SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER - Renton School District · PDF fileEverett Office I 2911 Yz Hewitt Avenue, ... These combined properties make up the subject site. ... with bentonite mud

a s s o c i a t e de a r t h s c i e n c e si n c o r p o r a t e d

Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 5th AvenueKirkland, WA 98033P (425) 827 7701 F (425) 827 5424

Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report

SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER Renton, Washington

Prepared For: RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

Project No. KE150719A August 4, 2016

August 4, 2016

Project No. KE150719A

Renton School District

7812 South 124th Street

Seattle, Washington 98178-4830

Attention: Mr. Rick Stracke

Executive Director Facilities and Operations

Subject: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard,

and Geotechnical Engineering Report

Sartori Education Center

331 Garden Avenue North

Renton, Washington

Dear Mr. Stracke:

We are pleased to present the enclosed copies of the above-referenced report. This report

summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical

engineering studies and offers recommendations for the design and development of the

proposed project. We should be allowed to review the recommendations presented in this

report and modify them, if needed, once final project plans have been formulated.

We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations

presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should

have any questions or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.

Kirkland, Washington

�, ... -Kurt D. Merriman, P.E.

Senior Principal Engineer

KDM/pc

KE150719A3

Pro jects\20150719\KE\ WP

Kirkland Office I 911 Fifth Avenue I Kirkland, WA 98033 P I 425.827.7701 FI 425.827.5424

Everett Office I 2911 Yz Hewitt Avenue, Suite 2 I Everett, WA 98201 P I 425.259.0522 F I 425. 827.5424

Tacoma Office I 1552 Commerce Street, Suite 102 I Tacoma, WA 98402 P I 253.722.2992 F I 253.722.2993

www.aesgeo.com

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARD, AND GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING REPORT

SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER

Renton, Washington

Prepared for: Renton School District

7812 South 124th Street Seattle, Washington 98178-4830

Prepared by: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.

911 5th Avenue Kirkland, Washington 98033

425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424

August 4, 2016 Project No. KE150719A

Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions

August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc – KE150719A3 – Projects\20150719\KE\WP Page 1

I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical engineering study for the Sartori Education Center located at 331 Garden Avenue North in Renton, Washington. The site location is presented on Figure 1, “Vicinity Map.” The existing building locations and approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the “Site and Explorations,” Figure 2. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as necessary. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be utilized in the design and development of the aforementioned project. The study included drilling eight test borings and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and ground water conditions. Geologic hazard evaluations and engineering studies were also conducted to determine suitable geologic hazard mitigation techniques, the type of suitable pile foundation, pile design recommendations, anticipated settlements, floor support recommendations, and site preparation and drainage considerations. This report summarizes our current fieldwork and offers geologic hazard mitigation and development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authorization Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Rick Stracke of the Renton School District No. 403 (District) by means of a signed Renton School District Purchase Order (PO#2011500071). Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work letter dated January 8, 2016. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the District and its agents for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.



2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on discussions with the design team. The project site is that of the existing Sartori Education Center (King County Parcel No. 756460-0170), located at 331 Garden Avenue North, and 13 adjacent parcels in Renton, Washington. These combined properties make up the subject site. The parcels encompass the city block bounded by Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North on the west and east, respectively, and by North 3rd Street and North 4th Street on the south and north, respectively. The existing Sartori Education Center parcel includes a two-story brick building built in 1929 located near the southeast corner of the parcel, a paved parking area to the west, a large open lawn to the north, and smaller lawn areas on the east and south. A paved, locked bus parking area is located in the southwest corner of the parcel. The 13 additional parcels front along Park Avenue North and North 3rd Street. Of these 13 parcels, 11 are occupied by small, single-family homes built between 1915 and 1955. Gravel/asphalt/concrete driveways and small lawns also occupy these parcels. One of the 13 parcels (722400-0600) is owned by the District, is entirely paved by asphalt, and provides access to Sartori Education Center from Park Avenue North. The last of the 13 parcels (722400-0580) is located on the southwest corner of the city block and contains a small coffee shack and a separate commercial structure. With the exception of the structures, the parcel is entirely paved in asphalt. Site topography across the city block is relatively flat. To our understanding, the proposed project will consist of removal of the existing structures on the 14 parcels and construction of the new Elementary School #15 and associated structures such as parking and outbuildings. The type, size, and location of the new school on the parcel has not yet been determined. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field study included drilling eight exploration borings with a track-mounted drill rig to gain subsurface information about the site. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix to this report. The depths indicated on the boring logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. If changes occurred between sample intervals in our borings, they were interpreted. Our explorations were approximately located in the field by measuring from known site features. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the eight exploration borings completed for this study. The number, type, locations, and depths of the explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of



exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions are sometimes present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 3.1 Exploration Borings The exploration borings were completed by advancing an 8-inch outside-diameter, hollow-stem auger with a trailer-mounted drill rig to depths ranging from 60 to 90 feet. Below the water table, the borings were successfully completed with little or no heaving conditions with bentonite mud stabilization drilling techniques. During the drilling process, samples were obtained at generally 5-foot-depth intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged by an engineer from our firm. The exploration logs presented in the Appendix are based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples secured. Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedure in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard, 2-inch outside-diameter, split-barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance (“N”) or blow count. If a total of 50 is recorded within one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as the number of blows for the corresponding number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils; these values are plotted on the attached boring logs. The samples obtained from the split-barrel sampler were classified in the field and representative portions placed in watertight containers. The samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and laboratory testing, as necessary. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of selected applicable geologic literature. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, interpolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing



subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. 4.1 Stratigraphy Sod/Topsoil Sod and organic-rich topsoil were generally encountered in the non-paved areas of the site to depths between 6 and 8 inches below ground surface. Sod and topsoil should be removed from below construction areas prior to site development. Fill/Modified Ground Man-placed fill was not encountered in the explorations completed for this study. However, fill is expected in unexplored areas of the site, such as the area surrounding and under existing paved areas, structures, and in the existing underground utility trenches. Fill is typically loose to medium dense and can contain high percentages of silt or deleterious material. Due to their variable density and content, existing fill soils are not suitable for foundation support. Quaternary Alluvium – Cedar River Sediments encountered beneath asphalt and sod/topsoil generally consisted of bedded sandy gravel, clean sand, silty sand, clayey and lean silt with occasional lenses of peat and other organics scattered throughout the soil column. We interpret these sediments to be representative of recent alluvium deposited in former channels of the Cedar River. The alluvium extends beyond the depth of our deepest exploration (91.5 feet). The sediments appear to have been deposited in four separate “fining-upwards” packages, as shown on Figure 3, “Geologic Cross Section A-A’.” Each depositional package contains gravel or sandy gravel at or near the bottom, with sediments becoming more fine-grained as you move up in the package, transitioning from gravels, to predominantly sands, and then silts/clays with peat lenses near the top. Each silt/clay bed is capped by gravels which mark the bottom of the next, younger depositional package. In general, the silt/clay and sand alluvium encountered in our explorations is loose/soft to medium dense. Starting at roughly 40 to 45 feet in explorations across the site, the alluvium consists primarily of gravels and occurs in a dense condition. These gravels extend to a depth of about 60 feet in most borings and are underlain by silt/clay of an older depositional package. In borings EB-7 and EB-8, the dense gravel zone was shallower, extending between 40 and 50 feet. Although we believe the blow counts in this zone may be overstated due to gravels, these sediments will provide end bearing capacity for a deep foundation system.



