geotechnical engineering report - pavilion construction roosevelt/spec... · geotechnical...

Geotechnical Engineering Report 6800 Roosevelt Project

Seattle, Washington

March 12, 2015

Terracon Project No. 81155015

Prepared for:

Emerald Bay Equity

Seattle, Washington

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Mountlake Terrace, Washington

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 1

2.1 Project Description ............................................................................................... 1

2.2 Site Location and Description .............................................................................. 2

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 2

3.1 Previous Studies .................................................................................................. 2

3.2 Geology ............................................................................................................... 2

3.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions .................................................................................. 3

3.4 Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 3

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ...................................... 5

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations ............................................................................... 5

4.2 Earthwork ............................................................................................................ 5

4.2.1 Site Preparation ........................................................................................ 5

4.2.2 Structural Fill ............................................................................................ 6

4.2.3 Compaction Requirements ....................................................................... 7

4.2.4 Utility Trenches......................................................................................... 7

4.2.5 Earthwork Construction Consideration ..................................................... 8

4.2.6 Wet Weather / Subgrade Stabilization ...................................................... 8

4.3 Seismic Considerations........................................................................................ 8

4.4 Foundations ......................................................................................................... 9

4.4.1 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations........................................ 9

4.4.2 Foundation Construction Considerations ................................................ 11

4.5 Lateral Pressures on Permanent Basement Walls ............................................. 11

4.6 Slab-on-Grade ................................................................................................... 12

4.6.1 Slab-on-Grade Design Recommendations ............................................. 12

4.6.2 Slab-on-Grade Construction Considerations .......................................... 13

4.7 Subsurface Drainage Provisions ........................................................................ 13

4.7.1 Wall Drainage ......................................................................................... 13

4.7.2 Footing Drains ........................................................................................ 13

4.7.3 Slab Underdrains .................................................................................... 14

4.7.4 Sumps .................................................................................................... 14

4.8 Shoring .............................................................................................................. 14

4.8.1 Soil Nail Wall Design Recommendations ................................................ 14

4.8.2 Soil Nail Shoring Installation ................................................................... 16

4.8.3 Soldier Piles ........................................................................................... 16

4.8.4 Soldier Pile Shoring Installation .............................................................. 18

4.8.5 Monitoring of Temporary Shoring ........................................................... 18

4.9 Construction Dewatering .................................................................................... 19

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................ 19

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

APPENDIX A – SELECT FIELD EXPLORATION LOGS FROM PREVIOUS STUDY

Exhibit A-1 Site Location

Exhibit A-2 Exploration Plan

Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description

Exhibit A-4 to A-20 Boring Logs

APPENDIX B – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit B-1 General Notes

Exhibit B-2 Unified Soil Classification System

Geotechnical Engineering Report 6800 Roosevelt Project ■ Seattle, Washington March 12, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. 81155015

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A geotechnical study has been completed for the design of the proposed residential

development located at 6800 Roosevelt Way NE, Seattle, Washington. Seventeen (17) borings,

completed for a previous environmental study by Terracon, to depths of approximately 13 feet to

30 feet below the existing ground surface within the project site were used as the basis to

develop geotechnical design recommendations. Based on the information obtained from our

previous subsurface exploration, the site is suitable for development of the proposed project.

The geotechnical considerations identified include the following:

Soils and Groundwater: Soils at the site generally consisted of silty sand with variable

gravel content in a medium dense to very dense condition (i.e., fill over glacial till).

Groundwater was observed at the time of exploration in several explorations, we believe

that this water is perched water above the glacial till and within more permeable zones

within the glacial till soils.

Foundations: Shallow foundations will provide adequate support for the proposed

building provided that the foundation subgrades are properly prepared.

Seismic Design Considerations: Per the 2012 International Building Code (IBC), the

seismic site classification for this site is C.

Subsurface Drainage: A full face geocomposite drainage mat discharging to a

perimeter footing drain system combined with below slab underdrain is recommended to

provide subsurface drainage of the below grade floor levels.

Excavation Shoring: Conventional soldier piles with tieback anchors/internal bracing,

soil nailing, or composite soil nailing shoring systems appear feasible from a

geotechnical standpoint to support excavation required to construct the below grade

portions of the building.

Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in achieving the

design subgrade support. We therefore recommend that Terracon be retained to monitor this

portion of the work.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It

should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the

report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained

herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the

report limitations.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

6800 Roosevelt Way NE

Seattle, Washington Terracon Project No. 81155015

March 12, 2015

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This geotechnical engineering report has been completed for the design of a proposed mixed-

use residential development located at 6800 Roosevelt Way NE, Seattle. Seventeen (17)

borings were completed to depths ranging from approximately 13 feet to 30 feet below the

existing ground surface within the project site for a previous environmental study by Terracon.

Logs of these borings along with an Exploration Plan are included in Appendix A of this report.

The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering

recommendations relative to:

soil conditions foundation design and construction

groundwater conditions site preparation and earthwork

permanent drainage provisions seismic considerations

lateral earth pressures shoring considerations

The project description, site conditions and our geotechnical conclusions and design

recommendations are presented in the text of this report. Supporting data including field

exploration procedures and detailed exploration logs are presented as appendices. No

geotechnical laboratory testing was conducted as part of this study as the soil samples from the

previous environmental study were not available.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

Item Description

Proposed structure Five story structure with one to two levels of below grade parking.

Ground Floor Elevation

Based on architectural drawings provided by the client, the

proposed finished floor elevation ranges from 250 feet along the

north edge of the building to 244 feet along the south edge of the

building

Below grade areas One to two levels of parking garage



Item Description

Excavation Shoring Heights

Assuming 2 feet of excavation below the finish floor slab elevation

for footings, excavation shoring heights range from about 29 feet in

the southeast corner to about 16 feet in the northwest corner.

2.2 Site Location and Description

Item Description

Location Vicinity of 6800 Roosevelt Way NE, Seattle Washington

Existing improvements

Several single story masonry buildings in the north half of the site,

and a single story masonry building and adjoined paved pay

parking lot in the south side.

Current ground cover Asphalt and concrete paving and landscaping

Existing topography

Moderately sloping site (approximately 5% grade) from the high

point in the northeast corner (elevation 254) to the low point in the

southeast corner (elevation 244).

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Previous Studies

Terracon completed a Phase II Environmental Assessment of this site in 2014. As part of this

assessment, seventeen (17) borings were advanced to depths ranging from 13 feet to 30 feet

below the existing ground surface within the site at the time of exploration. Sufficient data was

collected from these explorations to form our basis for geotechnical conclusions and design

recommendations. A description of our field exploration procedures and logs of the exploratory

borings from the previous study are presented in Appendix A.

3.2 Geology

The Seattle area is generally underlain by a glacial sequence of soil consisting of recessional

outwash, glacial till, advance outwash, and lacustrine deposits associated with the Vashon

Stade glaciation. Also present are older glacial and interglacial deposits. The following

geologic map was reviewed as part of our study:

“Geologic Map of Northeastern Seattle (Part of the Seattle North 7.5’x15’ Quadrangle),

King County”, by Kathy G. Troost, and others, USGS, published 2009.



Based on the geologic map, the site is underlain by Qvt which is identified as deposits of Vashon

age till. These deposits consist of a dense to very dense mixture of gravel, sand, silt and clay,

with some cobble and trace boulders. The subsurface conditions encountered in the exploration

program conducted for our previous environmental study encountered soils consistent with the

geologic map.

The geologic map also shows the contact between till and deposits identified as Vashon age

advance outwash is approximately at 68th Street on the south side of the site. Although our

explorations did not encounter soils consistent with this unit, excavation on the south side of the

site may encounter the advance outwash soils.

