Geotechnical Engineering Study
C' I:
en
~i(
~,
;,;, ,
. ~1'~'
,.i
.; ,~~,
"j,'
I
III 1
LJI I
cf
rl
u'
[II
L) I
,
I
I
-.
..' ,,;" ..
-GEOTECHNI CAL. ENG1NEERlNiG STUD Y
"PgO'~'O<SE!D.SAfEW:A:\t; . .-
YELM A\?ENiUE EAST
AND< v.cm:ClL ROAD' ",
YEL:M; WAS:lrlIl\J<ST oi.j.: '
'. ) ,.: To., _'\"',:: " ~
~ ':
, 5.:8092
n
I
Mj3l1C[1 Z,. 1:9'98'
u
n
~
.PBEPARgD FQR
SAFEWAY ,fNCORPORA TED
Q 1
.. ' , . ,"
. ,,' .. ..... . .'c:" .,,;, f;
.' ."..-..
..' .. . .... . .
\,1 ~aak
J' . \jay.mqna:~:A,:"CQ;g~,-
S~.aff'Eh:girie.er,.
(l
LJ
r
LJ
r
U
fl
U
C
n
U
n
U
n )
i
I I
U )
C I
.J
C
r'
U
Kyle. R, Campbe.II, P E
Manager- of GeotechflicaJ Services
EarFfl Consutt?nts:, Ihc.
180,5- ,., 136th Pface N:ortheastj.. Suite 201
Be.lJe.Vlle" "'la$hthg:tPD' 9$:@05
f.425.J.643;3;7$D'
/l J-'1
~ ,
;
[f
ii
o
I
[I
G
c
J1
U
c
c
(l
LJ
c
r
LJ
r
u
fl
I
LJ
f'
I
LJ
n
I
LJ
r'
U
r
LJ
11
L
r
LJ
f'
LJ
IMPOR1AN'l INl-'Ul<MAllUN
ABOUT YOUR
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
More construction problems are caused by site subsur-
face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as
subsurface problems can be their frequency and extent
have been lessened considerably in recent years. due in
large measure to programs and publications of P.SFEj
The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in
the Geosciences,
The following suggestions and observations are offered
to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays.
cost-overruns and other costly headaches that can
occur during a construction project.
A GEOTECHNI CAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET
OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur-
face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique
set of proJect-specific factors, These typically include'
the general nature of the structure involved. its size and
configuration the location of the structure on the site
and its orientation physical concomitants such as
access roads. parking lots. and underground utilities.
and the level of additional risk which the client assumed
by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory
program To help avoid costly problems, consult the
geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors
which change subsequent to the date of the report may
affect its recommendations,
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates
otherwise your geotechnical engineering report should not
be used,
. When the nature of the proposed structure is
changed Forexample if an office building wdl be
erected instead of a parking garage or if a refriger-
ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre-
frigerated one.
. when the size or conFiguration of the proposed
structure is altered,
. when the location or orientation of the proposed
structure is modified
. when there is a change of ownership, or
. for application to an adiacent site,
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibilitrJ for fJ7'oblems
wfllch may develop if they are not coY/suited after factors consid-
ered in their report s development nave changed,
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS"
ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions
only at those points where samples are taken when
they are taken Data derived through sampling and sub-
sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo-
I
technical engineers who then render an opinion about
overall subsurface conditions. their likely reaction to
proposed construction activity, and appropriate Founda-
tion design Even under optimal circumstances actual
conditions may differ from those inferred to exist
because no geotechnical engineer. no matter how'
qualified and no subsurface exploration program no
matter how comprehenSive. can reveal what is hidden by
earth rock and time, The actual interface between mate-
~ial~ may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report
l~d1Cates, Actua,l c?nditions in areas not sampled may
dIffer from predictions, Nothing can be done to prevent the
unanticipated but steps can 6e taken to help minimize their
impact, For this reason most experienced owners retain their
geotech~ical consultants through the construction stage to iden-
tify vanances, conduct additional tests which may be
needed and to recommend solutions to problems
encountered on site,
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
CAN CHANGE
Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly-
cha~ging natural forces, Because a geotechnical engi-
neenng report is based on conditions which existed at
the time of subsurface exploration construction decisions
should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose
adequacy may rlQve been affected by time, Speak with the geo-
technical consultant to learn if additional tests are
advisable before construction starts,
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and
natural events such as floods, earthquakes or ground-
water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions
and thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical
report, The geotechnical engineer should be kept
apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to
determine if additional tests are necessary.
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE
PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
AND PERSONS
Geotechnical engineers reports are prepared to meet
the specific needs of specific individuals, A report pre-
pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade-
quate for a construction contractor, or even some other
consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise
this report was prepared expressly for the client involved
and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use
by any other persons for any purpose or by the client
For a different purpose may result in problems, No indi-
vidual other than tne client should apply this report for its
intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical
engineer No person should apply th~s report for anw purpose
other than that oriqinallw contemplated without first conferring
with tne geotechnical enginw
c
c
f'
\
1
U
r
LJ
r'
LJ
[I
I
LJ
* ~~~.SOG~~l!~!~L~~'
March 2, 1998
E-8092
Safeway, Incorporated
Seattle Division
POBox 85001
Bellevue, Washington 98015-8501
Attention
Mr Mitch Johnson
r' Dear Mr Johnson
G
We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineenng Study, Proposed
/l Safeway, Yelm Avenue East and Vancil Road, Yelm, Washington" This report presents the
I
U results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses The
purpose and scope of our study was outlined In our proposal dated January 16, 1998
(I
~ In our opinion, development of the proposed building site is feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint Investigation of the subsurface was performed by excavating a series of test pits
[' in the proposed building and pavement areas Poorly graded sand with silt underlain by poorly
LJ graded sand and poorly graded gravel was predominantly encountered at the test pit locations
In our opinion, the proposed structures can be supported on conventional spread and
r continuous footings bearing on at least two feet of structural fill The native sand and gravel
~ soils should be suitable for use as structural fill, provided the soils are at or near their optimum
moisture content at the time of compaction Recommendations for site preparation and
r foundation support are provided in the "Site Preparation and General Earthwork" and
LJ "Foundations" sections of the report
f' We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this initial phase of
~ project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future phases. Should
you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this report, or if we can be
r of further assistance, please call
LJ
f'
LJ
n
i
\
LJ
J1
I
G
n
G
f'
I
LJ
Sincerely,
EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC
1;-1--~
Kyle R Campbell, P E
Manager of Geotechnical Services
1805 -136th Place N,E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005
Bellevue (425) 643-3780 Seattle (206) 464-1584 FA!. (425) 74-608-60 Tacoma (253) 272-6608
c
c
c
r
u
c
c
c
/l
LJ
c
c
I'
~
INTRODUCTION
General .
Proiect Description
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface . .
Subsurface .
Groundwater
laboratory Testing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-8092
PAGE
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Site Preparation and General Earthwork
Foundations
Hvdrolooic Soil Group ...
Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls
Slab-on-Grade Floors
Seismic Desion Considerations
Site Drainage
Excavations and Slopes
Utility Trench Backfill
Pavement Areas
LIMITATIONS
Additional Services
C APPENDICES
(I
~
Appendix A
Appendix B
r ILLUSTRATIONS
G
r'
U
n
I
u
n
,
LJ
r'
I
U
n
I
LJ
Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3
Plate 4
Plate A 1
Plates A2 through A 14
Plates 81 through 83
3
3
3
4
5
6
6
6
7
8
8
9
9
10
Field Exploration
Laboratory Test Results
Vicinity Map
Test Pit location Plan
Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
Utility Trench Backfill
Legend
Test Pit Logs
Sieve Analyses
c
n
G
11
~!
c
c
f'
LJ
c
(I
~
c
"
I
LJ
c
('
~
r
G
n
LJ
r
l.J
fI
U
n
G
r
LJ
n
I
LJ
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED SAFEWAY
YELM AVENUE EAST AND VANCIL ROAD
YELM, WASHINGTON
E-8092
INTRODUCTION
General
This report presents the results of the Geotechnical Engineering Study completed by Eel for
the proposed Safeway Store, Yelm Avenue East and Vancil Road, Yelm, Washington. The
purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site, and based on the
conditions encountered, develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site
devel0pment. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1
Proiect Description
Our exploratory locations are presented on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2 We understand
it is planned to construct a 55,000 square foot grocery store at the site Three smaller retail
developments with building footprints ranging between approximately 4,000 square feet to
8,000 square feet are also planned at the site The remainder of the site will be developed
with pavement areas We understand the proposed development IS planned for approximately
the northern three quarters of the property
We anticipate the building will consist of concrete-masonry-unit construction with slab-on-
grade floors Based on our experience with similar projects, we anticipate wall loads will be
in the range of four (4) to six (6) kips per lineal foot, column loads in the range of eighty (80)
to one hundred (100) kips, and slab-an-grade floor loads of two hundred fifty (250) pounds
per square foot If any of the above design- criteria are incorrect or change, we should be
consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report In any case, Eel should
be retained to perform a general review of the final design
SITE CONDITlONS
Surface
The property is located southeast of the intersection of Yelm Avenue East and Vancil Road,
in Yelm, WashIngton (see Vicinity Map, Plate 1) The property consists of three parcels, with
a total area of approximately twelve (12) acres Two, one-story wood-frame single-family
residences, and a wood-frame barn are located on the property One of the single-family
residences, at the east end of the site, was occupied at the time our field exploration was
performed The site topography gradually slopes downward to the south and southwest at
grades of approximately one to three percent In the vicinity of the proposed development,
the site is vegetated primarily with grasses At the south end of the property, the site is
densely vegetated with deciduous trees
Earth Consultants. Inc,
c
r
u
Jl
I
U
n
lJ
r
u
/l
,
LJ
c
f\
U
c
c
I'
U
r
u
[l
u
I'
l.J
f'
U
n
I .
