HomeMy WebLinkAbout202401018 NYS Route 29 Prime Station Lane Site Plan Geotechnical EvalutationFoundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
STATION PARK
STATION LANE, SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Prepared for
Top Capita/ of New York
Jai es M. Baker, P. .
President
August 2017
4308.0
46A Sager Drive, Rochester, NY 14607 • Tel: 585 458-0824 • Fax: 585 458-3323 • foundationdesignpc.com
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Station Park project consists of two, four story apartment buildings, a five
story hotel, two large, two story senior/assisted living buildings with retail space,
four single story residential units, a single story retail building, and a single story
pool/fitness center. Paved parking, utilities, and ponds are also part of the
overall development. The residential structures will be wood -framed and have a
slab on grade, with the hotel being steel framed and having a slab on grade.
Building loads are not yet known. Finished floor elevations are generally
expected to be within a few feet of existing grade.
The wooded site is generally flat with elevations rising a couple feet from south
to north and includes some wetlands to the north-east. Soils consist of topsoil
over silty sands with intermittent clay layers. Glacial till over intact bedrock was
found at variable depths/elevations across the parcel.
We wish to emphasize the following major items:
• The native soils are generally loose and remain so until bedrock or glacial
till were reached between 40 to 100 feet below current grades.
• Structural design parameters: bearing pressure, seismic criteria, and slab
design modulus; are low due to the loose sands. This may conflict with
the loads of the heavier structures. A deep foundation system will be
required to support associated heavier design loads.
• High groundwater in the permeable sands can limit potential basement
depths/elevations.
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Site Conditions.......................................................................................................................2
3.0 Exploration and Testing.............................................................................................. 2
4.0 Soil, Bedrock, and Groundwater Conditions.................................................................. 4
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................. 7
5.1 Site Preparation............................................................................................... 7
5.2 Structural Fill Placement................................................................................... 7
5.3 Foundation Recommendations.......................................................................... 9
5.4 Lateral Loads................................................................................................... 10
5.5 Seismic Design Criteria..................................................................................... 10
5.6 Floor Subgrade Preparation............................................................................... 11
5.7 Pavement Design Conditions............................................................................. 12
5.8 Trenching and Excavating................................................................................. 13
5.9 Groundwater Control........................................................................................ 13
5.10 Geotechnical Construction Services.................................................................... 14
6.0 Closure...................................................................................................................... 15
Appendices...............................................................................At back
Appendix A General Location Plan
Boring and Test Pit Location Plan
Appendix B Foundation Design, P.C. Boring and Test Pits Logs
Appendix C Foundation Design, P.C. Laboratory Report
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
STATION PARK
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes our Geotechnical Evaluation for the Station Park project in
Saratoga Springs, New York. We base this evaluation on our review of U.S.G.S.
topographic and geologic mapping; Saratoga Associates preliminary site plans;
boring and test pit exploration; well and infiltration readings; laboratory testing;
and consultation with the design team. We intend this report for use exclusively
on this project.
Top Capital of New York retained Foundation Design, P.C. to provide the services
outlined in our June 20, 2017 Proposal for Geotechn/cal Services, P3857.0. These
services included coordinating and executing the exploration program, laboratory
testing of typical soil samples, installation of infiltration wells, and evaluation of
the results. This report outlines our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
We provide foundation system recommendations including allowable bearing
pressures, settlement estimates, and frost depths. We address site preparation,
bedrock conditions, infiltration results, compaction standards, floor subgrade
preparation, seismic design criteria (including site classification), water control,
and pavement design criteria.
Attached to the end of this text is a Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
paper entitled 'Important Information about your Geotechn/cal Engineering
Report"that you should read. It describes how we intend this report to be used
Station Park August 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Page 1 of 15 4308.0
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
and discusses risks and risk allocation. We will continue to work cooperatively
with you and other interested parties to achieve win/win solutions that benefit all.
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS
The project will be a multi -use facility located south of Station Lane in Saratoga
Springs, New York, The Saratoga Springs Railroad Station lies to the west, with
train tracks forming the western border. Washington Street forms the southern
boundary, with Station Lane forming the north. To the east of the site are wooded
areas with medium tree growth, similar to the site conditions. A Genera/ Location
Plan, adapted from USGS topographic mapping, is in Appendix A.
The site was overgrown during our exploration. Numerous trees in various stages
of growth and brush cover most of the site. The site surface was dry while we
were onsite. The parcel appears to have had no development over the years.
Numerous dilapidated tents and garbage is visible on the surface from people
currently and previously living on the parcel. Some minor surface dumping of
debris has occurred over the years. Overall, grade slightly drops from north-west
to south-east.
3.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING
The exploration program was developed to reflect an earlier site concept. It
included borings B17-1 through 1317-17. Nothnagle Drilling provided a CME-55LC
ATV drill rig for the boring work from July 17 to July 21, 2017. Our staff logged
the test pits and collected representative samples. The drillers advanced the
borings using hollow stem auger casings, recovering SPT soil samples using a
split -spoon sampler. They recovered soil samples continuously to six feet and at
five-foot intervals thereafter to completion at 20.0 feet to 98.1 feet below the
surface.
Station Park AligUst 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Pagc 2 of 15 4308.0
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
We observed test pits TP17-1 through TP17-19 on July 18th and July 19th, 2017.
W.D. Morris provided a CAT 312B excavator for the excavation work. The test pits
extended five feet to twelve feet below the ground surface. Our staff logged the
soil profiles. Survey Associates, LLC provided staked locations and elevations at
the test pits and borings. Boring and test pit locations are shown on the Boring
and Test Pit Location Plan in Appendix A. The boring and test pit logs are in
Appendix B.
We performed eight NYS DEC Stormwater Infiltration tests in accordance with
Appendix D of the Stormwater Design Manual at locations IT17-1 to IT17-8. At
each location, we installed a 4-inch diameter solid, thin -walled PVC pipe inside an
augured/excavated hole, twisting the pipe into the subsoil to form a seal after
removing any loose, disturbed soil. We placed two -inches of stone inside the pipe
and surrounded the pipe bottom with 2 to 4 inches of bentonite. The holes were
pre-soaked 24-hours prior to the formal testing. Water infiltration occurred over a
one -hour period at all locations. Table 1 below shows the average rate of each
hole losing two feet of water over each four-hour cycle.
Table 1: Infiltration Well Results (24" Drop)
Test
Location
Surface
Elevation
Bottom
Elevation
Time 1
Min.
Time 2
Min.
Time 3
Min.
Time 4
Min.
Average
Min.
