GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROPOSED TRANSFER ...Bedrock Geology The 1955 bedrock geology map of the Chepachet quadrangle indicates that bedrock in the vicinity of the site consists of Ponaganset

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION BUILDING

121 CHESTNUT HILL ROAD

CHEPACHET, RHODE ISLAND

PREPARED FOR:

Town of Glocester

Gloucester, Rhode Island

PREPARED BY:

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

Providence, Rhode Island

July 2014

File No. 34010.00

Copyright© 2014 GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

GZA Engineers and

GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Scientists

Copyright ©2014 GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

530 Broadway

Providence

Rhode Island

02909

401-421-4140

Fax: 401-751-8613

http://www.gza.com

July 23, 2014

File No. 34010.00

Mr. Gary Treml

Town of Glocester

91 Chestnut Hill Road

Chepachet, Rhode Island 02814

Re: Geotechnical Report

Proposed Transfer Station Building

121 Chestnut Hill Road

Chepachet, Rhode Island

Dear Mr. Treml:

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. is pleased to provide you with this geotechnical report for the

above-referenced project. This report was prepared in accordance with our proposal dated May

7, 2014. This report presents subsurface information and geotechnical recommendations for the

proposed new transfer station attendant building. The recommendations presented in this report

are subject to the Terms and Conditions and the Limitations attached in Appendix A.

BACKGROUND

The project is located at 121 Chestnut Hill Road, Chepachet, Rhode Island. The property is

bounded to the north by a capped landfill, to the south by Chestnut Hill Road, to the west by the

Chepachet River, and to the east by a wooded area (refer to Figure 1, Locus Plan). The site is

occupied by the Town transfer station for solid waste disposal for Glocester residents.

The project consists of the replacement of the existing wooden attendant building. The

existing building spans across two retaining walls that create a below-grade pit for large roll-

off containers. Below the attendant shed are two hydraulic compactors on a concrete slab,

which are used to compact the waste deposited into the roll-off containers. Large cracks were

observed in both the retaining walls and the concrete slab.

The top of the concrete slab at the base of the retaining walls is at approximately elevation 431

feet. The concrete slab for the attendant shed at the top of the wall is at approximately

elevation 437 feet. The elevation of the asphalt paved ramps on the northern and southern side

of the attendant shed range between 430 and 437. There is a concrete block retaining wall that

extends along the western portion of the southern ramp that ranges in height between 2 and 4

feet.

http://www.gza.com/

Town of Glocester July 23, 2014

File No. 34010.00 Page 2

Elevations referenced in this report are based upon the topography shown on landfill closure

plans prepared by Fuss & O’Neil, dated June 2006, and provided to GZA by the Town of

Glocester

GEOLOGIC SETTING

Available United States Geologic Survey (USGS) publications were reviewed to gain an

understanding of the area geology.

Surficial Geology

The 1961 groundwater map of the Chepachet Quadrangle indicates that the site soils

consist of glacial outwash comprised of medium to coarse sand and gravel interbedded with

fine sand, silt, and clay. The outwash is generally well sorted and stratified, and typically

forms a relatively thick mantle over the bedrock. The outwash is noted to reach a maximum

thickness of approximately 100 feet.

Bedrock Geology

The 1955 bedrock geology map of the Chepachet quadrangle indicates that bedrock in

the vicinity of the site consists of Ponaganset Gneiss. Ponaganset Gneiss is described as light

gray to dark gray, medium to coarse grained, and composed in widely varying proportions of

microline, plagioclase quartz, biotite, and hornblende.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

Two test borings, designated GZ-1 and GZ-2(OW), were drilled by New England Boring

Company of Derry, New Hampshire on May 30, 2014. Figure 2, Exploration Location Plan,

shows the approximate locations of the test borings, and the logs are attached in Appendix B.

A truck-mounted drill rig was utilized to advance the borings to depths ranging from 26 to 47

feet below the existing ground surface. The borings were advanced by driving 4-inch inside

diameter casing between 24 and 44 feet below ground surface. Split spoon soil samples were

generally obtained in accordance with ASTM D1586, the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) at

5-foot intervals, except in boring GZ-2(OW) where continuous sampling was performed at

depths which organic soil was anticipated.

The SPT consists of driving a 1-3/8 inch inside diameter standard split spoon sampler at least

18 inches with a 140-pound hammer dropping from a height of 30 inches. The standard

penetration value is the number of blows required to drive the sampler from 6 to 18 inches of

penetration, and is a commonly used indicator of soil density and consistency.

Please note that the exploration locations were determined from tape measurements to existing

site features. Ground surface elevations of the explorations have been estimated by

interpolating between spot elevations shown on the plans provided to GZA. The exploration



locations and ground surface elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree

implied by the methods used. All elevations reference the plans prepared by Fuss & O’Neil,

dated June 2006, provided to GZA by the Town of Glocester.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The generalized subsurface profile at the site typically consists of asphalt underlain by 10 feet of

granular fill, 9 to 10 feet of fill mixed with organic material, underlain by glacial outwash.

