HomeMy WebLinkAboutJefferson Healthcare Geotechnical Report 12-31-13
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Jefferson Healthcare Western Parking Lot
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Project No. 102-13014
DECEMBER 31, 2013
Prepared for:
Jefferson Healthcare
Attn: Mr. Jim Skannes
834 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
Prepared by:
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Division
4303 – 198TH ST SW
LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036
(425) 485-5519
& A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
Offices Serving The Western United States
4303 – 198th St SW • Lynnwood, Washington 98036 • (425) 485-5519 • Fax: (425) 485-6837
December 31, 2013 KA Project No. 102-13014
Mr. Jim Skannes – Facility Director E-Mail: jskannes@jgh.org
Jefferson Healthcare
834 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
RE: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Jefferson Healthcare Western Parking Lot
834 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Greetings,
In accordance with your request, we have completed a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the
referenced site. The results of our investigation are presented in the attached report.
If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our
office.
Respectfully submitted,
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Michael D. Rundquist, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
KM:JL:MR
& A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
Offices Serving The Western United States
4303 – 198th St SW • Lynnwood, Washington 98036 • (425) 485-5519 • Fax: (425) 485-6837
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................................1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE...................................................................................................................................................1
PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................................2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................................................................2
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................................................2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................2
SUBSURFACE EVALUATION...............................................................................................................................................2
GEOLOGIC SETTING...........................................................................................................................................................2
SUBSURFACE PROFILE.......................................................................................................................................................3
GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................................................................3
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS...................................................................................................................................................4
EROSION CONCERN/HAZARD ............................................................................................................................................4
SEISMIC HAZARD ..............................................................................................................................................................4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................5
GENERAL ..........................................................................................................................................................................5
SITE PREPARATION............................................................................................................................................................5
TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS..............................................................................................................................................6
STRUCTURAL FILL.............................................................................................................................................................7
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ..................................................................................................................................7
GROUNDWATER INFLUENCE ON STRUCTURES AND EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION............................................................8
DRAINAGE.........................................................................................................................................................................8
SUBSURFACE UTILITY INSTALLATIONS.............................................................................................................................9
STORMWATER INFILTRATION TESTING..............................................................................................................................9
MINIMUM POROUS PAVEMENT SECTION.........................................................................................................................12
TESTING AND INSPECTION...............................................................................................................................................13
LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................................................13
VICINITY MAP............................................................................................................................................Figure 1
SITE PLAN....................................................................................................................................................Figure 2
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS............................................................................................................... Table 1
IN-FIELD INFILTRATION RATE TEST RESULTS ................................................................................... Table 2
USDA TEXTURAL ANALYSIS INFILTRATION RATES .......................................................................... Table 3
FIELD INVESTIGATION.................................................................................................................... Appendix A
EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS.................................................................................................... Appendix B
PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................ Appendix C
& A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
Offices Serving The Western United States
4303 – 198th St SW • Lynnwood, Washington 98036 • (425) 485-5519 • Fax: (425) 485-6837
December 31, 2013 KA Project No. 102-13014
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
JEFFERSON HEALTHCARE WESTERN PARKING LOT
834 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed parking lot
re-grade and permeable pavement installation project west of the Jefferson Healthcare Hospital. The site
is located near the intersection of Sheridan Street and 9th Street in Port Townsend, WA, as shown on the
Vicinity Map in Figure 1. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented in this report, together
with conclusions, opinions and recommendations pertaining to parking lot development.
Appendix A includes a description of the field investigation and the soil boring logs, as well as
laboratory testing information. Appendix B contains a guide to aid in the development of earthwork
specifications. Pavement design guidelines are presented in Appendix C. The recommendations in the
main text of the report have precedence over the general recommendations in the appendices.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This investigation was conducted to evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site
and to develop geotechnical engineering opinions and recommendations to be used in project design and
construction.
Our services were performed in general accordance with our proposal for this project, dated December 3,
2013 with respect to proposal number G13-715WAL. The geotechnical services performed for this
project generally included the following:
• A site plan showing geotechnical boring locations, comprehensive soil logs including soil
stratification and classification, and groundwater levels where applicable;
• Recommendations for design infiltration rates based on field infiltration testing;
• Construction and excavation considerations, topsoil/unsuitable soil stripping depth,
identification of any problematic soils or groundwater conditions, and depth of over-
excavation if required;
• Recommendations for structural fill materials and placement in pavement areas;
• Recommendations for pavement design;
• Recommendations for site drainage and erosion control.
KA No. 102-13014
December 31, 2013
Page No. 2
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The current plans include re-grading the parking lots west of the hospital. We understand that permeable
pavement is being considered for stormwater management in the proposed parking areas.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The property is located southwest of downtown Port Townsend on an upland area overlooking Puget
Sound to the east. The site is nearly level to gently sloping down to the east, with an elevation of
approximately 180 feet. Sheridan Street borders the site to the west, and Gise Street is located near the
eastern border. The property extends north of 9th Street and south near 7th Street. The proposed
development area includes existing parking lots located in the western portion of the property.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SUBSURFACE EVALUATION
We explored the project area with six soil borings, extending to depths of 8.0 to 16.5 feet below the
ground surface. The exploratory borings were completed to evaluate the subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions and to perform in-place infiltration tests. The soil borings were completed on
December 11, 2013 with a subcontracted drill rig. Krazan and Associates representatives were present
during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of
the different soil types, and maintained soil logs of the explorations. The approximate locations of the
borings are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2.
Representative samples of the subsurface soils encountered in the geotechnical explorations were
collected and sealed in plastic bags and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The
soils encountered in the exploratory soil borings were visually classified in general accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A more detailed description of the field investigation is
presented in Appendix A.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The “Geologic Map of the Port Townsend South and Part of the Port Townsend North 7.5-minute
Quadrangles, Jefferson County, Washington” prepared by Henry W. Schasse and Stephen L. Slaughter
(Washington State Department of Natural Resources – Division of Geology and Earth Resources - June
2005) indicates that the property includes modified land (Qml) and Quaternary glacial till (Qgt).
The map describes modified land as soil, sediment or geologic materials that have been locally re-graded
for development purposes. Modified land on this site is interpreted to be underlain by native glacial till.
