet below ground surface during excavation. Test pit pwas not excavated further to caving soil and heavy ti seepage. Test pit was backfrlled with excavated soil. O� 14 tiV Er� oz ' O N �w ti0 i DATE EXCAVATED:1012006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: LOGGED BY: J.Washburn 0 0. REVIEWED BY:Jason Washburn EQUIPMENT: Excavator +SAMPLE TYPE: ®Bulk m Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS:M=Moisture Content(%),D=Dry Density(pci, 7L=Ton>ane, Pp Pocket Penetrometer,G=Grain Size, G2=Yo Passinz No.200Sieve A=Atterbere Limits Hood Canal Marina Appendix KLEINFELDER Union, Washington r GEOTECBMCAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS A_ I.- rb SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT N0.77183 TEST PIT LOG TP-3 I v \ a SOIL DESCRIPTION x Surface:Low out grass a a a 6 0 OTHER TESTS* 0.0 P-S : SAND with silt and gravel SP-S brown, gra ( Ivi]: moist, medium dense (Fill) O rW SM •': Silty SAND with gravel(SM):jumbled by-own, k wn,dark brown,black,moist,soft,some gravel,ash,shells,and TP-3-1 q trace roots, :• (Pill) z� o� AW w TP-3-2 V 4.5 Test pit completed to a depth of 4.5 feet below ground surface. No seepage was observed. Test pit was �y backfilled with excavated soil. OA NW O� 4 tip H NiO Ni N ,O U� yo� i �U O� r ti N W CO �O DATE EXCAVATED:11/7/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: LOGGED BY: J.Wasbbum g REVIEWED BY:Jason Washburn EQUIPMENT:Excavator 0 0. 2 +SAMPLE TYPE: ®Bulk I Grab H Shelby Tube TESTS:M=Moistwe Content(%),D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, Pp Pocket Penetrometer,G=Grain Size, G2=Yo Passinz No..200 Sieve A=Aflerberz Limits Hood Canal Marina A endix kUKLEOTELDER Union, Washington pp rz GEOTECFINICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS �` _ L m SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING A PROJECT NO.77183 TEST PIT LOG TP-4 • TESTING PROGRAM a LABORATORY FIELD f .. U.S.C.S. WELL/PIEZO o H a �; w a� o SOIL DESCRIPTION H CONSTRUCTION a z4 a rn w corn3 z z F4 F �F U do ; � 0°a y O A 3 O,O a c p" `" Surface:Brush and grass H 0 SM ; :: Silty SAND(Slvi):dark brown to brown, A a moist,loose,fine sand,some gravel and roots SAND with silt(SP-SM):brown to gray, V)4� moist,loose to medium dense,fine sand, A :. some silt,trace gravel and fine roots (Advance Outwash) Ow UW 15.9 : S-1 Ri d P, �H C7� 5 W-Sh SAND with silt and gravel(SW-Slvi):gray, o Ca moist,medium dense,fine to coarse sand, fine to medium gravel,some silt O 9 (Advance Outwash) ( x F� I 0 QQ � 0 0� ate- � 10 �H U� i Ow a� _ �z P� . SAND with silt(SP-SNI):gray,moist to wet,medium dense,fine to coarse sand, F�U trace gravel �' I (Advance Outwash) _____ _ ______ ____ oA ML T sandy SILT(III,):brown,wet,firm, � 4.2 1 Test pit completed to a depth of 14.2 feet aa,O below ground surface. Wet soil was encountered at a depth of 13 feet below >4 U ground surface during excavation. No 0 seepage was observed. Test pit was backfilled with excavated soil. �E �O i I > I > 0 DATE DRELLED:11-7-06 SURFACE ELEVATION(feet): DRILLING METHOD:Excavator a n LOGGED BY:J.Washburn TOTAL DEPTH(feet): 14.2 DRILLER:Ron Gold d REVIEWED BY:Jason Washburn DIAMETER OF BORING(in):N/A CASING SIZE:N/A Hood Canal Marina Appendix Union, Washington < Ki KLEINFELDER A- GEOTECIINICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS MONITORING WELL ca SOEL S AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 77183 TP-5 PAGE 1 of I i TESTING PROGRAM a LABORATORY FIELD * U.S.C.S. WELL/PIEZO _o �� .C_ .C� g a� o SOEL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION 4-4 W a rn ow a �7 O= co o0 0 ` Y �6 Surface:Ivy V Z O H aZ 0 °. SM :: Silty SAND(SM):daik brown to brown, a moist,loose,fine sand,some gravel and A S roots ro P k--------clop—so—ill-------/ SAND with silt(SP--S":brown to gray, COD z moist,loose to medium dense,fine sand, o A trace gravel and fine roots w CAdvanue Outwash SW E.x SAND with gravel(SW-SN):gray,moist, p ;s;up medium dense,fine to coarse sand,fine to U medium gravel,trace silt p, SW Advance Outwash)—-------------- ----� 5 . SAND(SW):gray to brown,moist to wet, U H • medium dense,fine to coarse sand,trace o A gravel and silt .4 (Advance Outwash) o E" Fp I �� I �U O a p10 ML sandy SILT(NM):brown,wet,fu ,la nyered 0 0.5 Test pit completed to a depth of 10.5 feet OU w below ground surface. Wet soil was ' encountered at a depth of 9 feet below i ground surface during excavation. No seepage was observed. Test pit was backfilled with excavated soil. 02 0 �az a �U O a �O 0 c iu � o IL DATE DRILLED:11-7-06 SURFACE ELEVATION(feet): DRILLING METHOD: Excavator ate. LOGGED BY:J.Washburn TOTAL DEPTH(feet): 10.5 DRILLER:Ron Gold �d m REVIEWED BY:Jason Washburn DIAMETER OF BORING(in):N/A CASING SIZE:N/A zHood Canal Marina Appendix k4 Union, Washington KLEINFELDER A- a GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS MONITORING WELL a Cn SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 77183 TP-6 PAGE 1 of 1 I • a SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface:Low cut grass p A z �, y o OTHER TESTS 0.0 SM Silty SAND with gravel(SM):brown.,moist,loose (Fin) O wU ML Sandy SILT with gravel(MI,):brown,moist to wet,loose S 1 16.3 GSA q (Fill) P.)