Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Geotechnical Report
TER~.A ASS~-~~ATES, E~~. :>. Consultants in Geotect-;nica! Engineering, Gecla~}: and Environmen:a! Earth Sciences ~~-. . ~~ i~ ~ ~ ~/~~ ~~ `°"~:. August 15, 2000 Project No. T-=I743 ?i'ir. Mark Rozgay Shelter Resources, Inc. 1200 - 112th Avenue NE, Suite C-180 Believe, Washington 98004 Subject: Geotechnical Resort Prairie Run Apartments 205 Mountain View Road Yelm, Washington Dear Mr. Rozgay; As requested, eve conducted a geatechnical engineering study for the subject site. The attached report presents our findings and recommendations far the geotechnicai aspects of project design and construction. In general, our field Exploration indicates that the site is underlain by relatively clean sand and gravel. We observed approximately three feet of existing fill in the nar'~h-central portion of the situ, at Test Pits TP-3 and TP-~. In our opinion, these soil conditions v<•ill be suitable for support of the buildings as praposed, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into project design and construction. 'I1~e structures may be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on undisturbed or recornpacted inorganic native sails. The attached report descr;bes our study and presents our information presented is sufficient for your current needs. information, please cal ' .~J.~ Sincerely yours, Q~ c~ C~~ TERRA AS,T~O MO /!i ,;( ~4 ~, , t~ ~' -s -o a ~s i ~ T'~ieodore 1. Sc ~~ Principal Engineer ~ DKW/TJS:d~p >~R~s 6/18/0! cc vlr. David Haynes, Design Build Graep recommendations mgreater detail. aVe trust the if you have anv questions or require additional ~LSLJ WlllO~vs Koad. Suite 101, Kirkland, l1%asnington 9ss(;;34 U~^~p /d7C1 R'71_7777 • ~-av fq~r;i A~1_4~~d • it.rr~(nll.,rr~, ~,,...,._..... TABLE OE CONTENTS Page 1.0 Project Description .......... ...................... ................ ....1 „ 1 ...................... 2.0 ........................................ Scope of Work ............................ ................ ........................2 . 3.0 ....................................... Site Conditions ............................ .............. ..2 ....................... .. ............. 3.1 Surface ..... .......... ..... .... .... ............ ........... 3.2 Soils ........................... .................................................. . . .,....................2 .. . 3.3 Groundwater ................................... . ........... . . .........................3 4.0 ............................... Geologic Hazards ............................................... . ....... ........................3 4.1 Seismic ..................................... .................................... ................. S.fl .................. Discussion and Recommendations .................................... ........ 3 ......... ......... ............... .. ......................................... 5.1 General ............................. ...................4 ................ 5.2 Site Preparation and Grading ................................. ........ ....... .............5 ............. ............ ................................ . 5.3 Excavations ..................... , 5 ......................... Foundations ......................... 5.4 ................................ ................... 5.5 Slab-On-Grade Con.strnction ..................... .. ...................... ........................................................ 5.5 Drainage ................. ......................7 .. . ...... ............................................ 5.7 Utilities ........................... ..... , . , . , ..7 ............ 5.8 Pavements .................................................. .... ....7 ...................... 6.0 ........................ .................... Additional Services ........................... ..................... , ...8 ..... 7 , 0 .............. Limitations ...... . ............................................. Figures ............................. Figure 1 ty p ................................................................ ....,..,.........Figure 2 Vicini l~ia .................. ............................................... . Explanation Location Plan .................. A,apendix .......... Appendix A ................................ Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing ....................... Geotechnical Report Prairie Run Apartments 205 Mountain View Road Yelrt~, Washington 1.Q PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of constructing Smulti-family residential buildings, an associated clubhouse building; utilities, and parking on a 2.7-acre site in Yelm, Washington. The proposed one- and rivo-star}', wood-frame buildings will be constructed using nventionai spread footing found ~~th slab-on-grade floors. We expect structural loads will be approximately ~~lcrps for isolatod columns, d 2 to 4 ki s er foot far continuoUS bearing walls. Details of planned construction grades were not available at a time of our study. lrlow-ever, eve anticipate that clearing and grading plans will call for minor cuts and fi[Is o establish consiruc*,ion grades, «•ith some relatively shallow e:~cavations required for the placement of utilities. i y The recommendations in t}'ce following sections of this reportiare based on our understanding of the design features. If actual features vary or changes are made, eve should revi~w them in order to modify our recommendations, as required. We should review final design drawings and specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design. 2.a SCOPE OF WORK On July 27, 2000, we excavated 5 test pits to depths between 7.(~ and 8.5 feet below existing surface grades. Using the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, vie performed analyses to develop geotechnical recommendations for projeci design and construction. Specifically, this report addresses the following: • Soil and groundwater conditions • Suitability of native soils for use as fill • Recommendations for import fill materials Site preparation and grading ~ Foundations S or i ; I 0 0 ~' _ ,~ . • Slabs-on-grade • Drainage • Utilities • Pavements August I5, 200 Project :~lo. T-4743 3.0 SITE: CQi`1I3ITIONS 3.Y Surface The subject site is located on the west side of Mountain View' Road, near the intersection of State Route (SR} ~ i~ in Thurston County, Washington. The approximate location of the site is 1 structur s~1The property ~s bo ded bounded on the north, south, and east by single- and multi-iarnrly residentta on the tivest by pen grassland and commercial properties at a distance. The project site is relatively flat-lying with a shallow drainage ditch borde ~ gfla °urade a ong the south siderof grass covered dirt mounds and concrete rubble rise above the exrstrng ,ela y g the property, The site slopes toward thz southwest Zvi*.h approximately three feet of relief, the majority of which occurs along the west end of the property. A house trailer and associated outbuildings are located in the nortl~~east poi ~f °ra ses itvines,ntall brush, shrubs were noted at the residence location. Currently, the site supports a covenng g and a few small•• to medium-sized evergreen trees. Sorne trash and otk~er debris was observed on the site. Overall site drainage appears to be adequate due to the near-surface granular soils. V4'e did not observe evidence of erosion or ponding of surface water on the site. 3.~, Soils The.. site is ur=derlai.-t by sandy topsoil overlying mediurr~ dense, clean candle d ganazl~ a eICOCabbleso and a f~v<' explored. The frll soil mounds consist of a mixture of topsoil, natrve boulders. In each test pit, we encountered bro«m sandy topsorlt to depths of up to 2. ~elew the obb eg ~~ a~few boulders toil 6 of sod. Underlying the sandy topsoil rs clean gravely sand and sandy ora inches. The medium dense clean sand and gravel extends to the depths explored. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered are presented in Appendix A. The approximate test pit locations are sho~~~ on Figure 2. 3,~ - Groundwater During the time of our mid-surr~z- W'e did not encounter ground.;•ater seepage or dcet soils in any of the test pits field work, we expect that Ovate: le~~els, if any, will be at their seasonal lo«• point. The °sandy to oil is some:hat or subsurface seepage may net be evide:tt on thverre ~rmeable and -ill allow runoff to infiitratepo the local u-ater permeable. The clean sand and gravel layer i5 p table. Pagc No. 2 August l:i, 2000 Project No. T-4743 The test pits were not allowed to remain open for an extended period, which would lead to a more detailed evaluation of the groundwater observed. Fluctuations in groundwater seepage levels should be expected on a seasonal and annual basis. The amount of seepage will be highest during extended periods of heavy rain and during the si•et winter months. fiiven the time of year our field exploration cvas completed, ground«~ater teas likely at seasonal low levels. 