The saturated soil in which “N” values do not exceed about 25 has a high potential for liquefaction-induced settlement. This roughly corresponds to sediments between depths of 9 and 30 feet. In addition, the abundant layers of very soft clayey and lean silt are subject to consolidation settlement under the new building loads. Therefore, structures will require deep pile foundations for support. In general, the soil where moisture content is within the compactable range is considered suitable for reuse as structural fill. It should be noted that where soils are above their optimum moisture content for compaction, their reuse as structural fill during all but the driest times of the year will be difficult. Existing alluvial soil was observed to contain silt and is considered moisture-sensitive. With appropriate remedial treatment, the soil, where moisture content is within the compactable range, may be considered suitable for support of slab-on-grade floors, hardscape, and paving. 4.2 Geologic Mapping Review of the regional geologic map titled Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, by D.R. Mullineaux (1965), indicates that the area of the subject site is underlain by modified land with fill (afm) and recent alluvium associated with the nearby Cedar River (Qac). Our interpretation of the sediments encountered at the subject site is in general agreement with the regional geologic map. 4.3 Hydrology Ground water was encountered between depths of approximately 9 to 14 feet across the site. This depth corresponds roughly to the water level in the nearby Cedar River. However, ground water depths reported during drilling may not represent stabilized ground water elevations that would be recorded in a properly constructed monitoring well. Ground water encountered in our explorations represents the regional unconfined ground water aquifer within the Renton basin. Ground water may be encountered in excavations that penetrate into the underlying alluvial soils. To our knowledge, no deep cuts are planned that will intersect the regional ground water aquifer. If such cuts will be made, significant ground water dewatering operations will be necessary. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to the time of year, variations in rainfall, and adjacent river levels.

Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations


II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and ground water conditions as observed and discussed herein. The discussion will be limited to seismic, landslide, and erosion hazards, including sediment transport. 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Reconnaissance of this site was limited to the area shown on Figure 2. The site topography is relatively flat, and therefore the risk of landsliding is low. 6.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Earthquakes occur in the Puget Sound Lowland with great regularity. Most of these events are small and are usually not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur, as evidenced by the most recent 6.8-magnitude event on February 28, 2001 near Olympia Washington; the 1965, 6.5-magnitude event; and the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this area during recorded history. Evaluation of return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely within a given 20-year period. Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. 6.1 Surficial Ground Rupture The nearest known fault trace to the project site is the Seattle Fault, located approximately 5 miles to the north. Recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS; e.g., Johnson et al., 1994, Origin and Evolution of the Seattle Fault and Seattle Basin, Washington, Geology, v. 22, pp. 71-74; and Johnson et al., 1999, Active Tectonics of the Seattle Fault and Central Puget Sound Washington – Implications for Earthquake Hazards, Geological Society of America Bulletin, July 1999, v. 111, n. 7, pp. 1042-1053) have provided evidence of surficial ground rupture along a northern splay of the Seattle Fault. The recognition of this fault splay is relatively new, and data pertaining to it are limited, with the studies still ongoing. According to the USGS studies, the latest movement of this fault was about 1,100 years ago when about 20 feet of surficial displacement took place. This displacement can presently be seen in the



form of raised, wave-cut beach terraces along Alki Point in West Seattle and Restoration Point at the south end of Bainbridge Island. The recurrence interval of movement along this fault system is still unknown, although it is hypothesized to be in excess of several thousand years. Due to the suspected long recurrence interval and depth of loose/soft alluvium present within the site boundaries, the potential for surficial ground rupture is considered to be low during the expected life of the proposed structure. 6.2 Seismically Induced Landslides Reconnaissance of this site was limited to the area shown on Figure 2. The site topography is relatively flat to gently sloping, and therefore the risk of landsliding is low. 6.3 Liquefaction We performed a liquefaction hazard analysis for this site in accordance with guidelines published in Seed & Idriss, 1982; Seed, et al., 1985; and Kramer, 1996. Our liquefaction analysis was completed with the aid of LiquefyPro computer software Version 5 by CivilTech Corporation. Liquefaction occurs when vibration or ground shaking associated with moderate to large earthquakes (generally in excess of Richter magnitude 6) results in loss of internal strength in certain types of soil deposits. These deposits generally consist of loose to medium dense sand or silty sand that is saturated (e.g., below the water table). Loss of soil strength can result in consolidation and/or lateral spreading of the affected deposit with accompanying surface subsidence and/or heaving. The liquefaction potential is dependent on several site-specific factors, such as soil grain size, density (modified to standardize field-obtained values), site geometry, static stresses, level of ground acceleration considered, and duration of the event. The earthquake parameters (a magnitude 7.5 earthquake occurring directly beneath the site with a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.6g) used in our liquefaction analysis are in accordance with the required parameters set forth in the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our exploration borings EB-1 through EB-8, the estimated amount of liquefaction-induced settlement, through the depths explored, ranges from about 5 to 8 inches during a design-level event. It should be understood that several soil properties used in the liquefaction analysis are estimated based on published data and engineering judgment. The settlement predicted is based on a very large, rare seismic event. Settlement during a smaller, historically typical event will likely be less. It should also be understood that the alluvium encountered in our explorations extends below the depths explored. It is current practice to neglect the effects of liquefaction below a depth of about 80 feet. Therefore, these settlement estimates should be considered approximate and “worst-case scenarios” for the code-required seismic event. In addition to liquefaction settlement, the