� oI0 0 �w U� C_5 5 -Wet soil encountered at 4.9 feet OA N 6.1 Hand boring completed to a depth of 6.1 feet below ground surface. Wet soil was encountered at a depth of ti 4.9 feet below ground surface during excavation. No W seepage was observed. Hand boring was not excavated pfurther due to gravel obsruction. Hand boring was ti backfilled with excavated soil. N NO Po H� O� tiZ tiU HU O� �O N �W ti0 t DATE EXCAVATED:11/7/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: LOGGED BY: J.Washburn REVIEWED BY:Jason Washburn EQUIPMENT: Hand-auger +SAMPLE TYPE: ®Bulk m Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS:M=Moisture Content(%),D=Dry Denrity(pcn,Tv=Torwme, o Pp=Pocket Penetrometer,G=Grain Size, G2=%Passinz No.200 Sieve,A=Atterberz Limits KUKLEINFELDER Hood Canal Marina Appendix Union, Washington GEOTECEINICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS A_ d SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING CL PROJECT NO.77183 TEST PIT LOG HA-1 TESTING PROGRAAZ U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD VVELL/P1EZ0 ? o H j Wa o SOIL DESCRIPTION _ CONSTRUCTION aW O= d 0 A 3 OO F a a c Surface:Low cut grass U a a z O aU 0 SM Silty SAND(SM):dark brown to brown, ' a moist,loose,fine sand,some gravel and ca S roots P •.�Iro I.. 1 —Lo�soil)-------J �� 8.5 : N/A S-1 SAND with silt and gravel(SP-Slvl):brown d grading to gray,moist to wet,medium O dense,fine to medium sand,rounded to Ga subrounded gravel,some silt,tree roots q� z (Advance Outwash) 0 W -Grades to less gravel UP rip, C.7 H 5 oa a w -Water at 6.2 feet zF 15.8' N/A S_2 -Heave up to 7.1 feet z 7'8 Hand Boring completed to a depth of 7.8 F• feet below ground surface. Groundwater d v was encountered at a depth of 6.2 feet 0 below ground surface during excavation. a Hand boring was not excavated further due z r to heave at 7.1 feet. Hand boring was 0 F. backfilled with excavated soil. u OW a� F V d� O� d �4z c+,0 >'U 0 a r~ �0 �Q LD o a DATE DRILLED: 11-7-06 SURFACE ELEVATION(feet): DRILLING METHOD:Hand-auger aa, hl LOGGED BY:J.Washburn TOTAL DEPTH(feet): 7.8 DRILLER:J.Washburn REVIEWED BY:Jason Washburn DIAMETER OF BORING(in): CASING SIZE:N/A Hood Canal Marina Appendix Union, Washington k4KLEINFELDER A _ d GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS MONITORING WELL SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING 8 PAGE 1 of 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 77183 HA.-2 I KLEIiVFELDER EXPECT MORE' APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING B.1 GENERAL We conducted laboratory tests on several representative soil samples to better identify the soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the material's general physical properties and engineering characteristics. A brief description of the tests performed for this study is provided below. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided at the appropriate sample depths on the individual exploration logs. However, it is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent in situ soil conditions. All of our recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgment. Kleinfelder cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with your requirements, the soil samples for this project will be retained a period of 6 months following completion of this report, or until the foundation installation is complete, unless we are otherwise directed in writing. i B.2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION Our representative visually examined soil samples in the field at the time they were obtained. They were subsequently packaged and returned to our laboratory where they were reexamined and the original description checked and verified or modified. With the help of information obtained from the other classification tests, described below, the samples were described in general accordance with the Unified Classification System, ASTM Standard D2487. The resulting descriptions are provided at the appropriate i locations on the individual exploration logs, located in Appendix A, and are qualitative only. I B.3 MOISTURE CONTENT i Moisture content tests were performed on 7 samples obtained from the test pits and hand borings. The purpose of these tests is to approximately ascertain the in-place moisture content of the soil sample at the time it was collected. The moisture content is determined in general accordance with ASTM Standard D2216. The information obtained assists us by providing qualitative information regarding soil compatibility. The results of these tests are presented at the appropriate sample depths on the exploration logs, i i KLEINFELDER EXPECT MORE* B.4 GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION Grain-size distribution analyses were conducted in general accordance with ASTM Standard D422 on 2 representative soil samples to determine the grain-size distribution of the on-site soil. Additionally, moisture content tests as described above were conducted on these samples. .The information gained from this analysis allows us to provide a description and classification of the in-place materials. In turn, this I information helps us to understand how the in-place materials will react to conditions such as heavy seepage, traffic action, loading, potential liquefaction, and so forth. The results of these tests are resented in this Appendix. P PP I I I I r I i I i I I i i I I Particle Size Distribution Report Pq 100 0 80 70 LY- W 60--- Z Z 50 W 0� W 40 3 20 10 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.01 GRAIN SIZE-mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %FINES CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY 0.0 16.2 19.7 1 7.5 1 9.4 20.1 27.1 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Silty sand with gravel I in. 100.0 Moisture Content: 16.1% 3/4 in. 83.8 Laboratory No.:7559-E 1/2 in, 78.0 318 in. 73.4 Atterbern Limits #4 64.1 PL= LL= Pl= #8 57.8 #10 56.6 Coefficients #16 53.3 #30 49.4 D85= 19.6 D60= 3.09 D50= 0.672 #40 47.2 D30= 0.0928 D15= D10= #50 43.0 CLJ= cc= 9100 35.9 #200 27.1 Classification USCS= Sm . AASHTO= Remarks Tested By:B.Kochansld Entered By:B.Kochanski Checked By:J.Revard,CET (no specification provided) Sample No.: S-1 Source of Sample: TP-2 Date: 1/2/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 5' Client: KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Hood Canal Marina Project No: 77183 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report '00 90 so 70 kill or Ld 60 LL fl Z 50 LU 40 U 30 20 10 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE- mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL-- %SAND %FINES CRS. FINE j CRS. I MEDIUM I FINE SILT CLAY 0.0 2.7 24.0 1 28.5 1 20.2 1 13.0— 11.6 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel I in. 100.0 Moisture Content: 16.3% 3/4 in. 97.3 Laboratory No.:7559-B 1/2 in. 97.3 3/8 in. 79.5 Atierbera Limits #4 73.3 PL= LL= #8 56.0 Pl= #10 44.8 #16 36.0 Coefficients #30 28.0 D85= 10.6 D60= 2.52 D50= 2.17 #40 24.6 D30= 0.697 D15= 0.138 D10= #50 20.7 CLJ= CC= 4100 15.5 #200 11.6 Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By:B.Kochansid Entered By.B.Kocbansld Checked By.J. Revard,CET (no specification provided) Sample No.: S-1 Source of Sample: HA-1 Date: 1/2/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 2' Client: Project: Hood Canal Marina KLEINFELDER, INC. Pro ct N W� 77183 Figure KLEI NFELDER EXPECT MORE' F APPENDIX C XSTABL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS INPUT/OUTPUT DATA 1. Analysis of shallow slope with sand cohesion I 2. Analysis of deep-seated slope 3. Analysis of shallow slope to determine seismic yielding acceleration i 4. Analysis of deep-seated slope with seismic coefficient i i i i 1 i ' I I I I i I 1. Analysis of shallow slope with sand cohesion HDCANAL5 1-03-07 11:31 Hood Canal.Marina 240 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .107 200 Initiation Termination 11 iE i ^ I 160 j m Il N i x I a 120 LW-------_w 1 i i i ! i 8o i f (� f 40 i 135 175 215 255 295 335 375 415 455 X—AXIS (feet) i i 1 Slope Analysis without proposed tank load increased sand cohesion. Sand soil parameters: =38°,c= 105 Sandy silt soil parameters: =34°, c= 100 i l i i i I I i • I PROFILE FILE: HDCANA15 1-03-07 1.1:31 ft Hood Canal Marina 11 7 160.0 109.0 220.0 113.0 1 220.0 113.0 255.0 111.0 1 255.0 111.0 260.0 109.0 1 260.0 109.0 295.0 126.0 1 295.0 126.0 301.0 140.0 1 301.0 140.0 305.0 142.0 1 305.0 142.0 455.0 160.0 1 296.0 128.0 307.0 129.0 2 307.0 129.0 370.0 141.0 2 293.0 126.0 307.0 128.0 1 307.0 128.0 370.0 140.0 1 SOIL 3 125.0 130.0 105.0 38.00 .000 .0 0 120.0 125.0 . 100.0 3.4.00 .000 .0 0 125.0 130.0 .0 38.00 .000 .0 0 WATER 1 62.40 5 2B0.0 119.0 290.0 120.0 296.0 120.5 307.0 121.0 370.0 123.0 CIRCLE 25 25 200.0 300.0 305.0 400.0 .0 5.0 .0 .0 I XSTABL File: HDCANAL5 1-03-07 11:31 ****************************************** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 99 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * i * Ver. 5.203 96 1318 ****************************************** A Problem Description Hood Canal Marina ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- I 7 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 160.0 109.0 220.0 113.0 1 2 220.0 113.0 255.0 111.0 1 3 255.0 111.0 260.0 109.0 1 4 260.0 109.0 295.0 126.0 1 5 295.0 126.0 301.0 140.0 1 6 301.0 140.0 305.0 142-.0 1 7 305.0 142.0 455.0 160.0 1 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment i 1 296.0 128.0 307.0 129.0 2 2 307.0 129.0 370.0 141.0 2 3 293.0 126.0 307.0 128.0 1 4 307.0 128.0 370.0 140.0 1 i -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 3 