3.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions

The 17 borings used for this evaluation extended to depths ranging from approximately 13 feet

to 30 feet below the existing ground surface within the project site. Soil descriptions presented in

this report are based on the subsurface conditions encountered at specific exploration locations

across the site. Variations in subsurface conditions may exist between the exploration

locations. Refer to the boring logs in Appendix A for a detailed description of the subsurface

conditions encountered at the locations of the explorations completed for this project.

Stratification boundaries on the logs represent the approximate locations of changes in soil

types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Based on our borings, a

generalized description of the site soil conditions is presented below.

Stratum

Approximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum

(feet)

Material Description Consistency/

Density

1 0.2 Asphalt/Topsoil N/A

2 0.2 to 12

Sand with variable silt and gravel (Probable

fill over weathered Glacial Till) Loose to dense

3 All borings terminated in

this unit. Silty sand with gravel (Glacial Till) Very dense

Fill/weathered glacial till was encountered to 8 feet in explorations MW-2N, B-1N, B-6S, and

MW-3S, and to 12 feet in explorations MW-1N and B-7S. No fill or weathered till was observed

overlying the glacial till in the other eight borings. We suspect that some of the upper soils in

the borings probably represents fill. However, because the gradation and appearance of the fill

and weathered glacial till are similar, it is difficult to distinguish between these soils in the

borings.

3.4 Groundwater



Groundwater was observed in eight of the borings at the time of exploration. Locations where

groundwater was encountered are distributed across the site north to south and interspersed

among boring locations where water was not encountered during exploration. Based on the soil

observed, the mapped geology, and these observations, we believe that groundwater

encountered was perched above the relatively impermeable glacial till and within localized

sandy zones within the glacial till.

Boring


Groundwater at the Time of

Exploration (feet)

MW-2N 16

B-4N/MW-3N 17

B-8N/MW-4N 15

MW-1N 14

B-1N 13

B-5S 15

MW-1S 15

MW-2S 15

Seven of the 17 explorations had stand pipe piezometers installed to serve as monitoring wells.

A Terracon representative sounded these wells on March 5, 2015. Observed ground water

levels are presented below. Compared to groundwater levels at the time of exploration,

groundwater tables appear to be depressed.

Monitoring

Well


Groundwater on March 5,

2015 (feet)

MW-1S DRY

MW-2S DRY

MW-3S DRY

MW-3N 23

MW-2N 23

MW-4N 22

MW-1N 21

Sound Transit is constructing their Roosevelt Station just one block (approximately 350 feet) to

the south. Njoloma et al. (2012) presented a summary of the North Link Project which indicated

that the regional aquifer is 30 to 65 feet below ground surface in the construction limits of the



station, and that dewatering to depress groundwater below base of excavation at elevation 140

feet (100 feet below ground surface at 67th Street) will be required. It is probable that temporary

dewatering of the Roosevelt Station site is presently influencing the groundwater levels at the

6800 Roosevelt site.

Groundwater conditions are also anticipated to fluctuate, depending on time of year,

precipitation, and site use.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

Based on our subsurface exploration program from our previous study and associated research,

we conclude that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint,

contingent on proper design and construction practices. Primary geotechnical considerations

are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Foundation support with shallow spread footings is feasible on the glacial till or properly

placed structural fill over a suitably prepared subgrade consisting of native undisturbed soils.

The soils are suitable for shoring consisting of soil nailing or conventional solder piles with

tieback anchors or internal bracing.

The site soils are silty and prone to disturbance in wet site conditions.

Specific conclusions and recommendations regarding these geotechnical considerations, as

well as other geotechnical aspects of design and construction of foundation systems and other

earthwork related phases of the project are outlined in the following sections. The

recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field testing (which are

presented in Appendix A), engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed

project. ASTM and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specification

codes cited herein respectively refer to the current manual published by the American Society

for Testing & Materials and the current edition of the Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge,

and Municipal Construction, (M41-12).

4.2 Earthwork

4.2.1 Site Preparation

Preparation for site grading and construction should begin with procedures intended to control

surface water runoff and off-site erosion.



Existing improvements within the project site (e.g., pavements, concrete flat work, foundations,

utilities, etc.) should be removed or relocated, as necessary, in accordance with all local, state,

and federal regulations. We have assumed that all existing site fill will be removed in areas to

receive structural fill.

4.2.2 Structural Fill

All fill material placed beneath and adjacent to the building should be placed in accordance with

the recommendations herein for structural fill. Structural fill is not allowed under foundation

elements unless they are designed for the appropriate bearing pressure. Prior to placement,

surfaces to receive structural fill should be in a firm and non-yielding condition and the existing

fill layer at the site should have been removed. All structural fill should be free of organic

material, debris, and other deleterious material. Individual particle size should be less than 4

inches in maximum dimension.

The suitability of soils for use as structural fill is dependent on the gradation and moisture

content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (that soil fraction passing the U.S.

No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture

content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult, or impossible, to achieve. Generally,

soils containing more than about 5 percent fines by weight (based on that soil fraction passing

the U.S. No. 4 sieve) cannot be compacted to a firm, non-yielding condition when the moisture

content is more than a few percent from optimum. The optimum moisture content yields the

greatest soil density under a given compactive effort.

In general, the site soils consist of silty sand with gravel. These soils are considered generally

acceptable for re-use as structural fill from a compositional perspective; however, these soils

are moisture sensitive and should only be placed during dry periods of weather. After

excavation, we recommend that soil stockpiles be covered with plastic sheeting to maintain their

native moisture content. Should it be desired to reuse onsite soil for structural fill, we

recommend that moisture-density relationship be established through laboratory (Proctor)

testing prior to placement of fill.

Import soils for use as structural fill within and adjacent to the proposed building should consist

of “common” or “select” granular material, depending on the weather conditions at the time of

placement and the anticipated weather conditions until the fill is protected. These materials are

defined below:

Select Fill - “Select” granular fill is recommended for use in wet weather conditions. Select

fill should meet the general requirements of Section 9-03.14(1), Gravel Borrow, as

presented in the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard

Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. The percent passing the US

No. 200 mesh sieve should, however, be modified from the WSDOT specification to a



maximum of 5 percent by weight passing the US No. 200 mesh sieve. Select fill can

generally be placed and compacted in a wider variety of weather conditions than Common

import fill.

Common Fill - “Common” fill generally consists of lesser quality, more moisture-sensitive

soils that can be compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition if near the optimum

moisture content. “Common” engineered fill should meet the requirements of Section 9-

03.14(3), Common Borrow, as presented in the WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road,

Bridge, and Municipal Construction.

The use of other fill types should be reviewed and approved by the engineer. Structural fill

should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment and procedures that will

produce recommended moisture content and densities throughout the fill.

4.2.3 Compaction Requirements

If heavy compaction equipment is utilized (e.g., hoe-pack, or vibro-roller), structural fill should be

placed in lifts no greater than 12 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a firm and non-

yielding condition. Thinner lifts may be required if lighter, hand-operated equipment is used.

Each lift should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D 1557)

maximum dry density. This recommended level of compaction should be reduced to 90 to 92

percent of the maximum dry density for subgrade wall backfill and utility trenches below a depth

of 2 feet. Moisture contents within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content will likely be

required to achieve the recommended relative compaction.

4.2.4 Utility Trenches

Utility trenching should conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, such as

OSHA and WISHA, for open excavations.

All trenches should be wide enough to allow for compaction around the haunches of the pipe, or

material such as pea gravel (provided this is allowed by the pipe manufacturer) should be used

below the spring line of the pipes to eliminate the need for mechanical compaction in this portion

of the trenches. We recommend that utility trench excavations be completed using a smooth

excavation bucket (without teeth) to reduce the potential for subgrade disturbance. If water is

encountered in the excavations, it should be removed prior to fill placement.