site soils are also subject to consolidation settlement under the new static building loads (independent of seismic shaking). Therefore, we recommend that all building elements, including floor slabs and other structures, be supported on pile foundations. However, if the owner can assume the risk of potential liquefaction-induced settlements of this magnitude, the floor slab in a lightly loaded, uninhabited structure could be supported as a floating slab-on-grade. Pile foundations that extend to the minimum depths described in the “Design Recommendations” section of this report should reduce both consolidation settlement and seismically induced structure settlement to tolerable levels for new construction. 6.4 Ground Motion Structural design of the buildings should follow 2012 IBC standards using Site Class “E” as defined in Table 20.3-1 of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7 – Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Although site soils are liquefiable, ASCE 7 allows use of Site Class E for buildings with less than five stories. 7.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS As of October 1, 2008, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Construction Storm Water General Permit (also known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permit) requires weekly Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) inspections and turbidity monitoring of site runoff for all sites 1 or more acres in size that discharge storm water to surface waters of the state. The following sections provide recommendations to address these inspection and reporting requirements, as well as recommendations related to general erosion control and mitigation. The TESC inspections and turbidity monitoring of runoff must be completed by a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) for the duration of the construction. The weekly TESC reports do not need to be sent to Ecology, but should be logged into the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Ecology requires a monthly summary report of the turbidity monitoring results signed by the NPDES permit holder. If the monitored turbidity equals or exceeds 25 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) (Ecology benchmark standard), the project best management practices (BMPs) should be modified to decrease the turbidity of storm water leaving the site. Changes and upgrades to the BMPs should be documented in the weekly TESC reports and continued until the weekly turbidity reading is 25 NTU or lower. If the monitored turbidity exceeds 250 NTU, the results must be reported to Ecology via phone within 24 hours and corrective actions should be implemented as soon as possible. Daily turbidity monitoring is continued until the corrective actions lower the turbidity to below 25 NTU, or until the discharge stops. This description of the sampling benchmarks and



reporting requirements is a brief summary of the Construction Storm Water General Permit conditions. The general permit is available on the internet. In order to meet the current Ecology requirements, a properly developed, constructed, and maintained erosion control plan consistent with City of Renton standards and best management erosion control practices will be required for this project. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing site-specific erosion control plans. Based on past experience, it will be necessary to make adjustments and provide additional measures to the TESC plan in order to optimize its effectiveness. Ultimately, the success of the TESC plan depends on a proactive approach to project planning and contractor implementation and maintenance. The most effective erosion control measure is the maintenance of adequate ground cover. Maintaining cover measures atop disturbed ground provides the greatest reduction to the potential generation of turbid runoff and sediment transport. During the local wet season (October 1st through March 31st), exposed soil should not remain uncovered for more than 2 days unless it is actively being worked. Ground-cover measures can include erosion control matting, plastic sheeting, straw mulch, crushed rock or recycled concrete, or mature hydroseed. Surface drainage control measures are also essential for collecting and controlling the site runoff. Flow paths across slopes should be kept to less than 50 feet in order to reduce the erosion and sediment transport potential of concentrated flow. Ditch/swale spacing will need to be shortened with increasing slope gradient. Ditches and swales that exceed a gradient of about 7 to 10 percent, depending on their flow length, should have properly constructed check dams installed to reduce the flow velocity of the runoff and reduce the erosion potential within the ditch. Flow paths that are required to be constructed on gradients between 10 to 15 percent should be placed in a riprap-lined swale with the riprap properly sized for the anticipated flow conditions. Flow paths constructed on slope gradients steeper than 15 percent should be placed in a pipe slope drain. AESI is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing a suitable erosion control plan with proper flow control. With respect to water quality, having ground cover prior to rain events is one of the most important and effective means to maintain water quality. Once very fine sediment is suspended in water, the settling times of the smallest particles are on the order of weeks and months. Therefore, the typical retention times of sediment traps or ponds will not reduce the turbidity of highly turbid site runoff to the benchmark turbidity of 25 NTU. Reduction of turbidity from a construction site is almost entirely a function of cover measures and drainage control that have been implemented prior to rain events. Temporary sediment traps and ponds are necessary to control the release rate of the runoff and to provide a catchment for



sand-sized and larger soil particles, but are very ineffective at reducing the turbidity of the runoff. Silt fencing should be utilized as buffer protection and not as a flow-control measure. Silt fencing is meant to be placed parallel with topographic contours to prevent sediment-laden runoff from leaving a work area or entering a sensitive area. Silt fences should not be placed to cross contour lines without having separate flow control in front of the silt fence. A swale/berm combination should be constructed to provide flow control rather than let the runoff build up behind the silt fence and utilize the silt fence as the flow-control measure. Runoff flowing in front of a silt fence will cause additional erosion and usually will cause a failure of the silt fence. Improperly installed silt fencing has the potential to cause a much larger erosion hazard than if the silt fence was not installed at all. The use of silt fencing should be limited to protect sensitive areas, and swales should be used to provide flow control. 7.1 Erosion Hazard Mitigation To mitigate the erosion hazards and potential for off-site sediment transport, we would recommend the following:

1. Construction activity should be scheduled or phased as much as possible to reduce the amount of earthwork activity that is performed during the winter months.

2. The winter performance of a site is dependent on a well-conceived plan for control of

site erosion and storm water runoff. It is easier to keep the soil on the ground than to remove it from storm water. The owner and the design team should include adequate ground-cover measures, access roads, and staging areas in the project bid to give the selected contractor a workable site. The selected contractor needs to be prepared to implement and maintain the required measures to reduce the amount of exposed ground. A site maintenance plan should be in place in the event storm water turbidity measurements are greater than the Ecology standards.

3. TESC measures for a given area to be graded or otherwise worked should be installed

soon after ground clearing. The recommended sequence of construction within a given area after clearing would be to install sediment traps and/or ponds and establish perimeter flow control prior to starting mass grading.

4. During the wetter months of the year, or when large storm events are predicted during

the summer months, each work area should be stabilized so that if showers occur, the work area can receive the rainfall without excessive erosion or sediment transport. The required measures for an area to be “buttoned-up” will depend on the time of year and the duration the area will be left un-worked. During the winter months, areas that are



to be left un-worked for more than 2 days should be mulched or covered with plastic. During the summer months, stabilization will usually consist of seal-rolling the subgrade. Such measures will aid in the contractor’s ability to get back into a work area after a storm event. The stabilization process also includes establishing temporary storm water conveyance channels through work areas to route runoff to the approved treatment facilities.

5. All disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. If it is outside of the

growing season, the disturbed areas should be covered with mulch, as recommended in the erosion control plan. Straw mulch provides a cost-effective cover measure and can be made wind-resistant with the application of a tackifier after it is placed.

6. Surface runoff and discharge should be controlled during and following development.

Uncontrolled discharge may promote erosion and sediment transport. Under no circumstances should concentrated discharges be allowed to flow over the top of steep slopes.

7. Soils that are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner as to

reduce erosion from the stockpile. Protective measures may include, but are not limited to, covering with plastic sheeting, the use of low stockpiles in flat areas, or the use of silt fences around pile perimeters. During the period between October 1st and March 31st, these measures are required.

