The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About821222001 Geotech Assessment GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CENCOM FACILITY NEAR PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON JOB NUMBER 102-02113 DECEMBER 11, 2002 Prepared for: Mr.-Joe Blashka Jr. Adcomm Engineering Company 1461 - 128th Avenue NE Woodinville, WA 98072 Prepared by: KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION 20714 State Highway 305 NE, Suite 3C Poulsbo, Washington 98370 -- (360) 598-2126 ASSOCIATES, INC. SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS ..... l<razan & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING · ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION December 11, 2002 . Mr. Joe Blashka Jr. Adcomm Engineering Company 1461 - 128~h Avenue NE Woodinville, WA' 98072 RE: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION TEAL LAKE CENCOM FACILITY NEAR PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON KA Project No. 102-02113 In accordance with your request, we have completed a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the referenced site. The results of our investigation are presented in the attached report. This report presents the results of our field exploration, laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. lfyou have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Wesley Staff Engineer WRJ Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States 20714 State Highway 305 NE, Suite 3C · Poulsbo, Washington 98370 · ('360) 598-2126 · Fax: (360) 598-2127 P:\102 ~07.113 - Tea"I Lake CcnCom\Repon\ 102-02113 CcnCom Tower,doc GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING · ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................... ; ........................................................................................... 1 SITE LOCATION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ........................................................................................................................ 1 SITE INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................................ 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................. 2 GEOLOGIC SETTING ............................................................................................................................... 2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ................................................................................................................. 3 Soil ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 ' Groundwater ..................................................................................................................................... : 3 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................................................ 3 SEISMIC ZONE ...[ ..................... ~ ............................................................................................................. 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 4 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................ 4 Site Preparation ................................................................................................................................. 4 Groundwater Concerns ..................................................................................................................... Excavations ............................. Structural F£ff .................................................................................................................................... .5 Utility Trench fla¢]~l! ....................................................................................................................... FOUNDATION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................................... 6 ~V]at Foundation ................................................................................................................................. 6 Strip and Spread Foot£ngs ................................................................................................................. 6 Floor Slabs ........................................................................................................................................ ? Est£malcd Scttlemcnl .......................................................................................................................... DRAINAGE-: ............................................................................................................................................ 7 EROSION CONTROL ............................................................................................................................... 