KA No. 102-13014
December 31, 2013
Page No. 3
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
Glacial till is material that was deposited at the base of a continental glacier. This material typically
consists of a very compact, unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and some boulders.
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
The soils encountered in the geotechnical explorations generally consisted of a surficial layer of
undocumented fill extending one to two feet below the asphalt pavement surface. Below the layer of
undocumented fill, a brown to brown-gray, loose to dense silty sand with gravel layer was present to
depths of about 2.8 feet to 6.0 feet below grade. This material was interpreted to be weathered glacial
till. Underlying the weathered glacial till, the soil explorations encountered dense to very dense, gray
silty sand with gravel to the depths explored. We interpreted the dense to very dense gray silty sand
with gravel soils to be native glacial till.
Exploration B-1 met refusal on an obstruction at a depth of approximately 9.0 feet. There is a potential
for cobbles and boulders to be encountered during excavation in the native glacial soils. There is also
the potential for thicker layers of loose/soft undocumented fill in unexplored areas of the site.
For additional information about the soils encountered, please refer to the logs of the exploratory soil
borings in Appendix A.
GROUNDWATER
The soil borings were checked for the presence of groundwater during drilling operations. Wet soil
conditions were encountered at a depth of about 2.5 feet in B-1 and at a depth of approximately 3.0 feet
in B-6. The wet soil conditions were interpreted as perched groundwater.
Perched groundwater occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable soils and
accumulates on top of a relatively low-permeability soil layer. Perched water tends to vary spatially and
is dependent upon the amount of rainfall, and does not represent a regional groundwater "table" within
the upper soil horizons. We would expect the amount of perched water to decrease during drier times of
the year and increase during wetter periods.
It should be recognized that groundwater elevations may fluctuate with time. The groundwater level
will be dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions, as well as
other factors. Therefore, groundwater levels at the time of the field investigation may be different from
those encountered during the construction phase of the project.
KA No. 102-13014
December 31, 2013
Page No. 4
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
EROSION CONCERN/HAZARD
The Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) map for Jefferson County classifies the site area
soils as Clallam gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes (CmC). The NRCS indicates that Clallam
gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes, has a moderate potential for erosion when exposed.
It has been our experience that soil erosion potential can be minimized through landscaping and surface
water runoff control. Typically, erosion of exposed soils will be most noticeable during periods of
rainfall and may be controlled by the use of normal temporary erosion control measures, i.e., silt fences,
hay bales, mulching, control ditches or diversion trenching, and contour furrowing. Erosion control
measures should be in place before the onset of wet weather.
SEISMIC HAZARD
The soil borings indicated that the site is generally underlain by very dense silty sand with gravel, which
we interpreted to be native glacial till. In our opinion, the overall soil profile corresponds to Site Class C
as defined by Table 1613.3.2 of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). Site Class C applies to a
“very dense soil and soft rock” profile.
We referred to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program Website and 2012 IBC
to obtain values for SS, SMS, SDS, S1, SM1, SD1, Fa, and Fv. The USGS website includes the most recently
published seismic data. The seismic design parameters for this site are as follows:
TABLE 1: SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Seismic Item Value IBC Reference
Site Class C Table 1613.3.2
Site Coefficient Fa 1.000 Table 1613.3.3 (1)
Ss 1.305 g Figure 1613.3.1 (1)
SMS 1.305 g Table 1613.3.3
SDS 0.870 g Table 1613.3.4
Site Coefficient Fv 1.300 Table 1613.3.3 (2)
S1 0.528 g Figure 1613.3.1 (2)
SM1 0.687 g Section 1613.3.3
SD1 0.458 g Section 1613.3.4
KA No. 102-13014
December 31, 2013
Page No. 5
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground motions by
loose/soft soil deposits. Based on the very dense native glacial soils underlying the project site, we
interpret the potential for liquefaction and amplification of ground motion to be low for the project.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
It is our opinion from a geotechnical standpoint that the medium dense or firmer native soils underlying
the site should provide adequate support for the pavement. However, the very dense silty glacial soils
underlying the site are considered to have a low permeability characteristic. The proposed permeable
pavement section should be designed accordingly, using appropriate factors of safety. In our opinion, an
overflow mechanism for the permeable pavement section should be included in the design.
The soils encountered in our explorations are considered to be extremely moisture sensitive and will be
difficult or impossible to compact in wet conditions. The on-site soils on the site may be suitable for use
as structural fill. This will depend on the moisture content of the soils at the time of construction.
Krazan and Associates is available on request to evaluate the suitability of the on-site soils for use as
structural fill material at the time of construction.
SITE PREPARATION
General site clearing should include the removal of pavement, organic soil, abandoned utilities and
irrigation lines, rubble, and rubbish. Site stripping should be conducted until all organics in excess of 3
percent by volume are removed. These materials will not be suitable for use as structural fill. However,
stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and re-used in landscape or non-structural areas.
Any remaining areas of loose/soft soil that may affect construction traffic should be over-excavated and
replaced with structural fill. Specific recommendations should be provided by the geotechnical engineer
during construction.
During wet weather conditions, typically October through April, subgrade stability problems and
grading difficulties may develop due to excess moisture, disturbance of sensitive soils and/or the
presence of perched groundwater. Construction during the extended wet weather periods could create
the need to over-excavate exposed soils if they become disturbed and cannot be re-compacted due to
elevated moisture contents. The on-site soils have silt contents that may result in moisture sensitivity for
these materials.
Areas of over-excavation should be confirmed through continuous monitoring and testing by a qualified
geotechnical engineer or geologist. General project site winterization should consist of the placement of
clean crushed rock or rock spall materials and the protection of exposed soils from construction traffic.
KA No. 102-13014
December 31, 2013
Page No. 6
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
Any buried structures encountered during construction should be properly removed and backfilled. In
general, any septic tanks, underground storage tanks, debris pits, cesspools, or similar structures should
be completely removed. Abandoned concrete footings should be removed to an equivalent depth of at
least 3 feet below proposed footing elevations or as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. The
resulting excavations should be backfilled with structural fill.
A representative of our firm should be present during all site clearing and grading operations to test and
observe earthwork construction. This testing and observation is an integral part of our service, as
acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction and stability of the material. The
geotechnical engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements.
Further recommendations, contained in this report, are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork
construction will conform to the recommendations set forth in this report.
TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS
The on site soils have variable cohesion strengths, therefore the safe angles to which these materials may
be cut for temporary excavations is limited, as the soils may be prone to caving and slope failures in
temporary excavations. Temporary excavations in loose to medium dense soils should be sloped no
steeper than 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical) where room permits. Excavations made in the dense to very
dense native soils should be sloped no steeper than 1H:1V. Temporary shoring may be needed for
excavations deeper than four feet.
All temporary cuts should be in accordance with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Part N,
Excavation, Trenching, and Shoring. The temporary slope cuts should be visually inspected daily by a
qualified person during construction work activities and the results of the inspections should be included
in daily reports. The contractor is responsible for maintaining the stability of the temporary cut slopes
and minimizing slope erosion during construction. The temporary cut slopes should be covered with
plastic sheeting to help minimize erosion during wet weather and the slopes should be closely monitored
until the permanent retaining systems are complete. Materials should not be stored and equipment
operated within 10 feet of the top of any temporary cut slope.
A Krazan & Associates geologist or geotechnical engineer should observe, at least periodically, the
temporary cut slopes during the excavation work. The reasoning for this is that all soil conditions may
not be fully delineated by the limited sampling of the site from the geotechnical explorations. In the case
of temporary slope cuts, the existing soil conditions may not be fully revealed until the excavation work
exposes the soil. Typically, as excavation work progresses the maximum inclination of the temporary
slope will need to be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer so that supplemental recommendations can
be made. Soil and groundwater conditions can be highly variable. Scheduling for soil work will need to
be adjustable, to deal with unanticipated conditions, so that the project can proceed smoothly and
required deadlines can be met. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during
construction, Krazan & Associates should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be
made.
KA No. 102-13014
December 31, 2013
Page No. 7
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
STRUCTURAL FILL
Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be followed when considering the suitability of material for
use as structural fill. The use of on-site soils will depend on the moisture content of the soils at the time
of construction. The on-site soils may be considered suitable for re-use as structural fill, but should be
evaluated by a geotechnical engineering professional prior to use. If on-site soils are to be used, debris
should be removed and organics should not be present in excess of 3 percent by volume. Soil stockpiles
should be covered to protect the soil from wet weather conditions. An allowance for importing
structural fill should be incorporated into the construction cost of the project.
Fill placed beneath foundations, pavement, or other settlement-sensitive structures should be placed as
structural fill. By definition, structural fill is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and
standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician. Field
monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in-place density
tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill
should be suitably prepared as described in the Site Preparation subsection of this report, prior to
beginning fill placement.
Typically, imported all-weather structural fill material should consist of well-graded gravel, or sand and
gravel mixture, with a maximum grain size of 3 inches and less than 5 percent fines (material passing the
U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve). All structural fill material should be submitted for approval to the
geotechnical engineer at least 48 hours prior to delivery to the site.
Fill soils should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness prior to compaction,
moisture-conditioned as necessary, (moisture content of soil shall not vary by more than ±2 percent of
optimum moisture) and the material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry
density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method. In-place density tests should be performed on all
structural fill to document proper moisture content and adequate compaction. Additional lifts should not
be placed if the previous lift did not meet the compaction requirements or if soil conditions are not
considered stable.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Erosion and sediment control (ESC) is used to minimize the transportation of sediment to wetlands,
streams, lakes, drainage systems, and adjacent properties. Erosion and sediment control measures
should be taken and these measures should be in general accordance with local regulations. As a
minimum, the following basic recommendations should be incorporated into the design of the erosion
and sediment control features of the site:
1) Phase the soil, foundation, utility and other work, requiring excavation or the disturbance of the
site soils, to take place during the dry season (generally May through September). However,
provided precautions are taken using Best Management Practices (BMPs), grading activities can
KA No. 102-13014
December 31, 2013
Page No. 8
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
be undertaken during the wet season (generally October through April), but it should also be
known that this may increase the overall cost of the project.
2) All site work should be completed and stabilized as quickly as possible.
3) Additional perimeter erosion and sediment control features may be required to reduce the
possibility of sediment entering the surface water. This may include additional silt fences, silt
fences with a higher Apparent Opening Size (AOS), construction of a berm, or other filtration
systems.
4) Any runoff generated by dewatering discharge should be treated through construction of a
sediment trap if there is sufficient space. If space is limited, other filtration methods will need to
be incorporated.
Erosion and sediment control plans should be prepared by other consultants that are familiar with design
and discharge requirements.
GROUNDWATER INFLUENCE ON STRUCTURES AND EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION
If groundwater is encountered during construction, we should observe the conditions to determine if
dewatering will be needed. Design of temporary dewatering systems to remove groundwater should be
the responsibility of the contractor.
If earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may become
saturated. These soils may “pump,” and the materials may not respond to densification techniques.
Typical remedial measures would include removing and replacing the wet soil with an approved clean
rock fill material. A qualified geotechnical engineering firm should be consulted prior to implementing
remedial measures to observe the unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate
recommendations.
DRAINAGE
The ground surface should slope away from building pads and pavement areas, toward appropriate drop
inlets or other surface drainage devices. It is recommended that adjacent exterior grades be sloped a
minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures.
Subgrade soils in pavement areas should be inclined at a minimum of 1 percent and drainage gradients
should be maintained to carry all surface water to collection facilities, and suitable outlets. These grades
should be maintained for the life of the development.
Specific recommendations for the design of storm water disposal systems or septic disposal systems are
beyond the scope of our services and should be prepared by other consultants that are familiar with
design and discharge requirements.
KA No. 102-13014
December 31, 2013
Page No. 9
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
SUBSURFACE UTILITY INSTALLATIONS
Some flexibility would need to be incorporated into utility designs to allow for the settlement anticipated
for this project. We recommend that utility trench backfill be placed in general accordance with the
recommendations for clean crushed rock structural fill placement noted above. Vibratory compaction of
soil is not recommended on this site. A firm and unyielding subgrade should allow for the proper
placement of subsurface utilities. This could include the placement of quarry rock in the bottom of
utility trenches prior to placement of pipe bedding, utilities and trench backfill.
Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practices following OSHA
(Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards, by a contractor experienced in such work.
The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be borne by the contractor. Traffic and
vibration adjacent to trench walls should be minimized; cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side
slopes should be avoided. Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, groundwater
flow into open excavations could be experienced, especially during or shortly following periods of
precipitation.