8. On-site erosion control inspections and turbidity monitoring (if required) should be

performed in accordance with Ecology requirements. Weekly and monthly reporting to Ecology should be performed on a regularly scheduled basis. A discussion of temporary erosion control and site runoff monitoring should be part of the weekly construction team meetings. Temporary and permanent erosion control and drainage measures should be adjusted and maintained, as necessary, for the duration of project construction.

It is our opinion that with the proper implementation of the TESC plans and by field-adjusting appropriate mitigation elements (BMPs) throughout construction, as recommended by the erosion control inspector, the potential adverse impacts from erosion hazards on the project may be mitigated.

Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Sartori Education Center and Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton, Washington Design Recommendations


III. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 8.0 INTRODUCTION The site contains some potential soil and foundation-oriented complications with respect to compressible soils, loose granular soils susceptible to liquefaction, and near surface moisture- and disturbance-sensitive soils. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon the assumption that the foundations, floor slab, and grading construction are observed by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist from our firm. The proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint using pile foundations for the building superstructure, and pile-supported lower floor slabs. If any of the floor slabs will be “floated,” they should be constructed on a minimum of 2 feet of approved structural fill compacted to 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. Pavement or hardscaping support on existing soils is possible with some near-surface remedial improvements. Due to the possible presence of loose surficial soils, liquefaction hazards, and/or consolidation settlement, some settlement of non-pile-supported structures and paved areas, however, is anticipated. 9.0 SITE PREPARATION Site preparation of planned building and road/parking areas that will not be supported by pile foundations should include removal of all existing buildings, foundation elements, utilities, asphalt, landscaping, debris, and any other surficial deleterious material that are not part of the planned project. Additionally, any upper organic topsoil encountered should be removed and the remaining roots grubbed. Areas where loose surficial soils exist due to demolition or stripping/grubbing operations should be considered as fill to the depth of disturbance and treated as subsequently recommended for structural fill placement. Fill was not encountered in our explorations but should be expected around existing buildings and buried utilities. The density, thickness, and content of the fill across the site may be highly variable. We anticipate that any upper loose surficial fill soils, once recompacted or replaced with structural fill, will be adequate for support of pavement and other external surfacing, such as sidewalks or segmented paving units. However, there will be a risk of long-term damage to these surfaces including, but not limited to, rutting, yielding, cracking, etc., if any uncontrolled loose fill or surficial loose soil is not completely removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. The risk can be reduced by selective removal and replacement of the most settlement-sensitive, near-surface soils. Utilities founded above loose, uncontrolled fill are also at risk of settlement and associated damage.



The extent of stripping necessary in areas of the site to receive external surfacing, such as sidewalks and pavement, can best be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. We recommend proof-rolling road and parking areas with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck to identify any soft spots. If construction is to proceed during wet weather, we recommend systematic probing in place of proof-rolling to identify soft areas of the exposed subgrade. These soft areas should be overexcavated and backfilled with structural fill. Some of the on-site fill and surface soils contain a high percentage of fine-grained material, which makes them moisture-sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with structural fill. If the existing pavement will not be used for access and staging areas, consideration should be given to protecting access and staging areas with an appropriate section of crushed rock or asphalt treated base (ATB). The existing pavement is in such poor condition that it may be necessary to augment the pavement with ATB if it will be used for construction access and staging. If crushed rock is considered for the access and staging areas, it should be underlain by engineering stabilization fabric to reduce the potential of fine-grained materials pumping up through the rock and turning the area to mud. The fabric will also aid in supporting construction equipment, thus reducing the amount of crushed rock required. We recommend that at least 10 inches of rock be placed over the fabric; however, due to the variable nature of the near-surface soils and differences in wheel loads, this thickness may have to be adjusted by the contractor in the field. 10.0 STRUCTURAL FILL All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type and placement, and compaction of materials, as discussed in this section. If a percentage of compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value given in that section should be used. After stripping, planned excavation, and any required overexcavation have been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer, the upper 12 inches of exposed ground in areas to receive fill should be recompacted to 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. If the subgrade contains silty soils and too much moisture, adequate recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably not be attempted. In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be blanketed with washed rock or quarry spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade.



Where the exposed ground remains soft and further overexcavation is impractical, placement of an engineering stabilization fabric may be necessary to prevent contamination of the free-draining layer by silt migration from below. After recompaction of the exposed ground is tested and approved, or a free-draining rock course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is defined as non-organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts, with each lift being compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. In the case of roadway and utility trench filling, the backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with current local codes and standards. The top of the compacted fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the location of the roadway edges before sloping down at an angle of 2H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by AESI prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material 72 hours in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than the No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered moisture-sensitive. Use of moisture-sensitive soil in structural fills should be limited to favorable dry weather conditions. Some on-site soils contained significant amounts of silt and are considered moisture-sensitive. In addition, construction equipment traversing the site when the soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance. If fill is placed during wet weather or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select import material consisting of a clean, free-draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free-draining fill consists of non-organic soil with the amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction with at least 25 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve. A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling progresses and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a suitable monitoring and testing program.



11.0 FOUNDATIONS To mitigate post-construction consolidation settlement and the effects of seismically induced liquefaction, a pile foundation system is recommended. For this project, we recommend the use of 18- or 24-inch-diameter augercast piles. We can provided alternative recommendations for other pile types if requested. The following sections provide pile recommendations based on assumed loading conditions and soils encountered beneath the site. 11.1 Augercast Piles We recommend that the construction of piles be accomplished by a contractor experienced in their installation. Fill soils can have concrete, brick, wood, and other demolition waste in them, and soils of alluvial origin may have gravel lenses or large cobbles present in them. It may be necessary to have a backhoe present during pile installation to dig out obstacles and backfill the excavation prior to drilling piling. If obstacles are encountered at depths where removal with a backhoe is not feasible, it might be necessary to modify the pile layout to replace piles that cannot be completed according to the original design. Observation of pile installation by AESI is important to verify that the subsurface conditions observed at pile locations are consistent with the observations in our subsurface explorations, and consistent with assumptions made during preparation of the recommendations in this report. The City of Renton will likely require such inspections of foundation piles. The augercast piles will gain support from end bearing and skin friction. Augercast piles are formed by drilling to the required depth with a continuous flight, hollow-stem auger. Fluid grout is then pumped down the hollow stem under pressure as the auger is withdrawn. Appropriately designed reinforcing steel cages are then lowered into the unset grout. A single reinforcing bar is installed for the full length of the pile for transfer of uplift loads. Since the grout is placed under pressure, actual grout volumes used are typically 15 to 50 percent greater than the theoretical volume of the pile. Actual grout volumes for piles constructed through some types of fill and peat can be much more. The pile contractor should be required to provide a pressure gauge and a calibrated pump stroke counter so that the actual grout volume for each pile can be determined. Typically, a nine-sack, minimum 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) grout mix is used for augercast piles. Once complete, the piles would then connect to a pile cap and grade beam support system for the building foundation. Typical allowable capacities for the augercast piles are given in Table 1. Development of the design capacities presented in Table 1 requires a minimum overall pile length which extends 5 feet into the bearing layer encountered across the site at about 45 feet depth.