IT17-1
327.3
322.3
30
35
39
45
37.3
IT17-2
326.0
321.2
15
19
22
37
23.3
IT17-3
324.8
319.5
24
23
35
40
30.5
IT17-4
322.4
317.4
60+
60+
60+
60+
60+
IT17-5
328.3
323.7
26
29
45
53
38.3
IT17-6
324.7
319.9
5.4
6.5
8.3
8.5
7.2
IT17-7
322.0
317.7
12
14
14
14
13.5
IT17-8
321.8
317.0
12
16
18
18
16.0
Station Park August 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Page 3 of 15 4308.0
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
A groundwater observation well was installed at test borings B17-4 and B17-8.
We encountered wet to saturated soil around elevation 318.9 while drilling these
borings. We measured the water table in the observation wells at the elevations
tabulated below. Recognize that the water table may vary several feet seasonally
and will be higher during/after the winter thaws and heavy rains. Lastly, based on
the earlier design concept, we did not have any wells at the hotel. Groundwater
at these test pits was noted between elevation 318.5 (wet soils at TP17-2) and
315 (saturated sols at TP17-3).
Table No. 2 — Groundwater Levels
Boring Number
Surface
Elevation
07.19.2017
07.20.2017
07.21.2017
B17-4
328.4
320.4
320.3
320.2
B17-8
320.9
-
-
318.1
We selected soil samples for laboratory analyses. We performed six sieve
analyses, six Liquid/Plastic Limits (Atterberg Limits) tests and fourteen moisture
content tests. We discuss the test results in Section 4.0 below. The laboratory
report is in Appendix C.
4.0 SOIL, BEDROCK, AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
We base the following interpretations of the soil, bedrock, and groundwater
conditions on the widely spaced borings and test pits and our site observations.
See the boring and test pit logs in Appendix B for soil descriptions at the test
locations. Variations from the inferred profile are possible. Call us at once if such
variations are found during construction so we can assess impacts on our
recommendations, plans, and specifications.
We encountered a soil profile consisting of topsoil over silty sand with intermittent
layers of clay, then glacial till and bedrock. The topsoil thickness as measured at
Station Park August 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Page 4 of 15 4308.0
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
the test pit and boring locations ranged from three to thirty-six inches, averaging
twelve inches. With the tree growth, the topsoil contains numerous roots.
The underlying soil is a loose to firm silty sand. The sand was visually classified as
a SP-SM on the Unified Soil Classification System, with moisture contents of 5.4 to
26.5 percent. These moisture contents are expected to be moderately above
optimum moisture for compaction. The intermittent clay layers ranged from very
soft to medium and classified as CL on the Unified Soil Classification System, with
moistures of 23.0 to 56.4 percent. The layers were found at varying depths and
variable thicknesses throughout the site. At B17-8, the clay was classified as a CH,
an expansive clay with a moisture content of 49.6 percent. This clay layer was
below elevation 305 and will probably not be impacted by the project.
At the deeper borings, (B17-3, B17-8, B17-10), we encountered a compact to
dense glacial till material consisting of silt and sand with little gravel. Beneath the
till at B17-8, B17-9 and B17-17 we encountered bedrock consisting of shale.
Bedrock is identified as the Mount Merino and Indian River Formations. This
formation consists of shales and slates that would require mechanical fracturing or
blasting to excavate. Bedrock was observed on the east and south sides of the site
with bedrock elevations dropping in a south-west direction. We believe the site
consists of a bedrock ledge due to the sudden drop in elevation from a depth of
34 feet at B17-8 to almost 100 feet being discovered at B17-3.
Groundwater was encountered in a few of the test pits and all of the borings,
generally six to twelve feet below the surface (at elevations between 310 and
320). The groundwater table will fluctuate a few feet with seasonal and climatic
changes. The table below indicates the groundwater and bedrock depths of the
borings. We expect that the well data, which allowed groundwater to stabilize,
are likely most accurate.
Station Park August 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Page 5 of 15 4308.0
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
Table No. 3 - Groundwater and Bedrock Elevations
Boring
Elevation
Water
Depth
Water Elevation
Rod< Depth
Rod< Elevation
B17-2
320.8
2'
318.8
--
B17-3
329.8
10'
319.8
Possibly 987'
221.8
B17-4
327.4
7.4'
320.3
--
--
B17-5
320.5
7'
313.5
-
--
B17-6
323.0
7'
316
-
B17-7
322.0
6'
316
--
--
B17-8
320.9
2.8'
318.1
34'
286.9
B17-9
323.5
6'
317.5
39'
284.5
B17-10
329.5
8'
321.5
--
--
B17-11
326.0
11.5'
314.5
--
-
B17-12
320.6
6'
314.6
--
-
B17-13
320.2
6'
314.2
--
--
B17-14
320.3
9'
311.3
--
--
B17-15
326.0
11.5'
314.5
--
B17-16
324.4
13'
311.4
--
--
B17-17
323.5
9'
314.5
49'
247.5
TP17-1
331.0
-
-
-
-
TP17-2
324.5
-
-
-
TP17-3
324.0
-
-
-
TP17-4
323.0
7.5'
315.5
-
TP17-5
324.0
7'
317
-
-
TP17-6
323.7
8'
315.7
-
-
TP17-7
324.7
7'
317.7
-
-
TP17-8
323.0
6'
317
-
-
TP17-9
322.6
6.5'
316
-
-
TP17-10
320.8
4'
316.8
-
-
TP17-11
326.3
.11'
315.3
-
TP17-12
322.7
8'
314.7
-
TP17-13
326.2
-
-
-
TP17-14
326.7
-
-
-
TP17-15
320.8
6'
314.8
-
TP17-16
322.2
6'
316.2
-
TP17-17
325.9
-
-
TP17-18
327.1
-
-
-
TP17-19
321.5
5'
316.5
Station Park August 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Page 6 of 15 4308.0
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The major issue we foresee with the proposed construction is the loose silty sand
under the hotel and residential buildings and the intention of underground parking
for both. The underground parking would increase structural system loads
drastically and will probably lead to the use of piles or other premium
soil/foundation systems.
A second issue will be the elevation of underground parking garage in relation to
the water table. With water levels being fairly high and sands fairly permeable, it
may not be feasible to readily construct the underground parking or keep it dry
long-term if set below the water table. Set the elevation(s) appropriately.
Based on this background, we offer the following specific recommendations:
5.1 Site Preparation
Clear, grub, and strip topsoil/sands with organics from the building,
pavement, and other structural areas. Stockpile topsoil required for final
grading; remove the excess topsoil from the site or waste it in berms or
landscaped areas. For estimating purposes, use a topsoil depth of twelve
inches.
