HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210755 269 Broadway Site Plan Terracon Geotechnical Report-Attachment 1 �rr�con
GevRe ort�-
�
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Office Building
269 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022
Terracon Project No. JB205029
Prepared for:
Prime Group Holdings, LLC
Saratoga Springs, NY
Prepared by:
Terracon Consultants - NY, Inc.
Albany, New York
� �
February 1, 2022 1 f�rr�c�n
Prime Group Holdings, LLC GeoRepor�
85 Railroad Ave.
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Attn: Mr. Gerard Moser
ph: (518) 260-5038
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Office Building
269 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York
Terracon Project No. JB205029
Dear Mr. Moser:
We have completed the Geotechnical Engineering services for the referenced project. This study
was performed in general accordance with our original agreement for services dated February 5,
2020 and the supplemental agreement entered into on or about January 24, 2022. This report
presents the findings of the subsurface exploration completed previously by Terracon for others,
and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and
construction of excavation support and foundations for the project as currently proposed.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions
concerning this report or if we may be of further service, please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Terracon Consultants-NY, 6nc.
- - �����.
�
.lohn S. Hutchison, P.E. Joseph Robichaud, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer Principal /Office Manager
�.,�f �+iEy���
��.'� �,s.�tur �
� '°� ��
�
� �
�,� � ��?a
���ss�N�`
Terracon Consultants — NY, Inc. 30 Corporate Circle, Suite 201 Albany, New York 12203
p (518) 266 0310 f (518) 266 9238 terracon.com
� �
REPORT TOPICS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
SITECONDITIONS......................................................................................................... 1
SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION ......................................................................... 3
GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW....................................................................................... 5
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................ 6
EARTHWORK ................................................................................................................ 6
MAT FOUNDATION...................................................................................................... 10
UPLIFT RESISTANCE.................................................................................................. 11
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ................................................................................. 12
SIDEWALKS AND PAVEMENTS................................................................................. 12
GENERAL COMMENTS............................................................................................... 12
Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. text in the report indicates a referenced
section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on the
GeoReport logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at
client.terracon.com.
ATTACHMENTS
EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES
SITE LOCATION PLAN
RESULTS OF PREVIOUS EXPLORATION
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Note: Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Office Building
269 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York
Terracon Project No. JB205029
February 1, 2022
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for the
proposed office building to be located at 269 Broadway in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York.
The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering
recommendations relative to:
Subsurface soil conditions Foundation design and construction
� Groundwater conditions Floor slab design and construction
Site preparation and earthwork Seismic site classification per NYSBC
Temporary excavation support Frost considerations
Lateral earth pressures
As a basis for this report, we reviewed a prior geotechnical engineering report (Dente/Terracon—
September 2019 for Roohan Realty) which was completed for the subject project as initially
planned, together with the test boring and laboratory testing information gathered for that study.
Herein is a summary of the project as currently planned, together with conclusions and
recommendations which have been tailored for the currently proposed construction as
appropriate.
Subsurface logs for the aforementioned test borings are attached herewith in the a ��. :� � �
a . . � °�� � ��� section, together with a subsurface investigation plan indicating their
respective locations. We understand that our client for the 2019 study, Roohan Realty, has
provided Prime Group Holdings, LLC with permission to use the previously obtained information
for the purposes of the preparation of this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is located on the west side of Broadway between West Circular Street and
Congress Street. Hamilton Street flanks the site on its west side. Approximate geographic
coordinates: 43.0774° N, 73.7870° W. See attached : : s . . ,� map.
While the site is currently vacant, it was occupied by a one to two story brick building with a
footprint of about 2,400 square feet until about 2017. An asphalt paved parking lot associated with
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1
Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�can
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022 Terracon Project No. JB205029 GeoRepart.
the former building remains at the rear of the site. Older aerial imagery (circa 1964) indicates
another structure predated the one recently removed.
Topographic survey information furnished for our use indicates that existing grades across the
property are highest along its Broadway frontage at elevations of about 298 to 302 feet, and slope
downward to the west, with ground surface elevations at about 293 to 295 feet along Hamilton
Street. Overall topography in the site locale is gently rolling.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Our understanding of the project is summarized as follows:
Item � Description
Building plans by C2 Architecture dated 5/07/2020, 1/03/2021 and
5/12/2021
Information Provided Geotechnical report by Dente/Terracon dated September 2019
Telephone and email correspondence with design team
General Description
Project now entails construction of a new office building which will include
retail and restaurant space along with basement level parking.
Plans call for a six-story structure with a footprint of some 20,000 sq.ft. Two
Proposed Structure levels of basement level parking are planned. The building footprint extends
to the property limits on all four sides (or nearly so).
Structural steel framing. Mat foundation/slab at basement level. Corrugated
Building Construction metal decking with concrete for upper floors. Brick cladding with glass on
exte rio r.
No loading information provided —we assume the following:
Maximum Loads - Maximum column loads: 600 kips
Maximum wall loads: 12 kips per lineal foot (klf)
Maximum slab loads: 150 pounds per square foot (psfl
Finished Floor Proposed ground floor at elev. 297.0 feet. Lower level parking at elev. 278.0
Elevation feet. Bottom of mat foundation at elev. 274.0 feet.
Cuts between about 21 and 28 feet below existing grade will be required to
Grading/Slopes establish subgrades for the basement mat slab. No grading plan was
provided, but it is assumed only minor cuts and fills, no more than about one
to two feet, are planned outside the building.
Below-Grade Basement parking level(s). The building will also include an elevator, and this
Structures will presumably include a sump/service pit.
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2
Geotechnical Engineering Report l�err�con
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022 Terracon Project No. JB205029 GeoReport
Item Description
Permanent site retaining walls not anticipated; however, the basement
Free-Standing foundation walls will retain earth, and substantial temporary excavation
Retaining Walls support will be required to facilitate construction of the foundation and
basement parking level(s).
Pavements Assumed concrete sidewalks and driveway aprons about the building exterior.
Concrete floor slab planned at parking level(s).
Support of excavation will be required to establish proposed basement level subgrades on all four
sides of the building, as the footprint extends near to the property lines and there is insufficient
room to lay back excavation sidewalls. We understand that both secant pile and sheet pile type
excavation support systems are under consideration.
If any of the above information is incorrect, please let us know so we can review the conclusions
and recommendations provided in this report for applicability to the actual design and update the
report as appropriate.
As the design of the project progresses and site grading plans and building loads are fully
developed, we should be retained to assess this site-specific information relative to the
recommendations contained herein.
SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION
We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface conditions based upon our
review of the 2019 subsurface exploration results, geologic setting and our understanding of the
project. This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations
and evaluation of site preparation and foundation options. Conditions encountered at each
exploration point are indicated on the individual subsurface logs. The individual logs and the
GeoModel can be found in the - _ section of this report.
The following model layers have been identified in the subsurface profile. For a more detailed
view of the model layer depths at each boring location, refer to the GeoModel.
Model Layer Layer Name General Description
1 Fill
Sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel, brown,
pieces of brick, occasional cobbles, cinders, slag.
2 Native Sand Native sand with lesser amounts gravel and silt,
generally very loose to loose.
3 Lake Clays Silt and clay, banded to varved, generally very soft to
soft.
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3
Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�can
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022 Terracon Project No. JB205029 GeoRepart.
Silty sand with gravel, occasional cobbles and
4 Glacial Till boulders, gray to black, generally medium dense to
very dense.
5 Bedrock Limestone.
Remains of an asphalt paved parking lot are present at the ground surface on the west side of
the site, and test borings in this area revealed existing pavement thickness of about 0.2 to 0.3
feet, along with a similar thickness of underlying gravel base. No distinct surface materials were
noted elsewhere.
Beneath whatever surface materials were present, urban fill materials were found in each of the
boreholes advanced for the 2019 study, extending to depths between about 3 and 9 feet below
the existing ground surface. The fills typically consisted of sand with varying amounts of silt and
gravel, along with pieces of brick and occasional cobbles, cinders and slag. Test pits by others in
2017 revealed fills of similar composition to depths of approximately 5 to 9 feet.
The fills were underlain by a layer of native sand at most locations (all but test borings B-1 and
B-5 at the west end of the site), this ranging in thickness between approximately 2 and 8 feet
overall. The sand was of a very loose to loose relative density as indicated by measured SPT N-
values.
Lacustrine silt and clay deposits were encountered beneath the sands (or directly beneath the
existing fills at boreholes B-1 and B-5). These cohesive deposits were judged to be of a very soft
to soft consistency and extended to depths of about 25 to 31 feet below the existing ground
surface. Laboratory testing indicates the silt and clay classifies among the CL (Lean Clay) group
using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Measured liquid limits were between 37 and
40 percent, and corresponding plastic limits were each 23 percent. The natural moisture content
of the clay samples submitted for testing was between 37 and 39 percent, this at or near the liquid
limit in each case. A relatively thin layer of glacial till was found beneath the silt and clay deposits
at most locations, this being no more than a few feet thick, medium dense to dense in composition,
and mantling the underlying bedrock.