The allowable design axial compressive loads include a safety factor of 2 and may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loading. Anticipated settlement of the pile-supported foundations will generally be on the order of ½ inch.

Table 1 Augercast Pile Recommendations

Pile Diameter (inches)

Estimated Length (feet)(1)

Vertical Compressive

Capacity (kips)

Lateral Capacity (kips)(2)

Depth of fixity

(feet)(3) Uplift Capacity

(kips)(4) 18 50 65 45 14 60 24 50 115 80 17 90

(1) Pile length based on bearing layer occurring at 45 feet depth. (2) Allowable lateral capacities are for fixed-headed conditions (incorporation into pile caps and grade beam system), and

½ inch of deflection at the ground surface. Greater lateral capacities are possible for greater allowable deflections. (3) The depth of fixity does not include the code-required 20 percent increase for reinforcing cage design. (4) Uplift capacity is based on minimum pile length of 50 feet.

A downdrag load (negative friction) may develop from potential liquefaction of the loose soils under the site, between depths of about 9 and 30 feet. The vertical compressive capacities presented in Table 2 represent the downward capacity of the pile after subtracting out the negative friction that would develop during an earthquake event. Piles with lateral spacing less than 6 pile diameters from another pile along the direction of force should be considered to be in the zone of influence and the lateral capacity and the reduction factors presented below in Table 2 should be used. If the lateral contribution of the piles is more critical to the practical design of the structure, we can provide a comprehensive lateral pile analysis. Such an analysis would present lateral pile capacities taking into account the interaction between piles. Based on the loose conditions of the soils through which the augercast piles are to be excavated, care should be taken in construction planning to allow grout time to set prior to drilling adjacent piles. Typically, 24 hours of set time is recommended for piles closer than 3 pile diameters or 10 feet, whichever is greater. The 24 hours can be reduced for adjacent piles drilled on different workdays. 11.2 Group Effects Where piles are installed in groups and subject to lateral loading, reductions in lateral capacity to account for group effects should be included in design. The effects of group performance should be considered where piles are spaced closer than 6 pile diameters center-to-center and



are aligned in the direction of loading. Piles should not be spaced closer than 3 pile diameters center-to-center to achieve full vertical and uplift capacity. If piles are staggered in the x and y directions a minimum of 3 pile diameters, there is no reduction in lateral loading. For the determination of individual capacities for load application parallel to the line of spacing, the following spacing and reduction factors presented in Table 2 should apply. The last pile in a row can be assumed to develop the full lateral capacity. Table 2

Lateral Reduction Factors

Pile Spacing Reduction Factor 6 diameters 1.0 5 diameters 0.8 4 diameters 0.6 3 diameters 0.4

11.3 Passive Resistance and Friction Factors Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the pile caps and grade beams and the existing fill soils or structural fill, or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of these elements. The foundations must be backfilled with structural fill and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density to achieve the passive resistance provided below. We recommend the following allowable design parameters:

• Passive equivalent fluid = 200 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) • Coefficient of friction = 0.30

12.0 FLOOR SUPPORT As discussed earlier in this report, existing site soils are considered to be settlement-prone, and we therefore recommend that floor slabs be designed as structural slabs and supported on pile foundations. Where potentially liquefaction-induced settlement can be tolerated, site soils can be used to support slab-on-grade floors, sidewalks, or other similar structures contingent upon adequate remedial preparation and understanding of uncertainties in settlement performance. Slabs, pavement, or segmented paving stones to be supported on grade should be supported on a 2-foot-thick structural fill mat. All fill beneath slabs, paving stones, or pavement must be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. The floor slabs should be cast atop a



minimum of 4 inches of clean washed crushed rock or pea gravel to act as a capillary break. Areas of subgrade that are disturbed (loosened) during construction should be compacted to a non-yielding condition prior to placement of capillary break material. It should also be protected from dampness by an impervious moisture barrier at least 10 mils thick. The impervious barrier should be placed between the capillary break material and the concrete slab. 13.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS All exterior grade beams should be provided with a drain at least 12 inches below the base of the adjacent interior slab elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe surrounded by washed pea gravel. The drains should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the building. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the structure to achieve surface drainage. 14.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS We anticipate that the new school development will include construction of paved parking areas and bus lanes. Due to loose/soft soils near the surface, some remedial measures may be necessary for support of new pavement or for areas of hardscaping (e.g., paving stones). To reduce the depth of overexcavation required and to achieve a suitable subgrade for support of pavement, we recommend that an engineering stabilization fabric or geogrid reinforcement be placed over the stripped subgrade prior to filling. The addition of an engineering stabilization fabric or geogrids permit heavier traffic over soft subgrade and increases the service life of the system. The fabric acts as a separation barrier between relatively fine-grained surficial materials on the site and the load-distributing aggregate (sand or crushed rock). As a separator, it reduces the loss of costly aggregate material into the subgrade and prevents the upward pumping of silt into the aggregate. The high tensile strength and low modulus of elongation of the fabric also act to reduce localized stress by redistributing traffic loads over a wider area of subgrade. In addition, the recommended method of installation (proof-rolling) identifies weak areas, which can be improved prior to paving.



After the area to be paved is stripped and recompacted to the extent possible, engineering stabilization fabric, such as Mirafi 500X (or equivalent), should be placed over the subgrade with the edges overlapped in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Following subgrade preparation, clean, free-draining structural fill should be placed over the fabric and compacted to 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. Where fabric is exposed, spreading should be performed such that the dozer remains on the fill material and is not allowed to operate on uncovered fabric. When 12 inches of fill has been placed, the fabric should be proof-rolled with a loaded dump truck to pretension the fabric and identify soft spots in the fill. Upon completing the proof-rolling operation, additional structural fill should be placed and compacted to attain desired grades. Upon completion of the structural fill, a pavement section consisting of 4 inches of asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) underlain by 2 inches of 5/8-inch crushed surfacing top course and 6 inches of 1¼-inch crushed surfacing base course is the recommended minimum. The crushed rock courses must be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. Given the potentially variable in-place density of existing fill subgrade, some settlement of paved areas should be anticipated unless existing fill is entirely removed and replaced with structural fill. 15.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING At the time of this report, site grading, structural plans, and construction methods have not been finalized. We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We recommend that AESI perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way, our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design. We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the pile foundation system depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring services are not part of this current scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us know, and we will prepare a cost proposal.