Groundwater was encountered at both boring locations between depths of approximately 14 and

18.4 feet below ground surface. The generalized subsurface conditions are described in further

detail in the following paragraphs. Refer to the boring logs in Appendix B for more detailed

information.

Asphalt

A layer of asphalt, ranging in thickness from 2 to 3 inches, was encountered at the

ground surface at each boring location.

Granular Fill

Granular fill was encountered immediately below the asphalt at both of the boring

locations to depths of 10 feet below ground surface. The fill was generally comprised of fine to

coarse sand with varying amounts of fine to coarse gravel and generally trace amounts of fines.

The SPT N-values ranged between 6 and 23 blows per foot (bpf) indicating relative densities of

“loose” to “medium dense”.

Fill with Organics

Fill containing organic material was encountered below the granular fill in both borings

at a depth of 10 feet below ground surface, corresponding to elevation 427 feet. The thickness of

material was observed to be approximately 10 and 9 feet in borings GZ-1 and GZ-2(OW),

respectively. The fill with organics was comprised of a compressible mixture of silt, sand, wood

fibers, plant matter, glass, and concrete. The SPT N-values in this layer ranged between 2 and 19

blows per foot indicating relative densities of “very loose” to “medium dense”. In boring GZ-1 a

SPT N-value of 46 was obtained while sampling between 15 to 17 feet below ground surface.

This was due to driving the split spoon sampler through a solid piece of wood and is not

considered representative of the soil density or strength at that depth.

Glacial Outwash

Stratified glacial outwash deposits were encountered immediately below the fill layer

with organics. The outwash deposits were generally comprised of stratified fine sand and silt,

and were mostly comprised of silty fine sand. SPT N-values in the outwash material ranged

between 14 and 66 blows per foot, indicating relative densities between “medium dense” and

“very dense”.



Groundwater

A groundwater monitoring well was installed in boring GZ-2(OW). Equilibrated

groundwater measurements were recorded in the well on June 30, 2014. The depth to

groundwater below ground surface was measured as 18.4 feet in GZ-2(OW), corresponding to an

approximate elevation of 418.6 feet.

It is anticipated that groundwater levels will fluctuate due to variations in rainfall and

other factors different than those prevailing at the time the explorations were performed and the

measurements were made. GZA was informed that the water level in the Smith and Sayles

Reservoir Dam is lowered during the winter months which would likely affect the groundwater

table at the transfer station site during that period.

IMPLICATIONS OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The existing fill and organic materials are not considered suitable for the support of shallow

spread footings. The presence of compressible organic materials mixed with the fill would likely

result in unacceptable foundation settlement from consolidation of the organic material. If a

shallow foundation is utilized, the fill containing organics should be removed to the underlying

naturally deposited glacial outwash and replaced with compacted granular fill. The depth of

unsuitable soil ranges between approximately 19 and 20 feet below the current attendant shed’s

slab, and is overlain by approximately 10 feet of granular fill which could be reused on site

during construction. Overexcavation to the depths required to remove unsuitable soils may not

be practical.

The groundwater level at the site was observed at approximately 18.4 feet below the ground

surface, or approximately elevation 419 feet. Depending on the required excavation depths and

the time of year that the work is performed, it is likely that groundwater will be encountered if

the excavation and replacement of unsuitable soils option is chosen. Construction dewatering

permits may be required by RIDEM. It is unknown if the groundwater is contaminated and

would require treatment. The excavated fill material may also need to be tested for

environmental contaminants and may require off-site disposal.

An “intermediate” foundation system, such as the use of rammed aggregate piers with shallow

foundations, or a deep foundation system, such as driven piles, are suitable alternatives for

support of the proposed structure. The naturally deposited, medium dense to very dense outwash

deposits below the organic soils are considered competent bearing material for the support of a

rammed aggregate piers or pile foundations. These options would reduce or eliminate the

costs associated with having a large excavation, the testing and disposal of unsuitable soils,

and potential dewatering.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are based on available subsurface information and design

concepts provided to GZA by the Town of Glocester. As the design of the proposed facility

progresses, more detailed recommendations can be provided with respect to the foundation



design and earthwork activities. These recommendations reference the 2012 International

Building Code (IBC) with Rhode Island State Building Code 11th

edition amendments.

Shallow Foundations with Excavate/Replace

As previously discussed, shallow foundations may be used if the fill containing organic

material is removed from the building area down to the undisturbed natural glacial outwash

deposits, and is replaced with compacted structural fill. The glacial outwash bearing strata was

encountered between elevation 417 and 418 feet, or approximately 20 feet below the existing

grade. Unsuitable soils should be removed from beneath the building area within a zone defined

by a 1H:1V slope extending downward and outward from the edge of any footing. This approach

will require removal of a significant amount of unsuitable soils and is therefore likely not a

practical solution.