Bedrock was encountered at depths of approximately 25.2 to 33.4 feet below the existing ground
surface as evidenced by refusal of the drill tooling, this corresponding with bedrock surface
elevations between about 264 to 269 feet. Confirmatory rock core sampling at test boring B-2
indicates the bedrock consists of limestone which is lightly weathered and medium strong with
very close to close fracture spacing. Rock core recovery was 98 percent and measured RQD was
80 percent indicating a "good" rock mass quality. A photograph of the recovered rock core is
included with the subsurface logs.
Groundwater observations and measurements were made as the boreholes were completed. It
should be noted that these measurements may not reflect actual groundwater depths, as
Responsive . Resourceful . Reliable 4
Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�can
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022 Terracon Project No. JB205029 GeoRepart.
adequate time may not have elapsed for groundwater to enter the augers and achieve a static
level prior to the measurements being taken.
Based upon the groundwater measurements, the recovery of wet soil samples and other factors,
it appears that groundwater was present at depths of about 5 to 10 feet below existing grade at
the time of investigation, indicating a groundwater surface elevation in the range of about 289 to
292 feet.
While not identified through this study, locally perched or trapped groundwater may at times be
found in the upper soils, particularly in the existing fills. Groundwater conditions, and the extent
of any perched water, should be expected to vary with seasonal fluctuations in precipitation and
runoff. Additionally, grade adjustments on and around the site, as well as surrounding drainage
improvements, may affect the water table.
GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW
Planning for design and construction of the new building will be impacted primarily by the depth of
excavation required to establish proposed basement level subgrades and the associated support of
excavation requirements. Groundwater will also be a significant factor, as the lower basement level
and foundation levels are situated some 15 to 20 feet below static groundwater level in the soft clay
subgrades. Based on the conditions disclosed by our investigation, we offer the following general
conclusions.
The building may be supported on a mat foundation which bears upon the native silt and
clay soils at or about elevation 274.0 feet as planned.
Support of excavation for construction of the building will involve retained soil heights
approaching 30 feet, and due to the proximity of adjoining properties, it appears that
external means of lateral restraint such as tiebacks will not be an option. Internal bracing
of the excavation will therefore be required.
Foundation subgrades are situated upwards of 20 feet below static groundwater level.
Thorough excavation dewatering will therefore be required, and dewatering demands will
to some degree be a function of the means of excavation support employed, as discussed
subsequently herein. Dewatering is a means and methods consideration for the
contractor.
Similarly, with the lowest floor level substantially below groundwater level, the structure
will be subject to uplift pressures (buoyancy). This will need to be accommodated through
either self-weight of the building, permanent drilled-in tiedown anchors beneath the mat,
or permanent drainage relief beneath the mat.
Responsive . Resourceful . Reliable 5
Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�can
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022 Terracon Project No. JB205029 GeoRepart.
Waterproofing of basement floors and foundation walls should also be provided as
appropriate.
We expect the materials excavated onsite will include soils which are essentially either
sandy, silty or clayey. Consideration may be given to reuse of essentially sandy soils as
fill and backfill in and around the building addition once cleansed of oversized particles,
unsuitable debris or organics, subject to the approval of the Geotechnical Engineer and
based upon the conditions encountered at the time of construction. Excessively silty or
clayey soils should be wasted off site.
The following sections of this report provide more detailed recommendations to assist in planning
for the geotechnical aspects of the project. We should be provided with the opportunity to review
plans and specifications prior to their release for bidding to confirm that our recommendations
were properly understood and implemented, and to allow us to refine our recommendations, if
warranted, based upon the final design. The ; section provides an
understanding of the report limitations.
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design
Category. Site classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure.
The seismic Site Class is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted
average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear
strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7 and the International Building Code (IBC).
Seismic Site Classification
In our estimation, the seismic Site Class is D. The site properties below the depths explored to
100 feet were estimated based on our experience and knowledge of geologic conditions in the
general area. Additional deeper borings or geophysical testing may be performed to confirm the
conditions below the current boring depth if desired.
EARTHWORK
In general, earthwork is anticipated to include clearing and grubbing, dewatering of the excavation
area, installation of excavation support, bulk cuts to establish planned foundation grades, and
placement of new fill/backfill as may be required. The following sections provide
recommendations for use in the preparation of specifications for the work. Recommendations
include critical quality criteria, as necessary, to render the site in the state considered suitable in
our geotechnical engineering evaluation for foundations and floor slabs.
Responsive . Resourceful . Reliable 6
Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�can
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022 Terracon Project No. JB205029 GeoRepart.
Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor, who controls the means,
methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the
information provided herein be interpreted to mean Terracon is assuming responsibility for
construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is neither implied nor shall
it be inferred.
Site Preparation
Site preparation should begin with clearing and stripping of existing topsoil and asphalt pavement
from the building area, followed by installation of dewatering and temporary shoring systems as
described below. Excavation to proposed subgrades should not proceed in the absence of
thorough dewatering and proper excavation support.
Dewatering and Excavation Support
Contractors performing the dewatering and excavation support works at this project should have
demonstrated longstanding experience in completing projects of a similar scale in similar
subsurface conditions.
Construction dewatering should be implemented in conjunction with the shoring and bulk
excavation operations so as to lower groundwater levels sufficiently to avert piping, boiling or
excessive bottom heave in the subgrades. The use of vacuum well points and/or relief wells may
be required. Groundwater may be assumed at elevation 290 feet and below for the purposes of
excavation support and dewatering design. Dewatering is a means and methods consideration
for the contractor.
Where supported excavations are required to excavate to the planned grades for the proposed
building, the type and design of the excavation support system must be compatible with the site
geometry, subsurface conditions, the planned building foundation construction, and provide
adequate support for adjacent structures, streets and utilities. Any temporary support walls to be
constructed at this site and components thereof should be designed for the maximum combination
of loading that may occur in each stage of excavation and bracing. Recommended soil
parameters for use in the design of excavation support at this site are presented below.
Note that a pre-construction building condition survey and vibration monitoring program should
be included with any shoring design. The excavation support system should be a drilled-in type
(e.g., a secant wall or soldier pile and lagging type system). Driven or vibrated support systems
should be avoided due to the project's urban setting and the historic nature of buildings in the
area, and the expected difficulty in adequately seating sheets in the underlying glacial till and
bedrock.
Excavation support can be designed and bid or left to the contractor and their consultant to design
and install. If the design of temporary earth support is to be performed by the contractor, it should
be submitted to the design team for review. Their submittal should include assumptions made
Responsive . Resourceful . Reliable 7
Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�can
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022 Terracon Project No. JB205029 GeoRepart.
regarding soil properties, geometry of the excavation, lateral pressure diagrams, locations and
magnitudes of all surcharge loads and wall design calculations, including deflection analyses and
a proposed monitoring program for the construction period. The temporary earth support should
be designed and stamped by a professional engineer licensed in the State of New York.
For the purposes of excavation support design, the existing fill and sand soils in the upper 5 to 15
feet can be assumed to have a total unit weight equal to 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and an
angle of internal friction equal to 30 degrees. For the underlying silt and clay soils, a total unit
weight of 118 pcf and a friction angle of 26 degrees may be assumed.
As overburden thickness below the basement floor level will likely be limited, we recommend that
any resistance to movement offered by passive earth pressure be disregarded. Rather, resistance
to lateral load may be calculated based on a presumptive lateral bearing pressure of 400 psf/ft for
whatever length of pile elements are socketed into sound rock.
All excavations must be performed in accordance with federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) standards, along with state and local codes, as applicable. Native site
soils should be considered Type C pursuant to 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart P. The contractor
should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depth should in no instance
exceed OSHA regulations. Flatter slopes than those dictated by the regulations or temporary
shoring may be required depending upon the soil conditions encountered, site physical
constraints and other external factors. OSHA regulations are strictly enforced and if not followed,
the owner, contractor, and/or earthwork and utility subcontractor could be liable and subject to
substantial penalties.
Bulk Excavation and Subgrade Preparation
Excavation should not begin until dewatering and excavation support systems are in place and
operational. As excavation proceeds, the dewatering system should be operated and/or modified
as necessary to maintain groundwater level below the excavation bottom. Installation of the
excavation support system must be sequenced such that a safe and stable excavation is
maintained at all times.The final few feet of excavation should be completed and trimmed to grade
using an excavator equipped with a smooth-edged bucket to limit disturbance of the subgrade
soils. Proof-rolling of the soft clay subgrades at the foundation level is not required. However, the
foundation bearing grades should be over-excavated to allow placement of minimum two feet
thick layer of clean crushed stone (ASTM C33 Blend 57 aggregate) to serve as a stabilizing base
and to facilitate dewatering.
The crushed stone should consist of ASTM C33 Blend 57 aggregate. A non-woven synthetic filter
fabric meeting the requirements of NYSDOT standard specifications table 737-01 C for drainage
geotextile should be provided between the stone and underlying subgrades. The stone should be
placed as a single lift and consolidated in place using a roller with a maximum 5-ton static weight
or suitable plate compactor.
Responsive .� Resourceful . Reliable 8
Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�can
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022 Terracon Project No. JB205029 GeoRepart.