7 ~STING AND INSPECTION ..................................................................................................................... LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 8 SITE VICINITY MAP ............................................................................................................. FIGU~ l SITE PLAN ............................................................................................................................... FIGURE 2 FIELD AND LABO~TORY INVESTIGATIONS ....................................................... APPENDIX A Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States 20714 State Highway 305 NE, Suite 3C · Poulsbo. Washington 98370 · (360) 598-2126 · Fax: (360) 598-2127 P:X102\02\ I ! 3 - Teal Lake CenCom\Repon\102-02113 CenCom Tower. doc & ASSOCIATES ------ ': k,,; 11 2003 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING · ENVIRONMENTAL ENGi?EERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION~ ~:~'~;~.~.( ..... '~ ~--.~-.-'~ December 11, 2002 ICA Project No. 102-02113 · -GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CENCOM FACILITY NEAR PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION SITE LOCATION The communication tower site is located north of Teal Lake near Port Ludlow, Washington as shown on the attached Vicinity Map, Figure 1. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5 minute Port Ludlow, Washington topographic quadrangle map, the property is located at Latitude 47.90 degrees north and Longitude 122.67 degrees west. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION We understan~d that the proposed construction consists of a one-story building with a slab-on-grade floor, and a communications tower. We further understand that the communications tower is to be supported on a mat foundation with a bottom of footing approximately 5 to 10 feet below planned grade. Specific foundation loads for the tower and the building were not available at the time of this report. However, we anticipate that the building will be lightly loaded and that wind-induced overturning moments will govern foundation design for the tower. From our review of the proposed grading plan, we anticipate cuts and fills of 5 feet or less in the prefabricated building area and excavations of up to 5 to 10 feet for the tower's mat footing area. Please see the Site Plan, Figure 2, for details on the location of the proposed construction. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This investigation was conducted to evaluate the soil and groundwater conditions at the site, to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for use in design of specific construction elements and to provide criteria for site preparation and construction. Our scope of services was performed in general accordance with our revised proposal for this project, dated November 15, 2002 (KA Proposal No. PG02-210P) and included the following: Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States 20714 State Highway 305 NE, Suite 3C · Poulsbo, Washington 98370 * (360) 598-2126 · Fax: (360) 598-2127 P:\ 102\02',113 - Teal Lake CenComXRepo~\102-02113 CenCom Tower.doc 102-02113 ..... ' ".~ecember 11, 2002 ~ ~ i Page 2 A field investigation consisting of drilling ~fid~pling one expl0rato~ boring ne~ the ~ea of ~e proposed co~unication tower. The explomtow boring r~ched a dep~ of 40 feet below the existing site ~ade. · Performing laboratory tests on representative soil samples obtained from the boring to evaluate the physical and index properties of the subsurface soils. · Evaluation of the data obtained from the investigation and completion of engineering analyses to · . develop recommendations for use in the project design and preparation of construction specifications. · Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, the results of our analyses and our conclusions and recommendations for this investigation. SITE INVESTIGATION SITE DESCRIPTION The site has several existing features including a water tower, communications tower and two portable buildings. The existing water and communications towers are surrounded by fencing. The area around the site is heavily forested with fir and cedar trees, shrubs and ferns. Areas that are cleared &vegetation include the access road, parking, a 20 by 30 foot drill pad and the fenced areas around the existing communications tower and water tank. The site is relatively level, with a slight slope to the southwest· GEOLOGIC SETTING The site lies within the central Puget 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 that includes at least four separate glacial advances/retreats. The Puget Lowland is bounded on the west by the Olympic Mountains and on the east by the Cascade Range. The lowland is filled with glacial and non-glacial sediments consisting of interbedded gravel, sand, silt, till, and peat