Materials, placement and compaction of utility trench backfill should be in accordance with the

recommendations presented in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of this report. In our opinion, the initial

lift thickness should not exceed one foot unless recommended by the manufacturer to protect

utilities from damage by compacting equipment. Light, hand-operated compaction equipment in

conjunction with thinner fill lift thicknesses may be utilized on backfill placed above utilities if

damage resulting from heavier compaction equipment is of concern.



4.2.5 Earthwork Construction Consideration

It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with

conventional, heavy-duty, earthmoving equipment. The earthwork and shoring contractors

should anticipate very dense soil conditions and the possibility of encountering cobbles and

boulders.

If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, we recommend that the exposed subgrade

be allowed to thaw and be re-compacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill.

Alternatively, the frozen soil could be scraped off and wasted to expose unfrozen soil.

The contractor is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as

required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. Excavations should be

sloped or shored in the interest of safety, following local and federal regulations, including

current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards.

4.2.6 Wet Weather / Subgrade Stabilization

We recommend that the earthwork portion of this project be completed during extended periods

of dry weather if possible. If earthwork is completed during the wet season, it may be necessary

to take extra precautionary measures to protect subgrade soils. Wet season earthwork may

require additional mitigating measures beyond that which would be expected during the drier

months. Once subgrades are established, it may be necessary to protect the exposed

subgrade soils from construction traffic. Placing quarry spalls or clean pit-run sand and gravel

over these areas would further protect the soils from construction traffic. Exposed footing

subgrades may require placement of a lean concrete mud mat to protect the bearing surface

after excavation.

4.3 Seismic Considerations

We understand the site will be designed to conform to the 2012 International Building Code

(IBC) which is based on designing for an event with a 2 percent chance of exceedance in 50

years. The following discusses the soil site class and seismic hazard potential at the site:

DESCRIPTION VALUE

2012 International Building Code Site

Classification (IBC) 1, 2

C

Site Latitude 47.67828° N

Site Longitude 122.31689° W

Ss Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period for

Site Class B 1.275g

S1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period

for Site Class B 0.495g



DESCRIPTION VALUE

Fa Site Coefficient for a Short Period

1.000

Fv Site Coefficient for a 1-Second Period

1.305 1 In general accordance with the 2012 International Building Code, and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7 –

Chapter 20. Site Class is based on the average characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface

profile.

2 The 2012 International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE Publication 7 requires a site soil profile

determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope was

limited to explorations to a maximum depth of 30.5 feet. This seismic site class definition is based on

the assumption that glacially overridden soils or better materials extend below the bottom of our

exploration.

Liquefaction - The liquefaction potential at the site, in response to the design seismic

event, is considered to be negligible as the foundation soils are dense to very dense.

Fault Rupture - The closet mapped fault zone is the Seattle fault. The northern extent of

the fault zone generally trends east west along the I-90 Corridor. As the only mapped

fault zone is more than 6 miles from the project site, the possibility of fault rupture

occurring at this site is low.

Seismic Surcharge - For backfilled walls or walls cast directly against shoring, we

recommend a uniform seismic lateral surcharge pressure equal to 10H, where H is equal

to the wall height in feet, and pressure is in pounds per square foot (psf). Basement walls

between floors can be designed for 80% of the factored seismic load combination to

account for the concentration of load at the relatively stiff floor slabs.

4.4 Foundations

The proposed building can be supported by shallow, spread footings. We recommend the

building be founded on shallow footings bearing on the native glacially consolidated deposits,

medium dense soils, or structural fill. The allowable bearing pressure is given in kips per square

foot (ksf). Specific foundation recommendations are given in the following sections.

4.4.1 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations

Footings on Intact Glacially Consolidated Soils

DESCRIPTION Column Wall

Bearing material Dense to very dense, undisturbed, native soils.




Allowable bearing pressure1

< 4 feet in width

> 4 feet but < 6 feet in width

> 6 feet but < 8 feet in width

> 8 feet in width

6 ksf

8 ksf

10 ksf

12 ksf

6 ksf

6 ksf

8 ksf

8 ksf

Modulus of subgrade reaction 350 pounds per cubic inch.

Minimum width 24 inches 18 inches

Minimum depth of embedment 18 inches

Estimated total settlement <1 inch <1 inch

Estimated differential settlement < 1/2 inch < 1/2 inch over 50 feet

Allowable coefficient of sliding friction2

0.45

Allowable passive earth pressure2

350 pcf

1. Based upon a minimum factor of safety of 3.

2. Based upon a minimum factor of safety of 1.5.

Footings on Structural Fill


Bearing material Properly compacted structural fill

Allowable bearing pressure1 3 ksf 3 ksf

Modulus of subgrade reaction 200 pounds per cubic inch.

Minimum width 24 inches 18 inches

Minimum depth of embedment 18 inches

Estimated total settlement <1 inch <1 inch

Estimated differential settlement < 1/2 inch < 1/2 inch over 50 feet

Allowable coefficient of sliding friction2

0.3

Allowable passive earth pressure2

300 pcf

1. Based upon a minimum factor of safety of 3.

2. Based upon a minimum factor of safety of 1.5.

The net allowable bearing pressures presented in the tables above may be increased by one-

third to resist transient, dynamic loads such as wind or seismic forces.



4.4.2 Foundation Construction Considerations

The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil prior to placing

concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance.

Should the soils at bearing level become excessively dry, disturbed, saturated, or frozen, the

affected soil should be removed prior to placing concrete. This includes disturbance during

placement of reinforcing steel. We recommend that Terracon be retained to observe foundation

subgrades.

4.5 Lateral Pressures on Permanent Basement Walls

We recommend that permanent basement walls constructed flush against shoring be designed

to withstand uniform rectangular lateral pressure equal to 22 H, in psf, where H equals the wall

height in feet. Permanent walls should be provided with drainage as described subsequently in

this report.

Backfilled walls, not constructed flush against the shoring, can be designed for conventional soil

loading. The lateral soil pressures on the subgrade or foundation walls backfilled on one side

only will primarily depend on the degree of compaction and amount of lateral movement

permitted at the top of the wall during backfilling operations. If walls are free to yield at the top

an amount equal to approximately 0.001 times the height of the wall, then the soil pressure will

be less than if the movement is more limited by stiffness or by construction of the structural floor

network prior to backfilling. We recommend that equivalent fluid pressures of 35 pcf and 55 pcf

be used for yielding and non-yielding backfilled walls, respectively.

A surcharge load should be added to the lateral pressure, if traffic or other loading is anticipated

within a zone extending back from the wall a distance equal to the wall height. A vertical

surcharge equal to 250 psf is recommended for typical traffic loading, which corresponds to a

uniform horizontal pressure equal to 75 psf. A seismic surcharge, as discussed in Section 4.3

should also be considered in the design. For other loads adjacent to the basement wall, such

as adjacent building foundations, please, contact Terracon to estimate appropriate surcharge

pressures.

These equivalent fluid pressures are based on the assumption of a uniform backfill and no

buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind the wall. To prevent the buildup of lateral earth

pressures in excess of the above designed pressures, over compaction of fill behind the walls

should be avoided. This can be accomplished by placing the backfill within 24 inches of the wall

in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose depth and compacting with hand-operated or self-

propelled equipment.



Care should be taken where utilities penetrate through basement walls. Minor settlement of the

backfill can put significant soil loading on utilities, and some form of flexible connection may be

appropriate at backfilled wall penetrations.

Wall drainage should be provided per section 4.7 of this report.

