The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About601031008 Geotech AssessmentBy: Kr'azan; ,,,,0 598 2127 M~y-14-aa !0:37AM; · · & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 2/23 GEOTECHNtC^L ENGINEERING * ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION April 20, 1999 KA Project No. 062-99058 Mr. Dick Allen P. O. Box 10446 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 Geotechnicai Engineering Investigation Proposed Residential Structure Rhododendron Road Quilicene, Washington Dear Mr. Allen: We are submitting this letter as an addendum to our report dated April 9, 1999 for the referenced property. The primary intent of this addendum is to detennine if the installation of a drain field along the toe of a slope will impact the stability, of an existing slope and a cut/fill plateau. The cut/fill plateau has been in place for approximately 20 years with no evidence of erosion or slope failure. The proposed field drain for the residence will be within 10 ~. of~the tg~ o[ the ascending slope to the east and within I0 feet of the descending slope to thc west. The,~~ The geotechnical engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specificatioas, or professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties arc implied or expressed. If you have any questions, or if we ma),' be of farther assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (360) 598-2126. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. DEAN ALEXANDER Professional Engineer RPE No. 0030508 SHAWN E. WILLIAMS Project Geologist SEW:sew Offices Serving The Western United States 383 Equestrian Drive · Poulsbo, Washingt~ 98370 · (360) 598-2126 · Fax: (360) 598-2127 Allm Sent By' Krazan; 360 598 2127; May-14-9@ 10:38AM; Page 3/23 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE RHODODENDRON ROAD - QUILICENE, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. 062-99058 APRIL 9, 1999 Prepared for: RICHARD ALLEN P. O. BOX 10446 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON 981 ] 0 Prepared by: KRAZ~N & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION 383 NORTHWEST EQUESTRIAN DRIVE POULSBO, WASHINGTON 98370 (360) 598-2126 Sent By' Kpazan; 360 598 2127; May-14-99 10'38AM; Page 4/23 & ASSOCIAT. ES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING · ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION April 9, 1999 Mr. Richard Allen P. O. Box 10446 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 KA Project No. 062-99058 Residential Structure Rhododendron Road Quilicene, Washington Dear Mr. Allen: In accordance with your request, we have completed a Limited Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the referenced site. This geotec, hnical investigation was performed in accordance with our proposal dated February 24, 1999 and signed by yourself on March 12, 1999. The results of our invesdgation are presented in the attached report. If you have any questions or if we can be of Par&er assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn E. Williams Senior Environmental Geologist DA:kcp Ten Offiees 8erring The Western United Slates 383 Northwest Equeztrian Driv~ PouLsbo, Washington 98370 · (360) 598-2126 · Fax: (360} 598-2127 Sent By' Krazan; 360 598 2127; May-14-99 10:38AM; Page 5/23 & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING - ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION T_ABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................... , ............................................................................................................................. I PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .............................................................. i ........................................................................ 2 FIELD AND LABORATORY LNVESTIGATIONS...- .............................................................................................. 3 SOIL PRO~LE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 4 Admi~st~ative Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Groundwater Influence on Stmctures/Constmctiot~ .......................................................................................................... 4 Site Preparation ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Engineered Fill .................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Drainage and Landscaping ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Utility Trench Backfill ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Foundations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork .................................................................................................................................... 8 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls .................................................................................................................... 