Conventional excavate and replace techniques require compaction of fill in lifts with

standard vibratory compaction equipment. If granular fill is to be placed below the groundwater

table, the site must be dewatered prior to placement of the fill. Alternately, crushed stone over

filter fabric could be used as backfill below the water level. The existing granular fill within the

top 10 feet of ground surface may be suitable for reuse as structural fill, however the underlying

fill with organic soils will require disposal. If the excavated organic soils are disposed of off-site,

environmental testing may be required.

A net allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf) should be used for

design of footings bearing on compacted “Granular Fill” over glacial outwash. Placement of

"Granular Fill" within the building areas should be performed in horizontal lifts and compacted

with vibratory equipment to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by

ASTM D-1557 (modified Proctor test). The maximum loose lift thickness should be 12 inches

for large vibratory rollers and 6 inches for hand-operated equipment. Fill placed outside the

building areas, beyond a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical slope extending downward and outward from 2

feet outside the edges of the exterior footings, should consist of “Granular Fill” compacted to 92

percent of the modified Proctor density.

For footings less than 3 feet wide, the allowable bearing pressure should be reduced

proportionately, and in no case should continuous footings be less than 18 inches wide, nor

isolated footings be less than 24 inches wide. Interior footings should be constructed at least 18

inches below the bottom of the slab to develop sufficient bearing capacity. For frost protection,

exterior footings should extend at least 4-foot 6-inches below final exterior grade.

Alternatively, crushed stone backfill may be placed below groundwater to facilitate

dewatering where fill is placed below the groundwater table. Using this technique, the organic

soils and any other unsuitable material can be excavated “in the wet” (without dewatering), and

replaced with loosely dumped “3/4-inch crushed stone” or “1 1/2-inch crushed stone”. Once the

crushed stone layer is above the groundwater table the material should be compacted using 6

passes of a large vibratory roller or 10 passes of a large plate compactor. A non-woven filter

fabric should be installed prior to placement of “Granular Fill” on top of the crushed stone layer.



The fill placed above this level should be compacted using the same methods as previously

described.

Settlements of foundations bearing on compacted "Granular Fill" are anticipated to be

less than 1 inch, and may be expected to occur during construction. The maximum differential

settlement between adjacent column bays is expected to be less than ½ inch.

Exterior slabs-on-grade should be constructed over compacted base and subbase courses

as outlined below in the pavement section of this report.

Excavations for foundations and utilities should be sloped back in accordance with the

Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA) Construction Industry Standards. In areas

where sloping is not possible, excavation support should be designed in accordance with

OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926 Occupational Safety Health Standards – Excavations, latest edition.

Rammed Aggregate Piers

An “intermediate” foundation system of rammed aggregate piers (Geopiers®

) may also

be used at the site, in conjunction with shallow foundations. Geopiers®

are densified columns

of crushed stone over which compacted soil and shallow footings can be constructed. Impact

piers are a version of Geopiers®

that are constructed using a bottom feed pipe fitted at the bottom

with a specially shaped tamper. The impact pier process is generally more cost effective than the

normal Geopier® process because it doesn’t require the installation of casing in soft soils below

the water table. Additionally, soil spoils are not produced. Depending on the spacing of the

piers, a structural slab may be required. Impact piers are typically installed by hammering a 10-

to 12-inch hollow mandrel through the soft/loose soils. As the mandrel is removed (by

hammering up), well-graded aggregate is fed through the mandrel and densified in lifts (by

hammering down) at the bottom of the hole, thus creating columns of dense crushed stone. At

the bottom of the pier is a bulb of “clean stone” which typically is located within a competent

bearing stratum. The hammering both densifies the aggregate and forces the aggregate laterally

into the sidewalls of the hole. This action increases the lateral stresses in the surrounding soil,

thereby further stiffening the stabilized composite soil mass. Since impact pier elements act as

soil reinforcement versus a structural section, there are no connections to be made from the

foundation to the slab. Therefore, construction of the foundation can be completed “on-grade”

using the impact pier option

Geopiers®

have been installed successfully as an alternative to deep foundations or

excavation and replacement of relatively large volumes of poor soil, and can be installed to

depths of up to 35 feet. The aggregate piers can be installed across an otherwise poor site to

reinforce the existing soil, making it suitable for support of shallow foundations. Dewatering is

not required for installation of impact piers.

Following installation of Geopiers®

, “Granular Fill” should be placed in lifts and

compacted to achieve the required subgrade. A structural slab may not be necessary if arching

through the existing fill or compacted “Granular Fill” above the organic soils is enough to

transfer the slab loads to the underlying piers. Preparation of the building subgrade should be

done in accordance with the recommendations above.