The geotechnical engineer should observe proof -rolling of the building and
pavement subgrade prior to new fill placement. The contractor should
provide a loaded ten -wheel truck or similar heavy construction equipment
for the proof -rolling. Rework or replace areas that rut, weave, quake, or
are otherwise deemed unsuitable.
5.2 Structural Fill Placement
The on -site natural soils are suitable for use as structural fill, provided they
are free of organics, topsoil and debris. Typical samples consist of silty
Station Park August 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Page 7 of 15 4308.0
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
sand. These soils are slightly wet of optimum, and may require
aerating/drying for proper compaction. Ideally, place and compact these
soils only during the dry summer months after the seasonal groundwater
table has dropped, typically July through September. Earlier starts and
later conclusions to mass earthwork will be weather dependent. Expect to
find silts and clays at deeper elevations. Submit imported material sources
to the geotechnical engineer for approval on a case by case basis. Maintain
good surface drainage.
With building grades currently unknown, additional soils may be needed to
reach design building grades. If needed to balance the site, or facilitate
mass earthwork during wetter times of the year, use an imported granular
material similar in gradation to N.Y.S.D.O.T. Items 304.12 (crusher -run
stone). If needed for earthwork balancing, we suggest using this higher
quality N.Y.S.D.O.T. item material for fills in the building footprint and using
the on -site soil in the parking lots and roads. Submit all imported material
sources to the geotechnical engineer for review on a case by case basis. In
order to limit perching of surface water in backfill material we recommend
using one type of material in a given building/parking area/portion of the
site.
We define structural fill as new fill placed under and around footings, floor
slabs, sidewalks, and pavements. Moisture condition structural fill to within
two percent of optimum moisture for compaction. Compact structural fill to
at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by the Modified
Proctor method, ASTM D-1557. Compact other fill to at least 90 percent of
Modified Proctor or as otherwise determined by the site engineer. Place fill
in lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness.
Station Park August 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Page 8 of 15 4308.0
6 Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
5.3 Foundation Recommendations
As a result of the loose sands, spread footing design loads must be limited
as shown below:
Table No. 4- Spread Footing Design Loads
Building Letter
Use of Building
Max footing load (kip)
A
Hotel
100
B, C
Senior Housing
100
D
Residential and Retail
200
E
Residential and Retail
100
G, H, I
Pool, Spa, Residential
100
F, J, K
2-Unit residence, retail
30
Under these conditions, support the structures on spread footing
foundation systems bearing on undisturbed native soil or acceptable
structural fill. Design footings bearing at least two feet below the floor slab
based on a net new allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 psf. Exterior
footings should bear at least four feet below exterior grade for frost
protection. Interior footings may bear at two feet below finished floor in
the buildings. Design footings to be at least two feet square or wide.
Analyze load bearing haunches that are 18" wide and bear 12" below the
slab based on an allowable bearing pressure of 1000 psf.
Hand clean loose or disturbed soil from the footing excavations. Soils
loosened during excavation should be removed, NOT recompacted in -
place. We recommend excavating footings with a smooth edge bucket to
limit disturbance of the bearing surface. At these depths and pressures, we
estimate the total settlement at one inch. The structural engineer should
Station Park August 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Page 9 of 15 4308.0
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL• BEDROCK• GROUNDWATER
review this settlement to determine if this is tolerable for these types of
structures.
We conclude structures with heavier design loads will require piles or other
premium foundation systems. With the loads currently undefined, the pile
type/size will have to be determined at a later date. Also, with the
alterations to the site layout, we did not conduct borings close enough to
the new hotel location or Building E to have an accurate depth to the
bedrock or dense glacial till. Assume the piles will penetrate at least five
feet into the dense to very dense glacial till or bedrock. This is likely
between 50 feet to 70 feet below existing grade. Lastly, other specialty pile
types are technically feasible. We can review alternative submittals.
5.4 Lateral Loads
Design the underground parking garages or basements as retaining walls.
The pressure distribution may be taken as triangular and equivalent to a
fluid with a specified weight. Design walls based on active, passive and at -
rest earth pressures tabulated below. Use a sliding coefficient between the
concrete and native sand of 0.35.
Table No. 5 — Lateral Earth Pressures
Backfill
Material
Internal
Friction
Ka
Kp
Ko
Active
Pressure
Passive
Pressure
At Rest
Pressure
Silty Sand
30
0.33
3.00
0.50
40
360
60
NYSDOT Item 304.14
36
0.26
3.85
0.41
38
560
660
5.5 Seismic Design Criteria
The NYS Building Code identifies required seismic design criteria. We
identify the soil profile as a Site Classification of E (Soft Soil). Based on the
Station Park August 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Page 10 of 15 4308.0
j Foundation
® Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
2015 Building Code guidelines, we recommend using the following seismic
design parameters.
Table No. 6 — Seismic Design Parameters
Class E
Spectral Response
Acceleration
Soil
Factors
Design Spectral Response
Acceleration
SS
S1
SMS
SMl
SDs
SD1
0.211g
I 0.076g
0.528g
0.352q
0.178
With the site consisting of loose sands with trace fines, we conducted a
liquification analysis across the site. We compared the locations of B17-3,
where bedrock was 98 feet below grade and B17-17, where bedrock was
49 feet below grade. Using a PGA of .132 and a mean average earthquake
magnitude of 4.9, we calculated the following results in Table 7.
Table No. 7 — Li uification Analysis
Boring
Soil
Settlement
Inches
Differential
Settlement
Inches
Lowest
Factor of Safety
B17-3
.7
.3 -.5
1.3
B17-17
.7
.3 -.5
1.4
We conclude that structural failure due to liquefaction will not occur.
Modest settlement from consolidation will. Expect the settlement to occur
immediately at the time of the earthquake for each building. This
settlement is in addition to the settlement of the soils from the traditional
building structural load.
5.6 Floor Subgrade Preparation
Place six inches of granular material, similar to N.Y.S.D.O.T. Item 304.12
(No. 1 crusher -run stone), beneath the slabs -on -grade. Proof -roll the floor
subgrade prior to placing the granular base course. Rework or replace
areas that rut, weave, quake, or are otherwise deemed unsatisfactory.
Station Park August 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Page 11 of 15 4308.0
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
Compact the base course to the structural standards outlined above. Call
our office if the subgrade cannot be stabilized prior to subbase placement.
Design the slab based on a Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of 100 psi/in at
the bottom of slab/top of stone. The architect and/or structural engineer
should review the proposed interior finishes and humidity control
requirements to determine whether a vapor barrier is appropriate under the
slab and if so, where it should be installed. See the American Concrete
Institute Document 302.1R, "Concrete Floor and Slab Construction", for
more information.