8 Pavement Design ................................................................................................................... ........................................... 8 Compacted Material Acceptance ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Testing and Inspection ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 VICINITY MAP ................................................................................................................................. .......... ,. 12 SITE PLAN .......................................................................................................................13 LOGS OF TEST PITS (1 and 2) ................................................... , .................................... Appendix A GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS ...................................................... Appendix B GENERAL PAVING SPECIFICATIONS .......................................................... Appendix C Ten OffJee.n ~el'YJng The Western United States 383 Northwest Equestrian Drive. Poulsbo. Washington 98370. (360) 598-2126 · Fax: (360) 598-2127 Sent By' Krazan; 300 598 2127; May-14-99 10:39AM; Page 6/23 & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING * ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION April 9, 1999 KA Project No. 062-99058 LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL HOME QUILICENE, WASHLNGTON - INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our. Limited Geomchnica! Engineering Investigation for the proposed residence to be located on Rhododendron Road in Quilicene, Washington. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented herein, together with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site preparation, Engineered Fill, utility trench backfill, drainage and landscaping, foundations, concrete floor slabs and exterior flatwork, retaining walls, and pavement. A site plan showing the approximate test pit locations is presented following the text of this report. A description of the field investigation, test pit logs, and the test pit log legend are presented in Appendix A. Appendix A contains a description of laboratory testing phase of this study; along with laboratory test results. Appendices B and C contain guides to earthwork and pavement specifications. When conflicts in the text of the report occur with the general specifications in the appendices, the recommendations in the text of the report have precedence. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This investigation was conducted to evaluate the soil and groundwater conditions at the site, to make geotechnicai engineering recommendations for use in design of specific construction elements, arid to provide criteria for site preparation and Engineered Fill construction. Our scope of services was outlined as follows: · A site reconnaissance by a member of our engineering staff to evaluate the surface conditions at the project site. A field investigation consisting of excavating 2 exploratory test pits'within the building footprint of the proposed residence. The test pits ranged in depth from 9 to 10 feet. A field investigation was performed to evaluate the subsurface soil conditions at the project site. · During thc field investigation an additional 4 exploratory test pits for the proposed septic system were observed. Ten Offices Serving The Watern United Stat~s 383 Northwest Equestrian Drive · Poulsbo, Washington 98370 ° (360) 598-2126 · Fax: (360) 598-2127 0~2v~0~ Sent By: Kpazan; 360 598 2127; May-14-99 IO:40AM; Page 7/23 KANo. 062-99058 Page No. 2 · Performing laboratory tests on representative soil samples obtained from the test pits to evaluate the physical and index properties of the subsurface soils. · Evaluation of the data obtained from the investigation and an engineering analysis to provide recommendations for use in the project design and preparation of construction specifications. · Preparation ofthis report summarizing the results, conclusions, reconunendations and findings of our investigation. PROPOSED CONSTRUCT!,O.. ,N. We understand that design of the proposed development is currently underway; structural load information and other final details pertaining to the structures are unavailable. On a preliminary basis, it is understood that the proposed development will consist ora single-family residence with a daylight basement. Due to the natural slope conditions of the site it is anticipated that at least two of the walls will be designed as retaining walls. Depending on the final building design and siting, moderate to substantial mounts of grading may' be required. A driveway and landscaping are also planned. Footing loads are anticipated to be light to , moderate .... , In the event these structural or grading details are inconsistent with the final design criteria, the Soils Engineer should be notified so that we may update this writing as applicable. SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION The 'proposed site for the residential structure encompasses approximately 5.0 acres. The site is denoted as Assessor's Parcel Number 601-031-008 which is part of the Dabob Cove Tracts which are located in the northwest quadrant of Section 3, Township 26 North, Range I West. The site for the proposed development is currently undeveloped and vacant. The site is generally in a natural condition except where there has been some slope filling associated with the grading of road access to the lot. It is our understanding that the grading took place approximately 15 years ago. At the time of the site investigation, the area of the fill slope plateau was relatively cleared of vegetation. The eastern portion of the site was covered with trees. The western portion of the site had been partially cleared of trees on the immediate slope face with tree cover on the remainder of the site. The subject property is bordered to the north and west by forested areas with scattered residential homes beyond and to the south and east by fore_. . The ...... sites slopes to the east with a 35 to 45 percent slope. ' · ' ..... ~"~'.~ ~ GEOLOGIC SETTING The subject site ties within the central l%get Lowland. The loWland is part of a regional north-south trending trough that extends from southwestern British Columbia to near Eugene, Oregon. North of Olympia Washington, this lowland is glacially carved, with a depositional and erosional history including at least four separate glacial advance/r~xeats. The Puget Lowland is bounded on the west by the Olympic Mountains and Krazan & Associate~, Inc. Ten Offices Serving The Western United States 062090.58 By: Krazan; 3~0 598 2!27; May-14-99 10"41AM; Page 8/23 KA No. 062-99058 Page No. 3 on the east by the Cascade Range. The lowland is tilled with glacial and nonglacial sediments consisting of interbedded gravel, sand, silt, till, and peat lenses. Q~!.~ maps indicate that the property is located in an area,.~t i~redominantl~~ ~/ifodera~y4o-w~ll;;~-rt.~-~~;?:~;~il Conversation Service mapping identifies the site soils The s~~rty us: ~:m an. :~_which ;~ been ~d~t,fi~ :~. h~a~mg:~. ~dslid,s ~i~~ 1975). FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS Subsurface soils conditions explored by excavating 2 test pits ranging in depth from 8 to 9 feet below existing site grade. The approximate test pit locations are shown on the site map. The soils encountered were. continuously examined and visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. A more detailed description of the field investigation is presented in Appendix A. In addition, four test pits were observed being excavated for the proposed septic system. Laboratory tests were. performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory testing pro,'am was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of natural moisture, and gradation of the materials encountered. Details of the laboratory' test program and the results of laboratory test are summarized in Appendix A. This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final test pit logs in Appendix A. SOIL PROlqI,E AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on our findings, the. subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in this geologic region of the site. In general, the upper soils within the site consisted of 6 to 12 inches of very loose silty sands with scattered gravel. These soils are disturbed, have low strength characteristics, and are highly' compressible when saturated. Below the very loose surface soils, approximately 1 to 2 feet of loose silty sand was encountered. These soils appear to be modemte!y strong and potentially compressible. Below 2 to 3 feet, the sand became mextium. Moisture contents ranged 12.1 to 22.5 percent. For additional information about the soils encountered, please refer to the logs of test pits in Appendix A. GROUNDWATER Test pit locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and immediately fOllowing the excavation operations. No free groundwater was encountered in the test pits at the time of the site visit. Water seepage was noted in test pit TP-2 at a depth of approximately 5 feet. I~azai~ & Associates, Inc. Ten Offices Serving, The Western Uaited States Sent By: Krazan; 360 598 2127; May-!4-99 !0:42AM; Page 9/23 KA No. 062-99058 Page No. 4 It should be recognized that water table elevations may fluctuate with time, being dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions as Well as other factors. Therefore, water level observations at the time of the field investigation may var;,,, from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report. CONCLUSIONS AND RECO~NDATIONS Based on the findings of our field and laboratory investigations, along with previous geoteclmical experience in the project area, the following is a summary of our evaluations, conclusions and recommendations. Administrative Summary, In brief, ~ site.