All utility trench backfill should consist of structural fill. Utility trench backfill placed in or adjacent to
buildings and exterior slabs should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density
based on ASTM Test Method D1557. The upper 5 feet of utility trench backfill placed in pavement
areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test
Method D1557. Below 5 feet, utility trench backfill in pavement areas should be compacted to at least
90 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Pipe bedding should be in
accordance with the pipe manufacturer's recommendations.
The contractor is responsible for removing all water-sensitive soils from the trenches regardless of the
backfill location and compaction requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and
methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction.
STORMWATER INFILTRATION TESTING
General
Infiltration rates for the parking lot subgrade soils were evaluated with in-place tests and laboratory
analysis of soils from the proposed infiltration areas. The tests were performed at the elevations
requested by the infiltration system designer.
The 2005 Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington indicates that laboratory textural analysis (grain size analysis) can be used to determine the
estimated design rate for stormwater infiltration facilities. However, the manual indicates that the EPA
Falling Head Percolation Test is not recommended. We performed both lab testing and in-place tests,
with results from both procedures included in this report.
KA No. 102-13014
December 31, 2013
Page No. 10
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
Field Infiltration Testing
We performed six (6) in-place infiltration tests to measure the infiltration rate of the near-surface soils
during our subsurface explorations. The Falling Head Percolation Test procedure, based on the test
method described in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Design Manual for Onsite Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal Systems (October 1980), was used to measure stormwater infiltration rates.
Test Procedure: Six-inch diameter PVC pipes were placed into soil borings drilled to depths ranging
from approximately 2.5 to 11.0 feet below the asphalt surface in the parking lot. Approximately one-
inch of clean gravel was placed into the bottom of the pipe to protect the soil as water was poured into
the apparatus. Over a period of time, water was added to the test holes in order to saturate the soils prior
to final water level measurements. After the soaking period, the elapsed times for changes in water
levels were measured for each test location to determine the approximate infiltration rates for the soils.
The measured short-term infiltration rates do not incorporate a factor of safety or reduction factor.
According to the DOE Stormwater Design Manual, design infiltration rates for the infiltration system
design should incorporate a factor of safety, to account for possible soil clogging, biological activity and
deterioration as well as site variability.
The infiltration rates measured during our field work on December 11, 2013 are shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2 also includes recommended design infiltration rates, which incorporate a factor of safety.
KA No. 102-13014
December 31, 2013
Page No. 11
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
TABLE 2: STORMWATER INFILTRATION RATE BASED ON
EPA FALLING HEAD FIELD TESTING
Boring
Number
Sample
Depth
(feet below
surface)
Visual Soil Classification
Measured Short-Term
Infiltration Rate
(inches/hour)
Long-Term Design
Infiltration Rate
(inches/hour)
B-1 11.0
Silty Sand with Gravel
(Very Dense)
(Glacial Till)
0.17 0.10
B-2 5.0
Silty Sand with Gravel
(Very Dense)
(Glacial Till)
0.21 0.10
B-3 3.0
Silty Sand with Gravel
(Medium Dense)
(Weathered Till)
0.28 0.10
B-4 3.0
Silty Sand with Gravel
(Medium Dense)
(Weathered Till)
0.26 0.10
B-5 3.0
Silty Sand with Gravel
(Loose to Med. Dense)
(Weathered Till)
0.29 0.10
B-6 9.0
Silty Sand with Gravel
(Very Dense)
(Glacial Till)
0.18 0.10
Field infiltration rate testing results as shown in Table 2 above indicate readings varying from 0.17
inches per hour to 0.29 inches per hour. We recommend that a factor of safety of approximately 2.5 be
utilized for stormwater management design purposes. Accordingly, we recommend a design infiltration
rate of 0.10 inches per hour for system design. We recommend that an overflow mechanism be
incorporated into stormwater management plans.
USDA Textural Analysis
The Washington State Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington (February 2005) also provides a method for establishing design infiltration rates using
laboratory grain size analysis and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Textural
Triangle. The USDA method considers only the portion of the soil passing the #10 sieve (2mm) (U.S.
Standard) to determine percentages of sand, silt, and clay for use in the USDA Textural Triangle.
KA No. 102-13014
December 31, 2013
Page No. 12
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
TABLE 3: INFILTRATION RATES BASED ON USDA CLASSIFICATION
Boring
Number
Soil Sample
Elevation
(feet below
grade)
USDA Soil
Textural
Classification
Estimated
Long-Term Design
Infiltration Rate
(in/hr)
Per DOE Manual
Estimated
Long-Term Design
Infiltration Rate (in/hr)
With Recommended
Factor of Safety (2.5
B-1 12.5 Sandy Loam 0.25* 0.10
B-4 2.5 Sandy Loam 0.25* 0.10
B-6 7.5 Sandy Loam 0.25* 0.10
*Estimated infiltration rates are based on textural analysis in conjunction with Table 3.7 – “Recommended
Infiltration Rates based on USDA Soil Textural Classification” from the Washington State Department of Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual.
Design Infiltration Rate
Based on in-place infiltration testing, laboratory grain size analyses and a factor of safety of
approximately 2.5 due to the very dense soils encountered in each of the borings, it is our opinion that a
design infiltration rate of 0.10 inch per hour for the native glacial soils would be appropriate for a well-
maintained system at this project site. If the system is not regularly maintained and does not include
good influent control, we recommend that the design infiltration rate be further reduced.
MINIMUM POROUS PAVEMENT SECTION
Porous asphalt pavement consists of a permeable asphalt surface overlying a granular working surface
on top of a reservoir of larger stone. Porous asphalt pavement is generally used in areas with light
vehicle traffic and is not recommended for areas with high frequency traffic or heavy truck loading. The
minimum pavement section provided here is for light vehicle traffic. This minimum porous asphalt
pavement section is based on the anticipated uncompacted subgrade soil conditions and frost penetration
depth.
The thickness of the porous asphalt pavement section should exceed the depth of frost penetration. The
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency’s Manual NOS NGS 1 Geodetic Bench Marks
(1978), in Figure 13.-Extreme depth of frost penetration, indicates the frost penetration depth for the Port
Townsend, Washington area is 10 inches (0.25 meters).