Pile Supported Foundations

A deep foundation system consisting of driven or drilled piles may also be considered. It

is anticipated that the foundation loading will be relatively low given the size of the proposed

structure. Pile options for lightly loaded structures include driven timber piles, driven ductile iron

pipe piles, or drilled helical piles.

Driven timber friction piles are a feasible foundation option, and are driven into the

ground with an impact hammer and derive their support through a combination of side friction

and end bearing. Typical design capacities for timber piles are in the range of 20 tons. The type

of pile and capacity will generally be determined by the economics of loading vs. number of piles

required.

Timber piles are displacement type piles and may cause ground heave during driving.

Therefore, piles should be monitored and timber piles should be restruck, as required. Pile

driving operations also may result in ground born vibrations. If during construction either heave

or vibration become excessive and damage to utilities or existing structures is possible, pre-

augering may be necessary. Piles located close to sensitive structures may also require pre-

augering. The scheme of pre-augering, if required, will have to be determined in the field.

For timber piles, a Wave Equation Analysis of Piles (WEAP) should be performed prior

to pile installation to establish driving system/pile compatibility, initial driving criteria, and to

avoid possible damage to the pile. The contractor should submit a WEAP analysis along with

information on the driving system, including hammer type and a drawing showing details of cap

block, cushion block, and driving helmet assembly. If the WEAP indicates poor driving system

compatibility the system or pile may need to be changed (different hammer type/capacity, etc.).

A factor of safety of 2 should be applied to the design loads for the ultimate loads used in the

WEAP. Compressive driving stresses should be limited to three times the allowable compressive

stress of the piles. A pre-construction survey of nearby buildings may also be advisable

prior to commencement of pile driving operations.

Drilled helical piles may also be an economical alternative. Helical piles consist of steel

pipe with auger flights that are drilled into the ground with hydraulic equipment. This type of

pile can achieve a maximum capacity of approximately 35 kips, which is limited by the torque of

the equipment used for installation. The tip of the pile would need to be advanced to a minimum

elevation below the unsuitable soils, and the capacity is estimated by the applied torque. This

type of pile is considered a proprietary system, and is offered by several local contractors.

Another type of proprietary pile that may be considered is ductile iron pipe piles. These

piles are comprised of a special ductile iron pipe that is delivered to the site in shorter lengths

that are driven into the ground using a hydraulic hoe-ram mounted on an excavator. The pile

sections are spliced with a compression fit, and are filled with grout upon reaching the required

capacity. Ductile iron pipe piles are generally less expensive than driven steel piles due to the

ease of handling the shorter pile sections and the ability to be installed with an excavator and

hoe-ram.



Retaining Walls and Lateral Earth Pressures

For wall design, a moist unit weight of 135 pcf and an internal angle of friction of 32

degrees are recommended for the granular backfill. The walls should be designed for any

surcharge loads that may occur, including construction traffic. For walls that are unrestrained at

the top, an active soil pressure coefficient of 0.3 is recommended. For retaining walls that are

restrained at the top, an at-rest soil pressure coefficient of 0.5 is recommended. It is

recommended that the walls be backfilled with free draining “granular fill” to prevent the buildup

of hydrostatic pressures behind the walls.

Seismic Design Considerations

Based on subsurface information collected during the boring program, site soils are not

considered susceptible to liquefaction. In accordance with section 1613.5.2 of the International

Building Code (IBC), it is currently recommended that Site Class D be used for seismic analysis

at the site. Based on Table 1608.10 of the Rhode Island State Building Code, for Site Class D,

the recommended spectral response accelerations for bedrock at short and long periods are Ss =

0.172g and S1 = 0.063g, respectively.

Fill Materials

All fill should be free from ice, snow, roots, sod, rubbish, rubble, and other deleterious or

organic matter. Gradation requirements for fill materials should meet the requirements tabulated

below.

Percent Finer By Weight

Sieve Size Sand-

Gravel

Fill

Granular

Fill

¾” Crushed

Stone

1-½" Crushed

Stone

3-inch 100 100 - -

1-1/2-inch - - - 100

1-1/4-inch - - - 85-100

1-inch - - 100 -

3/4-inch - - 90-100 10-40

1/2-inch 50-85 - 10-50 0-8

No. 4 40-75 - 0-5 -

No. 10 30-60 30-95 - -

No. 40 10-35 10-70 - -

No. 100 5-20** - - -

No. 200 0-8 0-10 <1 <1

* The maximum recommended stone size is 4 inches where used as a base course below slabs and pavement;

elsewhere, maximum stone sizes should be 2/3 of the loose lift thickness.