lenses. The Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resource (WDGER), Geologic Map of Washington - Northwest Quadrant, dated 2002, indicates that the property is located in an area of Quaternary, continental glacial till deposits. The till deposits generally consist of an unsorted, unstratified, highly compacted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders deposited by glacial ice. The-deposits may contain interbedded stratified sand, silt and gravel. The USDA Soil Conservation Services (SCS) Soil Survey for Jefferson County, Washington maps native soils in the project vicinity as Sinclair gravelly sandy loam with 0 to 15 percent slopes. This soil formed on glacial terraces, has moderately rapid permeability above the cemented layer (20-40 inches), and the hazard Krazan & Associates, Inc. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States P:\102'~02\113 - Teal Lake CcnCornXRcport\102-02113 CcnCom Tower. doc DEC ] 'i 2003 1'02-02113 . ~Dec ,eJnber 11, 2002- ;'~.i';?_~ :-~:~,: (.,,. ..... :~,~' ~ Page 3 .. ~ of water erosion is slight to moderate. A perched water table is on top of the cemented layer during the rainy season. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION A field investigation, consisting of drilling I boring to a maximum depth of 40 feet below the existing ground surface was performed to evaluate the subsurface soil conditions at the project site. Drilling was performed on October 1, 2002, utilizing a limited access tracked drill rig provided by Davies Drilling, as a subcontractor. Th~ boring location is indicated on Figure 2. During drilling operations, standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil consistency and to obtain information regarding the engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Soil samples were retained for laboratory testing at our Poulsbo Laboratory. The soils encountered were continuously examined and visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Soil The site soils consist of dense to very dense silty sands, and poorly graded sand with silt with variable . amo _unts of gravel observed to the maximum depth explored in our boring. The upper 2 to 5 feet of soil is loose to medium dense. Note that the upper two feet of soil is fill used to form the drilling pad. Please see the boring logs in Appendix A for more information. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface exploration. Water table elevations 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 vary from those encountered during the construction-phase of the project. The evaluation of Such factors is beyond the scope 'of this report. Laborato~ Testing Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. Details of the laboratory test program and results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Appendix A. This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final boring log presented in Appendix A. Samples of the fill and native soils 'were obtained near the ground surface in the area of boring 1 for resistivity testing. The test results indicate a minimum resisti~,ity of 10,000 ohm-cm (100 ohm-meters) for the fill material and minimum resistivity of 16,000 ohm-cm (160 ohm-meters) for the native soil. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States P:\102\02\113 - Teal Lake CenCom\Repon\102-02113 CenCom 'l'ower. doc SEISMIC ZONE KA No. 102-02113 December 11, 2002 Page 4 According to the Seismic Zone Map of the United States contained in the 1997 Uniform Building Code, the project site lies within Seismic Risk Zone 3.. The overall soil profile generally corresponds to seismic soil profiles Sc as defined by Table 16-J of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Soil profile Sc applies to a profile consisting primarily of very dense soils within the upper 100 feet of the profile. The United States Geologic Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project website indicates that the peak grou.n.d acceleration for the site with a probability ofexceedence of 10 percent in'50 years is 0.29 g. For a soil profile Sc in seismic zone 3, the UBC recommends that the seismic coefficients, Ca and Cv, be 0.33 and 0.45, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS During wet weather conditions, typically October through April, sul~grade stability problems and grading difficulties may develop due to high moisture content in the soil, disturbance of sensitive soils and/or the presence of perched groundwater. We therefore recommend that site grading activities and foundation construction occur during the dry season, if possible. If earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils, may become saturated. These soils may "pump," and the materials may not respond to densification techniques. Typical remedial measures include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with drier materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material. A qualified geotechnical engineering fi_tm 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, trees and associated root systems, wood, pavement, retaining walls, rubble, and rubbish. Site stripping should extend to a minimum depth of 4 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 fill for parking or building areas. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non-structural areas. 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 structural fill to planned finish subgrade. In general, any septic tanks, underground storage tanks, debris pits, cesspools, or similar structures should be entirely removed. Concrete footings should be removed to an equivalent depth of at least 3 feet below proposed footing elevations or as recommended by the Geotechnical engineer. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with structural fill to planned finish subgrade. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States P:\102\02\113 - Teal Lake CenCom\Repon\102-02113 CenCom Tower.doc Groundwater Concerns KA No. 102-02113 December 11, 2002 Page 5 Groundwater was not encountered during our field investigation. Perched ground water may exist above the level of the till with more perched ground water present during, or just after wet weather conditions. This perched groundwater develops where vertical infiltration of surface precipitation is impeded by a relatively impermeable soil layer, resulting in horizontal migration of the groundwater within overlying more permeable soils. Design of temporary dewatering systems to remove groundwater should be the responsibility ofth. e. contractor. -Excavations It is our opinion that the site soils are a Type B material as defined by the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act's (WISHA) regulations on excavation, trenching and shoring. Temporary slopes excavated in Type B material should be inclined no steeper than IH:IV (horizontal:vertical). Permanent cut and fill slopes (non reinforced) should be inclined no steeper than 2H:IV. A representative, of our firm should evaluate temporary and permanent slopes to insure that they are appropriate for the soils encountered during construction. In areas where it is not possible to maintain the recommended slopes due to space constraints, temporary shoring will be required. The contractor should be responsible for design and construction of the temporary system. We recommend that a stmctural engineer and Krazan & Associates review the proposed shoring system prior to construction. Structural Fill The on-site nai'ive soils are generally SuitabIe for use as structural fill. The relatively high fines content of the near surface soils may result in difficulty achieving required compaction especially during wet weather. Imported structural fill material should consist of well-graded gravel or a sand and gravel mixture with a maximum grain size of 1½ inches and less than 5 percent fines. All Structural fill material should be submitted for approval to the Geotechnical Engineer at least 48 hours prior to delivery to the site. Structural fill should be placed in lifts approximately 6 to 8 inches thick, moisture-conditioned as necessary, (moisture content of soil should be within ±2 percent of optimum moisture) 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. __ Utili .ty Trench Backfill Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practice following WISHA Standards by a contractor experienced in such work. The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be borne by the contractor. Traffic and vibration adjacent to trench walls should be minimized. Cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should also be avoided. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States P:~102~02\113 - Teal Lake CenCom~epornl02-02113 CcnCorn Tower. doc :' DEC 11 2,q03 : ~ .'~ ~" No. I02-02113 December 11, 2002 Page 6 ................ - .... ~ All utili~ ~ench backfill should consist of s~c~l fill. Utili~ ~ench backfill placed in or adjacent to buildings and exterior slabs should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the m~imum d~ dehsi~ based on ASTM Test Method D1557. ~e upper 2 feet of utili~ ~ench backfill placed in pavement are~ should be compacted to at le~t 95 percent of the m~imum d~ densi~ based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Below 2 feet. utiliW ~ench backfill in pavement are~ should be compactd to at least 90 percent of the m~imum d~ densi~ b~ed on ASTM Test Me,od D1557. Pipe bedding should be in accord~ee with pipe manufac~re~s r~o~endations. The contractor is responsible for removing all water-sensitive soils from the trenches 