4.t) GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4.1 Seismic The Puget Sound area falls within Seismic Zone 3, as classified by the 1997 Gniform building Code (UBC). Based on the soil conditions encountered and the local geology, from Table 16-7 of the 1999 UBC, soil type Sc should be used for design purposes. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in water pressure induced by vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine-grained sands located below the groundwater table. Soils of this nature derive streng+:h from intergranular friL~tion. The generated water pressure or pore pressure essentially separates the soil grains and eliminates this intergranular friction, thus eliminating the soil strength, Based on the soil conditions observed, it is our opinion that the risk of site damage due tv seismically-induced subsidence or liquefaction is minimal. 5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Genera! Based on our study, in our opinion, there are no geotechnical considerations that would preclude development as proposed. The buildings can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soils below the upper surficial fill and topsoil. Alternatively, if required by desired final building elevations, structural fill placed and compacted above the clean native sand and gravel soils can be used to support the building foundations Floor slabs and pavements can be similarly supported. The clean granular native soils encountered at ta'~e site contain a low percentage of fines and should be adequate for use as structural fill during most heather conditions. If import soils are required. we recommend using an inorganic granular material meeting the requirements outlined in the follo~ting section. Detailed recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical design considerations are provided in the following sections. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design dra~4ings and construction specifications. Page No. 3 August 1 S, 2040 Pro}ect I~lo. T-4743 5 2 Site Preparation and Grading ~) T o repare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic s;ajface soils, and other deleterious materials sl•iould be P stripped and removed from the site. Surface stripping depths of approxi ~a tehle ` em Or~anho Lop sa 1 w 1 not ! e remove organic topsoil. Stripped vegetation debris should be removed fra suitable for use as structural fill. However, organic topsoil may be used for limited depths in n:on-structural areas or for landscaping purposes. Once clearing and stripping operations are complete, cut and fill operations ~ana er~entas ~~rades,bal hexposed pavement building grades. Prior to plactng fill and preparing budding an p surfaces should be proofrolled to determine if any isolated soft and yielding area are present. Proofrolling should also be performed in cut areas that ti~•ill provide direct support for new constructia If excessively yielding areas are observed and they cannot be stabilized in de th of eo a~ation totremove unstable should be cut to firm bearing and filled to grade with structuraz fill. If the p the equivalent, in conjunction with clean soils is excessive, using a geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi SOOX or ranular structural fill should be considered. A minimum of 18 inches of clean granular structural fill over the g geotextile fabric should establish a stable bearing surface. A representative from our office should observe all proofroiling operations. We also recommend field evaluations at the time of construction to verify stable subgrades. Based on the conditions we observed in the test pies, inorganic native soils from sitinaierial is requi ed and grading for use as structural fill and backfill during most weather conditions. If import activities are planned during the wet winter