5.7 Pavement Design Considerations
Assuming the site grades do not change drastically, the pavement subgrade
will be the native silty sand. Cut the pavements, to grade, recompact the
top eight inches to the structural standards outlined in 5.2, and proof -roll
the subgrade under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer. Areas
that rut, weave, quake or are otherwise deemed unsuitable should be
recompacted or replaced.
Design pavements for a moderately frost susceptible soil. We recommend
grading the pavement slopes to at least 1.5 and preferably 2.0 percent.
Install the pavement section tabulated below:
Table No. 8 — Standard Pavement Section
1.5"
Asphalt Topcoat
NYSDOT Item 403.178902
2.5"
Asphalt Binder
NYSDOT Item 403.138902
12.0"
Crusher Run Stone Subbase
NYSDOT Item 304.12
Stabilized Subgrade
Approved Proof Roll
Note that the subbase will not hold up to the rigors of construction traffic
without being cleaned up or replaced prior to paving. Also, if heavy tractor
trailer or other large vehicles are planned to travel the new roadways
Station Park August 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Page 12 or 15 4308.0
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
regularly, we suggest adding a three-inch layer of asphalt base. The base
layer would make the roadway less susceptible to damage from the heavier
loads of the tractor trailers.
Our experience has been that asphalt pavements do not perform well in
loading docks or dumpster areas where the repeated tire traffic ruts the
pavement. We suggest you install a concrete/rigid apron for the
pavements in front of truck docks and under and in front of any dumpsters.
5.8 Trenching and Excavating
Perform trenching and excavating work in accordance with the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements and
New York State Building Code Standards. The contractor is responsible for
determining the measures required in meeting these standards. Cut
unsupported temporary excavations to a stable slope, but in no case
steeper than 1 horizontal on 1 vertical.
5.9 Groundwater Control
The site work should be staged such that positive drainage is maintained at
all times. With groundwater potentially within feet of the bottom of the
buildings, water can be controlled with drainage ditches and sumps/pumps
(during construction) and appropriate grading (long-term). Water that
collects in excavations can be significant in volume and should be removed
immediately. See the test pit logs for the depth/elevation where trenches
collapsed as the soils flowed into the excavation. Set permanent features
such as the basements well above those values.
Station Park August 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Page 13 of 15 4308.0
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
5.10 Geotechnical Construction Services
The NYS Building Code requires special inspection services. As the
Geotechnical Engineer of Record, we recommend the following inspections
and ask that you include them on your List of Special Inspections
developed as part of the Building Permitting Process:
• We recommend that the owner retain an independent test agency to
perform full-time observation of mass fill placement over twelve
inches in thickness; backfill can be tested on an occasional basis.
The test agency should submit, to both our office and the structural
engineer, a letter certifying the work was performed in accordance
with this report. This letter should contain a copy of the soils -related
test reports. Specific testing requirements follow:
A. Conduct at least one density test on each 2,500 square feet
of mass fill placed under floor slabs and sidewalks with at
least two tests for each full and partial lift.
B. Conduct at least one density test per 50 lineal feet of
foundation backfill and utility trench backfill on alternating
lifts.
C. Place fill in lifts not to exceed eight inches in loose thickness.
D. Compact structural fill to at least 95 percent of the maximum
dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Test
(ASTM D-1557).
E. Compact other fill to 90 percent of Modified Proctor or as
otherwise determined by the site engineer.
• As the Geotechnical Engineer, we recommend that Foundation
Design, P.C. make site visits during construction work to observe the
contractor's means and methods, confirm the conditions are as
expected, and provide recommendations where conditions differ
from those expected. Specifically, we should observe the following:
A. Observe proof -roll of the building and pavement subgrade
prior to new fill placement.
Station Park August 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Page 14 of 15 4308.0
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
B. Observe the installations of the piles or specialty foundations
for the heavier loaded buildings to ensure bearing on the
dense till or bedrock.
C. Review soil/subbase material submittals. Spot-check
structural fill placement. Consult on compaction -related
issues that arise.
D. Spot-check the footing excavations to verify the allowable
bearing pressure.
E. Consult on soils -related aspects of the project.
6.0 CLOSURE
This concludes our formal evaluation. Forward a copy of the near final plans and
specifications for our review/comment. We appreciate the opportunity to help you
work through the subsurface issues herein and we look forward to hearing from
you as the project proceeds to construction.
Station Park August 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York Page 15 or 15 4308.0
(-- Geotechnical-Engineering Report ---)
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the
specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering
study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of
a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study
is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique,
prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on
this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring
with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
— not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or
project except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on
a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do
not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected
elements only.
Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on
a Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project -specific
factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors
include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk -management
preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its
size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the
site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless
the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically
indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report that was:
• not prepared for you;
• not prepared for your project;
• not prepared for the specific site explored; or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing
geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed
from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light -
industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight
of the proposed structure;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer
of project changes —even minor ones —and request an
assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot
accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because
their reports do not consider developments of which they were
not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that
existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the
study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose
adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;
man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the
site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes,
or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer
before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A
minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory
data and then apply their professional judgment to render
an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes
significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining
the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to
provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most
effective method of managing the risks associated with
unanticipated conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the confirmation -dependent
recommendations included in your report. Confirmation -
dependent recommendations are not final, because
geotechnical engineers develop them principally from
judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize
their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume
responsibility or liability for the report's confirmation -dependent
recommendations if that engineer does not perform the
geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the
recommendations' applicability.
A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject
to Misinterpretation
Other design -team members' misinterpretation of
geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly
problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical
engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team
after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical
engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's
plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret
a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and
preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical
construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs
based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn
for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only
photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but
recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they
can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface
conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.
To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with
a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise
constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes
of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited;
encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer
who prepared the report (a modest fee maybe required) and/
or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of
information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also
be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform
additional study. Only then might you be in a position to
give constructors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to
recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding
has created unrealistic expectations that have led to
disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include
a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes
labeled "limitations; many of these provisions indicate where
geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read
these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform
an environmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-
engineering report does not usually relate any environmental
findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about
the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks
or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental
problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not
yet obtained your own environmental information,
ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal
with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,
construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent
significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.
To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for
the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a
comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a
professional mold -prevention consultant. Because just a small
amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of
severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies
focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater,
water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed
as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in
charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;
none of the services performed in connection with the
geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for
the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the
recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be
sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure
involved.
Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer
for Additional Assistance
Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the
Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk -confrontation techniques
that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with
a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member
geotechnical engineer for more information.
GEOTECHNICAL
SANCMBUSINESS COUNCIL
of&e Geopmf...W Busin.A."W on
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017
e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part,
by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document
is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use
this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without
being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
APPENDIX A
General Location Plan
Boring and Test Pit Location Plan
Foundation
Design, P.C.
46A Sager Drive
Rochester, New York 14607
Phone (585) 458-0824
FAX (585) 458-3323
Station Park
Station Park Saratoga Springs New York
General Location Plan
Adapted from: U.S.G.S Topographic Mapping
Saratoga Springs Quadrangle
CHECKED BY: JMB
DRAWN BY: TJB
Scale 1"= 2000'
DATE: 07-11-17
JOB No.: 4308.0
/ BOOK 1720 OF DEEDS, PAGE 602 16Dttv�{• - P
Ji
I — f — 1 N BOOK 460E 2p10m1464a9f e6oq itl 7 Wj
�-- A..oT ,§£-• :Ell' . "j1' 07
7 S6B ryoo8 I /p sP"
' spa iG
N,YS DEC WETLAND — — — — — — — —
`INS oY- _ ROAD - 0
-g-TP17-19- e m--- o FUTURE _ f y
0I:- — -sowo '37317-10 I
N
4+ 3 B 17-9 - /
ae0 10 6661
sPOTI a 817-822
I
1{ R PARKING (46 ScACES) /
/817-6 {� 11. M1S 1ST FLOO
R UPLAND
\ \ r rS / �'r Z 24 / U.
d /
11 i• / 2STORY Z W Q 10 f/ 1ST FLOORRETAIL IS1 o6G SF)
-I. I
CO vJETL� r� / 2STORY C ROOF DECK w N N Z 2N,.,,RD.4TNFLOORS RESIDENTIAL �RAIV�
m3 Yw�eC' rt' /"\ ROOF DECK O Q I _NTIALUNITS �`�817-11
I �, — Y( NYS SEC w i AREA tom•• ED
O ch -j vs v:
NDERDR n. G ��.. ,DD• ADJADE /-I17-11 ,4 _ B17-12 _
TIDTES K O I ^y '€ GARDEN / 1ST FLOOR ENTRY SIGN ff
EF.
NT "v Ya`_ .}l ■ l 1 i / RETAIL
UY I B 17
[A L/
.EC., C�AS N� M 'Y, t'-'�-.i�'y L
IOE i ST I E , M ,� 1ST FLCOR B 17-14 B!ORETENTI N AREA -"s8x w HmM 1 1
9 / \ / \ r F:ten SIGN 5 el c r 5 yp�
L I - RFTALI B17-15 S P BIOft 7ENTlONARFA _ St TP17-1
BASIN
' TP 17-18 STA -- ` ` �� I 17-8 r 4 SIGN
I ` I.YFP_TRATION / f !
TION
"' ;I I INTEWET,NE `� 5 IORBIENT104%� �- ti. III I
NTIAL UNITS
mB17-1 —� , Ems- G�6RESIflE ro�SF) z
1 O 1' Sl l 8 1 VS S ELTER V 21.p 3RD.�N F OORS RES1B-i 'TP 17-14
I17-2' '
PB17-5 SEA TP17-15 II
" o
,SON II STATIONS TP17-17
2E > O
C- - - TP17-1- ' m I 1 -4 #LF YSIGN 817-4 # SIGN LAWN 8 P17-12pRPARKIN6(49^oerE51 O P17-2
D' TP17-13
3 15REIM
O■ ` I 1 7� hLU I ��
L-.. w .STONE PIER DO I r
65TORY
/ a 117-3 1�- N 2STORY 46 R' II I g P N r ROOF DECK ur_weT APPROX•
�10 B17-2 �O Z z 26TORY TP17-10
6 I
ytP � N Z ROOF DECK eH�weV
_ 34 SPACES I I
TP17-9 a ' UNDER- i
Z Z-1O I ' I !F: 4 f' `,
/ C, POOusPAjFITNESS /B 17-17 ` `•
GROUND
RAIN I a m ;GARDEN 7 0 RAIN rtTP17-3n J � GARDEN z _ 1
I�
- B17-16 ' 1 I17-5
RAIN I17-4
o Aa_a
CROSSWALK
EDGE
` W R / 1 I TP 17
s �
--TP17-11- I17-7�TELPOO '
� \V`r
Ip ]..1
O INFILTRATjON �
6uNTP17-5 BASIN�i
RI_10 ®oQ0 >F rI17-6/-1 TP17
a,_„E, -
o
OCKET
4 UNITS PARK
3
y;� J4S�s'F TP17-6 II 1
- -9~ - = TP17-7
�FUTUMPOTENTUML I
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
APPENDIX B
Foundation Design, P.C. Boring and Test Pit Logs
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
COHESIVE SOIL
Very fine grained soils. Plastic soils that
can be rolled into a thin thread if moist.
Clays and silty clays show cohesion.
DESCRIPTION STP —SLOWS/FOOT
VerySoft
0-2
Soft
3-5
Medium
6-15
Stiff
16-25
Hard
26 or more
NON -COHESIVE SOIL
Soils composed of silt, sand and gravel, showing no
cohesion or very slight cohesion
DESCRIPTION
STP —SLOWS/FOOT
Loose
0-10
Firm
11-25
Compact
26-40
Dense
41-50
Very Dense
51 or more
SOIL COMPOSITION DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE
and 50
some 30-49
little 11-29
trace 0-10
MOISTURE CONDITIONS Dry, Damp, Moist, Wet, Saturated
Groundwater measured in the boring or test pit may not have reached equilibrium
SOIL STRATA: TERM DESCRIPTION
layer Soil deposit more than 6" thick
seam Soil deposit less than 6" thick
parting Soil deposit less than 1/8" thick
varved Horizontal uniform layers or seams of soil
GRAIN SIZE
MATERIAL SIEVE SIZE
Boulder
Larger than 12 inches
Cobble
3 inches to 12 inches
Gravel
- coarse
1 inch to 3 inches
- medium
3/8 inch to 1 inch
- fine
No. 4 to 3/8 inch
Sand
- coarse
No. 10 to No. 4
- medium
No. 40 to No. 10
- fine
No. 200 to No. 40
Silt and
Clay
Less than No. 200
Standard Penetration Test: The number of blows required to drive a split spoon sampler into the soil with a 140
pound hammer dropped 30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6-inches of
penetration is recorded. The total number of blows required for the second and third 6-
inches of penetration is termed the penetration resistance, or the "N" value.