** The amount passing the No. 100 sieve should be between forty percent (40%) and seventy percent (70%) of that

amount passing the No. 40 sieve.



Some of the on-site soils contain more silt and may not meet the above referenced

gradation specifications. These materials may still be reused, however, they may be particularly

difficult to work with when wet, and may require discing or harrowing to reduce the moisture

content prior to compaction. It is not recommended that the silty materials be used where free

draining materials are desired, such as retaining wall backfill and pavement base and subbase

layers.

Paved Areas

Proposed pavement areas should be cleared and grubbed of any existing asphalt,

concrete sidewalks, or topsoil. The subgrade should then be heavily surface compacted with a

minimum of six passes of a vibratory roller having a drum weight of at least 10,000 pounds

and a dynamic force of at least 20,000 pounds prior to placement of site fill and pavement. If

working under wet conditions, care must be taken so as not to cause weaving and softening of

the subgrade. Excavated material may be suitable for re-use at the site.

In paved areas, where only light car traffic is anticipated, a minimum of 8 inches of

compacted free-draining "Granular Fill" subbase should be placed immediately below a 6-inch

thick "Sand-Gravel Fill" base course. The base course should be increased to 10 inches for

roadways and heavy-duty areas with truck traffic. Subbase and base courses should be

compacted in 1-foot (maximum) lifts to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as

determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557, the modified Proctor test. Fill below the

subbase should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the maximum dry density. It is

recommended that at least 3 inches (1½ inch binder and 1½ inch surface) of asphalt be

provided for driveway areas and that at least 4 inches (2½ inch binder and 1½ inch surface) be

provided for commercial access driveways.

Flexible Pavement Layer Thickness

Pavement Layer Standard Duty

(Cars)

Heavy Duty

(Trucks)

Finish Course 1½ inches 1½ inches

Binder Course 1½ inches 2½ inches

Base Course 6 inches 6 inches

Subbase Course 8 inches 10 inches

For areas to be paved with Portland cement-based concrete, a six-inch thick slab on grade

is recommended, with a minimum 8-inch thick "Sand-Gravel Fill" base course and a 12-inch

thick "Granular Fill" subbase. The concrete should have a minimum unconfined compressive

strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch, with air entrainment of 4 to 6 percent. The thickness is

based on a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch. Grade 60 six-inch by

six-inch W5.5 x W5.5 welded wire fabric (As = 0.11 inches2/foot) reinforcement is recommended

to minimize crack openings.

Concrete pavement should have expansion joints at a maximum spacing of 80 feet

with a joint filler thickness based on the thermal expansion. All expansion joints should be



sealed with an AASHTO approved elastomeric joint sealer. Slabs separated by an expansion

joint should be tied together with dowels that are 2-foot 6-inches long at a spacing of 18

inches. Dowels must be sleeved on one side of the joint to allow for movement without

cracking. In addition to expansion joints, contraction (crack control) joints should be

constructed at a spacing of approximately 15 feet in both directions.

Underground Utilities

New underground pipes and utilities should be placed on bedding in accordance with

the manufacturer's specifications, and backfilled with “Granular Fill” above the pipe or utility.

"Granular Fill" should be placed in lifts on the sides and above the utilities and compacted to

at least 92 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D-

1557 (modified Proctor test). Compaction should be performed with hand-operated equipment

with lift thickness depending on the size of equipment used. Should utilities be placed below

concrete slabs and foundations, backfill material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of

the maximum dry density.

Existing underground utilities within the building area that are to remain active upon

completion of construction should be relocated outside of the building area. Coordination

with the Town of Glocester should be completed prior to construction activities to locate the

existing underground utilities within the building area and establish a plan for relocation.

Rerouted or relocated underground utilities should be installed on bedding and backfilled in

accordance with the recommendations presented above.

If site grades are raised and structural slab construction is utilized, underground

utilities within the building area should be suspended from the slab and/or grade beams.

Raising site grades may induce settlement of the peat layer and if underground utilities are not

supported, damages could result.

CONTRACT DOCUMENT REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

GZA would welcome the opportunity to be retained for the design and construction phases of this

project. GZA can provide services that could include the preparation or review of the earthwork

specifications, deep foundation design, review of geotechnical and foundation submittals and

drawings, environmental consulting and permitting, and observation of the earthwork and

foundation construction phases to assess compliance with these recommendations and the project

specifications. Also, please be aware that the IBC requires that deep foundation installation be

observed by a registered Professional Engineer or representative thereof.



We trust that this report addresses the current geotechnical issues of this project. Please do not

hesitate to contact the undersigned if there are any questions.

Very truly yours,

GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

William Ladd, P.E. Thomas E. Billups, P.E.

Senior Project Manager Project Reviewer

Russell Morgan, P.E.