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

0 20001000

FEET

±NOTE: BLACK AND WHITEREPRODUCTION OF THIS COLORORIGINAL MAY REDUCE ITSEFFECTIVENESS AND LEAD TOINCORRECT INTERPRETATION

VICINITY MAPSANTORI EDUCATION CENTER

RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJ NO. DATE: FIGURE:KE150719A 2/16 1 Do

cume

nt P

ath: H

:\GIS_

Proje

cts\aY

ear2

015\1

5071

9 Sar

tori E

duca

tion C

enter

\mxd

\1507

19 Fi

g1 P

rojec

tVici

nity.m

xd

DATA SOURCES / REFERENCES:USGS: 24K SERIES TOPOGRPAHIC MAPSKING CO: STREETS, PARCELSLOCATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE

KitsapCoun ty

Snohomish County

Pierce County

KingCoun ty

N 4th St

N 3rd St

Mead

owAv

eN

Gard

enAl

yN

Gar d

enA v

eN

P ark

A veN

Pelly

A lyN

Pelly

AveN

SITE

¬«900

¥405

0 10050

FEET

±NOTE: BLACK AND WHITEREPRODUCTION OF THIS COLORORIGINAL MAY REDUCE ITSEFFECTIVENESS AND LEAD TOINCORRECT INTERPRETATION

SITE AND EXPLORATIONSSARTORI EDUCATION CENTER

RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJ NO. DATE: FIGURE:KE150719A 2/16 2 Do

cume

nt Pa

th: H

:\GIS

_Proj

ects\

aYea

r2015

\1507

19 S

artori

Edu

catio

n Cen

ter\m

xd\15

0719

Site

Explo

.mxd

DATA SOURCES / REFERENCES:BING 2014KING CO: STREETS, PARCELS 2015LOCATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE

Kitsap

Snohomish

Pierce

King

LEGEND:!( AESI EXPLORATION BORING

CROSS SECTION

SITE

APPENDIX

Sod / Topsoil

Quaternary Alluvium - Cedar River

Loose, moist, brown, silty, fine SAND, trace organics (SM).Loose, moist, orange to light gray, fine SAND, some silt (SP).

Driller noted gravels.

Dense, moist, brownish orange, sandy GRAVEL; oxidized (GP).

Driller notes less gravel.

Loose, wet, orange brown, fine to medium SAND, some gravel (SP).

Loose, wet, orange brown, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL (GW).

Driller adds mud.Stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT (ML).

Loose, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND (SM).

Wood debris.

Loose, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND (SP).Medium stiff, wet, brownish gray, SILT, trace fine sand (ML).

Hard, wet, brownish gray, SILT, trace fine sand (ML).

Dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (SW).Driller notes gravels.

223

131319

235

254

227

532

52313

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

1 of 2

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)

Exploration NumberKE150719A

M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location

Water Level () Approved by:

30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-1

Sym

bol

TWL2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT)

3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) CJK

Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples

Ground Surface Elevation (ft)

Grab Sample

2/3/16,2/3/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery

Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)

Sartori Education Center ~36

Project Number

20

Renton, WADate Start/Finish

Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

55

3232

88

99

99

55

3636

Hard, wet, brownish gray, sandy SILT (ML).

Very dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (SW).

Very dense, wet, brownish gray, sandy GRAVEL; blow counts overstated; drillernotes bouncing on rock (GP).

Driller notes less gravels.

Medium dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (SW).

Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy, fine to medium GRAVEL (GP).

No recovery.

Note: Blow counts below 35 feet are likely overstated due to gravels.

162636

50/6"

141214

121719

449

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

Bottom of exploration boring at 61.5 feet

2 of 2

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-1

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/3/16,2/3/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

62

5050

2626

3636

1313

Concrete Driveway - 4 inchesCrushed Gravel Base Course

Quaternary Alluvium - Cedar RiverCuttings: Moist, reddish brown, fine SAND, trace gravel (SP).

Very loose, moist, brown, fine to coarse SAND, some fine gravel, trace silt;stratified (SP).

Driller notes gravels.

Medium dense, wet, brown, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; stratified(GM-GP).

Medium dense, wet, brown, interbedded SAND and GRAVEL, trace silt(SP/GP).

Driller adding mud at 20 feet.Loose/medium stiff, wet, gray, interbedded, silty, fine SAND and sandy SILT,trace mica; thinly bedded to laminated (SM/ML).

As above, silt beds are slightly brown-tinged, occasional organics.

Soft, very moist, gray, fine sandy SILT/CLAY; occasional brown silt interbedswith organic material; laminated (ML/CL).


Upper 8 inches of sample: As above (ML/CL).

Lower 10 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, very gravelly SAND,some silt; stratified (SM-SW).

112

101110

7811

343

435

212

51013

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

1 of 2

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-2

Sym

bol

DMG2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT)


Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/2/16,2/2/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

33

2121

1919

77

88

33

2323

Very dense, wet, gray, very gravelly SAND, some to trace silt, interbeds of grayCLAY; scattered organic matter; blow counts may be overstated due to gravels(SP/CL).

Dense, wet, brown, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, some silt; 2-inch bedof gravel (fractured) in sampler tip; stratified (SM-SP).

Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; stratified (GP).

Very dense, wet, gray grading to brown, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt;fractured gravel in sampler tip; thinly bedded; blow counts may be overstateddue to gravels (GP).

Upper 12 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, bedded SAND andGRAVEL, trace silt (SP/GP).Lower 6 inches of sample: Stiff, very moist, gray to dark brown, sandy SILT;abundant organic matter; laminated; abrupt contact (ML).

Medium dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, trace silt; thinlybedded (SP).

Upper 12 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, tan with orange oxidation,silty, fine SAND; thinly bedded (SM).Lower 6 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, orangish brown, fine tomedium SAND, trace silt; bedded (SP).

Dense, wet, reddish brown grading to brown, sandy GRAVEL, some silt;stratified; some gravels are fractured (GM-GP).

Note: Blow counts from 35 to 55 feet and at 75 feet likely overstated due togravels.

152328

14922

101312

172322

1166

798

899

81023

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

S-13

S-14

S-15


2 of 2

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-2

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/2/16,2/2/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

51

3131

2525

55

1212

1717

1818

3333

Asphalt Pavement - 3 inchesCrushed Gravel Base Course

Quaternary Alluvium - Cedar RiverVery smooth, fast drilling.

Upper 6 inches of sample: Loose, moist, brown, gravelly, medium SAND, somesilt; bedded (SM-SP).Lower 6 inches of sample: Loose, moist, light brown with faint orangeoxidation, fine SAND, some gravel, some silt (SM-SP).