Split Spoon Sampler: Typically a 2-foot long, 2-inch diameter hollow steel tube that breaks apart or splits in two
down the tube length.
Refusal: Depth in the boring where more than 100 blows per 5-inches are needed to advance the
sample spoon.
Core Recovery (no The total length of rock core recovered divided by the total core run.
R D % : Rock Quality Designation — the total length of all the pieces of the rock core longer than
4-inches divided by the total length of the rock core run.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 1 Test Boring No. B17-1
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, -Saratoga springs, New York
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation Weather Sunny, 80's Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/19/17 Completed 7/19/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothnagle Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
Deleted in Field
Notes:
1. Dry upon completion.
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
5
10
15
20
25
30
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Project No.
Project Name
Client
Elevation
Date Started
Drilling Comp
Boring Log
4308.0 Page 1 of 1
Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs,
Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street
320.8 Weather Sunny, 80's
7/19/17 Completed 7/19/17
ny: Nothnagle Drilling
Test Boring No. B17-2
New York
Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Engineer Radford
Driller N. Short
Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
WH
WH
0'-2'
2'-4'
TOPSOIL
0'4"
1
1
1
S-1
Loose tan -brown moist SAND, little silt
Saturated at 2'
7'0"
2
3
3
3
6
S-2
5
1
1
1
1
2
S-3
4'-6'
8'-10'
WH
3
Loose grey saturated cm SAND, trace silt
16'6"
10
3
4
6
S-4
IT-15'
WH
3
15
4
2
7
S-5
18'-20'
7
4
Loose grey saturated mf SAND, little silt, trace clay
250"
20
4
2
8
S-6
23'-25'
WR
WR
25
WH
1
0
S-7
Boring Terminated @ 250"
Notes:
1. Water at 2'0"
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
30
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 4 Test Boring No. B17-3
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Sarato a Springs, New York
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 329.8 Weather Overcast, 80 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/18/17 Completed 7/18/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothna le Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
WH
1
0'-2'
2'-4'
Loose brown -black moist mf SAND, little silt
2'0"
1
1
2
S-1
Loose orange -brown moist mf SAND, trace silt
410"
WH
1
2
2
3
S-2
5
3
3
Loose brown -tan moist mf SAND, trace silt
cm SAND
111611
3
5
6
S-3
4'-6'
8'-10'
4
5
10
3
3
8
S-4
13'-15'
Loose brown -grey saturated cm SAND, trace silt
Black -grey
21'6"
3
1
15
1
2
2
S-5
18'-20'
1
1
20
1
1
2
S-6
23'-25'
Medium grey saturated SILT, some clay, little fine
sand PP: 2.5 Tons/ft2 TV: .2 Tons/ft2
26'6"
4
4
25
4
5
8
S-7
28'-30'
Loose grey saturated fine SAND and SILT, trace to
little clay
2
3
30
4
4
7
S-8
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 2 of 4 Test Boring No. B17-3
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Sarato a springs, New York
Client Jop Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 329.8 Weather Overcast, 80 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/18/17 Completed 7/18/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothnagle Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
33'-35'
31'6"
Soft grey saturated CLAY, little silt, trace sand
PP: 1.75 Tons/ftz TV:.25 Tons/ft2
36'6"
1
3
35
1
2
4
S-9
38'-40'
Loose grey saturated mf SAND, trace silt
No Sample Recovered
Firm
Firm
WH
2
40
2
3
4
S-10
43'-45'
WR
WR
45
WH
WH
0
48'-50'
2
3
50
4
6
7
5-11
53'-55'
8
4
55
8
12
12
S-12
58'-60'
6
9
60
9
11
18
5-13
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
6 Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 3 of 4 Test Boring No. B17-3
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane —,—Saratoga springs, New York
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 329.8 Weather Overcast, 80 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/18/17 Completed 7/18/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothnagle Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
Compact
75'0"
65
68'-70'
8
14
70
16
17
30
S-14
75
78'-80'
Very soft grey wet CLAY, little to trace silt
PP: 1.5 Tons/ftz TV:.25 Tons/ftz
5-16: Same, medium, grey, wet, some silt, trace fine
sand PP: 1.5 Tons/ftz TV:.4 Tons/ftz
WH
WH
80
1
1
1
5-15
85
88'-90'
WH
3
90
6
7
9
S-16
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 4 of 4 Test Boring No. B17-3
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs, New York
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 329.8 Weather Overcast, 80 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/18/17 Completed 7/18/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothna le Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
98'-100'
97'0"
Very dense grey moist SAND, little silt, trace gravel
98'2"
100/2"
100/2"
5-17
95
Boring Terminated @ 98'2"
Notes:
1. Water at 10'0"
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
100
105
110
115
120
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 2 Test Boring No. B17-4
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, -Saratoga Springs, New York
Client Jop Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 329.8 Weather Overcast, 80 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/18/17 Completed 7/18/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothna le Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
1
1
0'-2'
2'-4'
Loose tan -brown moist mf SAND, trace silt
91011
1
2
2
S-1
2
3
3
3
6
S-2
5
4
5
4
4
9
S-3
4'-6'
8'-10'
1
1
Loose tan -orange -brown saturated SAND, trace silt
Grey -black
19'0"
10
1
1
2
S-4
13'-15'
WH
WH
15
1
1
1
S-5
18'-20'
1
5
Loose grey saturated fine SAND and SILT, trace clay
Little clay
20
4
4
9
S-6
23'-25'
1
3
25
4
4
7
S-7
28'-30'
1
2
30
2
3
4
S-8
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 2 of 2 Test Boring No. B17-4
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Sarato a Springs, New York
Client -Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 327.4 Weather Overcast, 80 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/18/17 Completed 7/18/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Com an : Nothna le Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
30'0"
Boring Terminated @ 30'0"
Notes:
1. Water at 8'0".
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
3. 19' deep observation well installed
35
40
45
50
55
60
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No.
4308.0 Page 1 of 1
Test Boring No.