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 125.0 130.0 105.0 38.00 .000 .0 0 2 120.0 125.0 100.0 34.00 .000 .0 0 3 125.0 130.0 .0 38.00 .000 .0 0 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) I� Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 co.ordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 280.00 119.00 2 290.00 120.00 3 296.00 120.50 4 307.00 121.00 5 370.00 123.00 -- WARNING ------------------------------------------------ Water surface number 1 has been defined but is not used by any soil unit. The analysis will IGNORE water surface # 1. Please make sure that this assumption is consistent with your subsurface model. ------------------------------------------------------------ A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 625 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. i 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 25 points equally spaced I along the ground surface between x = 200.0 ft and x = 300.0 ft i I i Each surface terminates between x = 305.O, ft and x = 400.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft 5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. --------------------- ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS --------------------- The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 4B) ************************************************************************ Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice. This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value. ************************************************************************ ------------------------------------------------------------ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ------------------------------------------------------------ Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 5 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 295.83 127.94 2 299.34 131.50 3 302.46 135.41 4 305.15 139.63 5 306.42 142.17 I i i I j i **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.107 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Hood Canal Marina FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft). (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.107 263.85 163.00 47.45 295.83 306.42 1.958E+05 2. 1.293 274.72 160.68 41.26 283.33 311.82 5.459E+05 3. 1.308 290.86 146.10 18.82 295.83 309.25 1.611E+05 4. 1.347 284.60 144.79 24.48 2B3.33 308.84 3.902E+05 5. 1.452 278.31 172.74 50.17 291.67 319. 18 9.052E+05 6. 1.475 254.20 193.42 79.89 275.00 316.46 1.471E+06 7. 1.479 253.81 199.75 85.29 279.17 317. 93 1.531E+06 t 8. 1.489 268.87 176.11• 60.14 275.00 319.52 1.738E+06 9. 1.492 289.11 154. 90 27.78 295.83* 314.23 3.469E+05 10. 1.524 288.32 157.30 33.09 291.67 318. 41 6.845E+05 * * * END OF FILE i I 1 i i i 1 , 2. Analysis of deep-seated slope with sand cohesion HDCANAL3 1-03-07 8:24 Hood Canal Marina 240 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.613 200 Initiation Termination i I a 160 X I I Q 120 -' ----w 1 � j I i so i I i i 40 I 135 175 215 255 295 335 375 415 455 X—AXIS (feet) Slope Analysis without proposed tank load and bounds set to exclude surface failure. Sand soil parameters: � =38°,c=0 Sandy silt soil parameters: =34°, c= 100 I `I I i PROFILE FILE: HDCANAL3 1-03-07 8:23 ft Hood Canal Marina 11 7 160.0 109.0 220.0 113.0 1 220.0 113.0 255.0 111.0 1 255.0 111.0 260.0 109.0 1 260.0 109.0 295.0 126.0 1 295.0 126.0 301.0 140.0 1 301.0 140.0 305.0 142.0 1 305.0 142.0 455.0 160.0 '1 296.0 128.0 307.0 129.0 2 307.0 129.0 370.0 141.0 2 293.0 126.0 307.0 128.0 1 307.0 128.0 370.0 140.0 1 SOIL 3 125.0 130.0 .0 38.00 .000 .0 0 120.0 125.0 100.0 34.00 .000 .0 0 125.0 130.0 .0 38.00 .000 .0 0 WATER 1 62.40 5 280.0 119.0 290.0 120.0 296.0 120.5 307.0 121.0 370.0 123.0 CIRCLE 25 25 200.0 260.0 330.0 400.0 j 0 5.0 .0 .0 i i 1 1 i r 1 r j I . I i 1 XSTABL File: HDCANAL3 1-03-07 8:24 * X S T A B L * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 99 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.203 96 A 1318 ****************************************** Problem Description Hood Canal Marina ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- i 7 SURFACE boundary segments i Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit j No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment ! 1 160.0 109.0 220.0 113.0 1 2 220.0 113.0 255.0 111.0 1 3 255.0 111.0 260.0 109. 