~fl con~mons,.~th ~e exceptmn of the loose s~face softs, mo~e sio~, and Up to 3 feet of loose silty' sand was encountered within the proposed building footprint. The soils appear to be moderately compressible. Therefore, it is recommended that these soils be removed and/or recompacted. The fill material will be suitable for reuse as non-expansive Engineered Fill provided it is cleansed of excessive organics and debris. The site is located within sloping ground. It is recommended that proposed cut and fill slopes be constructed to 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. In lieu of these slopes, a retaining wall may be used. Cut and fill slopes for the building pads should not exceed 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. Cut and fill slopes may be revised as recommended by the Soils Engineer, upon his review of a more definitive site plan. Trees were encounter~ at the site. If not utilized for the proposed development, the trees should be removed and the r~suiting excavation should be baekfilled with Engineered Fill. Tree removal operations should include roots greater than 1 inch in diameter. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with Engineered Fill. Sandy soil conditions were encountered throughout the site. These cohesionless soils have a tendency to cave in trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be r~quired within these soils. After completion of the recommended site preparation, the site should be suitable for shallow footing support. The proposed structure footings may be designed utilizing an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, for dead-plus-live load~..~~ Groundwater Influence on Structures/Constructio,n Based on our findings, groundw~~t,, depths ranging from approximately 3½ to 8 feet '~':: ~5~ ~'~:, '~:;:~t~.~ ~, ~ . .., ..... e~~' ~l~~.'~:~o~dwatcr is cnco~mred, o~ Fm should ~~~ d~w~ng ~e site. ~llation of a s~dp~ p~mcter ~s su~~ prior ~ cons~ction should ~wamr levels ~ a ~ncem. lqd'a~n & Associates, Ihc~ Ten Offices Serving The Western United States Sent By: Krazan; , 380 598 2127; l?,ay- 14- 99 10-42A1~; Page 10/23 KA No. 062-99058 Page No. 5 In addition to the groundwater level, if earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soi[s may' become saturated, "pump," or not respond to densifieation techniques. Typical remedial measures include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement product. Our finn should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe the unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations. Site Preparation General site clearing should include removal .of vegetation, existing utilities, structures inclUding foundations, basement walls and floors, existing stockpiled soil, trees and associated root systems, rubble, rubbish and any loose and/or saturated materials. Site stripping should extend to a minimum depth of two to four inches, or until all organics in excess of 3 percent by volume are removed. Deeper stripping' may be required in localized areas. These materials will not be suitable for use as Engineered Fill. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non-structural areas. Up to 3 feet of loose silty sand was located within the propose~ building area. These soils appear to be moderately compressible. Therefore, it is recommended that the upper 3 feet of soil within the proposed building area and 5 feet beyond should be removed and/or recompacted. The loose materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density based on the ASTM Test Method D1557. Within the proposed pavement areas, at a minimum, it is recommended that the upper 12 inches of subgrade soil be moisture conditioned to a near optimum moisture and recompacte, d to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum density based on ASIM Test Method D1557. It is recommended that slopes be constructed to 2 horizontal to I vertical. In lieu of recommended slopes, a retaining wall may be used. Trees were encountered at thc site. If not utilized for thc proposed development, the trees should be removed and the resulting excavation should be backfilled with Engineered Fill. Tree removal operations should include roots greater than 1-inch in diameter. The upper soils, during wet winter months, become very moist due to the absorption characteristics of the soil. Earthwork operations performed during winter months may encounter very moist unstable soils, which may require removal to grade a stable building foundation. Project site winterization consisting of placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during the construction phase should be performed. Any buried structures encountered during construction should be properly removed and backfilled. Excavations, depressions, or soft and pliant areas extending below planned finish subgrade level should be cleaned to firm undisturbed soil, and backfilled with Engineered Fill. In