B17-5
Project Name
Station Park, Station Lane, Sarato a springs,
New York
Client
Jop Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation
320.5 Weather Sunny, 70
Engineer
Radford
Date Started
7/19/17 Completed 7/19/17
Driller
N. Short
Drilling Company:
Nothnagle Drilling
Drilling Equipment
CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
WH
1
0'-2'
2'-4'
TOPSOIL
0'S"
1
1
2
S-1
Loose tan -brown moist mf SAND, little silt
S-2: Same, loose, grey -brown, wet
7'0"
i
1
2
3
3
S-2
5
2
2
3
4
5
S-3
4'-6'
8'-10'
Loose grey saturated cm SAND, trace silt
14'0"
1
1
10
2
2
3
S-4
13'-15'
3
3
15
4
2
7
S-5
Loose grey saturated fine SAND, little silt
19'0"
18'-20'
WH
3
20
3
3
6
S-6
Medium grey wet CLAY, some silt, trace fine sand
PP: 3.0 Tons/ftz TV: .3 Tons/ftz
25'0"
23'-25'
1
4
25
3
2
7
S-7
Boring Terminated @ 25'0"
Notes:
1. Water at 70".
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
30
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 1
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs,
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street
Elevation 323.0 Weather Sunny, 80
Date Started 7/19/17 Completed 7/19/17
Drilling Company: Nothnagle Drilling
Test Boring No. B17-6
New York
Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Engineer Radford
Driller N. Short
Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
WH
1
0'-2'
2'-4'
Loose tan -brown moist SAND, trace silt, trace
organics to 1'0"
Wet at 5'0"
Saturated at 8'0"
19'0"
i
1
2
S-1
3
3
3
3
6
S-2
5
3
2
2
2
4
S-3
4'-6'
8'-10'
2
3
10
3
3
6
S-4
13'-15'
1
1
15
2
2
3
S-5
18'-20'
WH
1
Loose grey saturated cm SAND, trace silt
2510"
20
2
3
3
S-6
23'-25'
WR
WR
25
WH
WH
0
S-7
Boring Terminated @ 250"
Notes:
1. Water at 70".
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
30
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 1 Test Boring No. B17-7
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Sarato a Springs, New York
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 322.0 Weather Sunny, 70 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/19/17 Completed 7/19/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothna le Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
WH
1
0'-2'
2'-4'
Loose brown -black moist SAND, trace silt, trace
organics to 1'0"
S-2: Same, loose, tan, wet
Saturated at 6'0"
11'6"
2
3
3
S-1
3
3
3
5
6
S-2
5
2
4
4
5
8
S-3
4'-6'
8'-10'
1
1
10
1
1
2
S-4
13'-15'
Soft grey wet CLAY, trace silt
PP: 1.5 Tons/ft2 TV:.35 Tons/ft2
21'6"
1
2
15
2
3
4
S-5
18'-20'
2
1
20
2
2
3
S-6
23'-25'
Loose grey saturated mf SAND, trace silt and clay
25'0"
1
2
25
4
5
6
S-7
Boring Terminated @ 250"
Notes:
1. Water at 60".
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
30
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
r Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 2
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs,
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street,
Elevation 320.9 Weather Sunny, 70
Date Started 7/20/17 Completed 7/20/17
Drilling Company: Nothnagle Drilling
Test Boring No. B17-8
New York
Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Engineer Radford
Driller N. Short
Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
1
1
0'-2'
2'-4'
Loose brown -tan moist SAND, little silt, little organics
to 1'0"
2'0"
1
1
2
S-1
2
3
Loose orange -brown wet SAND, trace silt
Brown -grey
71011
2
3
5
S-2
5
2
2
3
3
5
S-3
4'-6'
8'-10'
Loose grey saturated cm SAND, trace silt
16'6"
WH
1
10
1
1
2
S-4
13'-15'
WR
WH
15
1
4
1
S-5
18'-20'
Soft grey wet CLAY, trace silt
PP: 1.5 Tons/ft2 TV:.25 Tons/ftz
21'6"
2
2
20
2
3
4
S-6
23'-25'
Loose grey saturated fine SAND, little silt
WR
WR
25
2
3
2
S-7
28'-30'
WH
1
30
1
2
2
S-8
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 2 of 2 Test Boring No. B17-8
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, -Saratoga springs, New York
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 320.9 Weather Sunny, 70 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/20/17 Completed 7/20/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothna le Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
33'-33'9"
31'6"
Very dense grey moist SAND, some to little silt, little
gravel
3410"
4
50/3"
50/3"
S-9
5
Auger Refusal on Bedrock at 34'0"
Notes:
1. Water at TO".
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
3. 20'0" Observation Well Installed
10
15
20
25
30
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 2 Test Boring No. B17-9
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Sarato a Springs, New York
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 323.5 Weather Sunny, 70 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/20/17 Completed 7/20/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothna le Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
1
2
0'-2'
T 4'
Loose brown -tan moist SAND, little silt
6'0"
2
2
4
S-1
2
2
2
2
4
S-2
5
8'-10'
Soft brown -grey moist CLAY, little silt
PP: 1.0 Tons/ft2 TV: .3 Tons/ft2
11'6"
2
1
10
2
2
3
S-3
13'-15'
Soft grey moist CLAY, trace silt
PP: 2.0 Tons/ft2 TV:.25Tons/ft2
28'0"
2
2
15
2
3
4
S-4
20
23'-25'
3
6
25
5
9
11
S-5
28'-30'
WR
WR
Loose grey saturated mf SAND, trace silt
30
WR
4
0
S-6
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 2 Test Boring No. B17-9
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Sarato a Springs, New York
Client Jop Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 323.5 Weather Sunny, 70 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/20/17 Completed 7/20/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothnagle Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
39'0"
35
40
Auger Refusal on Bedrock @ 39'0"
Notes:
1. Water at 60".
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
45
50
55
60
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
66Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 1 Test Boring No. B17-10
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs, New York
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 329.5 Weather Sunny, 80 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/20/17 Completed 7/20/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothna le Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
1
1
0'-2'
2'-4'
Loose brown moist SAND, little silt
Wet at 8'0"
11'6"
3
5
4
S-1
1
3
3
3
6
S-2
5
8'-10'
3
2
10
2
2
4
S-3
13'-15'
Firm grey -brown wet mf SAND and SILT, little clay
21'6"
3
2
15
4
11
6
S-4
18'-20'
3
4
20
4
11
8
S-5
23'-25'
Firm grey -brown saturated SILT, some sand and
gravel
2510"
4
11
25
9
10
20
S-6
Boring Terminated @ 25'0"
Notes:
1. Water at 8'0".
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
30
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 1 Test Boring No. B17-11
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Sarato a springs, New York
Client Jop Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 326.0 Weather Sunny, 70 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/21/17 Completed 7/21/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothna le Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
WH
1
0'-2'
2'-4'
Loose brown moist mf SAND, little silt
Wet at 9'0"
11'6"
2
2
3
S-1
1
2
2
3
4
S-2
5
2
3
3
6
6
S-3
4'-6'
8'-10'
3
2
10
1
2
3
S-4
13'-15'
Loose grey saturated fine SAND, little silt, trace clay
21'6"
1
2
15
2
2
4
S-5
18'-20'
1
1
20
1
1
2
S-6
23'-25'
Soft grey wet CLAY, little silt and fine sand
25'0"
WH
2
25
2
2
4
S-7
Boring Terminated @ 25'0"
Notes:
1. Water at 11'6".
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
30
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No.