4.6 Slab-on-Grade

Floor slabs for the building should be supported on a capillary break layer placed on competent

native soils or structural fill. Under slab drainage should be provided per section 4.7 of this

report.

4.6.1 Slab-on-Grade Design Recommendations

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Slab on grade support1 Minimum 4 inches of capillary break

2

Modulus of subgrade reaction 200 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for

point loading conditions.

1. Upon completion of excavation to subgrade, the subgrade soil moisture content and density

should be maintained until construction of the building floor slabs.

2. Clean crushed rock used for support of floor slabs should meet the general requirements shown in

the Table below. The crushed rock should meet WSDOT durability requirements per their

standard specifications.

Gradation Requirements for Capillary Break

Sieve Size or Diameter Percent Passing

1.5 inch 100 percent

No. 4 0 to 70 percent




Where appropriate, saw-cut control joints should be placed in the slab to help control the

location and extent of cracking. For additional recommendations refer to the ACI Design

Manual. Joints or any cracks that develop should be sealed with a water-proof, non-extruding

compressible compound specifically recommended by the manufacturer for use in heavy-duty

concrete pavement and wet environments.

The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade that will be

covered with wood, tile, carpet, or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the

slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor



retarder, the slab designer and slab contractor should refer to ACI 302 and ACI 360 for

procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder.

4.6.2 Slab-on-Grade Construction Considerations

After excavation to subgrade elevation, the base of the excavation is frequently disturbed or

altered due to utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, or rainfall. As a result, the

slab-on-grade subgrade may become unsuitable for floor slab support. At the time of capillary

break placement, the subgrade should be evaluated by proof rolling to verify a firm and non-

yielding surface. Proof rolling should be completed using heavy equipment under the

observation of Terracon. This observer will assess the subgrade conditions prior to capillary

break placement. Areas where loose, soft, or disturbed surface soils are observed should be

compacted or removed and replaced to the depth of the disturbance as recommended for

structural fill.

4.7 Subsurface Drainage Provisions

We recommend that the walls and parking garage slab are positively drained to collect and

convey ground water seepage that may be present. The drainage system should consist of a

combination of freely-draining structural fill, wall drainage, footing drains, under slab drains, and

a sump collection system if discharge by gravity is not possible.

4.7.1 Wall Drainage

Basement walls poured flush against the shoring should be provided with drainage by placing

full face geocomposite drain against the shoring wall. The geocomposite drain should be tied

into the footing drainage system. It is important to provide a good connection between the wall

drain and the footing drainage system. The detail of the wall/footing drain connection will

depend on the type of shoring, basement wall type, and perimeter footing. Drainage behind

walls cast in open excavations can consist of geocomposite drainage as discussed above or a

minimum of a 2-foot wide zone of clean sand and gravel fill with less than 5 percent passing the

No. 200 sieve. If a moisture-free wall is desired, a water proof barrier, such as plastic or

bentonite panels, should be placed over the geocomposite drain prior to pouring or shotcreting

the concrete wall.

4.7.2 Footing Drains

A perimeter footing drain should also be provided and consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter

heavy walled perforated PVC pipe or equivalent. We recommend that the footing drains have a

minimum slope of 0.5 percent, and that the pipe invert is at least 12-inches below the finish floor

slab. The pipe should be bedded in at least 4-inches and surrounded by at least 6-inches, of

drainage material consisting of ¾-inch washed drain rock. We recommend use of nonwoven

filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent) to wrap the entire pipe and rock assembly. Cleanouts are

recommended for the footing drain system.



4.7.3 Slab Underdrains

A drainage system should be provided below the floor slab. We recommend the floor slab be

underlain by cross drains consisting of 4-inch perforated pipe placed at about 30-foot centers.

We recommend that the slab under drains have a minimum slope of 0.5 percent, and that the

pipe invert is at least 12-inches below the finish floor slab. . The pipe should be bedded in at

least 4-inches and surrounded by at least 6-inches, of drainage material consisting of ¾-inch

washed drain rock. In addition, the entire slab should be underlain by a minimum 4-inch

continuous drainage blanket of clean, free draining, sand and gravel. As discussed in Section

4.6, the capillary break layer may also function as this drainage layer. We recommend use of

nonwoven filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent) to wrap the entire pipe and gravel assembly.

4.7.4 Sumps

If gravity flow is not possible, the below slab and wall drainage system should drain to a sump

for pumping. The steady state or long term ground water flow rate should be evaluated during

construction and the permanent drainage system sized for that flow. For estimating purposes

and minimum design criteria, a steady state flow rate of 5 gallons per minute (gpm) can be

used. The design flow number should be verified once the excavation is completed. This can

be accomplished by measuring the flow of the temporary dewatering system. If a sump system

is used, a backup pump with emergency power is recommended in case of mechanical

breakdown. We recommend that the sump and drain pipe clean outs be vented to the

atmosphere to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure below the floor slab in case of

mechanical or electrical failure of the sump pumps.

4.8 Shoring

Based on the soil conditions observed at the exploration locations and the proposed floor slab

elevation, we recommend that either soldier pile or soil nail shoring be considered to support the

excavation during construction. The shoring required to support the excavation is typically used

as back forms for the permanent basement walls.

4.8.1 Soil Nail Wall Design Recommendations

The basic concept of soil nailing is to reinforce and strengthen the existing ground by installing

closely spaced steel bars commonly referred to as “nails” into a slope or excavation as

construction proceeds from the top, downward. This produces a reinforced zone that is itself

stable and helps to support the un-reinforced ground behind it. The nails are passive in that

they are tensioned as they resist the deformation of the adjacent soil. The nail reinforcement

improves stability in two ways. First, soil nailing reduces the driving force along the potential

failure surfaces. Second, in frictional soils, nailing increases the normal force and hence the soil

shear resistance along potential failure surfaces. If required, vertical elements typically consist



of closely spaced steel beams or pipes placed in augered holes and backfilled with lean

concrete.

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during our site investigation, the site is

generally underlain by a layer of fill grading to weathered glacial till overlying very dense glacial

till. We recommend that a minimum fill layer thickness of 5 feet be used for the soil nail design.

The following parameters are recommended for design of soil nail walls:

Fill/ Weathered Glacial Till

Friction Angle: 33 degrees

Cohesion: 50 psf

Moist Unit Weight: 130 pcf

Ultimate Pullout Strength (minimum 6-inch diameter): 3 kip/ft

Allowable Pullout Strength (minimum 6-inch diameter): 1.5 kip/ft

Glacial Till

Friction Angle: 38 degrees

Cohesion: 200 psf

Moist Unit Weight: 135 pcf

Ultimate Pullout Strength (minimum 6-inch diameter soil nail): 6 kip/ft

Allowable Pullout Strength (minimum 6-inch diameter soil nail): 3 kip/ft

The actual adhesion value will depend on the materials and installation methods and should be

confirmed by testing. Larger diameter drill holes and/or secondary grouting may be required to

achieve the recommended pull out capacity. Installation methods should be the responsibility of

the contractor. The location and presence of existing features should be checked during the

design as these may affect the location and lengths of the soil nails.

Vertical elements may be used to provide cantilever support where utilities or adjacent

structures prevent installation of soil nails in the upper portion of the shoring wall. The vertical

elements should be designed using an equivalent fluid weight of 30 pcf to represent the active

earth pressure on the vertical elements. The allowable passive resistance can be represented

as an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pcf and can be assumed to act over three times the

concrete pile diameter or pile spacing, whichever is less.

We recommend that soil nail shoring be designed in general accordance with local standard of

practice and soil surcharge pressures from construction loads, traffic, and adjacent buildings be

included in the analysis and design.