Fill Material Types
Imported Structural Fill should be used as fill/backfill in and around the proposed building. The fill
should consist of imported sand and gravel which meets the limits of gradation given below. All
imported materials should be free of recycled concrete, asphalt, bricks, glass, and pyritic shale
rock.
IMPORTED STRUCTURAL FILL
Sieve Size Percent Finer
3" 100
'/" 30 to 75
No. 40 5 to 40
No. 200 0 to 10
As previously noted, consideration may be given to reuse of excavated soils which are essentially
sandy as new fill and backfill in and around the building once cleansed of oversized particles,
unsuitable debris or organics, subject to the approval of the Geotechnical Engineer and based
upon the conditions encountered at the time of construction. Excessively silty or clayey soils
should be wasted off site.
Fill Compaction Requirements
General fills in the building area should be placed in uniform loose layers no more than about
one-foot thick where heavy vibratory compaction equipment is used. Thinner lifts should be used
where hand operated equipment is required for compaction. Each lift should be compacted to no
less than 95 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor
Compaction Test,ASTM D1557. In landscape areas, the compaction requirement may be relaxed
to 90 percent of maximum dry density.
The crushed stone stabilizing base beneath the mat foundation should be consolidated in place
as described above.
Grading and Drainage
All grades should provide effective drainage away from the building during and after construction,
with such drainage maintained throughout the life of the structure. Water retained next to buildings
can result in soil movements greater than those outlined in this report, which may in turn lead to
unsatisfactory differential floor slab and/or foundation displacements, cracked slabs and walls, or
roof leaks.
Unless buoyancy related uplift pressures are otherwise resisted through self-weight of the
structure or tiedown anchors, permanent drainage relief should be provided beneath the mat by
means of sumps, pumps and collection laterals as appropriate. We expect that buoyancy
Responsive . Resourceful . Reliable 9
Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�can
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022 Terracon Project No. JB205029 GeoRepart.
considerations and/or pumping requirements will be substantially diminished in the event a secant
wall system socketed into bedrock is utilized for excavation support, thereby effecting a
groundwater cutoff.
Construction Observation and Testing
The earthwork efforts should be monitored under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer. Mat
foundation bearing grades should be evaluated, and if unanticipated conditions are encountered,
the Geotechnical Engineer should prescribe mitigation options.
Monitoring should also include documentation of adequate removal of unsuitable fills, if any. Each
lift of new compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked, as necessary, until approved
by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts.
It should be understood that subsurface conditions will be more fully known when the site is
excavated. The continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the
project will allow for validation of the subsurface conditions assumed to exist for this study and in
the development of the design recommendations in this report, along with assessing any
variations, providing interim recommendations as necessary and reviewing associated design
changes.
MAT FOUNDATION
The building may be supported on a unit mat foundation as planned. With the mat seated at
elevation 274.0 in the native clay soils, a maximum net allowable bearing pressure equal to 1500
pounds per square foot (ps� and vertical modulus of subgrade reaction equal to 100 pounds per
cubic inch (psi/in) may be assumed.
As previously indicated, the foundation bearing grades should be over-excavated to allow
placement of minimum two feet thick layer of clean crushed stone (ASTM C33 Blend 57
aggregate) beneath the mat to serve as a stabilizing base and to facilitate dewatering. The final
few feet of excavation should be completed and trimmed to grade using an excavator equipped
with a smooth-edged bucket to limit disturbance of the subgrade soils.
Unless buoyancy related uplift pressures are otherwise resisted through self-weight of the
structure or tiedown anchors, permanent drainage relief should be provided beneath the mat by
means of sumps, pumps and collection laterals as appropriate. The pumps should include
redundant backup systems and alarms in the event of failure. We expect that buoyancy
considerations and/or pumping requirements will be substantially diminished in the event a secant
wall system socketed into bedrock is utilized for excavation support, thereby effecting a
groundwater cutoff.
Responsive . Resourceful . Reliable 10
Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�can
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022 Terracon Project No. JB205029 GeoRepart.
Note that some rebound or apparent heave at the foundation subgrade level is expected through
excavation load relief, even with adequate dewatering of the excavation. We anticipate this
rebound will be recovered as apparent settlement as construction proceeds and loads are applied,
and that the magnitude of whatever rebound and settlement occurs will be roughly equivalent, on
the order of one inch or so. Estimates of settlement should be refined after the loading conditions
are developed.
Foundation Construction Considerations
The foundation subgrades should be prepared as outlined in the section herein. The
Geotechnical Engineer should approve the condition of the undercut subgrades prior to placement
of the crushed stone stabilization/drainage base, and should approve the final foundation bearing
grades immediately prior to placement of the reinforcing steel and concrete.All final bearing grades
should be firm, stable, and free of loose soil, mud, water and frost.
UPLIFT RESISTANCE
At this time, it is uncertain whether or not some means of active uplift resistance will be required
to counter buoyant forces acting on the mat. If it is determined that such is necessary, rock
anchors may be considered to resist the buoyancy. The following recommendations are provided
for preliminary planning purposes. Final design of rock anchors should be based on the findings
of a supplemental investigation which specifically targets the anticipated location and depths of
the anchors to better characterize the bedrock substrate.
An allowable bond stress of 50 pounds per square inch (psi) between the anchor grout and
bedrock may be assumed for preliminary planning purposes. A minimum bond length of ten feet
into sound bedrock is recommended. Anchors should be spaced no closer than four feet, and the
failure cone in the rock may be assumed to include a volume extending from the mid-point of the
bond zone 30 degrees to the anchor axis (total included angle of 60 degrees). The total unit
weights of the rock and overlying soils may be assumed equal to 160 pounds per cubic foot (pcf)
and 118 pcf, respectively. Double corrosion protection should be specified as a minimum.
The Post Tensioning Institute (PTI) - Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors
can be referenced with regard to providing design criteria and installation recommendations for
rock anchors. Rock anchors are generally designed and installed by a specialty contractor
qualified and experienced in such construction methods. Therefore, it is general practice for the
engineer to develop a performance specification for the rock anchors and to then have the
installation contractor provide a suitable anchor system design.
Upon installation, at least the first three anchors (but not less than ten percent of the total anchors
to be installed) should be performance tested, and all anchors proof-tested in accordance with
procedures recommended by the PTI.
Responsive . Resourceful . Reliable 11
Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�can
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022 Terracon Project No. JB205029 GeoRepart.
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
Foundation walls that retain earth should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures together
with any applicable surcharge loads. Active earth pressures may be assumed for walls that are
free to deflect as the backfill is placed and surcharge loads applied.At-rest earth pressures should
be assumed for walls that are braced prior to backfilling or applying surcharge loads.
As we understand it, the foundation walls will be constructed at the property lines, and as such,
there will be no excavation and backfill outside the building. The parameters given in the
section may therefore be used in determining lateral earth pressures acting
on the permanent foundation walls.
Unless permanent drainage relief is provided behind the foundation walls, the walls should be
designed to resist hydrostatic pressures assuming static groundwater at elevation 290 feet.
SIDEWALKS AND PAVEMENTS
It should be understood that frost heave may occur beneath exterior sidewalks, curbs and/or
pavements, and the heave may be differential, particularly where sidewalks and curbs meet, and
where sidewalks meet building doorways. If the potential for heave is to be minimized, a 16 inch
thick base course composed of clean crushed stone (ASTM C33 Blend 57 aggregate) with
underdrains should be placed beneath the sidewalks or pavements to limit heave to generally
tolerable magnitudes for most winters. If no heave risk is acceptable, the stone thickness should
be increased to 4 feet.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical
conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our previous site exploration. Natural variations
will occur between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or
weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after
construction. Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this
report, to provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If
variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If
variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be
immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.
Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or
biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of
pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for
such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.
Responsive � Resourceful . Reliable 12
Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�can
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022 Terracon Project No. JB205029 GeoRepart.
Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the
sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and
are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with
no third-party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is
solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client.
Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client and is not intended for
third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their
own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.
Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any
use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there
may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact
excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site
characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.
Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering requirements and
design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location of the project
are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we
review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.
Responsive . Resourceful . Reliable 13
ATTACHMENTS
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable
Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�can
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022 Terracon Project No. JB205029 GeoRepart.
EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES
Field Exploration
No new test borings were completed for this study. Rather, this evaluation was based on the
results of a prior geotechnical engineering report (Dente/Terracon—September 2019) which was
completed for a previous iteration of the subject project. The test borings performed for the
2019 investigation are indicated below, together with the methods employed in their completion.
Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) Location
8 25.2 to 33.4 Proposed building pad
Boring Layout and Elevations: The test boring locations were selected and established in the
field by Dente/Terracon using GPS coordinates and/or tape measurements from existing site
features. Approximate ground surface elevations at the test boring locations were estimated by
Terracon through interpolation between topographic contour intervals shown on the plans
provided to us. If more precise borehole locations and/or elevations are desired, the as-drilled
boring locations should be surveyed.