I
U
n
,
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Safeway, Incorporated
Seattle Division
March 2, 1998
E-8092
Page 2
Subsurface
The subsurface was explored by excavating thirteen test pits at the approximate locations
shown on Plate 2 These test pits were performed on January 30, 1998 Please refer to the
Test Pit Logs, Plates A2 through A 14, for a more detailed description of the conditions
encountered at the test pit locations A description of the field exploration methods is
included in Appendix A The following is a generalized description of the subsurface
conditions encountered
Loose poorly graded sand with silt (Unified Classification SP-SM) was predominantly
encountered to depths of approximately two to three feet below the surface Poorly graded
sand (SP) and poorly graded grave! (GP) were predominantly encountered below depths of
approximately three feet These soils were observed to be in a loose to medium dense
condition Cobbles in the range of four to ten inches were also encountered in the gravel
deposits
Groundwater
Groundwater seepage was encountered at test pit locations TP-1 through TP-3 at the time of
our exploration The groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately eight feet,
and the flow rate of groundwater seepage into the test pits was light to moderate Based on
the available topographic survey, the groundwater level encountered corresponds to an
elevation of approximately 341 0 feet Groundwater seepage levels are not static, and
fluctuations in the level and rate of seepage can be expected depending on the s,eason,
amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors Generally, the groundwater level
is higher in the wetter winter months (typically October through May) Groundwater seepage
may be encountered during construction in deep foundation or utility trench excavations
laboratory Testinq
Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to verify or modify
the field soil classification and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering
characteristics of the soil encountered Moisture content tests were performed on all samples
The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided in Appendix S, or
at the appropriate sample depth on the test pit logs It is important to note that these test
results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions Our geotechnical
recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding
our engineering judgement Eel cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by
others
LJ In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for
this project will be discarded after a period of fifteen days following completion of this report
[1 unless we are otherwise directed in writing
LJ
r
u
Earth Consultants. Inc,
r
l1
{I
u
c,
c,
c
[I
u
II
I
I
U
/l
~
c
r
LJ
[1
~
r
LJ
n
I
LJ
r'
U
r
u
II
I
I
LJ
{l
u
fl
LJ
f'
LJ
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Safeway, Incorporated
Seanle Division
March 2, 1998
E-8092
Page 3
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the results of our study, It is our opinion the proposed development can be
constructed generally as planned provided the recommendations contained in this report are
incorporated into the final design In our opinion, the proposed grocery store and retail
structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on at
least two feet of structural fill Slab-on-grade floors can be supported on at least one foot of
structural fill In our opinion, the native sand and gravel soils can be used as structural fill,
provided the soils are at their optimum moisture content at the time of compaction Structural
fill requirements, and additional recommendations regarding site preparation and foundations
are presented in the following sections of this report
This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner
consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the
profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area, and is for the exclusive
use of SafewaYr Incorporated and their representatives No other warranty, expressed or
Implied, is made We recommend that thiS report, in its entirety, be included in the project
contract documents for the information of the contractor
Site Preparation and General Earthwork
The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation,
existing foundations, organic matter, and other deleterious material Stripped materials should
be removed from the site Existing utility pipes intended to be abandoned, should be plugged
or removed so that they do not provide a conduit for water and cause soil saturation and
stability problems
Once the area has been stripped, the ground surface where structural fill, foundations, or
slabs are to be placed should be observed by a representative of ECl Proofrolling may be
necessary to identify and delineate loose or unstable areas in the building and proposed
pavement areas Proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative
of ECI Areas that are found to be yielding or unstable should be repaired either by re-
compacting the area, or overexcavating and replacing WIth structural fill. The use of a woven
geotextile placed on the overexcavated surface may be useful in bridging over unstable areas
Cement kiln dust treatment can also be considered for stabilizing wet soils
Earth Consultants. Inc,
r
u
c
(I
1J
I
u
c
n
U:
C
C
C
C
C
C
r
U
c
11
LJ
n
I
lJ
/l
~
r
l.J
I'
U
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Safe way , Incorporated
Seattle Division
March 2, 1998
E~8092
Page 4
During dry weather, any non-organic compactible soil can be used as structural fill Fil! for use
during wet weather should consist of a well graded granular material having a maxImum size
of three inches and no more than five percent fines passing the No 200 sieve based on the
minus 3/4-inch fraction The fines content of the upper three feet of native soils ranged
between approximately eight (8) to twelve (12) percent These soils are moisture sensitive,
and compaction and grading of these soils will be difficult if the soil mOisture is above its
optimum moisture content The fines content of the native soils below a depth of
approximately three feet was generally less than five percent, and therefore these soils wi!l
be less mOisture sensitive At the time of our exploration, the majority of the upper deposit
of poorly graded sand with silt was above its optimum mOisture content The [ower deposits
of sand and gravel were at or near their optimum moisture content
Due to the moisture sensitive nature of the upper deposit of poorly graded sand with silt, wet
weather conditions may adversely impact the earthwork phase of construction Exposed
native surfaces may degrade when exposed to moisture, potentially impacting the workability
of the soil, and possibly the mobility of on-site equipment To help stabilize degraded native
surfaces, cement kiln dust treatment (CKD) or cement treatment can be considered
Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements,
or other load-bearing areas Structural fill under floor slabs and footings shoL!!d be placed in
horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density, determined in accordance with
ASTM Test Designation 0-1557-78 (Modified Proctor) The fill materials should be placed at
or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under paverrents and walks should also be placed
in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density except for the top twelve
(12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density
Foundations
Assuming compliance with the recommendations outlined in the" Site Preparation and General
Earthwork," section of this report, the proposed grocery store and retail structures may be
supported on a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation bearing on at least two
feet of structural fill In our opinion, the native soils can be compacted to meet the
requirements of structural fill, provided the soils are at or near their optimum moisture content
at the time of compaction If the native soil cannot be compacted to the requirements of
structural fill, overexcavation or treatment (CKD or cement) to the recommended depth (two
feet) will be necessary. ECI should observe compaction of the foundation soils, and perform
density testing in foundation structural fill areas to confirm compaction levels
Exterior foundation elements should be placed a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below
final exterior grade Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum depth of twelve
(12) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where interior foundation
elements should be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches
Earth Consultants. Ino,
c
c
I'
~
n
~
n
~
c
[1
G
c
c
c
c
(I
~
c
c
n
l.J
n
lJ
n
U
r'
LJ
f'
~
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Safeway, Incorporated
Seattle Division
March 2, 1998
E-8092
Page 5
With foundation support obtained as described above, an allowable soil bearing capacity of
two thousand five hundred (2,500) pounds per square foot (psf) can be used for foundations
bearing on at least two feet of structural fill This value of allowable soil bearing capacity
incorporates a theoretical factor-of-safety in excess of three against actual shear failure
Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and
twenty-four (24) inches, respectively Assuming the footings are placed on at least two feet
of structural fill, total settlement of one inch and differential settlement of one half inch is
anticipated for the proposed structures Most of the anticipated settlements should occur
during construction as dead loads are applied
Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the
supporting soil, and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the
foundation For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0 40 may be used for foundations
elements bearing on structural fill For passive earth pressure, the available resistance can be
computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of three hundred (300) pounds per cubic foot
(pcf), assuming the foundation is poured "neat" against competent native soils or backfilled
with structural fill These lateral resistance values are allowable values, a factor-of-safety of
1 5 has been included
Hvdrologic Soil Group
We understand the installation of storm water infiltration systems is planned at the site For
purposes of designing these systems, the sand and gravel soils located below a depth of
approximately three feet were classified based on their hydrOlogic soil grouping The soils
were classified in accordance with Table IIJ-3 1 of the Stormwater Management Manual for
the Puget Sound Basin The soils encountered below a depth of three feet generally consisted
of medium sand, gravel, and cobbles In our opinion, these soils are consistent with
HydrologiC Soil Group A of Table 11I-3 1, for coarse sands and cobbles An infiltration rate of
twenty (20) inches per hour is indicated on Table 111-3 1 for these soils
To provide additional field data regarding infiltration rates, infiltration tests were performed
at test pit locations TP-7 and TP-13 at depths of approximately four feet The results of these
tests indicate infiltration rates that range between thirty (30) to forty-five (45) inches per
hour
Earth Consultants. tne,
r
LJ
(I
~
n
U
c
/l
~
"
u
c
c
r
~
c
c
I'
~
c
J1
L
n
lJ
"
~
n
u
"
LJ
n
LJ
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Safeway, Incorporated
Seattle Division
March 2, 1998
E-8092
Page 6
Permanent Retainina and Foundation Walls
Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed
by the retained soils Walls that are designed to yield can be designed to resist the lateral
earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pcf For
walls that are restrained at the top from free movement, the equivalent fluid pressure should
be increased to fifty (50) pet The above lateral earth pressure values assume horizontal
backfill conditions, and no surcharges due to traffic, adjacent foundations, construction loads,
or other loadings If surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral
pressures
Conventional above-grade retaining walls should be provided with a perforated drain pipe and
backfilled with a free-draining material The free-draining material should extend at least
eighteen (18) inches behind the wall The remainder of the backfill should consist of
structural fill
Slab-an-Grade Floors
Slab-on-grade floors should be supported on at least one foot of structural fill As mentioned
previously, the native sand and gravel SOils can be compacted to meet the requirements of
structural fill, provided the soils are at or near their optimum moisture content at the time of
compaction Slab-an-grade floors should be designed by the structural engineer based on the
antiCIpated loading and the subgrade support characteristics For slab-on-grade floors
supported on structural fill, a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction of three hundred (300)
pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used for design
The slab should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free-draining sand or gravel
(Jess than five percent fines) In areas where slab moisture is undeSirable, a vapor barrier such
as a 6-mil plastic membrane may be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand may
be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the
concrete
Seismic Design Considerations
The Puget Lowland is classified as a Seismic Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) The
largest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread and have been subcrustal events,
ranging in depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles Such deep events have exhibIted no
surface faulting
Structures are subject to damage from earthquakes due to direct and indirect action. Direct
action is represented by shaking Indirect action is represented by foundatIon soil failures and
IS typified by ground failure or liquefactIon
Earth Consultants. Inc,
il
LJ
c
r
u
11
U
h
I
U
fl
U
11
W
II
~
I
lJ
r
U
c
F1
I
U
c
c
(l
I
U
c
"
11
LJ
11
U
iJ
LJ
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Safeway, Incorporated
Seattle Division
March 2, 1998
E-8092
Page 7
The use Earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force
procedure for design base shear calculations Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is
our opinion that a site coefficient of Sz :::: 1 2 should be used for the static force procedure
as outlined in Section 1628 of the 1994 UBC For the dynamic force procedure outlined in
Section 1629 of the 1994 USC, the curve for deep cohesionless or stiff clay soils (Soil Type
2) should be used for Figure 16-3, Normalized Response Spectra Shapes
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time
during an earthquake The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential
settlement for structures WIth foundations founded In the liquefying soils Groundshaking of
sufficient duration results in the loss of grain-to-grain contact and rapid increase in pore water
pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid for short periods of time
To have potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution
of a specified range (generally sands and silt), it must be loose to medium-dense, it must be
below the groundwater table, and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of
groundshaking
In our opinion, the subject site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction Based on our
observations of the sand and gravel soils underlying the site, it is our opinion these soils have
a low susceptibility to contractive behavior during a seismic event The absence of a near
surface ground water table also reduces the potential for large liquefaction related settlements
at the surface of the site In our opinion, surface settlements related to liquefaction of the
soils below 'the water table should not exceed one inch
Site Drainage
The site must be graded such that surface water is directed off the site Water must not be
allowed to stand in any construction area During construction, loose surfaces should be
sealed by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils
If excessive groundwater seepage is encountered in excavations, the installation of sumps and
pumping of the excavation may be required. However, if construction is performed during the
drier summer months, the presence of groundwater seepage in the footing excavations in not
anticipated Groundwater seepage, however, may be encountered in the deeper utility trench
excavations, and some dewatering of these excavations may be necessary
Due to the free-draining nature of the native sand and gravel soils underlying the site, it is our
opinion the installation of footing drains is not necessary The foundation soil and footing
backfill, however, should consist offree-draining soil A typical footing drain detaif is provided
on Plate 3, should footing drains be installed Under no circumstances should roof downspout
drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. Roof downspouts must be separately
tightlined to discharge
Earth Consultants. Ino,
ri
I
LJ
r
u
r;,
i
U
o
r
u
rr
U
n
lJ
A
I ,
LJ
c
r
LJ
I'
I
LJ
n
~
(I
li
I'
I
LJ
H
I
u
n
I
U
r
u
n
LJ
n
LJ
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Safeway, Incorporated
Seattle Division
March 2, 1998
E-8092
Page 8
Excavations and Slopes
The following information is provided solely as a service to our client Under no circumstances
should this information be interpreted to mean that Eel is assuming responsibility for
construction site safety or the contractor's activities, such responsibility is not being implied
and should not be inferred
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and
Federal safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from our exploration, the sand
and gravel soils encountered at our test pit locations would be classified as Type C by OSHA
As such, temporary cuts greater than four feet in height should be sloped at an inclination no
steeper than 1 5H 1 V (Horizontal Vertical) An Eel representative should observe excavations
to verify the OSHA soil type classification If slopes cannot be constructed in accordance
with the OSHA regulations, temporary shoring may be necessary
Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H 1 V Cut slopes should
be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated
Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability,
including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains In any case,
water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of slopes
Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to
reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil
Utility Trench Backfill
Based on the soil conditions encountered at the time of our exploration, the native sand and
gravel soils should provide adequate utility support If remedial measures are required for
utility support, the unsuitable soil can be overexcavated and replaced with a rock ballast As
previously mentioned, groundwater seepage may be encountered in the deeper utility trench
excavations Therefore, some dewatering of the excavations may be required
Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility
alignments, particularly in pavement areas It is important that each section of utility line be
adequately supported in the bedding material The material should be hand tamped to ensure
support is provided around the pipe haunches Fill should be carefully placed and hand
tamped to about twelve (12) inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction
equipment is used The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in lifts having a
loose thickness of less than twelve (12) inches A typical trench backfill section and
compaction requirements for load supporting and non-load supporting areas is presented on
Plate 4
Earth Consultants. Inc,
(1
LJ
,
f1
I
LJ
c
r
LJ
r
~
r
LJ
r
u
~
l.J
d
!
r
u
r
LJ
r
U
,n
\
V
f1
I '
LJ
H
I
U
~
LJ
A
U
n
LJ
n
LJ
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Safeway, Incorporated
Seattle Division
March 2, 1998
E-8092
Page 9
Pavement Areas
The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade
The proposed pavement sections should be supported on at least one foot of subbase meeting
the requirements of structural fill described in the n Site Preparation and General Earthwork"
section of this report The pavement subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition
when proofrolled Unstable areas of pavement subgrade may require overexcavation and the
use of a geotextile Cement treatment and CKD treatment can also be considered
The following pavement section for lightly-loaded areas can be used
· Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRS)
material, or
. Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (A TB) material
Heavier truck-traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement
life and site traffic As a general rule, the following sections can be considered for truck-
trafficked areas
. Three inches of AC over six inches of CRS, or
.
Three inches of AC over four and one-half inches of ATB
These pavement thicknesses may be modified based on anticipated traffic loads and
frequency
Asphalt concrete (AC), asphalt treated base (ATB), and crushed rock base (CRB) materials
should conform to WSOOT specifications All rock base should be compacted to at least 95
percent of the ASTM 0-1557-78 laboratory test standard
LIMITATIONS
Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site matenals observed, selective
laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us by you, and
our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are
professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily
exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in
this area No warranty is expressed or implied
Earth Consultants. Inc,
r
UI
c
c
r
U
n
I ,
U
r
u
n
u
r:
u
r
u
r;
LJ
['
Li
c
r
U
i'
G
,\
G
n
LJ
(1
L
r
I
U
n
G
GEOTECHNICAL ENG1NEERING STUDY
Safeway, Incorporated
Seattle Division
March 2, 1998
E-8092
Page 10
The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from our test
pit exploration Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from the
conditions encountered The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until
construction If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the
recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding
with the construction
Additional Services
We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and
specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been
properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications
We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction
This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations
and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated
prior to the start of construction We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the
foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and
specifications, and to prOVide construction observation and testing services
Earth Consultants. Inc,
o
i-^J
G
D
o
C
n
u
o
f'1
U
/1
U
c
c
c
['
~
r\
U,
I'
U
~
u
(;
LJ
n
U
o
.---., ~,'
.0-.