Principal

WLL/SJR:lal

Attachments: Figure 1: Locus Plan

Figure 2: Exploration Location Plan

Appendix A: Limitations

Appendix B: Subsurface Exploration Logs

j:\geo\34010.wll\reports\34010.00 final report text.doc

FIGURES

RHODE ISLAND

GZAGeoEnvironmental, Inc.

Engineers and Scientists

www.gza.com

SOURCE:

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

SHEET NO.

PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:

PROJECT NO.DATE: REVISION NO.

DESIGNED BY:

PROJ MGR:

DRAWN BY:

REVIEWED BY: CHECKED BY:

SCALE:


CHESTNUT HILL ROAD

GLOCESTER, RHODE ISLAND

LOCUS

TOWN OF GLOCESTER PUBLIC WORKS

34010.00 0

FIGURE

1

1 OF 2

WLL

SR

WLL

LDT

MEA

AS SHOWN

N

S

EW

0 1000' 2000' 4000'

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET: 1" = 2000'

SHEET NO.

PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:

PROJECT NO.DATE: REVISION NO.

DESIGNED BY:

PROJ MGR:

DRAWN BY:

REVIEWED BY: CHECKED BY:

SCALE:



www.gza.com


CHESTNUT HILL ROAD

GLOCESTER, RHODE ISLAND

EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN

TOWN OF GLOCESTER PUBLIC WORKS

34010.00 0

FIGURE

2

2 OF 2

WLL

SR

WLL

LDT

MEA

AS SHOWN

GZ-1

0 20' 40' 80'

SCALE IN FEET

GZ-1

N

GZ-2(OW)

C

H

E

S

T

N

U

T

H

I

L

L

R

O

A

D

APPENDIX A

LIMITATIONS

April 2012PAGE 1

GEOTECHNICAL LIMITATIONS

Use of Report1. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) prepared this report on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of

our Client for the stated purpose(s) and location(s) identified in the Proposal for Services and/orReport. Use of this report, in whole or in part, at other locations, or for other purposes, may lead toinappropriate conclusions; and we do not accept any responsibility for the consequences of suchuse(s). Further, reliance by any party not expressly identified in the agreement, for any use, withoutour prior written permission, shall be at that party’s sole risk, and without any liability to GZA.

Standard of Care2. GZA’s findings and conclusions are based on the work conducted as part of the Scope of Services set

forth in Proposal for Services and/or Report, and reflect our professional judgment. These findingsand conclusions must be considered not as scientific or engineering certainties, but rather as ourprofessional opinions concerning the limited data gathered during the course of our work. Ifconditions other than those described in this report are found at the subject location(s), or the designhas been altered in any way, GZA shall be so notified and afforded the opportunity to revise thereport,as appropriate, to reflect the unanticipated changed conditions .

3. GZA’s services were performed using the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by qualifiedprofessionals performing the same type of services, at the same time, under similar conditions, atthe same or a similar property. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

Subsurface Conditions4. The generalized soil profile(s) provided in our Report are based on widely-spaced subsurface

explorations and are intended only to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundariesbetween strata are approximate and idealized, and were based on our assessment of subsurfaceconditions. The composition of strata, and the transitions between strata, may be more variable andmore complex than indicated. For more specific information on soil conditions at a specific locationrefer to the exploration logs.

5. In preparing this report, GZA relied on certain information provided by the Client, state and localofficials, and other parties referenced therein which were made available to GZA at the time of ourevaluation. GZA did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of allinformation reviewed or received during the course of this evaluation.

6. Water level readings have been made in test holes (as described in the Report) and monitoringwells at the specified times and under the stated conditions. These data have been reviewed andinterpretations have been made in this Report. Fluctuations in the level of the groundwater howeveroccur due to temporal or spatial variations in areal recharge rates, soil heterogeneities, the presenceof subsurface utilities, and/or natural or artificially induced perturbations. The water tableencountered in the course of the work may differ from that indicated in the Report.

April 2012PAGE 2

7. GZA’s services did not include an assessment of the presence of oil or hazardous materials at theproperty. Consequently, we did not consider the potential impacts (if any) that contaminants in soilor groundwater may have on construction activities, or the use of structures on the property.

8. Recommendations for foundation drainage, waterproofing, and moisture control address theconventional geotechnical engineering aspects of seepage control. These recommendations may notpreclude an environment that allows the infestation of mold or other biological pollutants.

Compliance with Codes and Regulations9. We used reasonable care in identifying and interpreting applicable codes and regulations. These

codes and regulations are subject to various, and possibly contradictory, interpretations.Compliance with codes and regulations by other parties is beyond our control.

Cost Estimates10. Unless otherwise stated, our cost estimates are only for comparative and general planning purposes.