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. FOUNDATION SUPPORT It is our opinion that the proposed tower can be adequately supported on shallow foundations bearing on .the dense to very dense native soils and the prefabricated building can be placed on properly compacted structural fill or dense native soil. We understand that the communications tower will be supported on a mat foundation. We assume that the building will be supported on strip footings, spread footings or a combination of strip and spread footings. All allowable beating pressures given below may be increased by 1/3 to resist transient loading conditions such as wind or seismic loads. Note that, based on our understanding of the proposed construction and the very dense nature of the site soils, all allowable bearing pressures presented below are governed by our estimation of tolerable settlements for the structures. It is our opinion that an actual bearing capacity type failure is extremely unlikely for the proposed construction at this site. Therefore, increases in the allowable bearing pressures may be possible if higher settlements can be tolerated. Please contact us for more information if needed. Mat Foundation We recommend that the mat foundation for the communication tower be supported by the very dense native sands and gravels encountered at a depth of about 7.5 feet below existing grade. An allowable bearing pressure of 7,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of the mat foundation. Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.45 acting between the base of foundation and the supporting subgrade and an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 330 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces. Note that the equivalent fluid passive pressure may also be used to resist overturning moments. Strip and Spread Footings From our review of the grading plan, we anticipate that the building footings will be supported on both the native soils and structural fill. For simplicity, we recommend that all footings for the building be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. All footings should have a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches below adjacent grade and a minimum width of 12 inches. Resistance to lateral footing Krazan & Associates, Inc. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States P:\102\02\113 - Teal Lake CenComkRepon\102-02113 CenCom Tower. doc i! DEC 11 [ .... ~eCJ~mbe~ l l, 2002 :-~:;~t.: -.-:- t --.':,;:~:-i ' Page 7 di~lacement can be computed usin~ ~ allowable ~cdon Dctor of 0.35 actin8 fo~dations ~d ~e ~pponing ~b~de ~d allowable ~uivalent fluid p~sive pres~re of 2~0 poun~ per cubic foot acting against ~e appropriate ve~ical footing fac~. Floor Slabs For interior floor slabs or other floor slabs where moisture migrating through the slab may be an issue, we recommend that concrete slab-on-grade floors be underlain by a water vapor retarder system. The water vapor retarder syst~/n should be installed in accordance with ASTM Specification El 643-94 and Standard Specifications E 1745-97. According to ASTM Guidelines, the water vapor retarder system should consist of a vapor retarder sheeting underlain by a minimum 'of4-inches of compacted clean, open-graded coarse rock of%-inch maximum size. Estimated Settlement We estimate that settlements for the mat foundation under the anticipated maximum load of 7,500 psfwill be less than % of an inch. For the strip and spread footings, we estimate that the settlements will be less than 1 inch. The settlements will be elastic in nature and should occur essentially as the loads are applied. Note that our estimates of settlements are based on assumed dimensions for the footings. We have assumed a 35 by 35 foot square mat foundation for the tower and 2-foot wide strip footings for the building. If the final design of the foundations results in footing with larger dimensions than those given above, we should be contacted so that we can revise our settlement estimates. DRAINAGE The ground sffrface should slope away from building pad and pavement areas toward appropriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. We recommend that adjacent exterior grades be sloped a minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures. Roof drains should be tightlined away from fotindations. Subgrade soils in pavement areas should be sloped a minimum of 1 percent and drainage gradients maintained to carry ali surface water to collection facilities. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project. Footing drains should be placed around the perimeter &the building. EROSION CONTROL Erosion and sediment control (ESC) is used to minimize the transportation of sediment to wetlands, streams, lakes, drainage systems, and adjacent properties. As the site is not directly adjacent to surface waters, we anticipate that standard erosion and sediment control measures (such as silt fences at the perimeter of the construction area, and protection for any existing storm sewer inlets that may be affected by the construction) for this site will be sufficient. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States P:\102',02\113 - Teal Lake CenCom'~Report",102-02113 CcnCom Tower.doc TESTING AND INSPECTION ICA No. 102-02113 December 11, 2002 Page 8 A representative Of our firm should be present during all earthwork activities to confirm that actual subsurface conditions are consistent with the subsurface investigation. This testing and observation is an integral part of our service as the performance of earthwork construction is dependent upon the compaction of fill soil and the suitability of native soil. This representative can also verify that the intent of these recommendations is incorporated into the project design and construction. LIMITATIONS Geotechnical engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences improves. Although your site was analyzed using the mo§t 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 Geotechnical 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 may 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 characterized 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 earth. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those disclosed during our field investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, the Geotechnical engineer should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be made. The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed construction. If the proposed construction is relocated or redesigned, the conclusions in this report may not be valid. The Geotechnical engineer should be notified of any changes so the recommendations can be reviewed and reevaluated. This report is a geotechnical engineering investigation with the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions in terms of foundation design. The scope 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 engineering judgment regarding potential hazardous and/or toxic assessment. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Eleven Offices Ser¥ing The Western United States P:\ 102\02\113 - Teal Lake CenComXRcport\ 102-02113 CcnCom Tower.doc KA No. 102-02113 December 11, 2002 Page 9 The geotechnical information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing standard engineering practices and a degree of conservatism deemed proper for this project. It is not warranted that such information 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 used for any other site. If you 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, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. WRJ/TSP Todd S. Parkington, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer TSP Krazan & Associates, Inc. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States P:\102\02Xl 13 - 'leal Lake CenCom\Rcpon\102-02113 CenCom Tower.doc I / I~ %, ~ :::' '"' ~ ......... ~ . ~?_~ ~'x . :i}~?~, ~.:;' :.~F:i--,!::':-/?:~ ~.L..,~...~/. ," '"-'"'. o-,~' ~,,, ,, ' "~ ' ~-;-..,~:-'~'.",' ................. ~':~-- ..... ' "'-:--~ ,.-::".!':'7",.~ ~. "-,, ,~,.:~ ;~ .--'-. · L"- -~ ",: !?~:. '., .;':' i'/ '. : ' ' / ... o __. ,. ~ ~.~ ,-' --.-.:.-,~/./,Z,~, .-. · v f, ~ ~ · ;'. :vi ~-:~°.- %) .'-?' : -. o'...-: ', · ~, &...~?.,. v . .. . '.. ..;...:.. .:._::::.. ~.~ · / ,~T'..~;~'~ ' .... . '-' ..~,.:.-:.',,~?.b'.~::'.! ,:~..~,*-...-,:....-.-.:~i-,~," ~'~ :,'..'-, /,.',.-';o: ....'...::?i.:~:t-'i,~:':~' ~ !! ~ -'.~ /J.~//I/i'',,... ./f f,~ ~"' ' · " ,... ~......,..,.. , ~ ..... . .... ,:.... ....... ..~ ..,'~,..,,-.- ,,.,., --. ,. ,..,,, .... ,,..1 I/ ,. . , ..... :,.. ..... ..-.~ .............. ..._~ ~ .... ~ ~ ,. ,,. . .~ -"-~..~--~ ',' ~[,I ~-_..~:.~.:/ ...-.-:.-~.~ · j,. '( ,~, ,~. ~/~ ::.,: . · t! "'~" ,, ' "- f ~ ,~ -' "' ,/j' '~! ',t'. ..' : _.-.1~, . ~ !}!~,- ~ .- ~:~ i!i~t.:,--n~ ~'. ~ii...,A '"': .. ;{ -'"' ~:....i)i} _ --'X-. ~ _. ~l , ~-e ;: , ~,, ' ,,, ~'.:~::::":.. ". "~ ~ ~ " ]llr~ "-";',' ' ~ '~ I ~ ','z ~, .~..., "- . ..?~!-'.',...:.:..,., ~?