months, or if they are initiated during th re unrement s~ extend into fall and winter, we recommend importing a granular soil that meets the follow1rsg grad g q - U.S. Sieve Size ( Percent Passing 6 inches 100 No. 4 I 7~ maxirr~um No. 200 ~ 5 maxin;um* *Based on the 3/4-inch fraction Prior tc use, v:e should examine and *.est alt materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. tructural fill should be placed in uniform loose lavers not exceeding 12 inches and `°n D 698 (Standa d Proot ~) S percent of the soil's maximum dry dens~t t.me of compaction shouldTbet~Ut1'•n two percent of its optimum, as 7Yie moisture content of the soil at th determined by this ASTM standard. In non-structural areas or for backfilt in uUlit~ trenches bela«• a depth o ~ feet, the degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. Page No. ~1 August 15, 2000 Project No. T-4743 5.3 Excavations Alt excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and lowEr building levels, must be completed h~ accordance with local, statz, or fedora( requirements. Bated on currert Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA} regulations, soils we observed ;would be classified as fircup C soils. Accordingly, for excavations more than 4 fet and Iess than 20 feet deep, tl`~e side slopes sho;~ld be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1.~: i (Horizontal:Vertical). If there is insufficient roc:m to complete tl~.e excavations in this manner or if e~cavatiens greater thhan 20 feet deep are planned; temporary shoring to support the excavations should be considered. This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that Terra Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safet}•. lob site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. 5.4 Foundations ~'pread Footings The building may be supported on conventional spread foundations bearing on competent native sails or on stra'otural fills placed above competent native soils. Foundation subgrades should be prepared as recommended in Suction 5.2. Perimeter foundations exposed to the weather should be a minimum of 1.5 feet below final exterior grades. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. fioundations can be dimensioned for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). For short-term loads, such as ~virtd and seismic, aone-third increase in this allowable capacity can be used. With structural loaning as anticipated and this bearing stress applied, estimated total settlements should be negligible. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.4 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting an the sides of the footings can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weigrt of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pef). We recarnmend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because they can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value assumes the foundation wilt be constructed neat against competent natiti~e soil or backfilled with st~vctural fill, as descn'bed in Section S 2. The passive value recommended includes a safer;; factor of 1.5. Corrosion Potential To assess the potential for corrosion of concrete from the site soils, two samples 4ver~ analyzed for chloride and sulfate content, and for hydrogen ion concentrationc (pH). The results indicate that the relative degree of sulfate shack to concrete is negligible. The results of our testing are summarized in t}ie folloti~~4rg table: Test Pit ! No. ~ Depth feet) TP-t I 2.0 P-3 } H Sulfate Content p (m k ) 6.2 4.3 2.5 5.8 ~ 7.9 -~ Page No. 5 Chloride Content 0.7 0.97 August 15, 200 project No. Ti -4743 5 ~ Slab-on-Grade Coxrstructiora - t 5.2. ~siven the cell-drained Slabs-on-grade may be supported on the subgrade prepared as recommended in Sec ions nature of the native soils, w°e do not believe it tivill be necessary to placeaadurable plasticr rnernbranebsho ud be floors. However, where moisture by vapor transmission is undesrrable, laced on tee prepared floor subgrade and covered «•ith tr~•o inches of clean, moist sand to guard against damage p during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. y { Draina¢e Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away fi om the site ~ eaal tw Q ='~L~~e ~ p ov ding allowed to pond or collect adjacent to foundattons or within the immediate bu=ldtng a minimum drainage gradient of three percent for a rninimurn distance oor~er= et~e frohou ~ betprogidedluntess except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of p provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjac°ni to the structure. Sutsurface ~+e recommend installing perimeter foundation drains adjacent to all structur;:s that e fina~~xtemomgiade. frIf the over a crawl space, or are constructed at at a oar ~eeadjacent outside grade,lthe ow.