Subsurface Exploration Procedures: The test borings were made using a standard rotary drill
rig equipped with hollow stem augers. As the augers were advanced, the soils were sampled at
intervals of five feet or less in accordance with the Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-
Barrel Sampling of Soils,ASTM D1586. Upon meeting refusal at borehole B-2,the refusal material
(in this case, bedrock) was cored to allow its characterization. The coring was completed in
general accordance with ASTM D2113 — Standard Practice for Rock Core Drilling and Sampling
of Rock for Site Investigation using an NQ-size double tube core barrel. One core run, five feet in
length, was made.
Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs
included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and our interpretation
of the subsurface conditions between samples. The sampling depths, penetration distances, and
other sampling information were recorded on the field boring logs.
The soil and rock core samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soils
laboratory for classification by a Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. The soils were described
based on the material's color, texture, plasticity and moisture condition. Rock classification was
conducted using locally accepted practices for engineering purposes; petrographic analysis may
reveal other rock types. Soil classifications are in general accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) as summarized herein. Rock classification was determined using
the Description of Rock Properties terms (also summarized herein). Final boring logs were
Responsive . Resourceful . Reliable tXPLuf�A"�iuN AN�TESi IN�i�ROCEDii��s�I ofi 2
Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�con
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs, New York
February 1, 2022 Terracon Project No. JB205029 GeoReport
prepared, and they represent the Geotechnical Engineer's interpretation of the field logs and
laboratory classifications, along with any laboratory testing performed.
Laboratory Testing
Selected recovered samples from the test borings were submitted for laboratory testing, as part
of the 2019 subsurface investigation program, to confirm the visual classifications and to provide
quantitative index properties for use in the geotechnical evaluation. This testing was performed in
general accordance with the following standard methods:
ASTM D2216 - Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)
Content of Soil and Rock by Mass (3 samples tested)
ASTM D422 - Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (1 sample tested)
■ ASTM D4318 - Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index
of Soils (2 samples tested)
Responsive � Resourceful . Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 2 ofi 2
SITE LOCATION
Contents:
Site Location Plan
Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.
Responsive . Resourceful . Reliable
l��rracon
269 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY
February 2022 Terracon Project No.JB205029 GeORepOPt
�� � � � _ l N,� �AR, ����� ,�`-� �" 'I �f� 1c �� �ey'� � �, li vl�� �� /,�'
�� . � , � r _
J T���' ..� �';���;f'�`' � � �f ! ,�Y '' ��.� �+` ����`j`'�?y, �1, =—�
a....e=�" �-'s�n 37 C(7R '°` ' ._.� �f � �4I1. �j�� .�� 3]6 '( -.������� f �T�`�Fi7l¢�Q�t� '�I�°{� � J J�
' . . � / �3`� �y �� �, �Q � fi � �u �.9�' 9`J� � , �\��i
� o ' 1 ~r-� � �+ . m ,�r� i3 � � n� � i� n i�
, �O` �`mI �\ _—
_ . . , Y�� ,, �;�.: — � �-�-- }r• � r�, .,�� �� ),-�_�`P'��'_ ••"� �— -`' =
`� f-��v! � d � � n "� /, �,�y_>,�w�S�.�' � �� -�`�Z.J��I� a`�'
�- �rz' �- ._ s� ' � n� . �,�'� � � ��1 �/ W :._�� - � '" h � (� ,' .1
� J/ � � ( /� J + ��-, �
� r
¢� YI`� � L .. �.IJ� �II1 iy1�. yl,i� \�1 Y /��a'�j� f y�� -�`/!.' � �I �l� ,'S���, �� u�3�`_,� 1y �I C'I /�
' �� � Gv N� �,a�u+se` � 'h� ��r I. ' ��.�"� --� � �%���� � �"� 1�� �i�=,' � '� Jy � i ati�
� � � n. � � �� � j.L- 1 �r�'-+�� �-� �qq ' - ( r�" � '�i�i � :
�"�, � ) �`� � �I ♦ 9�t46ai .'�, �� � 7� � �` � �� �'i f s� ��l���'l�n� .f�N�� �i �. �i.°Y �� �
. � � �'Ps �, ri� R' - ��{P5p IL }i� h�11 .�f i :�•�a�*-' z.._- ! �JC� -A���'�,I �:— ll '1 �i �� -� � I y. �I .�1.
.� , ��' i��'� i rL�i '� V_— � `v' � V g'�� a i v Ci� r�i' � 1 �� �� �i i-�5 �.
. . q��,� �c V �"r.� ir r� ( �� ����.I�iL �'` ���1, },L� ave J.'� .I � �� ���<1� � ,1�;
� p.� • � �� y �H .� ���� /.,�`�,/i`j l_ -} . i . i � � rn
, i� ��� . l� s��'� ' ii d s�- �:-� . �� i.�,. Sr � � � �..i I � i
_ ..�� . . ii�J3 ..;: V ,�, � .1 l� 9� �_���I ��{�/�C�unty-7�� �' ������❑- � � i I � Sppd� � � ��� ��'� i�� �
i �� 1 i � � apa -. Plav rt� 1 . p
•.k � _ .._� _r Bid�� P .�� ..�� �i� i� }�,.:� � p ��(
.-.r .'"� �� �-, i i �.� � � - � _ -��l r h �f ,� •r . n�o� ��h ��- � i � .1 � 1� � l4� t Ls�=f _
r7�� � ' i � � � � 8 erm iJr t ���� �h� i i ���� fl �� rif,1F�_�1� r�
' _ � _''� � � ��� T� / ���f�S �l . IJ � R..� I _. 1� } �� �11 y f�
11 li ' tl I � �I���� �18 r9un ��3 � � / � �� �� I,rD10e5C'�� ��� 1 J��
' r�, i �� �i� i-4 l� 1 r�' � '�'���'Vs �.' ^-�'�£1 h �� �4 ��}I f�� -�--�t�x i-
� �i � i � +i:� l, 'i. � �' �i� Ix J�-.� R _�ic �f �.-� ha
�!'i� IL � INfl. �1 .5F ■ ! I T'�— � � I
i ;� � I � a5� � . -?� � �5.1 L �_ _i�m 1� _ _ �g / , �
I �' � i �J�_ � � '�i1�; '�J�renf '`��- ��!Ill�l �j�i.— -���: _-- �� �jl 1
- �1 � � '\ ��.�.�ti �� �+a ��d � '1 r� ���Hl.3me���� �� �'V � Oklahoma �"'�u��� r� ��
, �_• � • .�I; �1}� �I���+� ��.a'�'+'�I 4_f4eoi .S�TE 3 �T(. .l� �� �� �; Racetrack � �' �
y �� �: w�._ :,� :�"�_ ,��H'��frr��r� J"�i �� ��—�}--��, �-w �J� J� ��I _
1 �� -� x�� r i ��_ � � �� : „�� -�, ���� � y ;
i i 1 �1�� �p'� � d _ �1 � � �l'� l.r -�� �.�� . . / � '�� i� - i �
- qPf' �di a-: � �� � M sau . a �� ��� .
, ��-" � .�` "' � � . .� V�_ � � . � ��r-� JI lc' �,� � �'�Ss xr� i,_ � �� �� ; ���, p�, ��
=�i � ��� ��x: ��s ,� :.. ;� i1/ �4 y �i�`�t co ie� ��� �'-'nr�_ � � � : '' r
� �I:��s i I � . / .. �11.�� �� � �L�_ 1 �� � i ,��
�����-"��: ���.1' �: I� Aikh �I'� ,�� �`J I � �� J ��/� �� ���Y�- C l � N 9 I I /�
. �. --_ � ai ��i, .,y�;Rddla'i ��h ���� ��..:� i r �-���it+S,s�'�N [� i�-���i1 i �r',� lil � #. / - � '� /
� � ti�tiwcr��, � �� '� !` � � '�' �r '����,��� "� ���RCHpNGEd�:
�A � � 1 �I 1 __ ��: �-'���� �� ,�L �a Pl�r r�u p 3 V �`' �iU .� '.Q -J�j'�HF 1W/'
I �'-�— � i �iI` i�-� `' i �i I �Pro Ng 1 �L ����-� J,.. , a�k �fi q5 v"��
� � � � ��St Peiers�V � /f,� . 7>> ��l fi . 1 �`1�i J'�r7i ,fsr � - �a�yt1 -11'! �� � �j � -
1 Cem ii �. SU / � ■ � i m i ` F a
\ i '�� j i � • � _� � _ . .�� ���w� � ��.��� � ��oS ����� �S`
� �.- . _. � d �> � !�,r �i ,r � � a �j -
• 1'.. �- �� � }5S � 5 r'a
` , i. �� � r � , • �r�Greer�riJBe � f'-� ��--}��� "i�`S-.�' \
, �r�.,,-, /� "� j �G� � ,� r�� � � 1 d� � ,�1
`�. „ 1 ,'�:_� ... - df�JR � � Cem 1'n I ��_a/�s� � i\ � F � f .-�\ �/ i �: '
el � ,��� I F7 r yy ��, r �( �k� � � .-�_�;
� r��' �L.� �, ���ti�M3o9 i �'��—_3�i�� � }1 r�k �i 'C i 't s�,f ' r���l
� � ] P�-0'� • � I - �yG qL_ �'- �•�''1 � A '�I � �.� , ��" � �{a�
��7G� � f/ .4 ' � "�J: r - SP8_�I _�, . i��� ��;- � �� �� � .�.'�',�� `��J� rJ�L�� fi
1 �' \ r J i
i
���� ;'i �''i �-_! ir � .,;��� �eth4�-_..._ ��I1 VaT�� . �i �i . � ��,�4-��� t a'��, y `� �
II +�wr4 i�� � �1'�`t-' y 5��: i � d� ,�5��� - �[r� /l r'o�{I_ J y � .