~. . ~ ~., ,'~~~. .. ' , ~, ~ ! ~ --. .,,~ :;. ~, , ~..,, ~:....!, Note Map adapted from tke USGS 7.5' Port Ludlow, WA. Quadrangle dated ]953, pb. otoreYJsed i973 FIGURE 1 - SITE VICINITY MAP KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Job name: Teal Lake Tower 20714 State Route 305-Suite 3C Location: Port Ludlow, Washington Poulsbo, WA 98370 Job No.: 102-02113 ~ 360-598-2126 Client: CenCom Date: 12-09-2002 Z / .? , ¢o DEC ]] 2003 ~q Appendix A Page A. 1 APPENDIX A FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS Field Investigation The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploratory program. The exploratory boring was drilled using a limited access, tracked drill rig provided by Davies drilling as a subcontractor. Th6 boring location is shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Disturbed soil samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) as described in ASTM: D-1586. The Standard Penetration Test and sampling method consists &driving a standard 2-inch outside- diameter, split barrel sampler into the subsoil with a 140-pound hammer flee falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The summation of hammer-blows required to drive the sampler the final 12-inches of an 18-inch sample interval is defined as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or N-value. The blow count is presented on the boring log in this appendix. The resistance, or "N" value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils. 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. All samples were retumed to our Poulsbo laboratory for evaluation. Laboratory Investigation The laboratory investigation was performed to estimate the physical and mechanical properties of the soil underlying the site. In situ moisture contents and grain size distribution tests were performed for samples representative of the subsurface material. These tests, supplemented by visual observation, comprised the basis for our evaluation of the site material. The results of the in situ moisture contents are indicated on the boring log. Results of the grain size distributions are indicated on Figures A-2 through A-4. Project: Teal Lake Tower Client: CenCom Location: 125' West of Water Tank Depth to Water: Not Encountered :"'; .... " - :'-"~'. :' :'.i' ';:'i:Ci'~-: 0PM~-~'~t/°?ged By: C. Afferness Elevation: 498' SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE .~ "E ~ Water Content U) O Description · ~ ~) 0 ~~" . . ~ ~ ~ e=EE~g ~ ~ ~ 5 15 25 35 ~Z ~ ~ Zv , , I ~ I I Ground Sudace . ~LL G~DED GRAVEL ~' SILT AND SAND (G~ Loose, well grad~, bro~ to gray, moisL (Fill) .... I ~ SIL~SANDtSm i i' ~ ~ ~ ~ Ve~ dense, fine grain~ sand, light brown, d~ ~h ~a~gravel (fill). (Native) -i i ~ i ' .... S-~ 4~ SS 58 ~ ~ ' ~ ~ :: i ~ ~ - ~ravel and mois~ro ~ntent in~easos ..... ~ : . 7.~ ~2 SS 50:2" Bemmes gray ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ : : : ~ - : ~ : ' : ; ~ : : ~ - POORLY G~DED SAND ~TH SILT :. : AND G~VEL (SP-SM) Ve~ dense, fine grain~, brown, d~ to moist. : (Advan~d Ou~ash). :8.3 - S~ SS 50:5.5" . Method: Limited Access Drill Rig Driller: Davies Operator: Jeff Krazan and Associates 20714 State Highway 305 N.E. Suite 3C Pouisbo, WaShington 98370 Drill Date: 12/2/02 Sample Method: SPT Sheet: I of 2 Log of ~:~[.I~ngl~' ] I 2003 P~,~No: ~o2-o2~3 Project: Teal Lake Tower 1' ~'~ ~urei Client: CenCom ............ No.: A1 Location: 125' West of Water Tank : D~PT. OF r.~,, ~ ~ ~,~,-~ ~~d .... ~:,,~ .... :~ ~D/EL0 By: C. Alfemess Depth to Water: Not Encountered Elevation: 498' SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE i ~ '~ ~ ~ Water Content Description · ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ O E EE~ · · txE~?::.vv~.~. POORLY ~DED 8AND ~ 8ILT 84 88 50:6.~" :;~,:"~ AND G~L,(SP-SM) :,:~f~;~:~;;~:c. Ve~ dense, fine 9rained, bro~, d~ to moist. ::~e~'~:(Advan~ O~ash). ,;~=:-:-:;-~ ~ · '4.~ ~.~ I . ~-~:.;.;.: ;:~:~:'c I .4 ~ ~ ~ :./, ,% .¥..~ -..'~u,.-:- S-5 11.8 SS 50:6" . ':~-;~-~ .... ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ -..?~:1..:~, 30-;x~: _ 4 ~ i , j : ::~:~:~ ~ 11.8 ~ SS 50:1" .,~ ,.. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL ~SAND (GP) ,'"" Ve~ dense, medium to coame grained sand, ·' ' ' gray-brown, moist to wet. Tra~ of sill Inte~edded medium ~rained sand. - :, ; ~'~, 5.8: - : ' ,/,?;, s-7 0.1 ss 50:~,, ee¢¢ : . ;;.... , "" S-8 0.1 SS 50:7" 4.~ 40 ~;,?" Method: Limited Access Drill Rig Driller: Davies Operator: Jeff Krazan and Associates 20714 State Highway 305 N.E. Suite 3C Poulsbo, Washington 98370 Drill Date: 12/2/02 Sample Method: SPT Sheet: 2 of 2 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST R oRT 70 , ~ ~ ~ .~i ; ,. ~ - :~;;: . ; ;~! i ~-ii-~!'i-- i. i : i ~ * ~ ,* ;; : 60 ; ~ ........... i.~ ........ i,-I-: *~--~ ..... ~' ' -::I ....... : ...... : :::~ : : : :::: - · :~' :i' ~ ..... ~ ::J::'- · i :':: · l ~ [ : ,' ! : : : : , : - : ' : I : : :, i : ..... : 1 : ~ ; I I J : J ' : i : l:! j , I il: J :: J I ' t ' :: 40 J i: . .... . : ,: .' . .:' ,: : ,~ ' ,' '1 : ..... i .............. , . ,, : I : : . - :~ ,. i . ~ .... : ~ ' - j -! : I j : i - : ~ : ~ : iI . : i , : - - ; ~ i i , * ,1. i : , : : . ] ; : · : -::: : - i : J: ! . : Il: : : i ~ 'ii ! : : : ~ . :'. ] ; · ; : -.. - [ ; .:;.,~ . [ : ~ i:, · . ; . ': i ' : · ; ' - : J : : : ::; ] ' i;j i ; i . ~'j ; : , ' : 20: i '!!'