~er may choose to eliminate floors are constructed at grade and elevate the foundation drains, provided positive drainage is established a~;'ay from the str.-cture's penreter. Subsurface drains must be Laid with a gradient sufTicient to promote positive floes Chi ~~~o theesorm dratns~ tom discharge. All drains should be tiglttlined separately from the roof drams to d s Cleanouts should be provided at easily accessible locations along all drain lines. These clew-*:out' should be sen•i.ced at least once every year. .Stormwoter Pvnd A storrn«~ater pond will be constructed in the narth~~~estern portion of ti~4 ut existinhis des. dour field exploration rot lcnoti~n, The pond depth may be on the ordEr of eight to ten fe~~ bolo ° g •~ gravel. Given the indicated that the soil conditions ir= phis area should c nt storosn~ma er should be poss'b1e~Hotivever, additional field soli conditions vv~e observed, infiltration of developme testing and exploration t~~ill be required to develop design recommendations. Interior and slopes should be con<tructed a-ith a gradient of 3: 1. Exterior slop`NC~ °aldf~l, as deco-rimend ~ill~ P used in the constriction of earth berrres should be placed and comp;~cted a~ - P ~n tl-,e finish grades, tl•,is Section ~.2 of this report. Sandy soils t:.nd io sloughanbeloon `g designrdetaiis have been s tabtished, they should be may impact pond design, construction, and perform lementan~ recommendations, if required. submitted to use for review and development of supp Page tio. 6 August I5, ZrJC~O Project No. T-4743 5.7_ -Utilities utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) ar Thurston County specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in Section 5.2. As noted, soils excavated on-site should be suitable for use as backfili material. l~goist'sre conditioning may be necessary to facilitate proper compaction. 5.8 Pavements Pavement subgrades should be prepared as described in Section 5.2. Regardless of the degree of relative compaction achieved, the subgrade must be fire and relatively unyielding before paving. The subgrade should be proofrolled with heavy construction equipment to verify this condition. The pavement design section is dependent upon the supporting capability of the subgrade soils and the traffic conditions to which it will be subjected. For traffic consisting mainly of light passenger and commercial vehicles with only occasional heavy traffic, and with a stable subgrade prepared as recommended, we recommend the following pavement sections: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC} over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) • Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt-trea#ed base (ATB} The pavuig materials used should conform to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for Class B asphalt concrete, ATB, and CRB surfacing. Long-team pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. Apoorly-drained pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltratic:g into the subgrade soils and reducing their supporting capability. For optimum pavement performance, we recommend surface drainage gradients of at least two percent. Some degree of longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur. b.0 ADDIT'IONAI. SERVICES Terra Associates, Inc. should review the final design and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in project design. We should also provide geotechnical services during cons~ructior. in order to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will allo~~~ for design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Page No. 7 I '~ ~ ; I I ~I I t I ~ ~'~ ~ I ~ 1 1 NIS~L',7~~_Y '~i VCS I .