�fa � �" �� 1 i - ' R
'�'�� - i � ,� �� �li i' I� � t � � �,_
� Nu�� i'`_ ''� hool I�� _�«.. 3i3 �� �4� y4 - -�' � il a �j" 4`
N�4� � 27u a �i: p -—�`� -��M ���;i �� y � . �i�� �
�d� � �
� ' ' '�'' � � q ••�I. - " ,�� � , ��-�� ti � r' l �
� �R A � S . ��Trailer 5 �ia�.. �. � i
�i'''� � a� r:�� �� � 1� � ( i 1,��. �� li ' �� � -
,� � .I� � .� �.�. - �Golf cou*#e. � . ,- ��ihPc .�._L:�,ivark" ����__-..% ,,.r«,,,.� n�,.�' ��� �� .� �� .,
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY,AND IS NOT TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES QUADRANGLES INCLUDE'.SARATOGA SPRINGS,NY(1/1/1967).
RESULTS OF PREVIOUS EXPLORATION
Contents:
GeoModel
Test Boring Logs (8 pages)
Rock Core Photo
Laboratory Test Results (2 pages)
Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above
Responsive . Resourceful . Reliable
Proposed Mixed Use Building Saratoga Springs,New York 1��rracon
Terracon Project No.JB195195 GeoRepOrL
305
B-s
300 ......................................................................B.4..........................................................................
B-� 1
B_2 B-3 B-6
295 .........B_�.............. � B:5.............. $.....
1 3 � 1 4 �
1 0
� ZJO '5.9... � . . .......6.3.. 2 ..'............... .7.....9.5 . ..0 9.....5.5 . .�.....6.1 � 2 '.,.a 7........... . . $.......... 2 :::..�.......
y ..:.7 2 .�°12 2 � 10
7.5 2 ...10 '�.�16
uJi 285 .......
�
z
O
� 280 .......
w3 .. ............ 3 .
> 3 3 3 3 3
W 275 ....... 3 . .............
31
270 ....... �'l.'........
25.......... �b......... 25.5........ 4 '��33.4
252 �f�; ^�26.5
zs 4 � zs.s so
......29 '��.���
30 �.'.33.3 4 ';.
26rJ ........................... 5 . ............ ..��3T.3.................................................................... � 32.4.......................
33
260
This is not a cross section.This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only.See individual logs for more detailed conditions.
Model Layer Layer Name General Description
1 Fill Sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel,brown,pieces
of brick,occasional cobbles,cinders,slag
2 Native Sand Native sand with lesser amounts gravel and silt,generally
very loose to loose �
3 Lake Clays Silt and clay,banded to varved,generally very soft to soft
4 Glacial Till Silty sand with gravel,occasional cobbles and boulders,gray
to black,generally medium dense to very dense
5 Bedrock Limestone
LEGEND
■Asphalt �SiltyClay �Bedrock
�Aggregate Base Course �Glacial Till �Silty Sand
�Fill �Poorly-graded Sand �Gravlel 9raded Sand with
�First Water Observation NOTES:
Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the geotechnical
engineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface conditions as
required for the subsequent geotechnical engineering for this project.
Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground surface.
Groundwater levels are temporal.The levels shown are representative of the date
and time of our exploration.Significant changes are possible over time.
Water levels shown are as measured during and/or after drilling.In some cases,
boring advancement methods mask the presence/absence of groundwater.See
individual logs for details.
BORING LOG NO. B-1 Pa e 1 of�
PROJECT: Proposed Mixed Use Building CLIENT: Roohan Realty
Saratoga Springs, New York
SITE: 267-269 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York
w 0 LOCATION See ^ ;O wa V � o
} ��
a U Latitude:43.0776°Longitude:-73.7875° � �Q ~ � �� w z
w a a w� � > �t7n Q�
a �
� � Approximate Surface Elev.:294(Ft.)+/- o �m Q � �� �O
DEPTH ELEVATION Ft.
O � �
SPHALT +
AVEMENT BASE +
FILL-SILTY SAND, pieces of brick,occasional cobbles,fine to medium grained, �g 2-2-2-3
N=4
brown, moist to wet,very loose to very dense == 0 50/2"
1
5 �
�, 2� 1-1-1-1
N N=2
°' 7.5 286.5+/-
� VARVED SILT AND CLAY(CL-ML),gray to brown,moist to wet,very soft to soft 24 1-2-2-2
w N=4
Q
� 10
W W H/12"-1-2
~ 24
� N=1
0
i
0
a
�
�
� 15
a 24 WH/12"-2-2
�' 3 N=2
a
�
0
¢
�
m
rn
`° 20
N 24 WH-1-2-3
� N=3
m
J
J�J
>
0
? 25.0 269+/-
o SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM),occasional cobbles and boulders,fine to ' 25 1 50/2"
� edium grained,gray to black, moist,very dense
Q uger e usa a . e
�
�
0
�
�
�
0
w
�
J
Q
Z
�
�
0
�
0
�
LL
0
W
Q Stratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
�
¢
a
w
� Advancement Method: See for a Notes:
" 3 1/4"ID HSA description of field and laboratory procedures
� used and additional data(If any). WH=Weight of Hammer
J
Q
� See for explanation of u
o Abandonment Method: symbols and abbreviations.
� Boring backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
� Sealed with bituminous cold patch at surface. Elevations were interpolated from a topographic
� WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
c� Boring Started:08-13-2019 Boring Completed:08-13-2019
� � 5.1 feet while drilling 1��rr�con
m Drill Rig:CME 45 Driller:S.Loiselle
� 594 Broadway
F Watervliet,NY Project No.:JB195195
BORING LOG NO. B-2 Pa e 1 of�
PROJECT: Proposed Mixed Use Building CLIENT: Roohan Realty
Saratoga Springs, New York
SITE: 267-269 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York
w 0 LOCATION See ^ ;O wa V � o
} ��
a U Latitude:43.0775°Longitude:-73.7872° � �Q ~ � �� w z
w a a w� � > �t7n Q�
a �
� � Approximate Surface Elev.:295(Ft.)+/- o �m Q � �� �O
DEPTH ELEVATION Ft.
O � �
SPHALT +
AVEMENT BASE +
� FILL-SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, pieces of brick,fine to medium grained, 19 2 N=64
3.o brown to orange,moist, loose Z9z'i-
POORLY GRADED SAND(SP�,fine to medium grained,orange to brown,moist 4-3-4-3
to wet, loose 21 N_� 10
z : 5
°' � 21 2-2-2-2
N �.o zaa+i- N=4
�
o VARVED SILT AND CLAY(CL-ML�,trace fine sand, brown,wet,very soft to soft 2_2_�_2
�, 24 N=3
�
Q
� 10
W WH-2-2-2
FGrades to gray banded silt and clay 24 N=4
0
i
0
a
�
�
� 15
� 24 WH/18"-2
r
�
0 3
¢
�
m
rn
`° 20
N 24 WH-1-2-3
� N=3
m
J
>
0
� 25
� 24 �-1-2-2
� N=3
a
�
� 28.0 267+/-
° LIMESTONE,with quartz veins and chert nodules,gray,slightly weathered, 0 50/0"
F medium strong,very close to close fracture spacing,good RQD
� 5 30 59 REC=98%
� RQD=80%
J
Q
Z
� 33.0 262+/-
�
o Boring Terminafed af 33 Feef
�
0
�
LL
0
W
Q Stratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
�
¢
a
w
� Advancement Method: See for a Notes:
" 3 1/4"ID HSA to 28 feet,NQ2-sized core barrel to 33 feet.
o description of field and laboratory procedures WH=Weight of Hammer
� used and additional data(If any).
¢
� See for explanation of u
o Abandonment Method: symbols and abbreviations.
� Boring backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
� Sealed with bituminous cold patch at surface. Elevations were interpolated from a topographic
� WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
c� Boring Started:08-09-2019 Boring Completed:08-09-2019
� � 6.3 feet while drilling(prior to coring) 1��rr�con
m Drill Rig:CME 45 Driller:S.Loiselle
� 594 Broadway
F Watervliet,NY Project No.:JB195195
BORING LOG NO. B-3 Pa e 1 of�
PROJECT: Proposed Mixed Use Building CLIENT: Roohan Realty
Saratoga Springs, New York
SITE: 267-269 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York
w 0 LOCATION See ^ ;O wa V � o
} ��
a U Latitude:43.0775°Longitude:-73.7869° � �Q ~ � �� w z
w a a w� � > �t7n Q�
a �
� � Approximate Surface Elev.:295.5(Ft.)+/- o �m Q � �� �O
DEPTH ELEVATION Ft.