general, any septic tanks, debris pits, cesspools, or similar structures should be entirely remove. Concrete footings should be removed to an equivalent depth of at least 3 feet below proposed footing elevations or as recommended by the Soils Engineer. Any other buried structures should be removed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer. Resulting excavations should be backfilled with Engineered Fill. Krazan & ASSOCiates, lac. Ten Offices Serving The Western United States 06299058 Sent By' K?azan; 380 598 2127; IV!,ay-14-99 10:43AM; Page 11/23 KA No. 062-99058 Page No. 6 A representative of our finn should be present during all site clearing and grading operations to test and observe earthwork construction. This testing and observation is an integral part of our service as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction of the material and the stability of the material. The Soils Engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements. Further recommendations of this report are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork construction will conform to recommendations set forth in this section and the Engineered Fill section. EnRineered Fill The organic-free on-site soils are predominantly silty, sand and sand. The~ soils are occasionally interbcddcd with scattered gravel and cobbles. These soils will be suitable for reuse as non-expansive Engineered Fill provided it is cleansed of any excessive organics and or debris. Imported Fill material should be predominantly non-expansive granular material with a plasticity index less than 10 and a UBC Expansion Index less than 15. Imported Fill should be free fi'om rocks and lumps greater than 4 inches in diameter. All Import Fill material should be submitted for approval to the Soils Engineer at least 48 hours prior 'to deliver>,' to the site. Fill soils should be placed in lifts approximately 6 inches thick, moisture-conditioned as necessat3' and compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557, Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable. Drainage and Landseapin~a The ground surface should slope away from building pad and pavement areas toward appropriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. It is recommended that adjacent exterior grades be sloped a minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures. Subgrade soils in pavement areas should be sloped a minimum of I percent and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface water to collection .facilities and off site. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practice following OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards by a contractor experienced in such work. The responsibility for thc safety of open trenches should bc borne by the contractor. Traffic and vibration adjacent to trench walls should be minimized and cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should be avoided. Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, groundwater flow into open excavations could be experienced, especially during or shortly following periods of precipitation. Sandy soil conditions were encountcred throughout thc site. These cohesionless soils have a tendency to cave in trench wall excavations ......... IO-azan & Associates; Inc. Ten Offices Serving The Western United States 0629905~ Sent By: Knazan; 360 598 2!27; May-14-99 10:44AM; Page 12/23 KA 'No. 062-99055 Page No. 7 Utility trench backfill placed in or adjacent to buildings and exterior Slabs should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density' (ASTM D1557). The upper two feet of the utility trench backfill.placed in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM Dt557). Pipe bedding should be in accordance with pipe manufacturers recommendations. The contractor is responsible for removing all water sensitive soils from the trench regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction. Foundations The proposed structures' may be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on Engineered Fill. Spread and continuous footings can be designed for the following maximum allowable soil bearing pressures: ].,o~d Allowable Loading Dead Load Only 1,500 psf Dead-Pl~-Live Load 2,000 psf Total Load, including wind or seismic loads 2,660 psf subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent exterior gra&, whichever is lower. Footings should hav~.~ The total settlemcm is not expected to exceed linch. Differential settlement, along a 20-foot exterior wall footing, or between adjoining column footings, should be less than ~ inch, producing an angular distortion of 0.002. Most of the settlement is expected to occur during construction, as the loads are applied. However, additional post-construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.40 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting subgrade. Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vt.