Medium dense, wet, brown and orangish brown, fine to medium SAND, tracegravel, trace silt; bedded (SP).

Driller notes gravel layer.

As above, 4 inch interbed of silty gravel. 6 inch heave.

Driller adding mud at 20 feet.Upper 5 inches of sample: As above.Middle 4 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, very silty, fine SAND;thinly bedded (SM).Lower 5 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL;stratified (GM).

Medium dense, wet, gray, very gravelly, fine to medium SAND, some silt, traceorganic matter; stratified (SM-SP).

Driller notes less gravelly, faster drilling.

Medium stiff, wet, gray, fine sandy SILT/CLAY, with occasional thin interbeds ofsilty, fine sand; abundant organic matter; trace gravel isolated in interbeds(ML/CL).

Back into gravels.

Dense, wet, gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL, trace organic debris (grasses); gravelsup to 2 inches in diameter; stratified (GM).

234

366

8119

51214

81313

233

111821

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

1 of 2

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-3

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/1/16,2/1/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

77

1212

2020

2626

2626

66

3939

Dense, wet, brown, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; stratified (GP).

Dense, wet, brown, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, trace silt; occasional siltierinterbeds; stratified (SP).

As above, sand is coarser.

Dense, wet, brown becoming reddish brown with depth (abundant oxidation),fine sandy GRAVEL, some silt to silty; stratified (GM-GP).

Very dense, wet, mottled gray and brown with occasional orange oxidation, silty,fine sandy GRAVEL (GM).

Note: Blow counts from 35 to 60 feet likely overstated due to gravels.

191828

153034

102026

182522

152525

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12


2 of 2

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-3

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/1/16,2/1/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

4646

64

4646

4747

5050

Asphalt Pavement - 1 inchCrushed Gravel Base Course


Medium dense, moist, orangish brown and tan with orange oxidation, silty, fineSAND, some gravel; thinly bedded with interbeds (1 inch thick) of sandy graveland very sandy silt (SM).

Gravelly drilling.

Medium dense, wet, orangish brown, sandy GRAVEL, some silt; occasional thin(1 inch thick) interbeds of sandy silt (GM-GP).

Medium dense, wet, brown, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, some silt;occasional coarser interbeds (SM-SP).

Driller adding mud at 20 feet.Medium stiff, wet, gray, interbedded very silty SAND and SILT/CLAY;occasional organics and mica; bedded; laminated within silt/clay beds(SM-ML/CL).

Loose, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND, trace gravel; abundant organics (barkfragments); stratified (SM).

Medium stiff, wet, gray and dark brown, fine sandy SILT; scattered organics(rootlets); laminated (ML).


Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL, some silt; stratified (GM-GP).

3510

699

5610

5364

346

534

61312

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

1 of 2

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-4

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/1/16,2/1/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

1515

1818

1616

77

1010

77

2525

As above.

As above, dense.

As above, brownish gray.

Upper 5 inches of sample: As above.Lower 6 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, brown, gravelly, fine to mediumSAND, some silt (SM-SP).

Upper 4 inches of sample: As above.Middle 5 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, very sandy GRAVEL,some silt; stratified (GP-GM).Lower 5 inches of sample: Stiff, very moist, dark brown, SILT; scatteredorganic matter; thin interbed of gray sand; laminated (ML).

Note: Blow counts form 35 to 55 feet likely overstated due to gravels.

101112

191525

101517

111212

1295

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12


2 of 2

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-4

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/1/16,2/1/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

2323

4040

3232

2424

1414


FillSilty sand and gravel.


Loose, moist, orangish brown and tan, fine SAND, some silt to silty; thinlybedded (SM-SP).

Medium dense, very moist, orangish brown, fine sandy GRAVEL, some silt;stratified (GM-GP).

Dense, wet, brown, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; stratified, with 3 inch siltbed in sample; blow counts my be overstated due to gravels (GW).

Driller adding mud at 20 feet.Upper 6 inches of sample: As above.Lower 18 inches of sample: Medium stiff, wet, gray, very silty, fine SAND tovery fine sandy SILT, trace organic material; 1 inch interbed of brown, gravellysand within silt; stratified (SM/ML).

Medium dense, wet, mottled gray and dark brown, very silty, fine SAND;laminated to thinly bedded (SM).

As above, 6 inch bed of laminated gray SILT (ML) near sampler tip.


Dense, wet, orangish brown, gravelly SAND, some silt; gravel is fractured;stratified (SP-SM).

233

81214

131616

353

356

278

52318

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

1 of 2

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-5

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/1/16,2/1/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

66

2626

3232

88

1111

1515

4141

Very dense, wet, light grayish brown, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, some silt;stratified; blow counts may be overstated due to gravels (SM-SP).

Medium dense, wet, brownish gray, very sandy GRAVEL, some silt; thinlybedded (GM-GW).

Very dense, wet, grayish brown, sandy GRAVEL, some silt; stratified(GM-GW).

As above, 1/2 inch gray, silt bed at tip of sampler.

Drilling smoothed out.

Very stiff/medium dense, very moist, gray, fine SAND, trace gravel, withinterbeds of gray to dark brown, SILT; scattered organics in silt beds; laminatedwithin silt beds (SM/ML).

Very stiff/medium dense, moist, gray interbedded sandy SILT and silty, fineSAND, some gravel near sampler tip (ML/SM).

Driller notes gravels at 67 feet. Hard, sticky, gravelly drilling.

Upper 6 inches of sample: Very dense, wet, gray, silty/clayey GRAVEL;stratified (GM/GC).Lower 12 inches of sample: Very dense, wet, brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL;orange oxidation within siltier interbeds; stratified (GM).

Very dense, wet, brown grading to gray, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, someto trace silt; stratified (SW).


123824

111513

183640

1030

50/5"

121212

8119

183031

284725

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

S-13

S-14

S-15


2 of 2

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-5

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/1/16,2/1/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

62

2828

76

80/11"

2424

2020

61

72


Old Asphalt Pavement / Crushed Gravel Layer ?Quaternary Alluvium - Cedar River

Loose, moist, orangish brown, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, trace to somesilt; stratified with occasional silty sand interbeds (SM-SP).


Medium dense, wet, orangish brown, fine to medium SAND, grading intoGRAVEL, trace silt; bedded (SP/GP).

Driller adding mud at 15 feet.Upper 4 inches of sample: As above, siltier (SP-SM).Lower 14 inches of sample: Loose/medium stiff, wet, gray, fine to mediumSAND and gray, SILT, some sand; bedded, trace organics in silt layer; silt islaminated (SM/ML).

Medium stiff, wet, gray, fine sandy SILT; occasional interbeds of silty sand;occasional brown silt interbeds; thinly bedded to laminated (ML).