O � �
FILL-SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM�, pieces of brick,fine to medium grained, 3-7-6-5
brown, moist,very loose to medium dense 19 N=13
4 3-3-6-8
� N=9
Grades to black at about 4 feet
5 14 2-3-3-2
�
N=6
N Cinders and ieces of debris at about 6 feet
� �.o p zaa.5+i- 22 WH-1-2-1
o SILTY SAND(SM�,trace gravel and rootlets,fine to medium grained, brown to N=3
c� Z black,wet,very loose
w �2 WH-1-1-1
a
a 10.0 285.5+/- N=2
w VARVED SILT AND CLAY(CL-ML),trace fine sand, brown, moist to wet,very soft �� 2-3-5-5
F to medium stiff 22 N=$
0
i
0
a
�
�
aW 15
Grades to gray at about 15 feet 1-1-2-3
� 24 N=3
a
�
0
¢
�
m
N 3 20 -
N Grades to wet at about 20 feet
N 24 WH/18"-2
�
m
J
>
0
� 25
� 24 WH-1-2-2
� N=3
a
�
�
0
w
c�
�
� 30.0 265.5+/- 30
O
a ,'�u: .��.
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM�,occasional cobbles,fine to medium grained, 17 4-18-50/4"
w
� 4 ��-��;�;31.3 ra y 264+/-
J g y,wet,ver dense
z Auger and Sampler Refusa/af 31.3 Feef
c�
�
0
�
0
�
LL
0
W
Q Stratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
�
¢
a
w
� Advancement Method: See for a Notes:
" 3 1/4"ID HSA description of field and laboratory procedures
� used and additional data(If any). WH=Weight of Hammer
J
Q
� See for explanation of u
o Abandonment Method: symbols and abbreviations.
� Boring backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
� Elevations were interpolated from a topographic
� WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
c� Boring Started:08-13-2019 Boring Completed:08-13-2019
Z No free waterobserved 1��rr�con
a
m Drill Rig:CME 45 Driller:S.Loiselle
� 594 Broadway
F Watervliet,NY Project No.:JB195195
BORING LOG NO. B-4 Pa e 1 of�
PROJECT: Proposed Mixed Use Building CLIENT: Roohan Realty
Saratoga Springs, New York
SITE: 267-269 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York
w 0 LOCATION See ^ ;O wa V � o
} ��
a U Latitude:43.0775°Longitude:-73.7866° � �Q ~ � �� w z
w a a w� � > �t7n Q�
a �
� � Approximate Surface Elev.:299(Ft.)+/- o �m Q � �� �O
DEPTH ELEVATION Ft.
O � �
FILL-SILTY SAND(SM�, pieces of brick,trace rootlets,fine to medium grained, 1-3-4-3
brown, moist,very loose to loose �$ N=7
6 1-1-1-1
N=2
1
5 2 WH-1/18"
�
� 10 1-1-1-1
� N=2
0
c�
F 9.0 290+/- 16 3-3-2-2
¢ ° POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL(SP),fine to medium grained,brown, � N=5
WZ . .'� wet, loose 10
Q o. 3-2-3-1
22
Q o.' 12.0 287+/- N=5
o� VARVED SILT AND CLAY(CL-ML),gray to brown,wet,very soft to soft 24 3-2-1-1
� N=3
a
�
�
~ Grades to gray 15
� 24 WH/12"-1-1 39
r N=1
�
0
a
�
m
rn
`° 20
N 3 24 WH/12"-1-2
� N=1
m
J
>
0
� 25
� 24 WH/12"-2-3
� N=2
a
�
�
0
w
c�
�
� 30.0 269+/ 30
O
W SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM�,occasional cobbles and boulders,fine to 2_�_�_�$
� medium grained,gray,wet, medium dense �$
Q 4 N=14
z
c�
� � '33.3 265.5+/-
O
� Auger and Sampler Refusa/af 33.3 Feef
0
�
LL
0
W
Q Stratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
�
¢
a
w
� Advancement Method: See for a Notes:
" 3 1/4"ID HSA description of field and laboratory procedures
� used and additional data(If any). WH=Weight of Hammer
J
Q
� See for explanation of u
o Abandonment Method: symbols and abbreviations.
� Boring backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
� Elevations were interpolated from a topographic
� WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
c� Boring Started:08-12-2019 Boring Completed:08-12-2019
� � 9.5 feet while drilling 1��rr�con
m Drill Rig:CME 45 Driller:S.Loiselle
� 594 Broadway
F Watervliet,NY Project No.:JB195195
BORING LOG NO. B-5 Pa e 1 of�
PROJECT: Proposed Mixed Use Building CLIENT: Roohan Realty
Saratoga Springs, New York
SITE: 267-269 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York
w 0 LOCATION See ^ ;O wa V � o
} ��
a U Latitude:43.0775°Longitude:-73.7875° � �Q ~ � �� w z
w a a w� � > �t7n Q�
a �
� � Approximate Surface Elev.:294.5(Ft.)+/- o �m Q � �� �O
DEPTH ELEVATION Ft.
O � �
SPHALT +
GGREGATE BASE COURSE +
FILL-POORLY GRADED SAND(SP�, pieces of brick,fine to medium grained, �g 2-5-5-4
brown, moist,very loose to medium dense N=10
1
19 4-2-3-4
N=5
5
�, s.o zaa.5+i- � 2-1-1-1
N VARVED SILT AND CLAY(CL-ML�,gray to brown,wet,very soft to medium stiff 22 N=2
�
� 24 2-1-2-2
W N=3
Q
� 10
W
Q 24 WH/18"-2 37
Q
0
i
0
a
�
�
� 15
� 3 24 WH/12"-1-2
r N=1
�
0
a
�
m
rn
`° 20
N 24 �-2-4-7
� N=6
m
J
J�J
>
0
0 25.5 269+/_ ZJ
J a ' SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM�,occasional cobbles and boulders,fine to 17 3-7-50/4"
� 26.5 268+/-
Q medium grained,gray,wet,very dense
u�, Sampler Refusa/af 26.5 Feef
0
�
�
�
0
w
�
J
Q
Z
�
�
0
�
0
�
LL
0
W
Q Stratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
�
¢
a
w
� Advancement Method: See for a Notes:
" 3 1/4"ID HSA description of field and laboratory procedures
� used and additional data(If any). WH=Weight of Hammer
J
Q
� See for explanation of u
o Abandonment Method: symbols and abbreviations.
� Boring backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
� Sealed with bituminous cold patch at surface. Elevations were interpolated from a topographic
� WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
c� Boring Started:08-08-2019 Boring Completed:08-08-2019
� � 5.5 feet while drilling 1��rr�con
m Drill Rig:CME 45 Driller:S.Loiselle
� 594 Broadway
F Watervliet,NY Project No.:JB195195
BORING LOG NO. B-6 Pa e 1 of�
PROJECT: Proposed Mixed Use Building CLIENT: Roohan Realty
Saratoga Springs, New York
SITE: 267-269 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York
w 0 LOCATION See ^ ;O wa V � o
} ��
a U Latitude:43.0774°Longitude:-73.7872° � �Q ~ � �� w z
w a a w� � > �t7n Q�
a �
� � Approximate Surface Elev.:295.5(Ft.)+/- o �m Q � �� �O
DEPTH ELEVATION Ft.
O � �
ASPHALT +
AVEMENT BASE +
� FILL-POORLY GRADED SAND(SP�,occasional cobbles,fine to medium 19 3-5-9-9
grained,orange to brown,moist, medium dense N=14
a.o 291.5+/- 22 6-6-9-9
° POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL(SP�,trace silt,fine to medium N=15
� Z '�o grained,tan,wet,very loose to loose 5
� 2� 3-2-1-2
� o. �.o zaa.5+i- N=3
�
o VARVED SILT AND CLAY(CL-ML�,trace fine sand, brown, moist to wet,very soft 2_2_2_3
c� to soft 24 N=4
w
Q
� 10
W WH-2-2-3
~ 24
� N=4
0
i
0
a
�
�
� 15
� 24 WH-1-2-2
r N=3
�
0 3
�
m
rn
`° 20
N 24 WH/12"-1-2
� N=1
m
J
>
0
� 25
° 24 1-1-1-5
� N=2
a
�
�
� 28.5 267+/-
w
c� a ^ . zs.o pROBABLE GLACIAL TILL-SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM),fine to medium Z66.5+/-
� grained,gray,very dense 0 50/0"
ao sample recovery at this depth
� Auger and Sampler Refusa/af 29 Feef
J
Q
Z
�
�
0
�
0
�
LL
0
W
Q Stratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
�
¢
a
w
� Advancement Method: See for a Notes:
" 3 1/4"ID HSA description of field and laboratory procedures
� used and additional data(If any). WH=Weight of Hammer
J
Q
� See for explanation of u
o Abandonment Method: symbols and abbreviations.