4.8.2 Soil Nail Shoring Installation

Cased holes may be required to prevent caving and loss of ground within the fill and sandy

zones within the glacially overridden deposits. The soil nail grout should be pumped into the

soil nail holes by tremie methods in order to force grout up from the bottom of the hole and to

provide a continuously grouted soil nail.

A minimum of two sacrificial, 200 percent verification tests should be performed in each soil type

to be nailed in order to evaluate the ultimate soil friction capacity and the load deformation

performance of the soil nail. Verification testing should be accomplished as soon as each soil

type is encountered and prior to installation of production nails. The location of the verification

tests should be selected by the contractor and approved by the engineer of record. The drilling

method, shaft diameter, and depth of soil nail should be identical to the production soil nails.

Additionally, 5 percent of production soil nails should be proof tested to 150 percent of design

load to confirm the design capacity and appropriate construction methods.

4.8.3 Soldier Piles

Soldier piles for shoring are typically set in drilled holes and backfilled with lean or structural

concrete. Soldier pile installation may involve casing the holes and/or drilling with a mud slurry

to cut-off groundwater seepage. We have assumed that the required shoring wall heights are

up to 30 feet. Soldier piles can be constructed with or without tie-backs (cantilever systems).

For walls up to about 12 feet, cantilever soldier pile walls can be more cost effective than soldier

pile with tie-back walls. Once wall heights exceed about 12 feet, tie-backs can allow for a

reduced steel section that is much lighter than the cantilever design, therefore making the

system more economical.

Passive earth pressures acting on the embedded portion of the soldier piles resist horizontal

loads on the shoring system. The allowable passive resistance can be represented as an

equivalent fluid weight of 350 pcf and can be assumed to act over three times the concrete pile

diameter or pile spacing, whichever is less. Assume that the active earth pressures act over the

concreted pile diameter below the base of the excavation. We recommend that soldier piles be

embedded at least 10 feet below the bottom of the excavation.

For a cantilevered shoring system or shoring with one row of tiebacks or internal bracing, we

recommend the following:

Use an equivalent fluid unit weight of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf);

For the case of street loads adjacent to the shoring, add a uniform horizontal surcharge load

of 75 psf;

For the case of a temporary cut or steep slope above the shoring, add a uniform surcharge

that is the product of the appropriate equivalent fluid unit weight (e.g., 30 pcf) and one-half

the height of the cut slope; and



For other loads adjacent to the shoring (e.g., heavy construction loads, sloping ground and

building foundations), contact Terracon to estimate appropriate surcharge pressures.

For a shoring system with multiple rows of tiebacks or internal braces, we recommend the

following:

Use a trapezoidal pressure distribution with a maximum pressure equal to 22H psf, where H

is the height of the excavation in feet, with a truncated top beginning at 2/3 H1, where H1 is

the depth to the first tie-back, and truncated at the bottom at 2/3 Hn+1, where Hn+1 is the

distance between the toe of the excavation and the deepest tie-back.

For the case of street loads adjacent to the shoring, add a uniform horizontal surcharge load

of 75 psf;

For the case of a temporary cut or steep slope above the shoring, add a uniform surcharge

that is the product of the appropriate equivalent fluid unit weight (e.g., 30 pcf) and one-half

the height of the cut slope; and

For other loads adjacent to the shoring (e.g., heavy construction loads, sloping ground and

building foundations), contact Terracon to estimate appropriate surcharge pressures.

For tieback anchors, the anchor portion of the tieback should be located sufficiently far behind

the excavation shoring to stabilize the excavation face. The no “load” zone limits is the area

behind the soldier pile equal to a lateral distance from the base of the excavation equal to the

exposed wall height (H in feet) divided by four, or five feet, whichever is greater, and a line

sloping up and back at 60 degrees from horizontal.

The selection of the tieback materials and installation methods should be the responsibility of

the contractor. The actual adhesion values will depend on the materials and installation method

and should be confirmed by testing. For non-pressure grouted anchors founded in the very

dense glacial till, an allowable design concrete/soil adhesion value of 2,000 psf may be used for

preliminary design. For pressure grouted anchors, this value can typically be increased by two

times. We recommend all tieback anchors be proof tested to at least 130% of the design

capacity prior to locking off at the specified post tensioned design load. Prior to installation of

production anchors, two verification tests to 200% of the design pull out capacity are

recommended for each soil type in order to confirm the design capacity. The verification tests

should be installed and tested prior to installation of production tiebacks anchor in order to

confirm that the contractor can achieve the design concrete/soil adhesion value.

A minimum anchor spacing of four feet center to center is recommended for tieback anchors,

with typical horizontal spacing of 6 to 8 feet and typical vertical spacing of 8 to 12 feet. The

anchor holes should be drilled at an angle of 15 to 45 degrees down from horizontal. A

minimum anchor bond of 10 feet is recommended. The location and presence of existing



features such as utilities and foundation should be checked during the design as these may

affect the location and length of tieback anchors.

Vertical capacity of the soldier piles may be provided by a combination of end bearing and side

friction below the base of the excavation. The piles can be designed for an allowable end

bearing resistance of 20 ksf with an allowable side friction of 2 ksf for that portion of the pile

embedded into the dense to very dense glacially consolidated silty sand. A factor of safety of 3

and 2 apply to the allowable end bearing and side friction, respectively.

We recommend timber lagging, or some other form of protection, be installed between soldier

piles in all areas. Due to soil arching effects, lagging may be designed for 30 percent of the

lateral earth pressure used for shoring design. Prompt and careful installation of lagging would

reduce potential loss of ground. The lagging should be installed in lifts as the excavation

proceeds from the top down in order to prevent soil failure, sloughing, and loss of ground.

Proper installation of lagging is critical to provide safe working conditions. We recommend that

any voids between the lagging and soil be backfilled promptly. However, the backfill should not

allow potential hydrostatic pressure to build-up behind the wall. Drainage behind the wall must

be maintained. We recommend a maximum 6 foot vertical excavation between the soldier piles

prior to installing the lagging in the glacially consolidated soils. If caving soils are encountered,

and in the existing fill and weathered till, the excavation height should be limited to 4 feet or

less.

4.8.4 Soldier Pile Shoring Installation

The contractor should be required to prevent caving and loss of ground in all soldier pile drill

holes. The shoring contractor will need to use methods to minimize caving and sloughing of the

drill holes, such as the use of augercast methods or installation of casing. If more than one foot

of water is present in the bottom of the hole, placement of concrete using tremie methods will be

required.

When drilling tieback anchors, casing will may be required to prevent caving and loss of ground.

The anchor grout should be pumped into the anchor zone by tremie methods in order to remove

water from the hole and to provide a continuous grouted anchor.

4.8.5 Monitoring of Temporary Shoring

Any time an excavation is made below the level of existing buildings, utilities or other structures,

there is risk of damage even if a well-designed shoring system has been planned. We

recommend, therefore, that a systematic program of observations be conducted on adjacent

facilities and structures. The monitoring program should include measurements of the

horizontal and vertical movements of the adjacent structures and the shoring system itself. At

least two reference lines should be established adjacent to the excavation at horizontal

distances back from the excavation space of about 1/3H and H, where H is the final excavation

height. Monitoring of the shoring system should include measurements of horizontal



movements at the top of every third soldier pile or vertical element. For soil nail shoring, we

recommend monitoring points be establish along the top of the first lift of shotcrete at 25 foot

spacing. If local wet areas or caving soils are noted within the excavation, additional monitoring

points may be recommended by Terracon.

The measuring system used for shoring monitoring should have an accuracy of at least 0.01-

feet. All reference points on the existing structures should be installed and readings taken prior

to commencing the excavation. All reference points should be read prior to and during critical

stages of construction. The frequency of readings will depend on the results of previous

readings and the rate of construction. As a minimum, readings should be taken once a week

throughout construction until the basement wall is completed. All readings should be reviewed

by Terracon.