Uj'
t/Y .
""y.'
oUJ
.t.f'}
h--.
(,0.')
\ C)
t z-
.W: "\'. 'P-+
U.1 ,0::: .
:i:,_," 0.
:f.-. J,A
VF.
w.
fA
:;.
:0","
0::: ;-
t
1
f
. l,;.
'\
~.,
a' ~
'0=:; : .:,
....;: f. lcHJ
~.-- .
:t:,:
E.
:;::;.
~~'.' . -.- ."
,~,':" "-'..:,':"' . .~':":.;j~....;: .:,
. DOOK
'>.0':'"
.O:;:',~
~.;: ,
it'- ..
.~.
'ffii;
'U
otr\..:.~.,..
"A"U
@
_ !2,~!l~.~.?!2~~.~<;:!2~;,!!2S;
Reference:
Thurston County / Map 21
By Totem Atlas
Dated 1988
Vicinity Map
Proposed Safeway Store
Yelm, Washington
Drwn. GLS Date Feb '98 Proj. No. 8092
Checked RAC Date 2113/98 Plate
1
J
Q
o
U
Q
II'
U
\3
\\
1..-,
D
D
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
--
--
.-----I
/
~
E.ast
Pad
I
-a-
\ lP-8
I
-a-
\ 1?-1.3
\
-a-
\1?-7
---
V ANC\L ROAD
-a-
\
lP-3
\
-~1P-9
SAFeNA Y
\
.a-
\ lP-5
Retail
lP-6
I
a-
\
\
-a-
\
lP-4
--j ----I
\ - \
\ ..J
\ ---
\_--
\
-a-
lP-2 I
\ lP-1.
-e-
I
I
-
\
1
\
---
\---
I
L
_~2~~~.
(
proi No 8092
Drwn. GLS
01>3
APproximate scale
_ ~ -----=- :::::..:-:::::J
o SO 1. 00 200ft.
~
TP-1 _,_ APprol<imate location 01
Ee\ Test Pit, proi No
E_809Z,Jan \998
o proposed Bui\ding
\ \
\__J Existing Bu\\ding
T est Pit Location p\an
proposed saleway Store
'{ e\rn, washington
Plate 2
Date 211. 3/98
Date Feb. '98 I Checked Me
n
L
r
I
U
c
n
L
c
c
Ii
U
C
[)
I I
U
n
L
f\
I '
tJ
c
r
lJ
f1-
L\
1'1
LJ
[I
I
I
lJ
('
11
r
LJ
r
LJ
...
1
6 inch min.
KFf
;'0'" Q~: -.' .. =- ., e..O.. ' ",..a. ....'.Q~ .. C> ... Q-.. Q .
:..0: :'.... , o..O~..,," ~.: ,.....Ao. _..1"'-':' 0 .. .....
.: ::',:,~~: \::~ :<~.~:;'({:?X.: ~ ~ i ~.o~
:.0: ':: ~ < ~ .-. ~ ,~~.: ~~ :..a. ~', :' :.. ': -:. ':Q \ C :
,. #' .., o' ..... , ... ..." a .0" l1 00'0.. 1::1 .. .. 0
.. a ' :... ,.. 'II .. ,*,:) _ a 0: 0.. '*.. 0... 0
, ... .. ._.... ..... 0 0 0 0 D 00 00 Q 0_
., 0 o. 0 .. 0 _0.. 0 0 00 0 " 0
.. .... ..11' Q,.. 0 a Q Q 00 Q.. ..:: 0 0 Co ~ Q
. .. .. - -,," ....
T
____ Slope To Drain
1
~
l
I
2 inch min.
. ,......' .
18 inch min,
4 inch min.
Diameter
Perforated Pipe
Wrapped in Drainage
Fabric
t
t
2 inch min. / 4 inch max.
~ 12'i.nCh ~
min.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
LEGEND
~
f:.(.~~'.~1
Surface seal, native soil or other low permeability material.
Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete, Section 9-D3.1 (2) of the
WSDOT Specifications.
o
Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or
slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible
corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing
lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent.
-~~~~~~~
TYPICAL FOOTING SU8DRAIN DETAIL
Proposed Safeway Store
Yelm, Washington
Proj No 8092 Drwn. GLS
Date Feb. '98
Checked RAC
Date 2113/98
Plate 3
Cj
,
r
u,
i
r
Ui
I
!
r
U)
f'
~
r'
U;
I
n
LJ
r
LJ
(1
LJ
/1
~
rr~
I
IU
,11
~
r,
u
r-1
LJ
ti
!
LJ
n
i
U
/l
LJ
r
G
/1
G
~
@
Backfill
Non-Load Supporting
Areas
Foot Minimum
Varies
Bedding T
..L
JariOS
LEGEND
Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab
Base Material or Base Rock
Backfill, Compacted On-Site Soil or Imported Select Fill
Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General
Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text,
Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Density as
Determined by ASTM Test Method 0 1557-78 (Modified Proctor),
Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Report Text,
Bedding Material, Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and
Laying Conditions, Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers
Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected,
*~2~~!~~.
TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL
Proposed Safeway Store
Yelm, Washington
Proj. No 8092 Drwn GLS
Date Feb. '98
Checked Me
Date 2113/98
Plate 4
APPEND\X 1\
\
J \
;-\
\ .
u\
Jl
U\
r
lJ\
('-,
\
u
r
~
c
r.
I ' \
G
[1
u
l'
Ll
\I
o
I'
\
U
Jl
I .
c!
,
n
G;
I
(I
ui
Ci
(!
G
r'
G
11
G
11
L.i
rr
I
L,J,
n
U
"
i
LJ
Jl
\
u
n
I
U
(I
; ,
U
r'
u
fI
I
LJ
(I
U
r
G
II
U
APPENDIX A
FJELD EXPLORATiON
E.8092
Our field exploration was performed on January 30, 1998 Subsurface conditions at the site
were explored by excavating thirteen test pits to a maximum depth of ten (10) feet below the
existing grade The test pits were excavated with a trackhoe The approximate test pit
locations were determined from existing landmarks presented on available plans The
approximate locations are shown on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2
The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineer from our office, and the soils
encountered at the test pit locations were logged Representative soil samples were obtained,
groundwater levels were measured, and pertinent site features were observed The soil
samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System
which is presented on Plate 1, Legend Logs of the test pits are presented in the Appendix
on Plates A2 through A 14 The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and
the results of the laboratory tests of field samples The stratIficatIon lines on the logs
represent the approximate boundaries between soil types In actuality, the transitions may
be more gradual
Earth Consultants. Inc,
c
n
G
[I
I
LJ
c
Coarse
Grained
Soils
r
LJ
11
I
U
More Than
50% Material
Larger Than
No, 20a Sieve
Size
n
U
fI
G
Fine
Grained
Soils
rr
~
More Than
50% Material
Smaller n'an
No 200 Sieve
Size
n
I ,
LJ
r
U
II
U
(l
~
11
G
C
qu
W
P
f'
U
..
fI
~
pet
LL
PI
(I
I
U
r
LJ
MAJOR DIVISIONS
Gravel
And
Gravelly
SoilS
More Than
50% Coarse
Fraction
Retained On
No, 4 Sieve
Sand
And
Sandy
Soils
More Than
50% Coarse
Fraction
Passing No, 4
Sieve
Silts
And
Clays
Silts
And
Clays
Highly Organic Soil~
Topsoil
Clean Gravels
(little or no fines)
Gravels With
Fines ( appreciable
amount of fines)
Clean Sand
(little or no fines)
Sands With
Fines (appreciable
amount of fines)
liquid Limi 1
Less Than 50
Liquid limit
Greater Than 50
Fill
LETT ER
{.. {..
{.. -.j, -1
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
Well-Graded Gravels Gravel-Sand
Mixtures Little Or No Fines
Poorly-Graded Glavels. Gravel-
Sand Mixtures Little Or No Fines
Silty Gravels, Gravel- Sand-
Silt Mix lures
Clayey Gravels Gravel - Sand-
Clay Mixtures
Well- Graded SandS Gravelly
Sands, Little Or No Fines
Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly
Sands, Little Or No Fines
Silty Sands, Sand - Silt Mixtures
Clayey Sands Sand - Clay Mixtures
Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flo~r Silty-
Clayey Fine Sands' Clayey Silts wi Slight Plasticity
Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity
GravellY Clays Sandy Clays Silty Clays Lean
Organic Silts And Organic
Silty Clays Of Low Plasticily
Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fi~e:
Sand Or Silty Soils
Inorganic Clays Of High
Plasticity Fat Clays,
Organic Clays Of Medium To High
Plasticity OrganiC Silts
Peat Humus Swamp Soils
With High Organic Contents
Humus And Duff Layer
HIY,ly Variable Constituents
The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature
of the material presented in the attached logs.
DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indica borderline scil c1assiflcmion.
TORVANE READING, tst
PENETROMETER READING. !Sf
MOISTURE. % dry weight
SAMPLER PUSHED
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
DRY DENSITY, Ibs. per cubic ft.
UQUJD UMIT, %
PLASTIC INDEX
iM ,~~::~2,,~~I,!~!~!E:~
fI
i ;
LJ
I 2" 0,0, SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
II 24" 1.0. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
I WATER OBSERVATION WELL
52 DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
DURING EXCAVATION
Y SUBSEQUENT GROUNOINATER LEVEL WI DATE
LEGEND
Proj. No 8092 Date Feb I 98
Plate Al
c
c
n
G
c
r
u
r
I
U
(I
G
c
n
I
U
c
(l
u
('
I
U
('
u
Ii
L;
n
U
n
U
n
u
[l
I '
U
r
LJ
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Proposed Safeway
Job No, I Logged by'
8092 RAC
Excavation Contactor
Five Ball
Notes:
co
Q'\
.......
rl
~
N
t-)
0..
~
Iw
I (%)
U,..., Q)
~ 0 ii ..-I
0,-9 o,-l-i ~
rtl S, '1)[:.' ro
l.<UlQ en
~
;':".::.':
;--',0:::
.. -0.:
16,9 '::"<.':
4;~...:-'
.:,..... .'
':.::.i?::'a-::
:;: :\?~'::ci.:~:
5. 7 .:~/.~,~~:;:::
.0:.,:0:;..,
..::~:;:;~::1:
::~:)~-:i~::..:
~~
-.-
~f~
....
-.-
~.~
~ - ~
-.-
~.~
~10
sp-sM
l--
11--
I--
2 SP
f--
3 f--
f--
4f--
f--
51--
6-
'---
7-
-'5l-
8-
-
9-
-
I Sheet of
1 1
I Date: I Test Pit No..
1/30/98 TP-1
I Ground Surface Elevation:
:1:349'
,...,
en 0
~~
en
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4"- 6"- tall grass
Own, GLS
Dark brown poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel
loose, moist to wet, trace roots '
Brown poorly graded fine to medium SAND with gravel, loose, moist
-becomes light brown to gray, medium dense
GP
-increasinq !=lravel, 4" to 6" cobbles
Grades to gray poorly graded GRAVEL, medium dense, moist
-groundwater table encountered at 7 5'
Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade, Groundwater table
encountered at 7 5 feet during excavation.
I Date Feb '98
Test Pit Log
Proposed Safeway
Ye!m, Washington
I Date 2/11/98
I Plate P-2
N
0'\
o
co
~.ll'~ '. '. \ Earth Consultants Inc.
.\J!PV G<:atedlnk:al En~ CeoJog.\Sls&.Envt~ SdentlSlS
Checked RAC
Subsuriace conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location aT thiS exploratory hole, modified by englneenng tests, analYSIS and _
judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations, We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others OT
information presented on this log.
...:l
~ Proj, No, 8092
c
n
G
fI
G
['
U
c
r
LJ
(I
I
U
!'
G
f'.
U
r
LJ
(l
iU
(l
LJ
(1
G
fI
u
n
o
n
u
(I
u
r
I
LJ
!'
U
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Proposed Safeway
Job No, Logged by'
8092 RAe
Excavation Contactor
Five Ball
Notes:
Sheet
1
of
Date:
1/30/98
Test Pit No,.
TP-2
Ground Surface Elevation:
:t:349'
U QJ ....; Surface Conditions,
''''; c; ..c ....; ell 0
W ,... .j..J 0. u.o
0.. -@ 0..j..J E g5s,
(%) n:s ;;., <l) r... n:s
,. ell c; ell tTl
(!)
11,0
4
5
CD
0'\
.-I
.-I
.......
N
~
p.,
(!)
Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4"- 6" tall grass
Slack poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel loose
moist ' ,
SP
Brown poorly graded fine to medium SAND with grave!, loose, moist
-becomes gray, decreasing gravel, moderate caving due to sand
conditions
Sj.
-increasing gravel
-groundwater table encountered at 8'
T est pit terminated at 10 0 feet below existing grade Groundwater table
encountered at 8 0 feet during excavation
N
0'\
o
CD
~M) Earth Consultants Inc.
\"V (;c01edlnlCaiEnQ]neeS. CeolOglSlS &. ~alSdenllStS
Test Pit Log
Proposed Safeway
Yelm, Washington
...:!
~ Proj. No, 8092 Own, GLS Date Feb '98 Checked RAe Date 2/11/98 Plate A3
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations ~t the time and }oC<ltion of this exploratory hole. rr:c:di~ed by engin~ng tests., analysis and ,
judgment They are not necessarily representatiVe of other tImes and locations, We cannot accept responslblltty Tor the use or Interpretation by others or
information presented on this log,
r
u
n
LJ
r
U
n
LJ
n
W
[l
u
I'
U
n
LJ
r,
LJ
11
I
l.J
n
LJ
r
LJ
n
u
n
LJ
r'
U
n
I,
Ll
Il
U
n
u
n
I
U
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Proposed Safeway
Job No, Legged by'
8092 , RAe
Excavation Cantactor'
Five Ball
Notes:
~.-l ,... q; .-l
W :co~ .-l Ul 0
0. u.o
o.t o...j.J E :55.
(%) CO q; ;;:.,
I.! U'l 0 co
t!J U'l U'l
P-SM
18,6
8
9
co
0\
.......
rl
rl
N
t-:l
0..
t!J
Sheet
1
of
Date:
1/30/98
Test Pit No..
TP-3
Ground Surface Elevation:
t349'
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4"- 6'" tall grass, orchard
Black poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel loose
moist, trace roots ' ,
SP
Light brown to gray poorly graded tine to medium SAND with gravel
loose, moist '
-becomes medium dense
increasing gravel, 4" to 6" cobbles
'Sl-
roundwater tabel encountered at 8,5'
T est pit terminated at 9 0 feet below existing grade Groundwater table
encountered at 8,5 feet during excavation
N
0\
o
c:J
~1r1M '.- Earth Consultants Inc.
\~V ~k:aI EngJnCaS. CeologlslS:' EnvlJOnm:11lal SclentlSts
Test Pit Log
Proposed Safeway
Yelm, Washington
H
~ Proj, No, 8092 Own, GLS Date Feb. '98 Checked RAe Date 2/11/98 Plate A4
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations, We cannot aceept responsibility for the use or interpretation by otners of
information presented on this log,
r
LJ
n
L
n
G
[1
~
c
r
u
r'
U
il
U
{'
LJ
n
G
/l
u
I'
LJ
(l
U
II
U
r'
U
n
LJ
fI
(
U
r
, ,
LJ
(I
U
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Proposed Safeway
Job No, I Logged by-
8092 RAe
Excavation Contactor
Five Sail
Notes:
CD
O'l
,...;
,...;
........
"-I
I"J
0..
t!l
W
(%)
Sheet
1
of
.-!
en 0
U.!:l
8 $,
en
12,5
Date:
1/30/98
Test Pit No..
TP-4
Ground Surface Elevation:
+350'
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4"- 6'" tall grass
Slack poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel loose
moist to wet ' I
-light brown to gray
-medium dense
-increasing gravel and cobbles
Test pit terminated at 10 0 feet below existing grade No groundwater
encountered during excavation
~1
O'l
o
CD
~M Earth Consultants Inc.
\~ ==lCll Engmecs. GeoIoglS1S &. EnYin:>nmenlel Sden1lSlS
Test Pit Log
Proposed Safeway
Yelm, Washington
...:l
~ Proj, No. 8092 Own. GLS Date Feb. '98 Checked RAe Date 2/11/98 Plate AS
S ubsurTace conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests. analysis and
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations, We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
information presented on this log,
/l
G
Test Pit Log
('
U1
Project Name:
Proposed Safeway
Job No, I Logged by'
8092 RAe
Excavation Cantactor'
Five Ball
Sheet
of
Date:
1/30/98
I est Pit No..
TP-5
r
LJI
Ground Surface Elevation:
::f:352'
Notes:
c
~..-I,... Q) ..-I
W :co-z; ..-I U] 0
o.~ o.-l-l g. u~
(%) n:l;>,Q)"'"'m 21>,
'"U]Ci U] U]
t!J
SP-SM
I
SP
2
SuriaceCanditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4"- 6" tall grass
r
Li
9.4
Black poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel loose
moist to wet, trace roots ' ,
n
U!