0 1 4 260.0 109.0 295.0 126.0 1 i 5 295.0 126.0 301.0 140.0 1 6 301.0 140 A 305.0 142.0 1 7 305.0 142.0 455.0 160.0 1 I i i 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 296.0 128.0 307.0 129.0 2 2 307.0 129.0 370.0 141.0 2 3 293.0 126.0 307.0 128.0 1 4 307.0 128.0 370.0 140.0 1 i I i i i i i -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 3 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 125.0 130.0 .0 •3B.00 .000 .0 0 2 120.0 125.0 100.0 34.00 .000 .0 0 3 125.0 130.0 .0 38.00 .000 .0 0 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points, i PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 280.00 119.00 2 290.00 120.00 3 296.00 120.50 4 307.00 121.00 5 370.00 123.00 I ', -- WARNING ------------------------------------------------ Water surface number 1 has been defined but is not used by any soil unit. The analysis will IGNORE water surface # 1. Please make sure that this assumption is consistent with your subsurface model. ----------------------------------------------------------- A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 625 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 25 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 200.0 ft and x = 260.0 ft i I' i v Each surface terminates between x = 330.0 ft and x = 400.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft • 5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. --------------------- ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS i --------------------- The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the j * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD I The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 19 coordinate points Point x-surf y=surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 260.00 109.00 2 264.99 108.73 3 269.99 108.78 4 274.98 109.16 5 279.93 109,85 6 284.83 110.86 7 289.65 112.18 I 8 294.38 113.81 i 9 298.99 115.73 10 303.47 117.95 11 307.80 120.45 12 311.96 123.23 13 315.93 126.26 14 319.71 129.55 15 323.26 133.07 16 326.58 136.81 17 329.65 140.75 18 332.46 144 .88 19 332.72 145.33 I i **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1. 613 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces i Problem Description : Hood Canal Marina FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) i 1. 1.613 266.67 186. 61 77.90 260.00 332.72 5.885E+06 2. 1.717 230.52 293.38 186.72 260.00 346.40 1.298E+07 3. 1.738 115.45 562.59 476:06 260.00 347.93 2.424E+07 4. 1.773 265.73 192.05 84.22 240.00 336.05. 7. 607E+06 5. 1.783 273.65 167.45 60.94 250.00 330.25 5.831E+06 6. 1.815 255.16 202.36 94.58 225.00 330.36 6.754E+06 7. 1.856 257.82 213.19 105.09 227.50 338.62 9.198E+06 8. 2.005 259.79 211.30 104.54 225.00 341.75 1. 139E+07 9. 2.025 249.26 230.19 122.42 215.00 338.09 1.033E+07 10. 2.062 -1379.08 4628.1D 4807.17 260.00 367.68 3. 137E+08 * * * END OF FILE i i .I I I f 3.Analysis of shallow slope to determine seismic yielding acceleration - HDCANAL6 1-03-07 11:35 Hood Canal Marina 240 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.003 200 Initiation Termination t i 160 I m I � f x I i a 120 ; i ff I 80 ! �I f Ii 40 135 175 215 255 295 335 375 415 455 X—AXIS (feet) Slope Analysis without proposed tank load increased sand cohesion. Seismic—Dynamic Condition Yielding Acceleration: ay=0.072 Sand soil parameters: � =38°, c= 105 Sandy silt soil parameters: =34°, c= 100 • I • h PROFILE FILE: HDCANAL6 1-03-07 11:35 ft Hood Canal Marina 11 7 160.0 109.0 220.0 113.0 1 220.0 113.0 255.0 111.0 1 255.0 111.0 260.0 109.0 1 260.0 109.0 295.0 126.0 1 295.0 126.0 301.0 140.0 1 301.0 140.0 305.0 142.0 1 305.0 142.0 455.0 160.0 1 296.0 128.0 307.0 129.0 2 307.0 129.0 370.0 141.0 2 293.0 126.0 307.0 128.0 1 307.0 128.0 370.0 140.0 1 SOIL 3 125.0 130.0 105.0 38.00 .000 .0 0 120.0 125.0 100.0 34.00 .000 .0 0 125.0 130.0 .0 38.00 .000 .0 0 WATER 1 62.40 5 ` 280.0 119.0 290.0 120.0 296.0 120.5 307.0 121.0 370.0 123.0 EQUAKE .072 .000 i CIRCLE 25 25 200.0 300.0 305.0 400.0 .0 5.0 .0 .0 I i l f Ii h XSTABL File: HDCANAL6 1-03-07 11:35 * X S T A B L * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 99 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.203 96 A 1318 I Problem Description Hood Canal Marina ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 7 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment I 1 160.0 109.0 220.0 113.0 1 j 2 220.0 113.0 255.0 111.0 1 j 3 255.0 111.0 260.0 109.0 1 4 260.0 109.0 295.0 126.0 1 5 295.0 126.0 301.0 140.0 1 i 6 301.0 140.0 305.-0 142.0 1 7 305.0 142.0 455.0 160.0 1 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments i Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 296.0 128.0 307.0 129.0 2 2 307.0 129.0 370.0 141.0 2 3 293.0 126.0 307.0 128.0 1 j 4 307.0 128.0 370.0 140.0 1 i -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 3 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 125.0 130.0 105.0 38.00 .000 .0 0 2 120.0 125.0 100.0 34.00 .000 .0 0 3 125.0 130.0 .0 38.00 .000 .0 0 . I 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) I • I Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, I Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) i 1 280.00 119.00 2 290.00 120.00 3 296.00 120.50 4 307.00 121.00 5 370.00 123.00 -- WARNING ------------------------------------------------ Water surface number 1 has been defined but is not used by any soil unit. The analysis will IGNORE water surface # 1. Please make sure that this assumption is consistent with your subsurface model. !. ----------------------------------------------------------- i A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .072 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned i A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. I i I I I 625 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 25 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 200.0 ft and x = 300.