In order to establish the condition of existing facilities prior to construction, we recommend that

the client make a complete inspection and evaluation of pavements, structures, utilities, and

other facilities near the project site. This inspection should be directed towards detecting any

existing signs of damage, particularly those caused by settlement or lateral movement. The

observations should be documented by pictures, notes, survey drawings, or other means of

verification. The contractors should also establish for their own records of the existing

conditions prior to construction.

4.9 Construction Dewatering

Construction dewatering is the responsibility of the contractor, who should maintain the

excavation and foundation subgrades in a dry condition. The monitoring wells at the site

indicate that the excavation may encounter perched groundwater; however the groundwater

inflow is anticipated to be low (less than 10 gpm) due to the low permeability of the glacial till.

Based on the soils encountered in the borings, dewatering with ditches and sumps is

considered to be feasible. If saturated, water bearing soils such as clean sands and gravels are

encountered; active dewatering consisting of wells or wells points may be required.

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments

can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations

in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and

testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related

construction phases of the project.



The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained

from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in

this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the

site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such

variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we

should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations

can be provided.

The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any

environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or

prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the

potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Emerald Bay Equity for specific

application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally

accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are

intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the

responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the

project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained

in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either

verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A

SELECTED FIELD EXPLORATION LOGS FROM PREVIOUS

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY

SITE LOCATION

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: SEATTLE NORTH, WA (1/1/1983).

21905 64th Ave W Suite 100

Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043

81155015 Project Manager:

Drawn by: Checked by:

Approved by:

TLH RDL

RDL

6800 Roosevelt 6800 Roosevelt Way NE

Seattle, WA

AS SHOWN

A1 and A2.docx 3/11/2015

Project No.

Scale: File Name:

Date: A-1

Exhibit RDL

21905 64th Ave W Suite 100

Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

81155015

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

EXPLORATION PLAN

6800 Roosevelt 6800 Roosevelt Way NE

Seattle, WA

A1 and A2.docx 3/11/2015

TLH RDL

RDL

AS SHOWN Scale:

A-2

Exhibit Project Manager:

Drawn by: Checked by:

Approved by:

Project No.

File Name:

Date:

RDL


Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-3

Field Exploration Description

Field exploration for our Phase II Environmental Assessment dated May 21, 2014 included 17

borings completed in March and April of 2014. The approximate exploration locations are

shown on the Exploration Plan, Exhibit A-2. If elevations are required, we recommend that the

ground surface at the drilling locations be surveyed.

Boring Procedures

The borings were drilled by independent drilling companies working under subcontract to Terracon.

The borings were advanced with a hollow-stem auger using a truck-mounted drill rig. A

hydrogeologist from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the subsurface conditions

encountered, and obtained representative soil samples.

Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2.5-foot to 5-foot depth intervals by

means of the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM: D-1586) using an auto hammer. This testing and

sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split spoon

sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows

required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total number of

blows struck during the final 12 inches is reported as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or

“blow count” (N value). If a total of 50 blows is struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is

stopped and the blow count is reported as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The

resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and

the relative consistency of cohesive soils.

The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in

each boring, based primarily upon our field classifications. Where a soil contact was observed to

be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between

sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count,

sample type, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the boring. If groundwater

was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depths, and date of observation, are

depicted on the log.

0.2

7.5

12.5

17.5

19.0

-Photoionization detector (PID) values in parts per million (ppm)

2" AsphaltWELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SW-SM), brown to dark brown, medium dense, moist, noodor / no sheen

WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SW-SM), grayish-brown, dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

grades to saturated - driller noted water on split spoon exterior

SILTY SAND (SM), trace gravel, gray, very dense, saturated, strong hydrocarbon odor, slight sheen

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), gray, very dense, grades to moist, no odor / no sheen

Boring Terminated at 19 Feet

5-5-7N=12

10-19-30N=49

8-50/4"

25-29-34N=63

S-1PID<1.0

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID=350

S-4PID=2.7

LOCATION

DEPTH

The stratification lines represent the approximate transition between differing soil types and/or rock types;in-situ these transitions may be gradual or may occur at different depths than shown.

Hammer Type: Automatic SPT Hammer

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

022

BO

RIN

G L

OG

B-1

& M

W-1

&2.

GP

J T

EM

PLA

TE

UP

DA

TE

3-3

1-14

.GP

J 5

/21/

14

CLIENT:

6800 & 6814-6820 Roosevelt Way NE Seattle, WashingtonSITE:

PROJECT: Proposed RooseveltDevelopment

Page 1 of 1

Advancement Method:Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:Boring backfilled with bentonite chips upon completion

21905 64th Ave. W, Suite 100Mountlake Terrace, Washington

Notes:

Project No.: 81147022

Drill Rig: B-51 Mobile Drill

Boring Started: 3/12/2014

BORING LOG NO. B-1NEmerald Bay Equity, LLCSeattle, Washington

Driller: EDI

Boring Completed: 3/12/2014

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

While Drilling

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-4

0.2

2.5

7.58.08.2

12.5

17.5

22.5

28.0

-Photoionization detector (PID) values in parts per million (ppm)-Well ID# BHZ-430

2" AsphaltWELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SW-SM), dark brown, mediumdense, moist, no odor / no sheen

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), brown, medium dense, moist, no odor /no sheenrock fragment in split spoon bit

driller noted 'sandy' drilling at 5'

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP), trace silt, grayish-brown, mediumdense, moist, no odor / no sheenPOORLY GRADED SAND (SP), gray, 2" lens of course sandWELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SW-SM), grayish-brown, mediumdense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), trace gravel, gray, very dense, moist-to-saturated,slight hydrocarbon odor, no sheen

cuttings at approx. 17' saturated, hydrocarbon odor, PID=30ppmSILTY SAND (SM), gray, very dense, saturated, hydrocarbon odor, no sheen

with gravel and rock fragments (in sample spoon), slight hydrocarbon odor


4-7-22N=29

8-12-12N=24

15-30-40N=70

24-38-50/4"

50

50/3"

S-1PID<1.0

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID=10

S-4PID=170

S-5PID=8

S-6PID=7

concrete andflush monument

bentonite seal

sand

2" slotted pipe

sand

bentonite seal

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

022

BO

RIN

G L

OG

B-1

& M

W-1

&2.

GP

J T

EM

PLA

TE

UP

DA

TE

3-3

1-14

.GP

J 5

/21/

14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1


Abandonment Method:Boring completed as permanent monitoring well


Notes:



Well Started: 3/12/2014

WELL LOG NO. MW-1NEmerald Bay Equity, LLCSeattle, Washington

Driller: EDI

Well Completed: 3/12/2014


SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Well Completion:

INSTALLATION DETAILS

While Drilling


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-5

0.2

7.5

17.5

28.0

-Photoionization detector (PID) values in parts per million (ppm)-Well ID# BHZ-431

2" AsphaltWELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SW-SM), dark brown, loose, moist,burnt wood debris, slight hydrocarbon and/or organic odor, no sheen

WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SW-SM), grayish-brown, very dense,moist, rock fragments in sampler, slight hydrocarbon odor, no sheen (inadequate recoveryfor PID screen after filling lab media)

grades to saturated

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), gray, very dense, saturated, no odor / no sheen

grades to moist


2-3-5N=8

14-37-40N=77

50

50

50

50

S-1PID=5

S-2PID=NA

S-3PID<1.0

S-4PID<1.0

S-5PID<1.0

S-6PID<1.0


bentonite seal

sand

2" slotted pipe

sand

bentonite seal

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

022

BO

RIN

G L

OG

B-1

& M

W-1

&2.