After stripping operations, the pavement areas should be excavated to expose medium dense or firmer
soil. If loose/soft soils are exposed at the planned subgrade elevation they should be removed and
replaced with clean rock ballast from the reservoir layer of the pavement section. A layer of filter fabric
such as Mirafi 140 N (or equivalent) should be placed over the subgrade soil to provide separation
KA No. 102-13014
December 31, 2013
Page No. 13
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
between the subgrade soil and the reservoir rock. Construction traffic should not be allowed on the
exposed subgrade as compaction of the subgrade may reduce permeability of the soil. It may be prudent
to place the filter fabric and a layer of reservoir rock as the subgrade is exposed to avoid construction
traffic on the exposed subgrade soil.
The soils encountered in our explorations on site are generally considered to have a high moisture-
sensitivity. Silty soils typically do not perform well when wet and exposure of these materials should be
avoided during wet weather.
The minimum porous pavement section should consist of a 4-inch thick surface layer of open-graded
permeable asphalt overlying a 4-inch thick layer of 0.3- to 0.5-inch clean crushed rock (less than 3
percent passing the number 200 sieve) overlying a 4-inch thick layer of 1- to 2-inch clean crushed rock
(less than 3 percent passing the number 200 sieve) or other reservoir rock as recommended by the
infiltration system designer. The infiltration system designer should alter this minimum pavement
section as needed for functional stormwater storage and infiltration.
TESTING AND INSPECTION
A representative of the geotechnical engineering field should be present at the site during the earthwork
activities to confirm that actual subsurface conditions are consistent with the exploratory fieldwork.
This activity is an integral part of our services as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent
upon compaction testing and stability of the material. This representative can also verify that the intent
of these recommendations is incorporated into the project design and construction.
LIMITATIONS
Geotechnical engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil
Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences improves.
Although your site was analyzed using the most appropriate current techniques and methods,
undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to
improvements in the field of geotechnical engineering, physical changes in the site either due to
excavation or fill placement, new agency regulations or possible changes in the proposed structure after
the time of completion of the soils report may require the soils report to be professionally reviewed. In
light of this, the owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report
without critical review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that
two years be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report.
Earthwork construction is characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and groundwater
conditions have been fully revealed by the original foundation investigation. This risk is derived from
the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling of the earth.
Our report, design conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the
subsurface conditions. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those
indicated in this report. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil
KA No. 102-13014
December 31, 2013
Page No. 14
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
conditions do not vary significantly from those disclosed during our field investigation. The findings
and conclusions of this report can be affected by the passage of time, such as seasonal weather
conditions, manmade influences, such as construction on or adjacent to the site, natural events such as
earthquakes, slope instability, flooding, or groundwater fluctuations. If any variations or undesirable
conditions are encountered during construction, the geotechnical engineer should be notified so that
supplemental recommendations can be made.
The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed
construction. If the proposed construction is relocated or redesigned, the conclusions in this report may
not be valid. The geotechnical engineer should be notified of any changes so that the recommendations
can be reviewed and reevaluated.
Misinterpretations of this report by other design team members can result in project delays and cost
overruns. These risks can be reduced by having Krazan & Associates, Inc. involved with the design
teams meetings and discussions after submitting the report. Krazan & Associates, Inc. should also be
retained for reviewing pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret this report. To reduce this, risk Krazan & Associates. Inc. should participate in pre-bid
and preconstruction meetings, and provide construction observations during the site work.
This report is a geotechnical engineering investigation with the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions
in terms of foundation design. The scope of our services did not include any environmental site
assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater or
atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands. Any statements or absence of statements, in this report or on
any soils log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed are strictly for
descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential hazardous
and/or toxic assessments.
The geotechnical information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing
standard engineering practices and a degree of conservatism deemed proper for this project. It is not
warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical
developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for this project as outlined above, and should not
be used for any other site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our client. No other party may
rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing.
o-O-o
KA No. 102-13014
December 31, 2013
Page No. 15
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our
office at (425) 485-5519.
Respectfully submitted,
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12/31/13
Michael D. Rundquist, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Jeffrey G. League, L.G.
Project Geologist
KM:JL:MR
Project Number: 102-13014
& A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
Date: December 2013
Drawn By: KGM Figure 1
Vicinity Map
(Not to Scale)
Jefferson Healthcare, Port Townsend, Jefferson County, WA
Not to scale
Reference: Site Plan based on a USGS topographic map titled,
Port Townsend Quadrangle - Washington - 7.5-Minute Series”, dated 2011.
Jefferson Healthcare, Port Townsend, WA
Glen Cove
Port Townsend Bay
Port Townsend-
Coupeville Ferry
Approximate
Site Area
20
Discovery Rd
Discovery RdHastings Ave
14th St
9th St
Sheridan St
W a s hi n g t o n S tBlaine S t
Approximate
Site Area
Project Number: 102-13014
& A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
Date: December 2013
Drawn By: KGM Figure 2
Site Plan
(Not to Scale)
Not to scale
Reference: The Site Plan is based on a drawing provided by Collins Woerman architects
and Coffman Engineers titled, “Jefferson Existing Site Plan - Bore Locations,” dated 11-25-13.
South Park Neighborhood, Seattle, WA
Port Susan
(Puget Sound)
19318 Soundview Drive NW
Stanwood, Snohomish County, Washington
B-1 Number and Approximate
Location of Soil Boring
LEGEND Jefferson Healthcare, Port Townsend, Jefferson County, WA
Sheridan St
9th St
7th St
B-2B-1
B-3 B-4
B-5
B-6
Existing
Hospital
Existing
Landscape Area
Existing
Landscape
Area
Existing
Parking Lots
Existing
Parking Lot
Existing
Helicopter Pad
Existing
Parking Lot
Property
Boundary
Approximate Area of
Proposed Parking Lot
Re-Development
Approximate Area of
Proposed Parking Lot
Re-Development
Boring Location
B-1
Elevation Contours in Meters
Bridgeview Dr. NE
NE Cliffside Rd
Little Boston Rd NE
Site
Puget Sound
Jefferson Pt. Rd. NE
NE Jefferson Pt. Rd.
S
.
K
in
g
s
t
o
n
R
d.