These estimates may involve approximate quantity evaluations. Note that these quantity estimatesare not intended to be sufficiently accurate to develop construction bids, or to predict the actual costof work addressed in this Report. Further, since we have no control over either when the work willtake place or the labor and material costs required to plan and execute the anticipated work, our costestimates were made by relying on our experience, the experience of others, and other sources ofreadily available information. Actual costs may vary over time and could be significantly more, orless, than stated in the Report.

Additional Services11. GZA recommends that we be retained to provide services during any future: site observations,

design, implementation activities, construction and/or property development/redevelopment.This will allow us the opportunity to: i) observe conditions and compliance with our designconcepts and opinions; ii) allow for changes in the event that conditions are other thananticipated; iii) provide modifications to our design; and iv) assess the consequences of changesin technologies and/or regulations.

APPENDIX B

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGS

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

10 1112 6

4 33 5

10 69 9

12 838 25

12 2532 32

13 1110 7

427.0

417.0

415.0

0-2

5-7

10-12

15-17

20-22

25-27

FILL

FILL WITH ORGANICS

SAND AND GRAVEL

OUTWASH

10

20

22

24

24

24

24

24

24

10

4

6

3

14

8

1 - Gravel stuck in split spoon tip.2 - While advancing roller bit at ±12' bgs. wash color changed from tan to dark brown. Wash color changes to gray at ±13'.3 - Increased blow counts due while driving through wood at ±16' bgs.

1

2

3

O

P

E

N

S-1 : Medium dense, brown, fine to coarse SAND, some fine tocoarse Gravel, trace Silt

S-2 : Loose, brown, fine to coarse GRAVEL, trace fine to coarseSand, trace Silt

S-3 : Medium dense, gray/brown, fine to coarse SAND, traceSilt, trace Wood Fibers

S-4 : WOOD

S-5 : Top 12": Very dense, brown, fine to coarse SAND, somefine to coarse Gravel, trace SiltBottom 2": Very dense, brown, fine SAND, some Silt

S-6 : Medium dense, brown, fine SAND, some Silt

5/29/2014 - 5/29/2014

Safety Hammer140

Ground Surface Elev. (ft.):

Date Start - Finish:

30

TEST BORING LOG

Foreman:

No. Blows(per 6 in.)

MSL

Town of Glocester Public WorksProposed Transfer StationGlocester, Rhode Island

GZ

A T

EM

PLA

TE

TE

ST

BO

RIN

G 3

00; 7

/10/

201

4; 1

0:59

:09

AM

H. Datum:

Groundwater Depth (ft.)

Ele

v.(f

t.)

15 Mins.

V. Datum:

Water Depth

WGS84

Date

Depth(ft.)

Sample

Logged By:Drilling Co.:

5/29/2014Stab. TimeTime

StratumDescription

Dep

th(f

t.)

Pen.(in)

Sampler O.D. (in.):Sampler Type:

Rock Core Size:Sampler Length (in.):

CME 75Type of Rig: Truck MountedRig Model:Drilling Method: Final Boring Depth (ft.):

Hammer Weight (lb.):Hammer Fall (in.):Auger or Casing O.D./I.D Dia (in.):

RE

MA

RK

S

11:45am 14

Exploration No.:GZ-01


47


Rec.(in)

242.0

SS

Rem

arkCasing

Blows/CoreRate

41.903304 -71.675529Shane RobatNew England Boring, Co.Jason Stokes

Hammer Type:

Boring Location:437

FieldTestData

EXPLORATION NO.: GZ-01SHEET: 1 of 2PROJECT NO: 34010.00REVIEWED BY: William Ladd

Depth(ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

See Log Key for explanation of sample description and identification procedures. Stratification lines representapproximate boundaries between soil and bedrock types. Actual transitions may be gradual. Water level readings havebeen made at the times and under the conditions stated. Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due to other factorsthan those present at the times the measurements were made.

Sample Description and Identification(Modified Burmister Procedure)

4"

Drive & Wash

S-7

S-8

S-9

S-10

6 77 11

11 611 10

15 3036 31

20 1429 50

390.0

30-33

35-37

40-42

45-47

OUTWASH

47

24

24

24

24

10

14

19

20

4 - Increase in drilling resistance with roller bit at 37'.

4

O

P

E

N

H

O

L

E

S-7 : Medium dense, gray, fine to coarse SAND, little Silt, littlefine Gravel

S-8 : Medium dense, gray, fine to coarse SAND, little Silt, littlefine Gravel

S-9 : Very dense, gray, fine to coarse SAND, some fine Gravel,little Silt

S-10 : Dense, brown/gray, fine to coarse SAND, some fine tocoarse Gravel, little Silt

End of exploration at 47 feet.

5/29/2014 - 5/29/2014

Safety Hammer140



30

TEST BORING LOG

Foreman:

No. Blows(per 6 in.)