Light brown to gray poorly graded fine to medium SAND with gravel
loose, moist '
r'
G
3
4
-decreasing gravel
rl
LJ
5
r>
\
LJ
6
7
(I
LJ
8
-increasing gravel, 4" to 6;' cobbles
f\
I
u
Test pit terminated at 85 feet below existing grade No groundwater
encountered during excavation
(l
u
/l
l.J
n
I
LJ
n
I
u
n
U
CD
0'\
"-
..-I
..-I
N
n
U
t-J
0..
t!J
ffly1~ Earth Consultants Inc.
\~V Geo1l:<:hnlCaI EnglnecS. CeologlSlS &. Env\!OrUnl:T'llal SdaltlSls
Test Pit Log
Proposed Safeway
Yelm, Washington
r
i ,
LJ
N
0'\
o
CD
c
...:t
0.. P 'N 8092 Ow GLS Date Feb. 198 Checked RAe Date 2/11/98 Plate AS
E-< rOJ, 0, n,
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations, We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
information presented on this log.
fl
G
n
\
LJ
J1
U
n
LJ
"
(
U
c
f1
U
I'
LJ
r
LJ
n
LJ
n
G
(I
L
n
lJ
rr
G
J1
LJ
['
LJ
c
r
~
r
LJ
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Proposed Safeway
Job No, Logged by'
8092 RAC
Excavation Contactor
Five Ball
Notes:
Sheet
1
of
Date:
1/30/98
Test Pit No..
TP-6
Ground Suriace Elevation:
:t352'
U.-1 Q) .-1 Surface Conditions:
'," 0 ..c: ,....; r:n 0
W ..c: .j.J 0. ~~
0.-9 0..j.J
(%) <ll g;, ilJ '" E
rrJ
~ CIJ 0 r:n r:n
el
13,8
7
CD
0'\
.-l
.-l
N
l-j
0..
t!l
Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4"- 6" tall grass
Bla~l< poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel, loose
mOist to wet '
SP
Light brown to gray poorly graded fine to medium SAND with gravel
loose, moist '
-slight caving due to cohesive sand
-decreasing sand
-increasing gravel, 4" to 6" cobbles
Test pit terminated at 8 0 feet below existing grade, No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
N
0'\
o
CD
_I ,j1Y\ · ~- Earth Consultants Inc.
\~~ Geote<:lmlOlI Eng1necS. ~lClglsls.!. Envlronn'lerllaJ Sclen1lsls
Test Pit Log
Proposed Safeway
Ye!m, Washington
...:I
~ Proj. No, 8092 Own, GLS Date Feb '98 Checked RAC Date 2/11/98 Plate A7
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and _
judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations, We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others or
information presented on this log,
11
L Test Pit Log
r
LJ
f'
U
r'
U
n
LJ
r
u
n
LJ
I'
U
r
LJ
11
U
n
I '
LJ
I'
i
U
r
I
l.J
r
l.J
n
l.J
r
LJ
n
1
U
I'
U
(I
LJ
Project Name,
Proposed Safeway
Job No, Logged by'
8092 Me
Excavation Contactor
Five Ball
Notes:
tD
en
,...;
,...;
N
t'J
c...
"
W
(%)
(J .-I fl)
,.-I o..c .-I
i.o t.w 0.
III ~ aJ rz.. ~
~CIlQ en
9.7
+=r~M
2 SP
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
Sheet
1
of
1
Date:
1/30/98
Test Pit No..
TP-7
Ground Surface Elevation,
:t353'
,...;
CIl 0
u.o
CIl ~
;::J>.
en
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4"- 6'" tall grass
Bla~k poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel, loose
mOIst to wet '
Ught brown to gray poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and
gravel, loose, moist
-increasing gravel, 4" to 6" cobbles
T est pit terminated at 10 a feet below existing grade No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
N
en
o
0::>
rfI~rMi Earth Consultants Inc.
~~ ~ EnglnecS. CeolOglsls&. Envircnmenl2lSdenllSlS
Test Pit Log
Proposed Safeway
Yelm, Washington
H
~ Proj, No, 8092 Own. GLS Date Feb. '98 Checked RAe Date 2/11/98 Plate A8
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations 3;t the time and location of this expklratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other tImes and locations, We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
information presented on this log,
fl
I
LJ Test Pit Log
I'
U
c:
n
I
LJ
n
J
G
r
LJ
n
U
f'
G
n
\
U
n
\
LJ
n
LJ
(l
LJ
f'
I
U
(l
LJ
n
\
U
i'
I
l.J
n
LJ
I'
U
f1
I
U
Project Name:
Proposed Safeway
Job No, I Logged by'
8092 RAe
Excavation Contactor'
Five Ball
Notes:
co
0'\
~
~
N
I")
0...
t!)
W
(%)
Sheet
1
of
LlGP-GM
12.1
2
Date:
1/30/98
Test Pit No..
TP-8
3
4
5
6
Ground Surface Elevation:
1:354'
~
CI1 0
u.o
B ~
CI1
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4"- 6'" tall grass
Dark brown poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, loose, moist to
wet
SP
Light brown to gray poorly graded fine to medium SAND with gravel
loose, moist '
-medium dense
Test pit terminated at 60 feet below existing grade No groundwater
encountered during excavation
N
0'\
o
co
-~~~~~~~.
Test Pit Log
Proposed Safeway
Yelm, Washington
H
~ Proj, No, 8092 Own, GLS Date Feb, '98 Checked RAe Date 2/11/98 Plate AS
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations, We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by othe~ of
information presented on this log,
il
i
Li
r'
l.J
/l
I
U
/l
u
/l
U
n
I
LJ
r
U
J1
j
LJ
r
LJ
r'
,
LJ
n
G
('
LJ
/l
U
(1
u
r'
U
[I
LJ
r
U
I'
U
n
LJ
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Proposed Safeway
Job No, Logged by'
8092 RAe
Excavation Contactor
Five Sail
Notes:
~..., .c Q) ...,
W ..c: 0 .jJ ..., CIl 0
0.. .g 0...j.J 0.. u~
(%) III =: aJ... E ~>,
H>->O III
(DCIl CIl cr.l
P-SM
5.8
7
2
3
4
5
6
CD
Cl\
.-I
rl
N
":l
iJ.I
CCJ
Sheet
1
of
1
Date:
1/30/98
Test Pit No..
TP-9
Ground Surface Elevation,
:t350'
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4"- 6" tall grass
Black poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel loose
moist to wet ' ,
GP
Light brown to gray poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense
moist 4" to 8" cobbles '
Test pit terminated at 7 0 feet below existing grade No groundwater
encountered during excavation
N
Cl\
o
CD
~ Earth Consultants Inc.
~ Geoled>nlcalEn~ c;.,oIOglSlS &. Elwlronme11lalSdenllSls
T est Pit Log
Proposed Safeway
Yelm, Washington
~ Proj, No, 8092 Own, GLS Date Feb '98 Che1:ked RAe Dme 2/11/98 Plate A10
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations, We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
information presented on this log.
('
u
c
[1
u
r
u
(l
G
n
U
Ii
LJ
fl
U
r
u
(I
LJ
n
~,
r
u
r
~
r
G
r
LJ
['
LJ
(l
I
LJ
r
U
n
~
Test Pit Log
Project Name,
Proposed Safeway
Job No, I Logged by'
8092 RAe
Excavation Contactor
Five Ball
Notes:
~.--1 .-' V .--1
W :c 0 ';:i .--1 en 0
0. ~1
0.1 o..w E
(%) ctl ill r...
l-! UJ 0 ctl
UJ UJ
l!J
P-SM
2
3
4
6
co
O'l
,...;
.-;
N
I-:l
p.,
l!J
Sheet
1
of
Date:
1/30/98
Test Pit No..
TP-10
Ground Surface Elevation:
+354'
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4"_ 6" tall grass
Bla,ck poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel, loose
mo~ '
SP
Light brown to gray poorly graded fine to medium SAND with gravel
100S8, moist '
-increasing gravel, 4" to 8" cobbles
-medium dense
Test pit terminated at 60 feet below existing grade No groundwater
encountered during excavation
N
0'\
o
co
f~rfUh Earth Consultants Inc.
.~V Gcole\:tII'IlCa Eng1ncCS. ~"Envtronmencal SCentlS<S
Test Pit Log
Proposed Safeway
Yelm, Washington
H
~ Proj, No, 8092 Own, GLS Date Feb '98 Checked RAe Date 2/11/98 Plate A 11
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations, We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
information presented on this log,
f1
I
LJ
/'
L
I'
G,
C
!
(l
G
n
G;
r>
I
LJ
11
i
U
r
u
jl
I
LJ
n
I
U
('
I
LJ
r
LJ
r>
I
l.J
n
LJ
\l
I
LJ
il
i
U
r
U
Il
U
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Proposed Safeway
Job No, Logged by'
8092 RAe
Sheet
1
of
1
Daie:
1/30/98
Test Pit No..