N
E
SE Lund Ave
Jackson Ave SE
Redmond Woodinville Rd NE
NE 104th St
Redmond
High School
Bremerton
Approximate Work AreaRussell RoadKitsap Way310
3
SE C
edar Falls W
ay
SE North Bend W
ay
Maloney Grove Way SE
(424th Ave SE)
Approximate
Site Area
I-5
76th Ave W
310
11th Ave NE
Appendix A
Page A.1
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Field Investigation
The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program. Six
(6) geotechnical borings were drilled and sampled for the subsurface exploration at this site. The soil
borings were drilled from 8 to 16.5 feet below the existing grade using a subcontracted drill rig. The
approximate locations of the soil borings are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. The depths shown on
the attached soil boring logs are from the existing ground surface at the time of the explorations.
The soils encountered were logged in the field during the explorations and are described in general
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing was conducted in order to determine the engineering properties of the soils. Test
results were used for soil classification and as criteria for determining the engineering suitability of the
subsurface materials. Test results are included in this appendix.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.:
BORING TYPE:
PAGE: 1 of 1
DATE:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
CONTRACTOR:
SAMPLE METHOD: LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
Water Observations:
Notes:
DE
P
T
H
(
f
t
)
5
10
15
20
US
C
WA
T
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
S
(p
e
r
6
"
)
N-
V
A
L
U
E
(
L
a
s
t
12
"
o
f
S
P
T
)
SA
M
P
L
E
S
N-VALUE (GRAPH)Natural Moisture
Content
KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4303 - 198th St SW
Lynnwood, WA
Water Level Initial: # Final: $
B-1
Jefferson HC
102-13014
HSA, Truck
12/11/13
EDI
Split Spoon, SPT Port Townsend, WA
KGM
Asphalt
Undocumented Fill
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)
Brown Silty Sand with Gravel
(Medium Dense, Moist) (Weathered Till)
Becomes Wet
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)
Gray Silty Sand with Gravel (Dense, Moist to Wet)
(Glacial Till)
Becomes Very Dense and Moist
*See Notes
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)
Gray Silty Sand with Gravel (Very Dense, Moist)
(Glacial Till)
End of Exploratory Boring
12
10
9
9
7
6
11
14
33
44
50(5)
37
50(6)
16
29
50(6)
19
13
47
50+
50+
79+
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40(Percent)
Slight groundwater seepage and wet soil observed at 2.5 feet (perched groundwater).
B-1 met refusal on a rock at 9.0 feet. The boring was moved 5 feet east and drilled to 16.5 feet.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.:
BORING TYPE:
PAGE: 1 of 1
DATE:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
CONTRACTOR:
SAMPLE METHOD: LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
Water Observations:
Notes:
DE
P
T
H
(
f
t
)
5
10
15
20
US
C
WA
T
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
S
(p
e
r
6
"
)
N-
V
A
L
U
E
(
L
a
s
t
12
"
o
f
S
P
T
)
SA
M
P
L
E
S
N-VALUE (GRAPH)Natural Moisture
Content
KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4303 - 198th St SW
Lynnwood, WA
Water Level Initial: # Final: $
B-2
Jefferson HC
102-13014
HSA, Truck
12/11/13
EDI
Split Spoon, SPT Port Townsend, WA
KGM
Asphalt
Undocumented Fill
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)
Brown-Gray Silty Sand with Gravel (Loose, Moist)
(Weathered Till)
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)
Gray-Brown Silty Sand with Gravel (Very Dense, Moist
to Wet) (Glacial Till)
End of Exploratory Boring
6
6
3
23
37
35
40
50(6)
33
50(5)
9
72
50+
50+
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40(Percent)
Groundwater seepage not observed.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.:
BORING TYPE:
PAGE: 1 of 1
DATE:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
CONTRACTOR:
SAMPLE METHOD: LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
Water Observations:
Notes:
DE
P
T
H
(
f
t
)
5
10
15
20
US
C
WA
T
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
S
(p
e
r
6
"
)
N-
V
A
L
U
E
(
L
a
s
t
12
"
o
f
S
P
T
)
SA
M
P
L
E
S
N-VALUE (GRAPH)Natural Moisture
Content
KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4303 - 198th St SW
Lynnwood, WA
Water Level Initial: # Final: $
B-3
Jefferson HC
102-13014
HSA, Truck
12/11/13
EDI
Split Spoon, SPT Port Townsend, WA
KGM
Asphalt
Undocumented Fill
Dark Brown Silty Sand with Gravel
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)
Brown-Gray Silty Sand with Gravel and trace Organics
(Medium Dense, Moist) (Weathered Till)
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)
Gray-Brown Silty Sand with Gravel (Moist, Dense)
(Glacial Till)
Becomes Very Dense
End of Exploratory Boring
3
6
15
12
14
21
50(6)
21
35
50+
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40(Percent)
Groundwater seepage not observed.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.:
BORING TYPE:
PAGE: 1 of 1
DATE:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
CONTRACTOR:
SAMPLE METHOD: LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
Water Observations:
Notes:
DE
P
T
H
(
f
t
)
5
10
15
20
US
C
WA
T
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
S
(p
e
r
6
"
)
N-
V
A
L
U
E
(
L
a
s
t
12
"
o
f
S
P
T
)
SA
M
P
L
E
S
N-VALUE (GRAPH)Natural Moisture
Content
KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4303 - 198th St SW
Lynnwood, WA
Water Level Initial: # Final: $
B-4
Jefferson HC
102-13014
HSA, Truck
12/11/13
EDI
Split Spoon, SPT Port Townsend, WA
KGM
Asphalt
Undocumented Fill
Dark Brown Silty Sand with Gravel
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)