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 305.0 ft and x = 400.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft 5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. --------------------- ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS --------------------- The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by I Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ (slope angle - 5.0) degrees -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) ************************************************************************ i Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice. I This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self j weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such I cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value. ------------------------------------------------------------ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ------------------------------------------------------------ i I Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD I i I The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 5 coordinate points i r i i s • Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 295.83 127.94 2 299.34 131.50 3 302.46 135.41 4 305.15 139.63 5 306.42 142.17 i I **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.003 **** l i The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Hood Canal Marina FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting j (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.003 263.85 163.00 47.45 295.83 306. 42 1.864E+05 j 2. 1.164 274.72 160.68 41.26 283.33 311.82 5.260E+05 3. 1.188 290.86 146.10 18.82 295.83 309.25 1.557E+05 4. 1.230 284.60 144.79 24.48 283.33 308.84 3.781E+05 5. 1.279 278.31 172.74 50.17 291.67 319.18 8.743E+05 I 6. 1.307 253.81 199.75 85.29 279.17 317. 93 1.478E+06 7. 1.307 254.20 193.42 79.89 275.00 316.46 1.420E+06 8. 1.315 268.87 176.11 60.14 275.00 319.52 1.680E+06 9. 1.328 289.11 154 .90 27.78 295.83 314.23 3.356E+05 10. 1.353 288.32 157.30 33.09 291.67 318.41 6. 638E+05 * * * END OF FILE i i I I I I 4 4. Analysis of deep-seated slope with seismic coefficient HDCANAL7 1-03-07 14:27 Hood Canal Marina 240 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS i 200 Initiation Termination i i } � I I m 160 j4- 1 X a 120 i -----W 1 r e0 + i i E f t 40 135 175 215 255 295 335 375 415 455 X=AXIS (feet) Slope Analysis without proposed tank load d P Y P P � bounds set to exclude surface failure. Seismic-Dynamic Condition Horizontal Earthquake coefficient=t/z amax=0.165 i Sand soil parameters: =38°,c=0 Sandy silt soil parameters: =34°, c= 100 I i i I I. l PROFILE ' FILE: HDCANAL7 1-03-07 14:27 ft Hood Canal Marina 11 7 160.0 109.0 220.0 113.0 1 220.0 113.0 255.0 111.0 1 255.0 111.0 260.0 109.0 1 260.0 109.0 295.0 126.0 1 . 295.0 126.0 301.0 140.0 1 301.0 140.0 305.0 142.0 1 305.0 142.0 455.0 160.0 1 296.0 128.0 307.0 129.0 2 307.0 129.0 370.0 141.0 2 293.0 126.0 307.0 128.0 1 307.0 128.0 370.0 140.0 1 SOIL 3 125.0 130.0 .0 38.00 .000 .0 0 120.0 125.0 100.0 34.00 .000 .0 0 125.0 130.0 .0 38.00 .000 .0 0 WATER ! 1 62.40 5 280.0 119.0 290.0 120.0 296.0 120.5 307.0 121.0 370.0 123.0 EQUAKE .165 .000 CIRCLE 25 25 200.0 260.0 330.0 400.0 .0 5.0 .0 .0 i I i i ! ' 1 I l 1 XSTABL File: HDCANAL7 1-03-07 14:27 *******+*+++*++*******+****+****+*+******* * X S T A B L I * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices + * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 99 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.203 96 A 1318 Problem Description : Hood Canal Marina ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 7 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment i i 1 160.0 109.0 220.0 113.0 1 2 220.0 113.0 255.0 111.0 1 3 255.0 111.0 260.0 109.0 1 4 260.0 109.0 295.0 126.0 1 5 295.0 126.0 301.0 140.0 1 6 301.0 140.0 305.0 142.0 1 7 305.0 142.0 455.0 160.0 1 4 SUBSURFACE.boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 296.0 128.0 307.0 129.0 2 2 307.0 129.0 370.0 141.0 2 3 293.0 126.0 307.0 128.0 1 4 307.0 128.0 370.0 140.0 1 l w -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 3 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 125.0 130.0 .0 38.00 .000 .0 0 j 2 120.0 125.0 100.0 34.00 .000 .0 0 3 125.0 130.0 .0 38.00 .000 .0 0 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) i Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x-water y-water ` No. (ft) (ft) I 1 280.00 119.00 2 290.00 120.00 3 296.00 120.50 4 307.00 121.00 5 370.00 123.00 -- WARNING ------------------------------------------------ Water surface number 1 has been defined but is not used by any soil unit. The analysis will IGNORE i water surface # 1. Please make sure that this -----assumption is consistent with your subsurface model. --------------------------------------------------- I I II A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .165 has been assigned I A vertical earthquake loading coefficient I of .000 has been assigned j I� A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. • it 625 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 25 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 200.0 ft and x = 260.