TP"11
Excavation Contactor
Five Ball
Notes:
Ground Surface Elevation:
:l: 352'
W
(%)
u~ Q) .-I
:.tjo:5 .-I CIlO
Q,~ Q,-l-l ~ ~~
<1l:>,Q)(L,<1l ....,>,
I., CIl 0 (/J (/J
(D
Suriace Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4"_ 6" tall grass
1 t=r~l
2
Slack poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel loose
moist to wet, trace roots ' ,
Light brown to gray poorly graded fine to medium SAND with gravel
loose, moist '
SP
3
4 GP
5
7,5
6
7
-.-
. .
8
Grades to poorly graded sandy GRAVEL, medium dense, moist, 4" to
12" cobbles
Test pit terminated at 8 0 feet below existing grade No gropundwater
encountered during excavation
-<
co
m
.-I
M
N
I-J
ClI
(D
rfi,v \1lUm , Earth Consultants Inc.
~~ Cemetl1nJ<;aI En~ GeologlSls &. Env\ronmen<aJ SdernIsls
Test Pit Log
Proposed Safeway
Yelm, Washington
N
Cl'l
o
co
..:I
~ Proj,No, 8092 Own, GLS Date Feb'98 Checked RAe Date 2/11/98 Plate A12
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations, We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
information presented on this log,
/l
LJ
r'
L
f'
I
LJ
n
i
LJ,
r
I
LJ
II
I
LJ
II
I
LJ
n
I
LJ
f1
)
U
II
I
LJ
(I
l.J
c
!'
,
LJ
r
U
n
LJ
/l
i
LJ
II
!
U
n
,
u
n
U
_~~~u}~~.
I Own, GLS
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Proposed Safeway
Job No, I Logged by'
8Q92 RAC
Excavation Contactor'
Five Ball
Notes:
,~..-i .c <V ..-i
W .cO+J ..-i en 0
Q. .a Q. +J Q. 0.0
(%) ra E <V ~ E [gs,
)4>'0 rrS
"en Ul Ul
:: ;:lp-SM
-
:~ 1 -
-
:'9 2 -
.~~. -
S 3 SP
:0/ o,.~. l---
:":"0: '(7:
'0,"
~. 4 GW
:..:;1.
0 1---
3,7 OC
000 5 }--
?o? l--
~ 0 c 6 l---
CoO
?o? l--
i) 0 C 7 }--
000, :--,
~ 8
Cl:l
~
rl
~
N
r-,
0..
"
N
0\
o
Cl:l
....
~ Proj, No, 8092
I Sheet of
1 1
I Date: I Test Pit No..
1/30/98 TP-12
I Ground Surface Elevation:
::l:::353'
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4"- 6'" tall grass
Black poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel, moist to
wet
Light brown to gray poorly graded SAND with gravel, loose, moist
Grades to well graded GRAVEL with sand, 4" to 12" cobbles
T est pit terminated at 8 0 feet below existing grade No groundwater
encountered during excavation
I Date
Test Pit Log
Proposed Safeway
Yelm, Washington
I Date 2/11/98 I Plate A 13
Feb '98
Checke<l RAC
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of thiS exploratory hole, modified by englneenng tests, analYSIS and
judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations, We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
information presented on this log,
(I
G
Test Pit Log
/1
L
Project Name:
Proposed Safeway
Job No, Logged by'
8092 RAe
Sheet
of
1
Date,
1/30/98
Test Pit No..
TP-13
r
LJ
ExcaYation Cantactor
Five Ball
Ground Surface Elevation:
+351'
Notes:
n
~;
r'
I
LJ
W
(%)
'~"""..c QJ
..co.+-J ~
o..~ o...w g.
n:l - QJ "" -
l.4 >, 0 n:l
(DU1 U)
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4"- 6" tall grass
.....,
U) 0
U.!:l
~~
U)
r
I
U
8,9
P-SM
Black poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel loose
moist to wet ' ,
r'
U!
n
G
SP
Light brown poorly graded fine to medium SAND with gravel, loose
r'
~
-increasing gravel, 4" to 6" cobbles
fl
~
8
Test pit terminated at 8 0 feet below existing grade No groundwater
encountered during excavation,
(1
l.J
/l
I
LJ
j1
I
LJ
r
G
[l
LJ
f'
LJ
co
Cl\
rl
rl
N
n
LJ
!"J
C.
(D
-~~~~~~.
Test Pit Log
Proposed Safeway
Yelm, Washington
n
i
LJ
N
Cl\
o
co
c
..:I
~ Proj, No, 8092 Own, GLS Date Feb. '98 Checked RAe Date 2/11/98 Plate A14
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location oi this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations, We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
iniormation presented on this log,
P>J)Pt.ND\~ \3
j\
.....,
u\
\
r
Iu\
I'
U\
r
, ,
U\
I'
U
I'
\ '
u\
\'.
\ i
U\
\
I'
u;
r
U
r'
\
U
I'
U
r'
n
l.J
r>
u
/1
i
L
n
U
n
LJ
n
U
n
LJ
f'
I
LJ
(l
U
APPENDIX B
n
lABORATORY TESTING RESULTS
LJ
E-8092
/'
LJ
r'
l.J
(l
,
LJ
r'
l.J
/1
lJ
r>
u
/l
u
r>
l.J
/l
u
Earth Consultants. Inc,
C-J
C--J
-0
.., I S1
!2.
z '::.::..-~ ".#
--
P ~
(Xl I
0 @
<D
N
~[11
0 I j, 0)
~ 2. ::+
? ~:J
~n
~ I ~ 0
Ul C) :J
~ (J)
~. C
u: ----..
'" ..-.+
0 I ~. ~
Q)
r+ :; ........
(j) i (j)
h:J 1;) t---j
(D if. ~
lJ
3()
<D I fl."
(Xl :r.
-
(")
=r
(1l
n
^
(1l
0-
~
()
I G)
t-<:'U
(D' Ii ::0
1-'0 ):>
0 !3 'd 2
~ 0
Q) en
.... ::E: III (J)
(1l
IlJ p, N
N lJ1 m
"- ITUl
t-' 1-" IlJ ):>
t-' ::1 HJ 2
"- <.Q III ):>
\0 rt :<:
(Xl o IlJ ~
::J ~ (J)
m
. (J)
lJ
Q)
....
(1l
tJ1
t-'
LJ
-0 80
m
:JJ
n
m 70
Z
-l
:!! 60
2
m
XI
50
OJ
-<
~ 40
m
G)
:r:
~ 30
en]
LJ
LJ
LJ
c-l
[ 1
c-J
c-J
Ll
LJ
LJ C~
LJ
CJ
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIZEOF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESITplOn-,NcH--:Lfs, SfANDARD
-r--I-I-l~f:- -1-1-1- - I--J -
'~I-__ 1- )--1-'-'-
_._ - f- -- 1--
._ I'. _ - -1- - -1--
-'-1:1=-----1=---- I- \. === --- - -I==-j=t-
_ _ ===___'-- - - ---=1==1:==
___ __ ____ --I
1----- ----. ~ -- -- ---
-I- -- \-..... --
____ __===_ -'.-_'. 2~- - ==--1-.-
----==== ~ -- - --=-
_ _ _ ____< ---..: _ --i---===--- -:
__ __ - - -- .---+--1
rrrlD - _ ' - - . ----I - - - --1-
LL.1.J I ITm-.-- ----....- ~ "-___1_ -------
r II T . ,-\-1-- --
N
100 .-
~~ ~ ~ N .,{!l
N ~._w-rw)l()>~
<0
'<t M
[\\t-r--
1==
90
I-It
B ~r-
t-
~.I=H _ ==~
f~
1-
t-
1-
J-.
1-
t-
-(-I-t-
1-1-
H-
20
01-1-1-
1-
o
C>
D
M
C>
D
N
C> C> C>
DOOlD
r-
o 0
<:t M
o
N
orow
r-
I COARSE I FINE
COBBLES GRAVEL
Boring or DEPTH USCS
KEY Test Pit No, ft.'
0 TP-l 1 5 SP-8M
6--- TP-l 3 SP
0 TP-l 5 SP
HYDROMETER ANAL YSIS
GRAIN SIZE IN MM
<;j'M N .-gs~ ~8 ~
o 0 0 0 0 C> 0 0 a
~ q.
oo$!
10 0
.- N
o 0 00 08
M <;j' IIlID 00....
o
OlD
NO
.....
'.
t-
~1-cH=t=l== - - -- --1=
~R~~~==~ _ ;;:I~-~II'_'_
I',CFEEI~L ~:-,~==:~: 1::::::\ 130
e--I-_____ _
~
I~
)-
1-
,--/;"
tjl~-
-- ----
-.- -, - -- - - - _:-=1=1=
. - - --- - 1-1-
----- --
-I ~; ---___ __ _=__
~-=.-= ==-= - =:=~I~'-I--
~~
_\
t-
1=
1-
_~.::lj=1=I=1 1--160
ocr M
1-
N .....~~ ~ c: "!