Medium stiff, very moist, gray, SILT/CLAY; interbeds of dark brown silt/clay withorganic matter; laminated (ML/CL).

Driller notes drilling firmed up.

Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; some gravels arefractured (GP).

As above.


444

478

326

644

323

5911

81212

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

1 of 3

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-6

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/2/16,2/2/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

88

1515

88

88

55

2020

2424

As above, stratified.

Medium dense, wet, gray, fine sandy GRAVEL, trace silt; gravel is fractured;stratified (GP).

As above, dense.


Dense, wet, gray, gravelly SAND, trace to some silt; stratified (SP).

Very stiff, moist, gray, SILT/CLAY, with interbeds (2 to 4 inches thick) of silty,fine SAND and brown, organic-rich silt; organic odor; laminated to thinly bedded(ML/CL).

As above.

Medium dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, trace darkbrown/gray silt beds (~1 inch thick); bedded (SP).

Dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, some silt; stratified (SM-SP).

899

121215

132011

161917

789

235

8910

112025

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

S-13

S-14

S-15

2 of 3

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-6

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/2/16,2/2/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

1818

2727

3131

3636

1717

88

1919

4545

Dense, wet, gray, interbedded, SAND, some silt and sandy SILT; thinly beddedto laminated (SM-SP/ML).

Medium dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, some silt;bedded (SM-SP).

Very stiff, very moist, light gray, CLAY; medium to high plasticity; laminated(MH).

Note: Blow counts from 45 to 55 feet and 75 to 85 feet may be overstated dueto gravels.

131621

111511

81212

S-16

S-17

S-18


3 of 3

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-6

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/2/16,2/2/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

3737

2727

2424

Sod / TopsoilQuaternary Alluvium - Cedar River

Very loose, moist, orangish brown, SAND, trace to some gravel; thin bed of tansilt near top of sample; thinly bedded with beds of finer and coarser sand (SP).


Medium dense, very moist, brown, sandy GRAVEL, some silt; occasionalorganics (rootlets); stratified (GM-GP).

Medium dense, wet, brown, sandy GRAVEL; occasional sandy silt interbeds;scattered rootlets; stratified (GM-GP).

Driller adding mud at 20 feet.Medium dense, wet, gray, fine SAND, some gravel, grading into sandy SILT;scattered rootlets; thinly bedded to laminated (SP) (ML).

Loose/ medium stiff, wet, gray, interbedded fine SAND and sandy SILT;scattered organics; thinly bedded to laminated (SP/ML).

Medium stiff, very moist, gray with some dark brown mottling, fine sandy SILT;occasional organics; laminated (ML).


Upper 18 inches of sample: As above.

Lower 4 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, GRAVEL, trace silt;gravel is fractured (GP).

211

101512

356

246

214

233

688

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

1 of 2

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-7

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/3/16,2/3/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

22

2727

1111

1010

55

66

1616

Dense, wet, gray, very gravelly SAND, some silt; stratified (SM-SP).

Dense, wet, gray, bedded SAND and sandy GRAVEL; gravel is fractured(SP/GP).

Driller notes less gravels.

Upper 16 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND,some silt; bedded (SM-SP).Lower 4 inches of sample: Very stiff, very moist, gray and dark brown, SILT;abundant organics; laminated (ML).

Upper 10 inches of sample: Loose, wet, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND(SM-SP).Lower 8 inches: Stiff, wet, gray and dark brown, SILT; laminated (ML).

Stiff, wet, gray and dark brown, fine sandy SILT; occasional fine sand interbeds;thinly bedded (ML).


152121

302323

5813

745

336

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12


2 of 2

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-7

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/3/16,2/3/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

4242

4646

2121

99

99

Sod / TopsoilQuaternary Alluvium - Cedar River

Very loose, moist, brownish orange, medium SAND; oxidized (SP).


Dense, moist, brownish orange, gravelly, medium to coarse SAND; blow countsoverstated; oxidized (SP).

Very stiff, wet, brownish gray, sandy SILT (ML).

Medium dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, trace silt (SW).

Driller adding mud at 20 feet.Loose, wet, gray medium SAND (SP).

Medium stiff, wet, dark brown, SILT, trace wood debris (ML).

Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND (SM).

Medium stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT (ML).

Stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT; thinly bedded (ML).

Very stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT; laminated (ML).

Medium dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND; stratified (SP).


111

61320

21011

434

223

344

3512

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

1 of 3

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-8

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/3/16,2/3/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

22

3333

2121

77

55

88

1717

Medium dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine SAND; stratified (SP).Medium dense, wet, orange, fine SAND; stratified (SP).Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND (SM).

Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL (GP).


Medium dense, wet, brownish gray, sandy GRAVEL (GP).

Loose, wet, brownish gray, sandy GRAVEL (GP).

Ash interbed.Very stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT; laminated (ML).

Medium stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT; with organic rich and sandyinterbeds; thinly bedded to laminated (ML).

Stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT (ML).Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel (SP).

Hard, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT (ML).Dense, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND (SM).Dense, wet, gray, gravelly, medium SAND (SP).Driller notes gravels at 71.5 feet.

Medium dense, wet, brownish gray, silty, fine SAND, with wood-rich interbeds(1/2 to 3 inches thick); thinly bedded (SP).

41211

51514

61111

432

434

249

31026

71014

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

S-13

S-14

S-15

2 of 3

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-8

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/3/16,2/3/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

2323

2929

2222

55

77

1313

3636

2828

Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND (SM/SP).

No recovery.

Driller notes sand and silt interbeds.

Very stiff, very moist, gray, CLAY; high plasticity; laminated (CH).

Note: Blow count from 40 to 50 feet and from 70 to 75 feet likely overstated dueto gravels.

6814

10914

5216

S-16

S-17

S-18


3 of 3

N/A

Sheet

Dep

th (

ft)


M - Moisture

8 inches

40

Datum

ST G

raph

ic

10

Oth

er T

ests

Hole Diameter (in)

DESCRIPTION

Location


30

Blows/Foot

Driller/Equipment

Blo

ws/

6"

GDI / D50 Rig / HSA

Wel

l

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

Wat

er L

evel

Project Name

EB-8

Sym

bol



Com

plet

ion

Sam

ples


Grab Sample

2/3/16,2/3/16

Logged by:

Shelby Tube Sample

140# / 30"

Ring Sample

No Recovery



Project Number

20


Hammer Weight/Drop

Sampler Type (ST):

Exploration LogA

ES

IBO

R 1

5071

9.G

PJ

Feb

ruar

y 10

, 20

16

2222

2323

1818

Documents

SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER - Renton School District · PDF fileEverett Office I 2911 Yz Hewitt Avenue, ... These combined properties make up the subject site. ... with bentonite mud