-rtical footing fac~. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combimnt without r~iuction in determining _the total lateral r~sistance. A 1/3 increase in the above value may be used for short duration, wind or seismic loads, Krazan & As.noe~te~ Inc. Ten Offices Serving The Western United states Sent By: Krazan; 360 598 2127; Uay-14-99 IO:4§AU; Page 13/23 KA No. 062-99058 P~e No. 8 Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork Both wood floors and floor slab construction should be appropriate for this project. Slab-on-grade construction should have a moisture barrier incorporated into the floor slab design. Interior slab-on-grade should have at least 2 inches of clean free-draining concrete sand placed below the floor slab. The sand should conform to ASTM Test Method C33 requirements for fine aggregate. An impervious membrane (vapor barrier) should be placed under the 2 inches of sand. This system of 2 inches of sand and a vapor should be underlain by an additional 2 inches of clean concrete sand to prevent capillary moisturize. Prior to pouring concrete, the sand should be. thoroughly consolidated. - The exterior floors should be poured separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundations system. Exterior finish grades should be sloped a minimum of I to 1½ percent away from ali interior slab areas to preclude ponding of water adjacent to the structures. All fills required to bring the building pads to grade should be Engineered Fills. !~teval Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls Walls retaining horizontal backfill and capable of deflecting a minimum of 0.1 pen.em of its height at the top may be designed using an equivalent fluid active pressure of 31 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. Walls incapable of this deflection or are fully constrained walls against deflection may be designed for equivalent fluid at-rest pressure of 52 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. Expansive soils should not be used for backfill against walls. The wedge of non-expansive backfill material should extend from the bottom of each retaining wall outward and upward at a slope of 2:1, horizontal to vertical, or flatter. The stated lateral earth pressures do not include the effects of hydrostatic water pressures generated by infiltrating surface water that may accumulate behind the retaining Walls; or loads imposed by construction equipment, foundations or roadways. During grading and backfilling operations adjacent to any walls, heavy equipment should not be allowed to operate within a lateral distance of 5 feet from the wall, or within a lateral distance equal to the wall height, whichever is greater, to avoid developing excessive lateral p~ssures. Wit.bin this zone, only hand operated equipment ("whackers", vibratory plates, or pneumatic compactors) should be used to compact thc backfill soils. Pavement DesiRn The near surface subgrade soils generally consist of a clean fine to coarse grained sand. Sand is rated as a good subgrade material with an assumed R-value of 40. The following table shows the re, commended pavement sections for light duty and heavy duty. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT LIGHT DUTY iii ii I I i Traffic Index Asphaltic Co~crete Aggregate Base* Compacted Subgrade* 4.5 2.$" 4.0" 12.0" Kriian & Ass~iati~'lnt. Ten Offioos Scrv~ TI~ W~tern United States Sent By' Krazan; 360 598 2!27; May-14-99 10:47AM; Page 14/23 KANo. 062-99058 Page No. 9 HEA~ DUTY Traffic Index Asphaltic Concrete Aggregate Base* ... compacted .... · 'So.rads* 7.0 4.0" 7.0" 12.0" , , I * ~$% eomlmctlon based on ,4$TM Test MethodDl$$7 The following recommendations are for light-duty and heavy-duty Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections. - PORTL~ CEMENT PAVEMENT LIGHT DUTY , , Traffic tndex "Portland'Ceme~t .......... Aggregate Base* Compacted Concrete Subg~de* 4.5 5.0" -- 12.0" HEAVY DUTY Trame Iadex ]'Portland Cement Aggre~at~ Base* Compacted · C0ng .fete Su.l~rade* 7.0 6.5" - 12,0" * 9.~/~ compaction based on ASTM DI$$7 **Minimum compressive strength of 3000 psi Compacted Material Accentanee Compaction specifications are not the only criteria for acceptance of the site grading or other such activities. The compaction test is the most universally recognized test method for assessing thc performance of the Grading Contractor. However, the numerical test results from the compaction test cannot be used to predict the'enginoe~g performance of the compacted material. Therefore, the acceptance of compacted materials will also be dependent on the stability of that material. The Soils Engineer has the option of rejecting any compacted material regardless of the degree of compaction if that material is considered to be unstable or if future instabfli~ is suspected. A specific example of rejection of fill material passing the required percent compaction is a fill which has been compacted