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
r- co to
a a
V M
o a
N
a
r- co (0
000
o 0
ocr M
D D
D D
N
D
D
MEDIUM
SAND
FINE
FINES
DESCRIPTION
Moisture
Content (%)
Dark brown poorly graded SAND with silt and
gravel
Brown poorly graded SAND with gravel
16 9
5 7
Brown poorly graded SAND
11.0
5
o
r-
D
o
LL
LJ
c- ]
o
10
20
40
-0
m
:n
n
m
Z
-l
o
o
)>
::0
(/)
m
::0
OJ
-<
~
m
G)
:r:
-j
50
70
80
90
100
PL
'"U
.... I
$. ~'"
2 ~)
0 ~
co I
0 e~
U)
N
I rtTl
0 :i III
..,
~ ~. :=4
? ~
if.::Y
ill ~(J
t-< ~ 0
(Jl
o :J
~ (j)
~ ..
Vi::::"
f>o r-t-
0 I [ ~
III
rot
Cl> :> r-+
h:J ~ (j)
$: ~
C1l if. ::J
b' ~- ()
!r,"
to I Ii'
co
-
0
:r
ro
0
;>;"
ro
0.
~
n
~'d G)
ro Ii :0
.....0 P
0 I 1:110 :2
m , 0
rot (JJ
Cl> :8 (\) C/)
III P, N
N I ~ ~ m
"- /-" /lJ ):>
I--' ::1 HI
I--' lQ C1l :2:
"- n' ~ ):>
U) o ru !:<
CD ::1'<:
(J)
m
'U . (jJ
fil
rot
ro
to
N
L-J
C-J
N
100'" lD <t M
90
-0 60
rn
:0
()
m 70
2
-I
CJ
LJ
eJ
[~-J
LJ
LJ
en]
LJ
LJ
L~
C-J
C~
c_~
c:-J
5
o
'0
I-
-'I=J::~= ---,=-'-- I rH+H-
-~I-
l~~ ___=I~- = ===tl~='=t-
~_~ ~__=__ -- -=~~11=1-
il;- ____ - - - ---I-----=,~~
.-- _I- -\- -----~I_ ---I-
--... ,_ _\- ~_ __ --- -1--
.... - - --1-- - - 1--
--,-- - --
. ,- -I_ -~ -
OI_!==I_I-l-ltL==tB=t==l==I-~r ~C~_-' =_ =: =_~_===~I==I===t60
'-'-'-.-.-I=I:@-B-====tl:..;---- ==== f--__=___~
~B= _ _===- ==-;-- ~=====- =1- -=== -=::::-- I 1-170
- - . __y ___ 1---
____ ~ ~ __~_ -- -- I-
_ --.-:._ __ _____ -...--e-.
'EI~ '- - - -===----=1-1-'--
. - .____...- --1-- ------- I n_
I-l-H-I=I-J=I-L -1- - , ...... 1- - === ===- ----
_ "'-. r 1--- ----
--1--1---:= ~I-I ----- =~~II-l=
--, - --'TT r - -1- -- =.. :::::::: = 3--':==
." 60
Z
m
:0 50
to
-<
::z: 4 0
m
G)
::r: 3
-l
20'-
-
LJ
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PE:R INCH, U.S, STANDARD
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
GRAIN SIZE IN MM
<I'M N ~:g (38 t1
o 0 0 5 q q 0 o. q
N ~::! r-~I~ ~ ~ ~ q-
o 0 00 08
M q- l!ltD 00.-
1--+-1 I--~
o
OlD
NO
oog
lD 0
.- N
~.-I--
1=1=1=1=
I-
I'~ ,I---
~~
1-1= I--f--
5
j-
f-
I-+--
-.-1-
-
~
,......:
1-
.pt/}
f-
/--1--1-1-
\-
1-
-I:--
1-
Ot-I-I-
o
a
o
M
COBBLES
~ 00 LD '<t M N ;;
a a a a 0 a
a a o 0 0 a
I
FINES
-
~oistl/re LL I PL
Content (%) I
1-
j~-.-
o
a
o
N
00 0
a 00 lD
o 0
'<t M
o
N
GOOlD
~
'<t M
N
r-CO~
'<t "!
"!
~ 00 lD
a ~
'<t M
a C?
N
a
GRAIN SIZE IN MI LlIMETERS
MEDIUM I FINE
SAND
COARSE I FINE
GRAVEL
KEY
Boring or I DEPTH
Test Pit No. 1ft.
DESCRIPTION
USCS
0 I TP-4 I 4 I SP-8M Brown poorly graded SAND with silt I 12 5
6---1 TP-7 I 4 I SP-SM Light brown poorly graded SAND with silt and I 9 7
gravel
O. I TP-B I 1 5 I GP-GMI Dark brown poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and I 12 1
sand
LJ
c-J
10
20
30
-0
rn
;:rJ
o
rn
z
-l
()
o
)>
:0
en
m
:0
OJ
-<
~
m
G)
I
-l
40
50
00
90
100
L~
CJ
L~J
100
-0 80
m
:JJ
o
m 70
Z
-l
" 60
Z
m
:JJ 50
OJ
-<
~ 40
m
G)
:I 30
-l t=
20
L'J
~
-
LJ
LJ
LJ
L-----.:-J
LJ
CJ
Cj
C-J
c-J
L~
[-J
C~
LJ
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER Onli1~!)H pHfTNCH, U.S, STANDARD
lD
<t M
^",~,;;t ~~ N.J!l
~"I r.,,x-...... {f} U1 ;:::. (')
I-
Ol-I-sg
o
o
o
M
o 00 a
a 0 00 U)
N
COBBLES
f--m
~.
I---
o
00
00...
o
OlD
NO
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
GRAIN SIZE IN MM
<tC') N ~~~ 3tl ~
000 OClCl ClCl Cl
I I I---J
;:;t <t
CQ~
lD 0
... N
llllD
\J
-. ..-::::=::. .
0
';-, ~~
2
0 ~
CO
0 ~~~~
lO
IV ",,=.
~m
CJ I 1 PJ
-. ~. ::4
~
~ ~:Y
~. n
G'l I ~, 0
t-' Q :J
Ul ~(f)
~ c:
:r. ..--
.. .-+
tJ } ~
OJ
rl :: ..-+
(l) ~ (f)
>-rj OJ -
ro ~ :J
tt ~. ()
I !i,'
lO rr.
CO
-
0
:T
(l)
n
^
CD
Cl.
~
n .
~'U G)
:u
ro ~t )>
1---'0
tJ t:l'TI 2
OJ ~ 0
rl lfl (J)
CO ::;: CD
III p.. N
IV en m
......... ::>Ul ):>
,..... 1-" III
I-' :J t-I) 2
......... lQ I1l )>
lO rt ~ !:<
OJ o III
::l '-<: (J)
m
. en
II
OJ
.-t
CD
IJ:J
w
o 0 00
1-1-
1--1-1=1=1=1=1=
1=l=l=1=t-
===I~=I=~I 1_ljj::lj~
I-I--
~~=~-=--I_I_I_I_I---l-I-l--l-'-
~
I=tt-I
t-f- _ I\,~
I-
1-1-
I-
t=l=1-
000
q M N
COARSE I FINE
GRAVEL
KEY
Boring or I DEPTH
Test Pit No (ft,
o I TP-9
CJ-~-, TP-12
O' I TP-13
3.5
4.5
4
1-
~
\---1-1-
LJ
5
o
'0
1-1-1-1-1-----1=1-1 -'-= ====~-I ~-.~~f= ~I= - =
I==~~~~ - ---- I I
-.--=_ _ __== = =======----1-150
- --'------ - --
. .- - --
-:=j=1-160
--- --- --
- --.--.
:':I=I=:I = - - -
--
- -- --
----- ----- ----
_~_ =~ = I==IBO
--- -
- - --- --
a co lO
...
I~
I-\-
uses
GP
GW
SP
c; 00 lO " M N C;
o 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0
I
FINES
.
Moisture I PL
Contellt (%) I LL
g
I~ml-~~"-
-.-\-
-.-.30
". ffi
"- .
. "
1-
-'-l=t~=t=E
~
I-
1-';;;:
~
"'
fS
<t M
N r-OOtD q<: f'!
~ 00 lO
o 0
q M
o 0
N
o
GRAIN SIZE IN MI LLlMETERS
MEDIUM I FINE
SAND
DESCRIPTION
Light brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand
5 8
Light brown well graded GRAVEL with sand
3 7
Light brown poorly graded SAND with gravel
8 9
C~
10
20
40
-0
m
:u
()
m
Z
-l
()
o
)>
Xl
(f)
m
:JJ
OJ
-<
~
m
G)
J:
-l
70
90
100