~- ; : : '-[~ :- ; ' i~ ~ , i ' ~ i~, ' ~ . ' ' "; [ ' 10 -i. _~ ~ i!l i Ii i i ,~ i ~ i I i i I ! t ! iii ! ! ~ I~i~ : ~ ' 5~ ~oo ~o ~ o.~ o.o~ o.oo~ G~IN SIZE - mm [% COBBLES0.0%e VEL r3.9%SAND55.i [ %SILT 4 i.0 1%o Y j ~ Si~E P~RCENT SPEC.* PASS? ~' - Soil Descrip~on S~E FINER PERCE~ J (X=NO) J USCS:SIE~ SAND ~0.625 in. 100.0 ~ 0.5 im ~ 94z ' PL= LL= PI= l ~l~ ~50 ~9. I ~100 $}.[ : D~5= 0All ~60: 0.1~l DS0:0.112 ~200 [ 41.0 : D30= D15= DI0= II C U = C ~= 1 Classification . USCS= S~ ~SHTO= i Remarks ' SAMPLE fl: P4294 REPORT fl: 9375 DATE: ! 2-02-2002 (no ~cifi~ation provided) Sample No.: P4294 Source of Sample: GEO Date: Location: B-I;S-] Elev./Depth: Client: CEN ASSOCIATES, INC. Project: TEAL LAKE TOWER KR N & Project No: 102-02113 Figure A-2 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 0.625 in. 100.0 0.5 in. 99.1 0.375 in. 98.8 g4 96.1 #8 94.2 #16 92.2 #30 88.8 #50 79. l # ! O0 57.8 //200 41.0 GRAIN SIZE DIST IBUTION !ii .. ~ : :~il;~ ~ ; i ~ ~ ........... ; ~i~ ~ i ~ , - : · ~i~; : : ' ' ,.: , : ~ . - ~ - ~:~ i ; ~ ~ . ~-' ~ ; . . . : '. : : ~I~ · ~ - -; ~i-; -i ~ - ; i .. ; ........ . · .. , ::, i ~ * : i: ~ ' ' ' ' ~ ; : : . I :i~ : : 30 - ~ ,.;r', ~ ~ -- : ~ "~'~i !' ~ ; i ~--i i-i", ! .... ;:i', ~ ; ~ ~ , : ~, ,~ , : , ','~', * , ,, . , , ..... , , . ~ ; ~ ' 201 ' ~ i ; ;' ~ ~,~; ~ ~ ~ *,.~, . .:~_~,. .... = ~ · ' ~ · - i ~ , . - · ' i Ill i ; i;;i ; ; 500 100 10 I 0.1 0.01 0.001 G~IN SIZE - mm 1%COBB~S 1%G~VEL 10.0 37.1 %SAND51.1 1%sILT ! %c~Yl !.8 SIEVE PERCENT i SPEC.* PASS? Soil Description , SIZE ~INER ' PERCE~ (X=NO) USCS: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND ] .5 in. 100.0 G~VEL (SP-SM) ].0 in. 94.3 0.75 in. 85.0 , 0.625 in. i 83.0 ~ A~erber~ Lim~ 0.5 in. 79. ! ' PL= LL= PI= 0.375 in. 74.3 ¢4 62.9 ' Coe~cien~ ¢8 54.5 ¢16 47.9 D85= 19.0 D60= 3.84 ~50= 1.49 ~30 40.1 ~ i D30= 0.383 D15= 0.]52 D10= ¢50 24.4 Cu= Cc= ~100 ~ 14.9 ~200 ' ! 1.8 Classifica~on USCS= SP-SM ~SHTO= Remarks ~ ~ r ~ SAMPLE ~: P4295 I REPORT ¢: 9375 ~ DATE: ] 2-02-2002 (no ~cifi~tion provided) Sample No.: P4295 Source of Sample: OEO Date: 12-02-2002 Location: B-I ;S-5,S-6 Elev./Depth: Client: CEN COM K ZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project: TEAL LAKE TOWER Project No: 102-02]13 Figure A-3 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE -FINER PERCENT (X=NO) ] .5 in. 100.0 ].0 in. 94.3 0.75 in. 85.0 0.625 in. 83.0 0.5 in. 79. ! 0.375 in. 74.3 :/:/4 62.9 #8 54.5 #16 47.9 #30 40.1 #50 24.4 #100 14.9 #200 ! 1.8 GRAI N SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST i!il PORT- · ' ' ~.:-' ~ L,_., ..... 90 i ~ , ~;~ .. : : ~ ~ .:'~ : , . - ] . ~ . . ~. ,-~ · . ~ ~ : !~: : ~ 1- : - - 80 i ~ ~ : ~;i ; ; ; i :, : ~ : ~ !{~, : ~ : ..... ~. j- ~ ' ~ ~,--;- -i ~ ~ ~ i. : ; J - ; ;~ i ; :. : ~ ~; ~' ~ ~ , - ' ~ ~ ~ i i : . - ' - : ' I~ ;~= ' ~ ~ ~ i:~ ' i : ii ' ' ,' : ~ ~ ,~II i I : ,iii ~ ~ ' .~ i' j i~i ~ j ~ ~ .~ . i , ~ ,~ ll~i .I I I, :' - - ' · . · I . ' I I I ; ]- I ; 60: .~ i ~ ,~i: ; ~ · -: ~ , , - I' : : ' ' i '' ' ' ~ ~ '~: ~ I ,: i ' , ~ ' ~Z~ ji i i jill I ~ ~ i -- , ; , , , ' : i' i , ' ' , ' , · ~ ~l-~;]-i ]-g ~ I i~i-I i'l .... J .... ~ ....... ~- { ~ . .Il .i.: i- i i i Iii i.~_.4 4 ;.-. i ....... !~i~ i ~ ;~i ! : ! , ~ i i . :. ~ ; I , : ~ i , · : : . I - ; : t · i ~ ' · 30 -i i ~ iii. t ; ! ,. i pi-~--~.-i, i -~ ~. ~ ~ i ....... ~ ........ i' ]-: ~ i · ~ ; . ' I I ~ I ' ' i .I i Ii ~ i · j I i ~ ;~ i ~ ' ~ j ,l,~j ~ j ' : ~ ' : , i ~ I . ~ ' , I ~ I-i I ~ i.-! ......... ~ .... ~ ......... ' I - ~--, .... !--~ ....... r-~ .... r · '-I ........... ~ =-, · ~I: ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ · I ' ' ' ' ' : i j I i'll I J ; ;:' ::'1 1'' ' I'~ i : j ~ I l ~ ~ ! !ii!l I i : ~ I i i i I i!!~~ ~ : '. 0 i i ii I i ~ ! j iii i ! ~! i %~ ~ ' : ~ , ' ~: : ~ ' ' ' :: i~ ~ I i ' '~i · ' ~ : ~ 100 10 I 0.1 0.01 0.001 G~IN SIZE - mm J %COBBLES0.0 %G~LJ73.4 %SAND25.6 %SILT l.O j %c Y j SIE~ PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? 8oil Description SIZE ~INER j PERCENT (X=NO) USCS:P~REY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND !.5 in. 100.0 1.0 in. 90.3 0.75 in. ; 68.5 0.625 in. 61.8 ~ AEerberg Limi~ 0.5 in. 55.9 PL= LL= PI= 0.375 in. 38.8 ~4 26.6 Coe~cients ~8 19.2 ~1~ 13.2 ~ D85= 23.6 D60= 14.6 D50= 11.4 ~30 6.7 D30= 7.48 D15= 1.46 D10= 0.854 ~50 3.4 Cu= ]7.06 Cc= 4.49 ~100 I 1.2 ~200 i .0 J Classification ~ USCS= GP MSHTO= : ; Remarks ' SAMPLE ~: P4293 REPORT ~: 9375 ~ DATE: 12-02-2002 (no specification provided) Sample No.: P4293 Source of Sample: GEO Date: 12-02-2002 Location: B-1 ;S-7,S-8 Elev./Depth: Client: CEN CO~ ASSOCIATES, INC. Project: TEAL LAKE TOWER = K R~N & Project No: 102-02113 Figure A-4 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) ! .5 in. 100.0 1.0 in. 90.3 0.75 in. 68.5 0.625 in. 61.8 0.5 in. 55.9 0.375 in. 38.8 #4 26.6 //8 19.2 #16 13.2 #30 6.7 fl50 3.4 # 1 O0 1.7 fl200 i .0