GP

J T

EM

PLA

TE

UP

DA

TE

3-3

1-14

.GP

J 5

/21/

14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1




Notes:




WELL LOG NO. MW-2NEmerald Bay Equity, LLCSeattle, Washington

Driller: EDI



SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Well Completion:


While Drilling


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-6

0.3

5.0

10.0

12.5

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.030.5

-Photoionization detector (PID) values in parts-per-million (ppm)

1.5" ASPHALT CONCRETE, blackSANDY GRAVEL (SP), brown, dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SILTY SAND (SM), with gravel, gray, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SANDY GRAVEL (GP), brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SILTY SAND (SM), with gravel, brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SILTY GRAVEL (GM), gray, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

hydrocarbon odor in auger cuttings - PID=12.6

SILTY SAND (SM), with gravel, gray, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheenBoring Terminated at 30.5 Feet

18-22-28N=50

50/1"

29-50/6"

40-50/4"

22-50/4"

28-50/4"

50/6"

S-1PID<1.0

PID<1.0

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID<1.0

S-4PID<1.0

S-5PID<1.0

S-6PID<1.0

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

022

BO

R L

OG

S.G

PJ

TE

MP

LAT

E U

PD

AT

E 3

-31-

14.G

PJ

5/2

1/14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: EC 95 Track



Driller: Boretec1, Inc.



SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Not Encountered


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-7

0.3

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.025.4


1.5" AsphaltSANDY GRAVEL (GP), brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SILTY SANDY GRAVEL (GP-GM), brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SAND (SP), trace gravel, brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SAND (SP-SM), with silt, gray, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

hydrocarbon odor in auger cuttings at 20-25 feet - PID=245

SILTY SAND (SM), with gravel, gray, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheenBoring Terminated at 25.4 Feet

29-50/4"

29-50/3"

40-50/6"

27-50/5"

50/5"

S-1PID<1.0

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID<1.0

S-4PID<1.0

S-5PID<1.0

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

022

BO

R L

OG

S.G

PJ

TE

MP

LAT

E U

PD

AT

E 3

-31-

14.G

PJ

5/2

1/14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1




Notes:








SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Not Encountered


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-8

10.0

15.0

17.5

20.0

25.025.4

-Photoionization detector (PID) values in parts-per-million (ppm)-Well ID: BHX-354

SAND (SP), with gravel, brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

GRAVEL (GP), with sand, brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SAND (SP), with gravel, brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SAND, brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SILTY SAND (SP-SM), with gravel, gray, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

hydrocarbon odor in auger cuttings at 20-25 feet - PID=21

SAND (SP), trace silt and gravel, brown, moist, no odor / no sheenBoring Terminated at 25.4 Feet

17-34-40N=74

40-35-45N=80

45-50/4"

29-50/3"

50/5"

50/5"

S-1PID<1.0

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID<1.0

S-4PID<1.0

S-5PID<1.0

S-6PID<1.0


bentonite seal

sand

2" slotted pipe

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

022

BO

R L

OG

S.G

PJ

TE

MP

LAT

E U

PD

AT

E 3

-31-

14.G

PJ

5/2

1/14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1




Notes:




WELL LOG NO. B-4N/MW-3NEmerald Bay Equity, LLCSeattle, Washington




SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Well Completion:


While Drilling


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-9

0.3

10.0

15.0

20.0

23.2

-Photoionization detector (PID) values in parts-per-million (ppm)-Blow counts for S-6 not recorded

TOPSOILSAND (SP), with gravel, brown, dense, moist, organic odor / no sheen

SAND (SP), with gravel, gray, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SILTY SAND (SM), with gravel, brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

hydrocarbon odor in auger cuttings - PID=181

SILT (ML), with sand, brown, very dense, wet, no odor / no sheen

Boring Terminated at 23.167 Feet

32-18-24N=42

40-50/5"

48-50/4"

50/4"

20-29-50N=79

S-1PID<1.0

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID<1.0

S-4PID<1.0

S-5PID<1.0

S-6PID<1.0

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

022

BO

R L

OG

S.G

PJ

TE

MP

LAT

E U

PD

AT

E 3

-31-

14.G

PJ

5/2

1/14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1




Notes:








SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Not Encountered


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-10

15.0

20.0

25.025.4


SANDY GRAVEL (GP), brown, dense to very dense, moist no odor / no sheen

hydrocarbon odor in auger cuttings - PID=179

SILT (ML), with sand, gray, very dense, saturated, hydrocarbon odor

SAND (SP), with silt, gray, very dense, wet, hydrocarbon odor

SANDY SILTY GRAVEL (GP-GM), brown, very dense, moist, no odorBoring Terminated at 25.4 Feet

26-21-29N=50

29-50

50/5"

48-50/4"

49-50/5"

50/5"

S-1PID<1.0

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID=98

S-4PID=350

S-5PID=59

S-6PID<1.0

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

022

BO

R L

OG

S.G

PJ

TE

MP

LAT

E U

PD

AT

E 3

-31-

14.G

PJ

5/2

1/14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1




Notes:








SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Not Encountered


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-11

0.3

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

19.0


TOPSOILSANDY GRAVEL (GP), brown, very dense, moist, no odor

SAND (SP-SM), with silt, brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SILTY SAND (SM), gray, very dense, hydrocarbon odor / sheen

SAND (SP-SM), with silt and gravel, brown, very dense, moist, slight hydrocarbon odor / no sheen

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, dense, wet, no odor / no sheen


50/5"

21-42-48N=90

49-50/6"

50/6"

33-42-50N=92

S-1PID<1.0

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID=125

S-4PID=18

S-5PID<1.0

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

022

BO

R L

OG

S.G

PJ

TE

MP

LAT

E U

PD

AT

E 3

-31-

14.G

PJ

5/2

1/14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1




Notes:








SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Not Encountered


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-12

0.3

15.0

25.025.4

-Photoionization detector (PID) values in parts-per-million (ppm)-Well ID: BHX-355

1.5" ASPHALTSILTY SAND (SP-SM), with gravel, brown, dense to very dense, moist, no odor / nosheen

SAND (SP-SM), with silt, brown, very dense, saturated, no odor / no sheen

SANDY GRAVEL (GP-GM), with silt, brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheenBoring Terminated at 25.4 Feet

19-35-50/4"

17-19-13N=32

29-44-45N=89

50/5"

50/5"

S-1PID<1.0

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID<1.0

S-4PID<1.0

S-5PID<1.0


bentonite seal

sand

2" slotted pipe

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

022

BO

R L

OG

S.G

PJ

TE

MP

LAT

E U

PD

AT

E 3

-31-

14.G

PJ

5/2

1/14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1




Notes:




WELL LOG NO. B-8N/MW-4NEmerald Bay Equity, LLCSeattle, Washington




SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Well Completion:


While Drilling


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-13

0.3

10.0

15.0

20.020.4


1.0" ASPHALTSANDY GRAVEL (GP), brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SILTY GRAVEL (GP-GM), brown, very dense, moist, no odor / no sheen

SAND (SP), brown, very dense, moist-saturated, no odor / no sheen

SILTY GRAVEL (GP-GM), gray, very dense, moist-saturated, no odor / no sheenBoring Terminated at 20.4 Feet

42-44-48N=92

48-50/4"

24-50/4"

50/5"

S-1PID<1.0

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID<1.0

S-4PID<1.0

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

022

BO

R L

OG

S.G

PJ

TE

MP

LAT

E U

PD

AT

E 3

-31-

14.G

PJ

5/2

1/14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1




Notes:








SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Not Encountered


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-14

0.2

2.5

18.5


2" AsphaltSAND (SP-SM), with silt and gravel, dark brown, dense, moist, no sheen, no odor