\ ,; I i Try-.._. -----i--- ---- L-- ~Y \------------^---i------- --~ ---- ---- ~ - I i~\ ' t I ~ t ~ , ,'` ~~ ~ i --'THUASTp{yt C\G~TY of ~ ~ _____----~-~'.'. ~ - _ ~ if , tz _. -- I _ :Air ~ ~t \ t -~\ t 4 tr wa~ NT I I ~~ f 1\ FiJila. T. ~ _~ y ~~ 1 7 i S . 11 ~ r ~ ~`\ 1 •r y .. i 5~' \\ I r N 's J{~ E y ;r. ~ .. .,, ~ _ I I , ~ - ct. I t a __C - __ __- --"__ - ~~ I -"--'------' ~ 1 -J I ~ aw ~ I $ I f' v:Ee ~. 6 ~ ~~~~ t Nt. I ~ Q I 13 `at.s'~. .,,p I ' t ~, ~ ~ ~. , , - ---- ---~~ .Si-..~ ---- o i - m~3 iv :x~.td ` I t ------ '1 xa .rt4.~ r.,a , ,y. t-~ 0 ~ 1 R~ O ~ 1 8 wi~ as.. prA .~r' y/tpo i y. ;cam ~y ~ ~ <~ ~.. I p• .- !' 1~ t 4fe,3 P l+rs `~~ tl 8 1 ' i ~ ~ t ~ aye ~ ' :~~,~.y o• y. -- i I ~^ ~.,, e~ I . I ,,. d?y ~: 400 ~.,? ~• . ~~,. ~ , 4.23 t ,g +~. L. ~.~ anyr :t('° a '~ R._, ~ ~ • ~, ' ~ . , t 1 { ea+tr vun b. s. ~~.af' ,~ ~i ~'J ~ cu ~s ~..~t ' °• ~h.. I ~* . .,,, ~. ~ v i Q ~i . ~ I \ t n ~ ~ 1 O --r------ ----- I I ~- Ira a e a t t ~ I ~ ,; ,,,,, ~'. I Y~. CO 1 I f ~ ~' Q. tarn .n. ~ ~,`~'~~ ~• G 3 t / Y i ~' ftn y Q . 1 ~ `~ l j;a:.~~c it. I i ) t ------- 1 Gp bti ~ ----Y------ - - 1. 'J ~ ~ 1 t 1 ` .'~ ~ Y ~ t ~ "J t I 7~ ~ ~ , ,, Y t .,p:, ~, r~7h ,y. .; ~ t;i~ ~~ ......_ - i c'°; >: I .; ~. TERRA ...~ ~-SSOCIATES Geotechnicaf consultants VEClNITY MAP PRAIRIE RUN APARTMENTS YELM, WASHINGTON Proj.Na. 4743 Date AUG. 2000 figure t August I5, 2000 Project No. ~'-4743 7.0 LIMITATIONS This report is the properh.~ of Terra Associates, Inc. and seas prepared in accordance with generally ac;,zpted geotechnical engineering practices. This report is intended for specific application to the Prairie Run Apartments project and for the exclusive use of Shelter Rzsources; Inc. and their authorized r;presentatives. No other s4~arranty, expressed or implied, is made. The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from the test pits excavatzd on-site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, tl:e nature and extent of which may not become evident until construction. If variations appear esnden*., Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested *.o re-evaluate ire recommendations in this report prior to proceeding ssZth construction. Page '~ o. 8 APl?E1~DIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AN1'~ LABORATORY TESTItiO prairie Run Apartments Yelm, Washington On July 27, 2440, we performed our field exploration using arubber-tiredfeet below existinglgrades.bThe testspj conditions at the site by excavating 5 test pits to a maximum depth of 8.5 locations are shown on Figure Z. The test pit locations were approximately determined by measurements from existing property line fences. The test pit logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-4. A eologist from our office conducted the field exploration and classified. de sane t s~tel featureso All soil g maintained a log of each test pit, obta cordances«th lthe Unified Soil C assi~ficati°npSystem (USCS) described on samples ~i~ere visually classified u1 Figure A-1. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in cloy `dasomeasured and se eporttid on thet zst for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample it logs. Grain size analyses tivere performed on one of the samples, the result en f o hco ee~t {pH). oThel results of P Two samples were analyzed for chloride a_nd sulfate content, and for by rog these tests are incorporated in the corrosion potential subsection of this report. Project No. T-4743 MA,~QR DIVISIONS ~ LETTER j TYPfCAL DESCRIPTION SYMSOL I i Clean j GW YVell-graded graveis, grave(-sand mixtures, little or no ~ f GRAVELS Gravels _ j tines. _~ O c+~ I co ~ ! (less than More than ~ 5% fines ~ ) uP ! . I Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little ar ~ ~ 'r~ ! 1 SG°Jo of coarse i`- no fines. --- -- -- ~ ' fraction is i ! Gra el ~~ Silty gravels, gravel-sand-slit mixtures, non-plastic fi ~ ~ ~ I `~' v s _ larger than No. with fines nes. -- ----- Z :n E ! c O i 4 sieve ~ ~ ____ - - Cj(; j Clayey graveis, gravel-sar.c!