Brown Silty Sand with Gravel (Medium Dense, Moist)
(Weathered Till)
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)
Gray Silty Sand with Gravel (Very Dense, Moist)
(Glacial Till)
End of Exploratory Boring
7
9
10
6
5
11
19
27
29
27
50(6)
19
16
56
50+
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40(Percent)
Groundwater seepage not observed.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.:
BORING TYPE:
PAGE: 1 of 1
DATE:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
CONTRACTOR:
SAMPLE METHOD: LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
Water Observations:
Notes:
DE
P
T
H
(
f
t
)
5
10
15
20
US
C
WA
T
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
S
(p
e
r
6
"
)
N-
V
A
L
U
E
(
L
a
s
t
12
"
o
f
S
P
T
)
SA
M
P
L
E
S
N-VALUE (GRAPH)Natural Moisture
Content
KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4303 - 198th St SW
Lynnwood, WA
Water Level Initial: # Final: $
B-5
Jefferson HC
102-13014
HSA, Truck
12/11/13
EDI
Split Spoon, SPT Port Townsend, WA
KGM
Asphalt
Undocumented Fill
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)
Brown Silty Sand with Gravel (Loose, Moist)
(Weathered Till)
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)
Brown-Gray Silty Sand with Gravel (Dense to Very
Dense, Moist) (Glacial Till)
End of Exploratory Boring
6
6
4
5
4
5
15
17
25
33
40
43
10
9
42
83
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40(Percent)
Groundwater seepage not observed.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.:
BORING TYPE:
PAGE: 1 of 1
DATE:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
CONTRACTOR:
SAMPLE METHOD: LOCATION:
LOGGED BY:
Water Observations:
Notes:
DE
P
T
H
(
f
t
)
5
10
15
20
US
C
WA
T
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
S
(p
e
r
6
"
)
N-
V
A
L
U
E
(
L
a
s
t
12
"
o
f
S
P
T
)
SA
M
P
L
E
S
N-VALUE (GRAPH)Natural Moisture
Content
KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4303 - 198th St SW
Lynnwood, WA
Water Level Initial: # Final: $
B-6
Jefferson HC
102-13014
HSA, Truck
12/11/13
EDI
Split Spoon, SPT Port Townsend, WA
KGM
Asphalt
Undocumented Fill
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)
Brown Silty Sand with Gravel
(Medium Dense, Moist to Wet)
(Weathered Glacial Till)
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)
Gray Silty Sand with Gravel
(Very Dense, Moist)
(Glacial Till)
End of Exploratory Boring
5
9
15
12
26
36
23
40
41
24
62
81
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40(Percent)
Slight groundwater seepage and wet soil observed at 3 feet (perched groundwater).
Checked By: Corbett Mercer
Client:
Project:
Project No.:
Jefferson Healthcare
Jefferson Healthcare Western Parking Lot
10213014
Sand Silt Clay
Percentages From Material Passing a #10 SieveSourceSampleDepth ClassificationNo.
SOIL DATA
silty
loam
sand
siltyclay loam
loam
clay loam
sandy loam
silty
clay
sandy
clay loam
loamy
sand
clay
silt
sandyclay
0 1
0
0
0
10 9
0
1
0
20 8
0
2
0
30 7
0
3
0
40 6
0
4
0
50 5
0
5
0
60 4
0
6
0
70 3
0
7
0
80 2
0
8
0
90 1
0
9
0
100 0
1
0
0
Percent Sand
Per
c
e
n
t
C
l
a
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
S
i
l
t
KRAZAN & ASSOC. USDA Soil Classification
Borings 47146-A 12.5' - 14'53.9 32.8 13.3 Sandy loam
Borings 47146-B 2.5' - 4'57.1 33.3 9.6 Sandy loam
Borings 47146-C 2.5' - 4'63.5 27.1 9.4 Sandy loam
(no specification provided)*
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
USCS Classification: Sandy Silt.
USDA Classification: Sandy Loam.
.375
.25
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
#270
0.0313 mm.
0.0204 mm.
0.0121 mm.
0.0088 mm.
0.0063 mm.
0.0032 mm.
0.0013 mm.
100.0
99.4
99.1
96.9
93.8
87.7
75.9
62.9
50.4
44.7
36.9
31.8
26.7
22.9
20.3
15.2
11.4
NP NV
ML A-4(0)
0.5028 0.3669 0.1305
0.0730 0.0169 0.0030
Sample ID: 47146-A.
Natural Moisture Content (ASTM D-2216): 9.8%
12/19/13 12/20/13
Corbett Mercer
Corbett Mercer
Lab Manager
12/11/13
Jefferson Healthcare
Jefferson Healthcare Western Parking Lot
10213014
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: Boring 1 @ 12.5' - 14'
Sample Number: 47146-A Depth: 12.5' - 14'
Client:
Project:
Project No:
Test Results (ASTM D-421 & ASTM D-422)
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% Stones % +3"Coarse Medium
% Gravel
Fine V. Crs.Crs.Med.Fine
% Sand
V. Fine Crs.
% Silt
Fine % Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.2 2.4 4.6 14.0 20.7 10.5 13.1 18.7 12.9
6
i
n
.
3
i
n
.
2
i
n
.
1½ in
.
1
i
n
.
¾ in
.
½ in
.
3/
8
i
n
.
#4 #1
0
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#6
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#2
0
0
Krazan & Assoc. Sieve Analysis
(no specification provided)*
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
USCS Classification: Silty Sand.
USDA Classification: Sandy Loam.
.75
.5
.375
.25
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
#270
0.0313 mm.
0.0203 mm.
0.0119 mm.
0.0085 mm.
0.0062 mm.
0.0032 mm.
0.0014 mm.
100.0
98.9
95.7
91.9
90.7
85.5
80.2
72.2
59.4
48.6
40.2
36.7
31.1
27.9
25.8
23.6
20.4
11.8
6.4
NP NV
SM A-4(0)
4.0640 1.8525 0.2565
0.1625 0.0276 0.0041
0.0026 97.59 1.13
Sample ID: 47146-B.
Natural Moisture Content (ASTM D-2216): 11.3%
12/19/13 12/20/13
Corbett Mercer
Corbett Mercer
Lab Manager
12/11/13
Jefferson Healthcare
Jefferson Healthcare Western Parking Lot
10213014
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: Boring 4 @ 2.5' - 4'
Sample Number: 47146-B Depth: 2.5' - 4'
Client:
Project:
Project No:
Test Results (ASTM D-421 & ASTM D-422)
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% Stones % +3"Coarse Medium
% Gravel
Fine V. Crs.Crs.Med.Fine
% Sand
V. Fine Crs.
% Silt
Fine % Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 5.2 4.2 6.4 15.5 16.2 6.5 8.9 19.6 8.2
6
i
n
.
3
i
n
.
2
i
n
.
1½ in
.
1
i
n
.
¾ in
.
½ in
.
3/
8
i
n
.