SAND (SP-SM), with silt and gravel, brown to gray-brown, very dense, moist, no sheen, no odor


3-18-30N=48

12-22-30N=52

22-31-42N=73

N=50/5"

S-1PID<1.0

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID<1.0

S-4PID<1.0

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

021

BO

RIN

G L

OG

S B

1S-B

7S.G

PJ

TE

MP

LAT

E U

PD

AT

E 3

-31-

14.G

PJ

5/2

1/14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1


Abandonment Method:Borings backfilled with bentonite chips upon completion


Notes:




BORING LOG NO. B-5SEmerald Bay Equity, LLCSeattle, Washington

Driller: EDI



SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

While Drilling


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-15

0.2

2.5

7.5

12.5

13.5


2" AsphaltSAND (SP-SM), with silt and gravel, dark brown, dense, moist, no sheen, no odor

SAND (SP-SM), with silt and gravel, brown to gray-brown, dense, moist, no sheen, no odor

SILTY SAND (SP-SM), with gravel, brown, very dense, moist, no sheen, no odor

SAND (SP-SM), trace silt, brown, very dense, moist, no sheen, no odor


12-11-11N=22

17-28-31N=59

N=50/6"

S-1PID<1.0

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID<1.0

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

021

BO

RIN

G L

OG

S B

1S-B

7S.G

PJ

TE

MP

LAT

E U

PD

AT

E 3

-31-

14.G

PJ

5/2

1/14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1




Notes:





Driller: EDI



SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Not Encountered


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-16

0.2

12.0

18.0


2" AsphaltGRAVELLEY SAND (SP-SM), with silt, dark brown, loose to medium dense, moist, no sheen, no odor (FILL)

SILTY SAND (SP-SM), with gravel, gray, very dense, moist, no sheen, no odor


5-6-5N=11

4-2-3N=5

N=50/6"

N=50/6"

S-1PID<1.0

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID<1.0

S-4PID<1.0

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

021

BO

RIN

G L

OG

S B

1S-B

7S.G

PJ

TE

MP

LAT

E U

PD

AT

E 3

-31-

14.G

PJ

5/2

1/14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1




Notes:





Driller: EDI



SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Not Encountered


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-17

0.5

12.5

22.5

25.0

-Well ID: BHZ-432-Photoionization detector (PID) values in parts-per-million (ppm)

2" AsphaltPOORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), with silt, gray, dense, moist, no sheen,no odor

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM), with gravel, trace silt,brown to gray-brown, dense to very dense, moist-to-saturated, no sheen, no odor

SANDY SILT (ML), gray, very stiff, moist, no sheen, no odor


12-20-23N=43

8-12-24N=36

15-14-23N=37

N=50/5"

17-29-45N=74

S-1PID=2.8

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID<1.0

S-4PID<1.0

S-5PID<1.0

Concrete andflush monument

Bentonite seal

Sand

2" Slotted pipe

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

021

BO

RIN

G L

OG

S M

W1-

MW

3.G

PJ

TE

MP

LAT

E U

PD

AT

E 3

-31-

14.G

PJ

5/2

1/14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1




Notes:




WELL LOG NO. MW-1SEmerald Bay Equity, LLCSeattle, Washington

Driller: EDI



SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Well Completion:


While Drilling


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-19

0.5

12.5

17.5

25.0


2" AsphaltWELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SW-SM), trace silt and gravel, brown,very dense, moist, no sheen, no odor

SILTY SAND (SP-SM), grayish brown, dense, moist-to-saturated, no sheen, no odor

SAND (SP-SM), with silt and gravel, brown, very dense, saturated, no sheen, no odor


N=50/6"

21-38-28N=66

20-13-20N=33

N=50/6"

N=50/3"

S-1

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID<1.0

S-4PID<1.0

S-5PID<1.0


Bentonite seal

Sand

2" Slotted pipe

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

021

BO

RIN

G L

OG

S M

W1-

MW

3.G

PJ

TE

MP

LAT

E U

PD

AT

E 3

-31-

14.G

PJ

5/2

1/14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1




Notes:





Driller: EDI



SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Well Completion:


While Drilling


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-20

0.5

11.0

30.0


2" AsphaltWELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM), with silt, dark brown,medium dense to dense, moist, no sheen, no odor (FILL)

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM), with silt and gravel, gray,very dense, moist, no sheen, no odor


6-7-8N=15

17-26-30N=56

N=50/6"

N=50/3"

N=50/2"

N=50/2"

S-1PID<1.0

S-2PID<1.0

S-3PID<1.0

S-4PID<1.0

S-5PID<1.0

S-6PID<1.0


Bentonite seal

Sand

2" Slotted pipe

LOCATION

DEPTH



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G See Figure 2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T. E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L S

MA

RT

LO

G 8

1147

021

BO

RIN

G L

OG

S M

W1-

MW

3.G

PJ

TE

MP

LAT

E U

PD

AT

E 3

-31-

14.G

PJ

5/2

1/14

CLIENT:



Page 1 of 1




Notes:





Driller: EDI



SP

TN

-VA

LU

E

Sam

ple

ID

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

Well Completion:


Not Encountered


rdluark

Typewriter

Exhibit A-21

APPENDIX B

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit B-1

GENERAL NOTES

DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:

SS: Split Spoon – 1-3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger

ST: Thin-Walled Tube - 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger

RS: Ring Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger

DB: Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B RB: Rock Bit

BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB: Wash Boring or Mud Rotary

The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch

penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the “Standard Penetration” or “N-value”.

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:

WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling N/E: Not Encountered

WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling

DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal

AB: After Boring ACR: After Casing Removal

Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other

times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater.

In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations.

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils

have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand.

Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are

plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may

be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the

basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Unconfined

Compressive

Strength, Qu, psf

Standard Penetration or N-value (SS)

Blows/Ft. Consistency

Standard Penetration or N-value (SS)

Blows/Ft.

Ring Sampler (RS) Blows/Ft.

Relative Density

< 500 0-1 Very Soft 0 – 3 0-6 Very Loose

500 – 1,000 2-3 Soft 4 – 9 7-18 Loose

1,001 – 2,000 4-6 Medium Stiff 10 – 29 19-58 Medium Dense

2,001 – 4,000 7-12 Stiff 30 – 49 59-98 Dense

4,001 – 8,000 13-26 Very Stiff 50+ 99+ Very Dense

8,000+ 26+ Hard

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

Descriptive Term(s) of other

Constituents

Percent of

Dry Weight

Major Component

of Sample Particle Size

Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm)

With 15 – 30 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75 mm)

Modifier > 30 Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)

Sand

Silt or Clay

#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm)

Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm)

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Descriptive Term(s) of other

Constituents

Percent of

Dry Weight Term

Plasticity

Index

Trace < 5 Non-plastic 0

With 5 – 12 Low 1-10

Modifier > 12 Medium 11-30

High 30+

Exhibit B-2

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A

Soil Classification

Group Symbol

Group Name B

Coarse Grained Soils: More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels: More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels: Less than 5% fines

C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E

GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E

GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines: More than 12% fines

C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands: 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands: Less than 5% fines

D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E

SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E

SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines: More than 12% fines

D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils: 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays: Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line

J CL Lean clay

K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt

K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay

K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays: Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay

K,L,M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay

K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with

cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name. C

Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. D

Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc = 6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

F

If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. G

If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with

gravel,” whichever is predominant. L

If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name. M

If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name. N

PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O

PI 4 or plots below “A” line. P

PI plots on or above “A” line. Q

PI plots below “A” line.

geotechnical engineering report - pavilion construction roosevelt/spec... · geotechnical...

Documents