� Boring backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
� Sealed with bituminous cold patch at surface. Elevations were interpolated from a topographic
� WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
c� Boring Started:08-14-2019 Boring Completed:08-14-2019
� � 6.1 feet while drilling 1��rr�con
m Drill Rig:CME 45 Driller:S.Loiselle
� 594 Broadway
F Watervliet,NY Project No.:JB195195
BORING LOG NO. B-7 Pa e 1 of�
PROJECT: Proposed Mixed Use Building CLIENT: Roohan Realty
Saratoga Springs, New York
SITE: 267-269 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York
w 0 LOCATION See ^ ;O wa V � o
} ��
a U Latitude:43.0774°Longitude:-73.7869° � �Q ~ � �� w z
w a a w� � > �t7n Q�
a �
� � Approximate Surface Elev.:297(Ft.)+/- o �m Q � �� �O
DEPTH ELEVATION Ft.
O � �
FILL-SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM�, pieces of brick,trace slag,fine to 2-4-5-6
medium grained,brown,moist to wet, loose to medium dense 21 N=9
2� 4-4-4-4
N=8
1
5 19 3-4-7-4
�
N=11
� 11-11-10-9
o $o Grades to wet at about 7 feet 289+�_ 21 N=21
W SILTY SAND(SM�,fine grained, brown,wet, medium dense 3-4-4-3
Q z ' 21 N=8
a 10.0 287+/-
w VARVED SILT AND CLAY, brown, moist,very soft to medium stiff �� WH-1-2-4
~ 19
� N=3
0
i
0
a
�
�
� 15
� 24 2-3-4-4
r N=7
�
0
a
�
m
N 3 20 -
� Grades to gray banded silt and clay WH/12"-1-2
� 24 N=1
m
J
>
0
� 25
° 24 WH-1-2-3
� N=3
a
�
�
0
w
c�
�
� 30.0 267+/ 30
O
W ', � SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM�,occasional cobbles and boulders,fine to 4-5-4-7
� a "l�a. medium grained,gray, moist, loose to very dense 19 N=9
Q
z F 32.4 264.5+/- 0 50/0��
� Auger and Sampler Refusa/af 32.4 Feef
0
�
0
�
LL
0
W
Q Stratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
�
¢
a
w
� Advancement Method: See for a Notes:
" 3 1/4"ID HSA description of field and laboratory procedures
� used and additional data(If any). WH=Weight of Hammer
J
Q
� See for explanation of u
o Abandonment Method: symbols and abbreviations.
� Boring backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
� Elevations were interpolated from a topographic
� WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
c� Boring Started:08-08-2019 Boring Completed:08-08-2019
Z No free waterobserved 1��rr�con
a
m Drill Rig:CME 45 Driller:S.Loiselle
� 594 Broadway
F Watervliet,NY Project No.:JB195195
BORING LOG NO. B-8 Pa e 1 of�
PROJECT: Proposed Mixed Use Building CLIENT: Roohan Realty
Saratoga Springs, New York
SITE: 267-269 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York
w 0 LOCATION See ^ ;O wa V � o
} ��
a U Latitude:43.0773°Longitude:-73.7867° � �Q ~ � �� w z
w a a w� � > �t7n Q�
a �
� � Approximate Surface Elev.:302(Ft.)+/- o �m Q � �� �O
DEPTH ELEVATION Ft.
O � �
FILL-POORLY GRADED SAND(SP�, pieces of brick,trace rootlets,fine to 2-4-4-4
medium grained,brown,moist, loose 14 N-$
19 2-2-5-10
N=7
1
5 � 5-3-2-2
�
N=5
� 5 1-2-4-6
o a.o zsa+i- N=6
W POORLY GRADED SAND(SP�,fine to medium grained,orange to brown,moist 1-2-3-2
Q to wet,very loose to loose 21
N=5
w Grades to wet at about 10 feet 1� 3_z_z_Z
~ 19
Q N=4
o z :
0 22 z-1-2-4
Q N=3
�
�
� 15
a 16.0 286+�_ WH/12"-1-2
} VARVED SILT AND CLAY(CL-ML),gray,wet,very soft to soft 24 N=1
�
0
a
�
m
rn
`° 20
N 24 z-2-1-2
� N=3
m
J
� 3
O
� 25
� 24 WH-1-2-2
� N=3
a
�
�
0
w
c�
�
�
� 30
� 31.0 z��+i- 24 2-15-17-14
' SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM�,occasional cobbles and boulders,fine to N=32
z 4 �', '.' medium grained,gray,wet,dense to very dense
c� `.-,.,.:
� ��'%''.33.4 268.5+/-
� Auger and Sampler Refusa/af 33.4 Feef 0 50/0"
0
�
LL
0
W
Q Stratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
�
¢
a
w
� Advancement Method: See for a Notes:
" 3 1/4"ID HSA description of field and laboratory procedures
� used and additional data(If any). WH=Weight of Hammer
J
Q
� See for explanation of u
o Abandonment Method: symbols and abbreviations.
� Boring backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
� Sealed with bituminous cold patch at surface. Elevations were interpolated from a topographic
� WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
c� Boring Started:08-09-2019 Boring Completed:08-09-2019
Z No free waterobserved 1��rr�con
a
m Drill Rig:CME 45 Driller:S.Loiselle
� 594 Broadway
F Watervliet,NY Project No.:JB195195
=,�. _ x �"'
; `� ���
1
, ;.
- - . ,
� + �- , ��y,
� -
' .a��rp 169 A[dIDWA/
�; ��� �a--�a� 4
`� y-.;.�,--R+�-
_T-Y".._
« � +f
• f �
."' ,._.. ' —
` ' �n __ z .�.� --�.��.�„�T,_.<
— — �'� — _� — — ��" — —"— -- ---
. _.p
, , ..-:-
� �� � - - } _ Y r ` . ' _ � �
-w '1 - . � - .. -' — _ . .�.._ _�-� -. - - ------� � - --. --.
�f�J . . .. . -
�.1� �b .R�_�_ ��:1 .��� � � .a . i
� . . ,
� � ,
'..'x•• ,��� - -
��t .. -�-,�
.f'ri - ..._ - '- •-- - .._" ..�. .
`.� . �-- . ..w.�4...•.er.e^.. . i, . . . , _ .
I � � i
'_ � _.. .._ ._ �'.
� � �
-.:;`
^ .\.
� r
, .; ^* •-..- . �
_ .i_.. � r �. .�p . . �F�%� n. � � r '- ��� ,�i�1_\�. �
i ' �t.� �� ���.' � t
. .. � � �.•� `�yw� �•:
���p,'iC=` a;. N:_R ' �:-. ,_`.s,� , . . :� a ;
._ - �. .:�rf�
_ �
. 't �
� ��� -�:� �
Rock Core at B-2
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D422
U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 � 3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 $10 �416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200
100 �
95
90 10
85
80 20
75
70 30
65
60 40�
�, � m
x A
� c7 55 m
w z
�
� � 50 50 c�
ui m O
� � D
a z 45 �
m
w � �
F z 40 60�
o U 2
o W 35 �
� a x
� 30 70�
�
�
a 25
c�
>
� 20 80
0
¢
� 15
m
rn
N 10 90
rn
N
� CJ
m
0 1p
0 100 • 10 1 0.1 • 0.01 O.00T�
N
o GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
w
N
�
Z COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY
� coarse I fine coarse I medium I fine
0
�
� BORING ID DEPTH %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %FINES %CLAY USCS
N
� • B-2 3-5 0.0 12.9 79.7 7.4 SPSM
�
�
0
a
w
�
Z GRAIN SIZE • SOIL DESCRIPTION
o � Sieve %Finer Sieve %Finer Sieve %Finer � POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT
1" 100.0
o �ss 19.387 3/4" 94.6 (SP-SM)
� D 0.973 1/2" 91.29
0 60 3/8" 90.69
Q �so 0.687 1/4" 87.94
a �so 0.329 #4 87.05
a #10 80.63 REMARKS
� D�o 0.126 #40 36.26 •
LL #100 10.86
o COEFFICIENTS #200 7.37
> Cc I 0.88 I
o C� 7.70
W . _
�
a
�
W PROJECT: Proposed Mixed Use Building PROJECT NUMBER: JB195195
� � 1��rracon
0
� SITE: 267-269 Broadway 594 Broadway CLIENT: Roohan Realty
m Saratoga Springs, New York waterviiet,Nv Saratoga Springs, New York
Q
J
ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS
ASTM D4318
60
50
P
L
A O�
s 40
T O�
I
� G�
T 30 —
Y �
O
I
N 20 '�
D
E G� MH or OH
X �
10
� _
F _ CL-Mi ML r OL
o �
c�
Q 20 40 60 80 100
a LIQUID LIMIT
�
w
�
Q Boring ID Depth LL PL PI Fines USCS Description
0
o • B-2 3 - 5 NP NP NP 7.4 SP-SM POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT
U
Q
W m B-4 15 - 17 40 23 17 CL Lean Clay
�
a � B-5 10 - 12 37 23 14 CL Lean Clay
�
r
Q
�
0
Q
0
�
m
�
�
N
N
W
N
W
m
�
F
�
J
�
�
W
m
�
W
F
F
Q
F
�
0
a
w
�
J
Q
Z
�
�
0
�
0
�
LL
0
W
F
Q
�
Q
a
w
�
LL
0
J
Q
�
O IW
�
Q
�
W PROJECT: Proposed Mixed Use Building PROJECT NUMBER: JB195195
� � 1��rracon
0
� SITE: 267-269 Broadway 594 Broadway CLIENT: Roohan Realty
m Saratoga Springs, New York waterviiet,Nv Saratoga Springs, New York
Q
J
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Contents:
General Notes
Unified Soil Classification System
Description of Rock Properties
Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above
Responsive . Resourceful . Reliable
GENERAL NOTES l��rr�con
DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Proposed Office Building Saratoga Springs,NeW Yo�k GeoReport
Terracon Project No.JB205029
SAMPLING WATER LEVEL FIELD TESTS
N Standard Penetration Test
� Water Initially Resistance(Blows/Ft.)