-clay mixtures, plastic fnes. I ~ ~ O N '' ~ p ! ~ Clean ~ SANDS Sands ~ SW - -- j t~bell-graded sands, graveL'y sands; little or no fine;. ~ ~ ~ Z (~ s e I ~ (less than More than 5% fines) ~ S~ Foorl - railed sands ar i ~ y g 9ravel,y sands, litiia or no i Q O C° i o ~ I 50°%0 of coarse -- - ' fraction is I -- fnes. ---_._ __ -- ~ U g sma!ipr than ~ Sands ~ SI~7 ,, Siity sands; sand-Slit mix~ures, non-plas«c fines. ~ No. 4 sieve with fines ~ ; i -~----- _ SC i -"_~--~-"--~- ---- Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. J ~ • l ° --- - i SILTS AND CLAYS ~ -- ~~ - ------ ' Inorganic sil*~, rock flour, clayey silts with slight Plasticity. ~ ~ ~ o w fV ~ E o ~, ~ iquid limit is less than 5C°'o ' _______ - CL _ --_-- - -- Inorganic clays cf low ie medium plasticity; (lean ciayj. ~ ~o Z N ! . r -`--`__-- _---- ~ ~ ~ J ~ QL Organic silts and organic clays of Icw plasticity ~ . ~ •~ i i SILTS AND CLAYS MH - j Inorganic silts`elastic - _" ~_ W ~ E ~ j (;~ --- j inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Z ~ ~ .Liquid limit is greater titan 50% i- ~ ~ j QH j ^--- Organic clays of high plasticity. -' i-iiGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ~ P~ Peat. DEFiNITlGN ©F TERMS AND SYMEOLS ---------"-" ~ ~ Den i Standard Penetration R i ~~~ OUTSIDE DIAMETER SP ~ s es stance ir. BlawslFoat LIT ~ - - - i SPOON SANiPLEh ~ a Very loase C-4 j Loose ;i 2.4" fNSiDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER ° Medium I ~-30 dense 1G-3C I ~. OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER 1 z Dense 3C-50 ~ t 'JVATER LEVEL !DA.TE) ~ Very de nse >50 f I _ -- - -__- - 11 Tr TORVANr READIN'JS. tSf ' Standard Penetration Pp PENETRCP~tETER READING, tsf g Corsisten ~ Resistance in Blows/Foot ----- ---- I O ~ ~ D DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot v o` Very sett ; SaR G-2 z_q I LL LIQUID LIMfT percent t-- Medium s tiff 4-8 I Pi PLASTIC INOEX Stiff Very stiff 8-1 F 1t;_32 ~ N STANDARD PEN~:TRATION, blo~.vs per foot Hard ,32 r---f,~~.., ~ ~~'>~. ~ K ~ TtRRA UNIFIED SOIL CLASSfF{CATION SYSTE~~A ~ : ~ ~ PRAIRIE RUN APARTMENTS ' ~ ~ ASSOCIATES YELM, WASHINGTON ~ - Geotechnical Consultants ~ Proj. -~- -- No. T-4743 ~ Date AUG 2000 --- 1 Fi A gure - T~iS` ~It $~. ~~~~ Logged by: DK1fV Date: 07127i0fl 1~r1°isture Depth Content (fit,) Soil Description °~a) ~ 6 inches SOD. 5 TUPSOiL: brown, sarsdy, loose, moist to dry. Brownish-tan sandy GRAVEL, with cobbiQs and occasional ~ boulders, medium dense, moist to dry. (GP) 5 .(~ ~ Test pit terminated at 8 feet. !`do groundwater encountered. 1 ~~~t ~t~ ~i0. ~~-~ Logged by: DKW Date: ©~~~7ro~ Mo;st~re Depth Content (ft ~ Soil Description (%) 0 6 inches SOD`. TOPSOIL: brawn, sandy, loose, moist to dry. - `Jr_ 3 Brownish-tan sandy GRAVEL~vith cobbies and occasional ~ boulders, medium dense, moist to dry. (GP) Test p+t terminated at 7 feet. 10 No 9rou~~dwate; encountered. 15 `~_-- ~__ TEST PlT LOGS TERRA ~ P~Al21E RUN APARTMENTS ~ YELM, WASHINGTON ~~~ ~ ASSOCIATES i __-- _-_-_-- -- ____-- - -_ .__. "-y-"-~ Gevte~.hnic~! tionsulfia~~ts r Praj. No_ T-4743! Date AUG 2000 ~ Figure A-2 Test Pit N~. T'P-3 logged by: DKiN Date: o7i27io~ Depth Moisture Content (ft.) Soil Description ~%~ 0 FILL: brown sandy grave! vrith cobbles, {Dose, dry; mixed with TOPSOIL: sandy, locse, moist to dry. 8rown:sh-tan sand GRAVEL with cobbles and occasional 4 5 boulders, medium dense, moist to dry. {GP) Test pit terminated ai 8.5 feet. ~ ~ No groundwater encountered. 1 Test Pit ~®. TP-4 Logged by: DKV1,' Date: 07!27/00 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description C ~ j~~ nt ~ 8 inches SdD. TOPSOIL' brown; sandy, with cobbles, loose, moist to dry. Brownish-tan sandy GRAVEL to gravelly SAND with cobbles ~ ~ - and occasional boulders, medium dense, moist to dry. {SP/Gi') Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet. ~ Q No groundwater encountered. 15 ! TES i PIT LOGS TERRA ~ PRAIRIE RUN APARTMENTS ~'~ '~\'~~~' ASSOCATES YEIM, WASHINGTON Geotechnicai Consul+ants Proj. No. T-4743 T Date AUG 2000 j Figure F.-3 T~~t Fait ~V~. °~'~'-~ Logged by: DKV~' Date: 07!27!00 Depth (ft.) Soii Description ~ FlLL1TQP8OIL: brown sandy gravel vrith cobbles, loose, moist to dry i3rawnish-tan sandy CRAVELwith cobbles and occasional 5 boulders, medlUl'Ti dellse, waist to dry. (GP) Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet. ~ 0 No groundwater encountered. ~5 Moisture Contertit 8ro) 10 8 ' TES-~ PiT LOGS ~ TERRA ~ FRA~R~E RUN APARTMENTS ~~ ~ . ~ YEL~.'l, WASHINGTON :~ AssooATEs Geatechnical Consultants ~ Qro~. No. T-4743 ~ Date AUG 2000 Figure A-4