#4 #1
0
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#6
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#2
0
0
Krazan & Assoc. Sieve Analysis
(no specification provided)*
PL=LL=PI=
USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
USCS Classification: Silty Sand.
USDA Classification: Sandy Loam.
.375
.25
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
#270
0.0318 mm.
0.0207 mm.
0.0123 mm.
0.0089 mm.
0.0064 mm.
0.0032 mm.
0.0014 mm.
100.0
99.0
98.1
94.8
90.7
82.7
66.6
51.9
40.8
36.5
31.2
26.6
21.9
18.5
16.2
11.5
8.1
NP NV
SM A-4(0)
0.7589 0.4770 0.2029
0.1374 0.0286 0.0053
0.0024 86.24 1.71
Sample ID: 47146-C.
Natural Moisture Content (ASTM D-2216): 9.1%
12/19/13 12/20/13
Corbett Mercer
Corbett Mercer
Lab Manager
12/11/13
Jefferson Healthcare
Jefferson Healthcare Western Parking Lot
10213014
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received:Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Location: Boring 6 @ 7.5' - 9'
Sample Number: 47146-C Depth: 2.5' - 4'
Client:
Project:
Project No:
Test Results (ASTM D-421 & ASTM D-422)
Opening Percent Spec.*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail)
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% Stones % +3"Coarse Medium
% Gravel
Fine V. Crs.Crs.Med.Fine
% Sand
V. Fine Crs.
% Silt
Fine % Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.3 3.3 5.7 19.2 22.0 8.1 10.3 16.8 9.4
6
i
n
.
3
i
n
.
2
i
n
.
1½ in
.
1
i
n
.
¾ in
.
½ in
.
3/
8
i
n
.
#4 #1
0
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#6
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#2
0
0
Krazan & Assoc. Sieve Analysis
Appendix B
Page B.1
Krazan and Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
APPENDIX B
EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
GENERAL
When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the
recommendations in the report have precedence.
SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork
associated with the site rough grading, including but not limited to the furnishing of all labor, tools, and
equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for
receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines
and grades shown on the project grading plans, and disposal of excess materials.
PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork
in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested by a
representative of Krazan and Associates, Inc., hereinafter known as the Geotechnical Engineer and/or
Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades when achieved shall be certified to by the project Civil
Engineer. Both the Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer are the Owner’s representatives. If the
contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the
applicable plans, he shall make the necessary readjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as
determined by both the Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer. No deviation from these
specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Geotechnical Engineer, Civil Engineer
or project Architect.
No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Geotechnical
Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Geotechnical Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the
commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork.
The Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions
during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this
requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the
Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all
liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability
arising from the sole negligence of the Owner of the Engineers.
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be densified to a density not less
than 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557 as specified in
the technical portion of the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The results of these tests and compliance
with these specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by
the Geotechnical Engineer.
SOIL AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and
to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the
soil report.
The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in said report, and the Contractor
shall not be relieved of liability under the contractor for any loss sustained as a result of any variance
Appendix B
Page B.2
Krazan and Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered
during the progress of the work.
DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any
dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor’s operation
either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor
leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including Court costs of codefendants, for all
claims related to dust or windblown materials attributable to his work.
SITE PREPARATION
Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grabbing and preparations of foundation materials for
receiving fill.
CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and shall
demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project, earthwork all structures, both surface and
subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter, and all other matter determined by the
Geotechnical Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and
shall be removed from the site.
Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to
such an extent which would permit removal of all roots larger than 1 inch. Tree root removed in parking
areas may be limited to the upper 1½ feet of the ground surface. Backfill or tree root excavation should
not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Geotechnical Engineer is present
for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas, which are to receive fill
materials, shall not be permitted.
SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Structural fill shall be prepared as outlined above,
excavated/scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned as necessary, and compacted to 95
percent compaction.
Loose and/or areas of disturbed soils shall be moisture conditioned and compacted to 95 percent
compaction. All ruts, hummocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading
prior to placement of any fill material. All areas which are to receive fill materials shall be approved by
the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of any of the fill material.
EXCAVATION: All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil
Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over excavation below the grades specified shall be
backfilled at the Contractor’s expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable
technical requirements.
FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the presence
of the Geotechnical Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for
construction site fills provided prior approval is given by the Geotechnical Engineer. All materials
utilized for constructing site fills shall be free from vegetable or other deleterious matter as determined
by the Geotechnical Engineer.
PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill
materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the
Appendix B
Page B.3
Krazan and Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
responsibility of the Contractor. However, compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting
shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Geotechnical Engineer.
Both cut and fill shall be surface compacted to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer prior to
final acceptance.
SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing or
during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations
shall not be resumed until the Geotechnical Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of
previously placed fill are as specified.
Appendix C
Page C.
Krazan and Associates, Inc.
Offices Serving The Western United States
APPENDIX C
PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
1. DEFINITIONS – The term “pavement” shall include asphalt concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate
base, and aggregate subbase. The term “subgrade” is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base,
or subbase is to be placed.
2. SCOPE OF WORK – This portion of the work shall include all labor, materials, tools and
equipment necessary for and reasonable incidental to the completion of the pavement shown on the plans
and as herein specified, except work specifically notes as “Work Not Included.”
3. PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE – The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various
subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the
plans. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a
minimum compaction of 95% of maximum dry density as determined by test method ASTM D1557.
The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement
of additional pavement of additional pavement courses.
4. AGGREGATE BASE – The aggregate base shall be spread and compacted on the prepared
subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base
should conform to WSDOT Standard Specification for Crushed Surfacing Base Course or Top Course
(Item 9-03.9(3)). The base material shall be compacted to a minimum compaction of 95% as determined
by ASTM D1557. Each layer of subbase shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer
prior to the placement of successive layers.
5. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING – Asphaltic concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture
of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at central mixing plant and spread and compacted
on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The
viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be AR-4000. The mineral aggregate shall be WSDOT ½ inch Hot
Mix Asphalt (HMA). The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to WSDOT
Specifications.
The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall
conform to WSDOT Specifications, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the
atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with combination steel-
wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in WSDOT Specifications. The surface course shall be placed
with an approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine.
6. TACK COAT – The tack (mixing type asphaltic emulsion) shall conform to and be applied in
accordance with the requirements of WSDOT Specifications.