Encountered
� Water Level After a (HP) Hand Penetrometer
�Rock Core �Split Spoon Specified Period of Time
� Water Level After (T) Torvane
a Specified Period of Time
Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs are (�CP) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
the levels measured in the borehole at the times
indicated. Groundwater level variations will occur uC Unconfined Compressive
over time. In low permeability soils, accurate Strength
determination of groundwater levels is not
possible with short term water level (PID) Photo-lonization Detector
observations.
(OVA) Organic Vapor Analyzer
DESCRIPTNE SOIL CLASSIFICATION 1
Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their
dry weight retained on a#200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils
have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic,
and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents
may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are
defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.
LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES I
�
Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The
accuracy of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/-indicates that no actual topographical
survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from
topographic maps of the area.
STRENGTH TERMS �
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
(More than 50%retained on No.200 sieve.) (50%or more passing the No.200 sieve.)
Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing,field visual-manual
procedures or standard penetration resistance
Descriptive Term Standard Penetration or Descriptive Term Unconfined Compressive Strength Standard Penetration or
(Density) N-Value (Consistency) Qu,(tsfl N-Value
Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft.
Very Loose 0-3 Very Soft less than 0.25 0-1
Loose 4-9 Soft 0.25 to 0.50 2-4
Medium Dense 10-29 Medium Stiff 0.50 to 1.00 4-8
Dense 30-50 Stiff 1.00 to 2.00 8-15
Very Dense >50 Very Stiff 2.00 to 4.00 15-30
Hard >4.00 >30
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES
Descriptive Term(s)of Percent of Descriptive Term(s)of Percent of
other constituents Dry Weight other constituents Dry Weight
Trace <15 Trace <5
With � 15-29 With � 5-12
Modifier >30 Modifier >12
GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION
Major Component of Sample Particle Size Term Plasticity Index
Boulders Over 12 in.(300 mm) Non-plastic 0
Cobbles 12 in.to 3 in.(300mm to 75mm) Low 1-10
Gravel 3 in.to#4 sieve(75mm to 4.75 mm) Medium 11-30
Sand #4 to#200 sieve(4.75mm to 0.075mm High >30
Silt or Clay Passing#200 sieve(0.075mm)
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 1��rr�con
GeoReport
Soil Classification �
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests Group Group Name
Symbol
Clean Gravels: Cu>_4 and 1 <_Cc<_3 GW Well-graded gravel _
M oe than 50%of Less than 5%fines Cu<4 and/or[Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] GP Poorly graded gravel"
coarse fraction Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel
retained on No.4 sieve Gravels with Fines —
Coarse-Grained Soils: More than 12%fines Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel
More than 50%retained - —
on No.200 sieve Clean Sands: Cu>_6 and 1 <_Cc<_3 SW Well-graded sand ,
Sands: Less than 5%fines Cu<6 and/or[Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] SP Poorly graded sand
50%or more of coarse _
fraction passes No.4 Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand
sieve Sands with Fines:
More than 12%fines Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand '�H��
PI>7 and plots on or above"A" CL Lean clay ` ^^
Inorganic:
Silts and Clays: PI<4 or plots below"A"line M� Silt
Liquid limit less than 50 Liquid limit-oven dried Organic clay '.�,^^,N
Fine-Grained Soils: Organic: <0.75 OL !,M,o
Liquid limit-not dried Organic silt
50%or more passes the - PI plots on or above"A"line CH Fat clay �
No.200 sieve Inorganic:
Silts and Clays: PI plots below"A"line MH Elastic Silt .,M
Liquid limit 50 or more Liquid limit-oven dried Organic clay `���m,P
Organic: <0.75 OH ,,,M,Q
Liquid limit-not dried Organic silt
Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter,dark in color,and organic odor PT Peat
Based on the material passing the 3-inch(75-mm)sieve. If fines are organic,add"with organic fines"to group name.
''If field sample contained cobbles or boulders,or both,add"with cobbles If soil contains>_15%gravel,add"with gravel"to group name.
or boulders,or both"to group name. 'If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area,soil is a CL-ML,silty clay.
`Gravels with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded �`t If soil contains 15 to 29%plus No.200,add"with sand"or"with
gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay,GP-GM poorly gravel,"whichever is predominant.
graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. o
''Sands with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded if soil contains>_30/o plus No.200 predominantly sand,add
sand with silt,SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded
"sandy"to group name.
sand with silt,SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay. If soil contains>_30%plus No.200, predominantly gravel,add
Z "gravelly"to group name.
(�30) PI>_4 and plots on or above"A"line.
''Cu=D6dD,o Cc= PI<4 or plots below"A"line.
D10 X D60 �PI plots on or above"A"line.
` If soil contains>_15%sand,add"with sand"to group name. PI plots below"A"line.
G If fines classify as CL-ML,use dual symbol GGGM,or SGSM.
6p � �
For classification of fine-grained
sails and fine-grained fraction
50 —of coarse-grained soils ,���et'f �\��
Equation of°A"-line �J, ��p�
� Horizontal at P1=4 to LL=25.5.
>C 40 — then PI=0.73(LL-20) ��
w oi
❑ Equation of"U"-line �
z Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7, G
� 30 then PI=0.9(LL-8� �`
U `� �O�'
, y
¢ 20 G
� MH or OH
�
10 I
4 __ GL- ML ML or OL
o �
0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT(LL)
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable
DESCRIPTION OF ROCK PROPERTIES l��rr�con
GevReport
WEATHERING
Term Description
Unweathered No visible sign of rock material weathering, perhaps slight discoloration on major discontinuity surfaces. �
Slightly Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and discontinuity surfaces. All the rock material may be
weathered discolored by weathering and may be somewhat weaker externally than in its fresh condition.
Moderately Less than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discolored rock is
weathered present either as a continuous framework or as corestones.
Highly More than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discolored rock is
weathered present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones.
Completely All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. The original mass structure is still largely intact.
weathered
Residual soil All rock material is converted to soil. The mass structure and material fabric are destroyed. There is a large �
change in volume, but the soil has not been significantly transported.
STRENGTH OR HARDNESS
Description Field Identification Uniaxial Compressive
Strength, psi (MPa)
Extremely weak Indented by thumbnail 40-150 (0.3-1) �
Very weak Crumbles under firm blows with point of geological hammer, can be 150-700 (1-5)
peeled by a pocket knife
Weak rock Can be peeled by a pocket knife with difficulty, shallow indentations 700-4,000 (5-30)
made by firm blow with point of geological hammer
Medium strong Cannot be scraped or peeled with a pocket knife,specimen can be 4,000-7,000 (30-50)
fractured with single firm blow of geological hammer
Strong rock Specimen requires more than one blow of geological hammer to 7,000-15,000 (50-100)
fracture it
Very strong Specimen requires many blows of geological hammer to fracture it 15,000-36,000 (100-250)
Extremely strong Specimen can only be chipped with geological hammer >36,000 (>250) i
DISCONTINUITY DESCRIPTION
Fracture Spacing(Joints, Faults, Other Fractures) Bedding Spacing(May Include Foliation or Banding)
Description Spacing Description Spacing
Extremely close <3/4 in (<19 mm) Laminated <'h in (<12 mm)
Very close 3/4 in—2-1/2 in (19-60 mm) Very thin 'h in—2 in (12—50 mm)
i Close 2-1/2 in—8 in (60—200 mm) Thin 2 in— 1 ft. (50—300 mm)
Moderate 8 in—2 ft. (200—600 mm) Medium 1 ft.—3 ft. (300—900 mm)
Wide 2 ft.—6 ft. (600 mm—2.0 m) Thick 3 ft.—10 ft. (900 mm—3 m)
Very Wide 6 ft.—20 ft. (2.0—6 m) Massive i > 10 ft. (3 m)
Discontinuitv Orientation (Anale): Measure the angle of discontinuity relative to a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the
core. (For most cases, the core axis is vertical; therefore,the plane perpendicular to the core axis is horizontal.)For example, a
horizontal bedding plane would have a 0-degree angle.
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD)
Description RQD Value(%)
Very Poor 0-25
Poor 25—50
Fair 50—75
Good 75—90
Excellent 90- 100
" The combined length of all sound and intact core segments equal to or greater than 4 inches in length,expressed as a
percentage of the total core run length.
Reference: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No FHWA-NHI-10-034, December 2009
Technical Manual for Desiqn and Construction of Road Tunnels—Civil Elements