MSL


GZ

A T

EM

PLA

TE

TE

ST

BO

RIN

G 3

00; 7

/10/

201

4; 1

0:59

:09

AM

H. Datum:


Ele

v.(f

t.)

15 Mins.

V. Datum:

Water Depth

WGS84

Date

Depth(ft.)

Sample


5/29/2014Stab. TimeTime

StratumDescription

Dep

th(f

t.)

Pen.(in)

Sampler O.D. (in.):Sampler Type:

Rock Core Size:Sampler Length (in.):

CME 75Type of Rig: Truck MountedRig Model:Drilling Method: Final Boring Depth (ft.):

Hammer Weight (lb.):Hammer Fall (in.):Auger or Casing O.D./I.D Dia (in.):

RE

MA

RK

S

11:45am 14

Exploration No.:GZ-01


47


Rec.(in)

242.0

SS

Rem

arkCasing

Blows/CoreRate

41.903304 -71.675529Shane RobatNew England Boring, Co.Jason Stokes

Hammer Type:

Boring Location:437

FieldTestData

EXPLORATION NO.: GZ-01SHEET: 2 of 2PROJECT NO: 34010.00REVIEWED BY: William Ladd

Depth(ft)

35

40

45

50

55

60

See Log Key for explanation of sample description and identification procedures. Stratification lines representapproximate boundaries between soil and bedrock types. Actual transitions may be gradual. Water level readings havebeen made at the times and under the conditions stated. Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due to other factorsthan those present at the times the measurements were made.

Sample Description and Identification(Modified Burmister Procedure)

4"

Drive & Wash

12

11

12

0

0

8

18

6

427.0

418.0

411.0

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

9 910 9

4 34 5

6 513 10

10 127 4

3 11 1

1 11 1

29 2425 21

9 78 9

1

2

3

S-1 : Top: Medium dense, brown, fine to coarse

SAND, little fine to coarse Gravel, trace Silt

Bottom: Medium dense, tan, fine to coarse SAND,

some fine to coarse Gravel, trace Silt

S-2 : Loose, tan, fine to coarse SAND, trace fine

Gravel, trace Silt

S-3 : Top: Medium dense, brown, fine to coarse

SAND and fine to coarse GRAVEL, trace Silt

Bottom: Medium dense, fine to coarse SAND, little

Gravel, trace Peat, trace Wood

S-4 : No Recovery

S-5 : No Recovery

S-6 : Very loose, brown, ORGANIC SILT with

FIBERS, some fine to coarse Sand, little

Glass/Concrete

S-7 : Dense, brown, fine to coarse SAND, trace fine

Gravel, trace Silt

S-8 : Medium dense, gray, fine SAND, trace fine

Gravel, little Silt

End of exploration at 26 feet.

0-2

5-7

9-11

11-13

14-16

16-18

19-21

24-26

10

19

26

1 - Casing spun down from 4-7' bgs.2 - Rock stuck in tip of split spoon.3 - Thin pieces of metal observed at top of split spoon sample.

FILL

FILL WITHORGANICS

OUTWASH

Road BoxInstalled atSurface

DrillingSpoils

BentoniteSeal

Filter Sand

Screen

Rig Model: CME 75

MSL

Sample

Stab. TimeTime

Foreman:

Jessie Chabot

Rec.(in) E

lev.

(ft.)Pen.

(in)No. Blows(per 6 in.)

Equipment InstalledFieldTestDataR

emar

k

Sample DescriptionModified Burmister

Depth(ft.)

41.903213 -71.675519

5/29/2014Hammer Weight (lb.):Hammer Fall (in.):Auger or Casing O.D./I.D Dia (in.): 19 Hrs.

EXPLORATION NO.: GZ-02 (OW)SHEET: 1 of 1PROJECT NO: 34010.00REVIEWED BY: William Ladd

GZ

A T

EM

PLA

TE

TE

ST

BO

RIN

G W

/EQ

UIP

300

; 7/

10/2

014;

11:

01:

06 A

M

Dep

th(f

t.)

RE

MA

RK

STEST BORING LOG

Exploration No.:GZ-02 (OW)

5/30/2014


Water DepthDate


10:15am15 Mins.


140



30

Final Boring Depth (ft.):New England Boring, Co.Jason Stokes

Hammer Type:

242.0

Boring Location:

26

H. Datum:


5/29/2014 - 5/29/2014

Safety Hammer

18

WGS84

V. Datum:

3:00pm 16


Sampler Type:Sampler O.D. (in.):Sampler Length (in.):Rock Core Size:

Drilling Method:

Type of Rig:437

StratumDescriptionDepth

(ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

SS

Truck Mounted

Drive & Wash

4"

Documents

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROPOSED TRANSFER ...Bedrock Geology The 1955 bedrock geology map of the Chepachet quadrangle indicates that bedrock in the vicinity of the site consists of Ponaganset