with an in-situ moisture eonterrt significantly less than optimum moisture. This type ofdry fill (brittle fill) is susceptible to future settlement if it becomes saturated or flooded, T~,ti,n~ and Inspection A re~tive of Krazan & Associates, Inc., should be present at the site during the earthwork activities to confirm that actual subsurface conditions arc consistent with the exploratory field worlc This activity is an integral part of our services as aeeeptanc, e of earthwork eonsmsctJon is dependent upon compaction testing and stability of the material. This representative can also verify that the intent of these recommendations is Krazan & Associate~, Inc. Ten Officms Serving The Western United States Sent By: Krazan; 360 598 2127; May-!4-99 10:48A&l; Page 15/23 KA No. 062-99058 Page No. I0 incorporated into the project design and construction. Krazan & Associates, lnc., will not be responsible for grades or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor. LIMITATIONS Soils Engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil Engineering is constantly improving as new te¢~,ologies and understanding of earth sciences improve. Although your site was analyzed using the most appropriate current techniques and methods, undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to improvements in the field of Soils Engineering, physical changes in the site either due to excavation or fill placement, new' agency regulations or possible changes in the proposed structure after the time of completion of the soils report m~ require the soils report to be professionally reviewed. In light of this, the Owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report without critical review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that two years be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report. Foundation and earthwork construction is characterizgd by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original foundation investigation. This risk is derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling of the e~rth. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those disclose~t during our field investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, the Soils Engineer should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be made. The conclusions of this report are based on the information provid~ regarding the proposed construction. If the proposed construction is relocated or redesigned, the conclusions in this report may not be valid. The Soils Engineer should be notified of an>, changes so the recommendations can be reviewed and reevaluated. This report is a geote~hnical engineering investigation with the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions in terms of foundation design. The scop~ of our services did not include any environmental site assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater or atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands. Any statements, or absence of statements, in this report or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed are strictly for descriptive purposed and are not intended to convey ensineerinsjudgrnent regarding potential ha?ardous and/or toxic assessment. The geotechnical data presented herewith is based upon professional interpretation utilizing standard engineering practices and a degree of conservatism deomexl proper for this project. It is not warranted that such data and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for this project as outlined above, and should not be us~l for any other site. Ki'a~an & AssO~iat~s~'lnc. Ten Offices Sgrving Th~ West~mt United States Sen~ By: Krazan; 360 598 2127; May-14-99 10'48AM; Page 16/23 KA No. 062-99058 Page No. I 1 Ifyou have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (360) 598-2126. - Respectfully submitted, KRAZAlq & ASSOCIATES, [NC. SEW/DA:kcp Shawn E. Williams Proje~ O¢ologist I)e~ Alexander Principal Engineer RPE No. 30508 Kra~a & Asadelate~, Inc. · Ten Ofr~ S~rving The Western United States ~N & ASSOCIATES, INC, 383 EQUESTRIAN DRD'E POULSBO~ W,'A 983'70 360-598-2126 FIGURE 1-ViC1N-ITY MAP Location: Quilieene, Washington Job No.: 062-99058 Client: Mr. Dick Allen Date: 3-30-99 Sent By' Kvazan; 360 598 2!27; May-14-99 10:57AM; Page 18/23 Sent By' Krazan; 360 598 2127; May-14-99 10:58AM; Page 19/23 Appendix A Page A. 1 APPEN~D_ IX A_ FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS Field Investigation The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploratory program. Six exploratory test pits were excavated. The test pit locations are shown on the site plan. ~ _ The soils encountered were logged in the field during the exploration and, with supplementary laboratory test data, are described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Soil samples were obtained from the test pit sidewalls or fi'om the back-hoe bucket. All samples were returned to our Poulsbo laboratory