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 330.0 ft and x = 400.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft 5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. --------------------- ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS --------------------- I i The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees i I Factors of safety have been calculated by the i * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 19 coordinate points I Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 260.00 109.00 2 264.99 108.73 ' 3 269.99 108.78 i 4 274.98 109.16 5 279.93 109.85 6 284.83 110.86 7 289.65 112.18 8 294.38 113.81 9 298.99 115.73 1.0 303.47 117.95 11 307.80 120.45 i i K L E I N F E L D E R EXPECT MORE' APPENDIX D IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT I i I I i i i i I i I I I • 1 IMPOP1801 I I. ..00 Ahout Geolechnicel QPOPI* 0 from ., Geotechnical Services Are Performed for • elevation,configuration,location, orientation,or weight of the Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects proposed structure,. Geolechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of • composition of the design team,or. their clients.A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- • project ownership. neer, may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer.Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique,each As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project geotechnical engineering report is unique,prepared solelyfor the client.No changes—even minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact. one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one that.occur bemuse their reports do not consider developments of which —not even you—should apply the report for any purpose or project they were not informed. except the one originally contemplated. Subsluirface Conditions Can Change Read thB FIIII Report A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical the time the study was performed.Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- engineering report did not read it all.Do not rely on an executive summary. ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by:the passage of Do not read selected elements only: time;by man-made.events,such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events,such as floods,earthquakes,or groundwater fluctua- A Geotechnical Engineering Repoli IS Based on tions.Alwayscontact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors to determine if it is still reliable.A minor amount of additional testing or Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique,project-specific fac- analysis-could prevent.major problems. tors when establishing the scope of a study.Typical factors include:the client's goals;objectives,and risk management preferences;the general Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional nature of the structure involved,its size,and configuration;the location of Opinions the structure on the site;and other planned or existing site Improvements, Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where such as access roads,parking lots,and underground utilities.Unless the subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken.Geotechnical engi- geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- neers review fteld.ond laboratory data and then apply their professional erwise,do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the • not prepared for you, site.Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly— not prepared for your project, from those indicated in your report.Retaining the geotechnical engineer • not prepared for the specific site explored,or who developed your report to provide construction observation is the • completed before important project changes were made. most effective method.of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final • the function of the proposed structure,as when it's changed from a Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your parking garage to an office building,or from a light industrial plant report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- to a refrigerated warehouse, neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion.Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual i i • J subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical have led to disappointments,claims,and disputes.To help reduce the risk engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or of such outcomes,geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform explanatory provisions in their reports.Sometimes'labeled"limitations' construction observation, many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers'responsi- bilities begin and end,to help others recognize their own responsibilities A Geotechnicai Engineeping Repoli IS SlllbjeCt to and risks.Read these provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical MlSlntel'pPetatl0n._ I... _ _. engineer should respond fully and frankly. Other design team members'misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Lower that risk by having your geo- Geoenvlponmental Concepns Ape Not Coveped technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after The equipment,techniques,and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- submitting the report.Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications Contractors can study.For that reason,a geotechnical engineering report does not usually also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report.Reduce that risk by, relate any geoenvironmental findings,conclusions,or recommendations; having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction e.g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or conferences,and by providing construction observation. regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures.If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs vironmental information,ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon agement guidance.Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data.To prevent errors or someone else. omissions,the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Obtain PpoleSsional AS-31 nee`Te Dleal vuithM®Id- Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable,but recognize Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,-bonstruction, that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. operation,and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.To be effective,all such strategies should be --Give Contpactops,a_Complete_Repopt and _ _.__devised for the express purpose of mold prevention,integrated into a .coin _ Galdance prehensive plan,and executed with diligent oversighl by a professional Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make mold prevention consultant.Because just a small amount of water or contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations,a num- they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent costly problems,give con- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report,but preface it with a While groundwater,water Infiltration,and similar issues may have been clearly written letter of transmittal.In that letter,advise contractors that the addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the are conveyed in-this report,the geotechnical engineer in charge of this report's accuracy is limited;encourage them to confer with the geotechnical project is not a mold prevention consultant;none of the services per- engineer who prepared the report(a modest fee may be required)and/or to formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold proven- _ - need or prefer.A prebid conference can also be valuable.Be sure contrac- tfon. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed tors have sufficient time to perform additional study.Only then miglifyou in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold Mohi be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, growing in or on the structure involved. while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities_ stemming from unanticipated conditions. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechnclal Engineer lop Additional Assistance Read Responsibility Ppovislons Closely Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical - Some clients,-design-professionals,and contractors do not recognize that-- engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of - -- -L chnical:engineeringis far-fess.exactthan other-engineering-disci _, genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.Confer .This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE The Beat People on Earth 8811 Colesville Rom/Suite G'106,Silver Spring,MD 20910 Telephone;30fM5-2733 FacsimHe:301/589-2017 _ e-mail.info®asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE,Inc.Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,In whole or In part,by any means whatsoever,is strictly prohibited,except with ASFE!e specirr written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document Is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE.,and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report.Any other r firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional(fraudulent)misrepresentation.-- - -.- IIGER06045.0M _._--