for evaluation. l~boratorv luvestit, ation The laboratory investigation was programmed to determine the physical and mechanical properties of the foundation soil underlying the site. Test results were used as criteria for determining the engineering suitability of the surface and subsurface materials encountered. In-sim moisture content, and sieve analysis tests were determined for the undistta'bed samples representative of the subsurface material. These tests, supplomentext by visual observation, comprised the basis for our evaluation of the site material. The logs of the exploratory test pits and laboratory determinations are presented in this Appendix. Krazan & Associate, Inc. Ten Offioes Serving Thc Western United States 0(~990~8 S~nt By: KPazan; 360 598 2127; May-!4-99 !0'58AM; Page 20/23 i Project: Rhododendron Ddve Property Project No: 062-99058 Client: Richard Allen Log of Test Pit 1 ~i~.~.o.: ^-1 Location: Rhododendron Drive Logged By: Shawn Williams Depth to Water> Not Encountered Initial: N/A At Completion: NIA '"' ,--- Water Content >- ~ ~) ~ c Percolation Rate '~ ~ { i ~ ~ (rain/in) (%) ~ Description ~ .~ C3._. a '~ 20 60 100 20 40 >, b"O ._~ ~ Wp .I---0--1 wt Ground Surface TOP$O#. . ~, Loose with GRASS ROOTLETS; black, i ~asil 12.1 2; SILTY SAND (SM) · Loose to medium dense, fine to medium i, grained with GRAVEL; moist, reddish tan, / 13.3 ,~ · ' %dias easily to moderately ILII / I I 4- SILTY SAND (SM) · Medium dense, fine to medium grained 14.8 ~ · · . with GRAVEL; moist to wet, mottled tan and reddish tan. digs moderately. m r n 4 feet 18.1 ~ .......... ' "~ : · · $1L TY SAND (SM) - Medium dense, fine to medium grained with GRAVEL; moist to wet, gray - grayish ................... ; · . ~brown, di,qs moderately / " End of Test Pit · · · 14,- · : · · · 20.,, Method: Backhoe Backhoe/Excavator: Backhoe Operator: Ed Thompson Krazan and Associates 215 W. Dakota' Ave Clovis, Ca 93612 Excavation Date: 3-12-99 Pit Size: Sheet: I of I Sent By: Krazan; 360 598 2127; May-14-99 !0'59AM; Page 21/23 i i i iii i i Project: Rhododendron Drive Property Project No: 062-99058 Client: Richard Allen Log of Test Pit 2 F,gu,, No.: A-~ Location: Rho0odendron Drive Logged Blt; Shawn Williams Depth to Water> Water Seepage at 5 feet Initial: 5 feet At Completion: 5 feet i iiii i ii iii iii i iii i iii i i i i SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE i i ->' ~ ~ ~ ~ Percolation Rate Water Content E' _ v .... ._= (min/in) (%) '-' o Description ~ -- ~ u~ 8~ wpl---o---iw~ E>, ~"~ '~ ~, 20 60 100 20 40 r~%,' i iii i 0 GrOund Su · TOPSOIl. · Loose with TREE ROOTLETS; black, digs 2- SILTY SAND (SM) : ' Loose to m~ium dense, fine to medium ' grained with; moist to wet, grayish brown, · digs easily to moderately 4- 22.5 · Water Seepage at 5 feet ' S~L TY SAND (SM) ' Medium dense, fir~ to medium grained; 6 . ~ moist to wet, mottled tan and reddish tan, ~ 20.0 ~ ~ · . is moderatel · S/LTY SAND (SM) 8- Medium dense, fine to medium grained; · moist to wet, tan. digs moderately I : · End of Test Pit 10. · : · · '18',, · · 2{)- Method: Backhoe Backhoe/Excavator: Backhoe Operator: Ed Thompson _ ! Krazan and Associates 215 W. Dakota Ave Clovis, Ca 93612 Excavation Date: 3-12-99 Pit Size: Sheet: 1 of 1 .....e~,~+ ~y: ........ v ..... ~' 360 ..... ~o~ 2.~27; !~!ay-'~4-99 10:59A~1; Page 22/23 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA Client: DICK ALLEN Project: RHODODENDRON DRIVE, QUILCENE Project N:~m~er: 062-99058 Sample Data Source: TEST PIT 1, SAMPLE 2 Sample No.: P490B.02, REPORT ~1147 Elev. or Depth: 3' Sample Length (in./cm. Location: RHODODENDRON ROAD, QUILCENE, WA. Description: TEST PIT 1, SAMPLE #2. Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: USCS Classification: AASHTO Classification: Testing Remarks: SAMPLE %P490B. 02 REPORT 91174 DATE: 3/12/99 M~chanical Analysis Data Initial After wash Dry sample and tare= 47.00 40.50 Tare = 0.00 0.00 Dry sample weight = 47.00 40.50 Minus #200 fr~m wash= 13.8 % Tare for cumulative weight retained= .00 Sieve Cumul. Wt. Peroent retained finer 4 0.00 100.0 8 0.10 99.8 16 0.40 99.2 30 1.10 97.7 ~0 7.90 83.2 100 29.30 37.7 200 39 20 16 6 Fractional Components Gravel/Sand based on ~4 Sand/Fines based on %200 % COBBLES = % GRAVEL = % FINES - 16.6 D85= 0.31 D60= 0.21 DS0= 0.18 D30= 0.13 % SAND = 83.4 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. · Sent By: Knazan; 360 598 2!27; May-!4-99 11'OOAM; Page 23/23 Particle Size Distribution Report il 20O 100 10 COBBLES ] % GRAVEL 0.0 I 0.0 PL D86 DS0 DSO 0.312 0.210 0.182 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm % SAND 83.4 0.1 0.01 % SILT 0.001 16.6 0.127 ... D15 D10 I Cc USCS CU AASHTO TEST PIT l, SAMPL,E #2. [Project No. 062-99058 Client: DICK ALLEN Project: RHODODENDRON DRIVE, QUILCENE Location: RHODODENDRON ROAD, QUILCENE, WA. · Particle Size Distribution Report & ,.ASSOCIATES, INC._,, R~marlm: SAMPLE #P490B.02 REPORT # I 174 DATE: 3/12/'99 F.M.=0.82 Plate