4308.0 Page 1 of 1
Test Boring No.
B17-12
Project Name
Station Park, Station Lane, -Saratoga Springs,
New York
Client
Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation
320.6 Weather Sunny, 80
Engineer
Radford
Date Started
7/20/17 Completed 7/20/17
Driller
N. Short
Drilling Company:
Nothna le Drilling
Drilling Equipment
CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
611/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
1
1
0'-2'
2'-4'
Loose tan -brown moist SAND, little silt
61011
2
3
3
S-1
3
2
2
2
4
S-2
5
8'-10'
Loose grey saturated cm SAND, trace silt
1416"
WH
WH
10
1
1
1
S-3
13'-15'
1
1
15
1
1
2
S-4
Very soft grey moist CLAY, little silt
19'0"
20
Loose grey saturated fine SAND, little silt, trace clay
250"
23'-25'
2
2
25
1
5
3
S-5
Boring Terminated @ 25'0"
Notes:
1. Water at 60".
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
30
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
£` Design, P.C.
5:
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 1 Test Boring No. B17-13
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs, New York
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 320.2 Weather Sunny, 80 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/20/17 Completed 7/20/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothna le Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
1
2
0'-2'
2'-4'
Loose tan -brown moist SAND, trace silt
Wet at 2'0"
6'0"
2
2
4
S-1
2
2
3
3
5
S-2
5
8'-10'
Loose grey -brown saturated cm SAND, trace silt
11'6"
WH
WH
10
WH
1
0
S-3
13'-15'
Firm grey -brown wet cmf SAND, trace silt
19'4"
2
6
15
9
10
15
S-4
18'-20'
1
3
20
3
1
6
S-5
Loose grey saturated fine SAND, little silt, trace clay
21'6"
23'-25'
Medium grey moist CLAY, little to some silt
2510"
1
1
25
4
4
5
S-6
Boring Terminated @ 25'0"
Notes:
1. Water at 60".
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
30
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
;h Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 1 Test Boring No. B17-14
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs, New York
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 320.3 Weather Sunny, 80 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/19/17 Completed 7/19/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company- Nothna le Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
1
1
0'-2'
2'-4'
TOPSOIL
0'6"
1
2
2
S-1
Loose tan -brown moist SAND, trace silt
Wet at 2'0"
Saturated at 4'6"
9f0ll
3
2
2
3
4
S-2
5
3
2
1
3
3
S-3
4'-6'
8'-10'
2
1
10
1
1
2
S-4
Loose grey -brown saturated cm SAND, trace silt
16'6"
13'-15'
3
1
15
1
2
2
S-5
18'-20'
Medium grey wet CLAY, little silt
19'6"
2
3
20
4
6
7
S-6
Loose grey saturated fine SAND, little silt
20'0"
Boring Terminated @ 20'0" due to sand blowing
up into the augers
Notes:
1. Water at 9'0".
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
25
30
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
M- x Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No.
4308.0 Page 1 of 1
Test Boring No. B17-15
Project Name
Station Park, Station Lane, Sarato a springs,
New York
Client
-Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation
326.0 Weather Sunny, 70
Engineer Radford
Date Started
7/19/17 Completed 7/19/17
Driller N. Short
Drilling Company:
Nothnagle Drilling
Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
1
2
0'-2'
2'-4'
Loose tan -brown moist SAND, trace silt, trace
organics to 1'0"
7'0"
2
2
4
S-1
2
2
3
3
5
S-2
5
4
3
3
2
6
S-3
4'-6'
8'-10'
Loose grey -brown wet cm SAND, trace silt
Saturated
Little silt
2510"
3
2
10
2
1
4
S-4
13'-15'
1
1
15
1
3
2
S-5
18'-20'
1
6
20
4
2
10
S-6
23'-25'
WR
WR
25
WR
WH
0
S-7
Boring Terminated @ 25'0"
Notes:
1. Water at 11'6".
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
3. Blind augured to 55'0", no bedrock found
30
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 1
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs,
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street
Elevation 324.4 Weather Sunny, 80
Date Started 7/17/17 Completed 7/17/17
Drilling Company: Nothnagle Drilling
Test Boring No. B17-16
New York
Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Engineer Radford
Driller N. Short
Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
1
1
0'-2'
2'-4'
Loose brown -black moist SAND, little silt, trace
organics
211011
2
2
3
S-1
1
1
Loose brown -orange moist SAND, little silt
Wet at 70"
810"
1
2
2
S-2
5
3
2
3
3
5
S-3
T-6'
6'-8'
8'-10'
3
2
3
3
5
S-4
1
2
Loose grey -brown wet cm SAND, trace silt
Saturated
29'0"
10
1
2
3
S-5
13'-15'
1
1
15
1
1
2
S-6
18'-20'
WH
1
20
3
6
4
S-7
23'-25'
WH
WH
25
1
2
1
S-8
28'-30'
2
1
30
3
1
4
S-9
Soft grey wet to saturated CLAY, some silt
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 1 Test Boring No. B17-16
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, -Saratoga Springs, New York
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 324.4 Weather Sunny, 80 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/17/17 Completed 7/17/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothnagle Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
33'-35'
31'6"
Firm grey saturated mf SAND, little silt
40'0"
4
4
5
9
13
13
S-10
38'-40'
3
4
10
6
11
10
S-11
Boring Terminated @ 40'0"
Notes:
1. Water at 13'0".
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
15
20
25
30
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
Foundation
Design, P.C.
Boring Log
Project No. 4308.0 Page 1 of 1 Test Boring No. B17-17
Project Name Station Park, Station Lane, Sarato a Springs, New York
Client Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrews Street, Suite 360, Rochester, New York
Elevation 323.5 Weather Sunny, 80 Engineer Radford
Date Started 7/21/17 Completed 7/21/17 Driller N. Short
Drilling Company: Nothnagle Drilling Drilling Equipment CME-55LC
Ft.
Blows Per Six Inches
N
Value
Sample
No.
Depth
Visual Soil and Rock Classifications
Remarks
0"/6"
6"/12"
12"/18"
18"/24"
1
1
0'-2'
2'-4'
Loose brown moist mf SAND, little silt
Wet at 2'0"
Saturated at TO"
11'6"
1
1
2
S-1
2
2
3
3
5
S-2
5
4
3
3
3
6
S-3
4'-6'
8'-10'
3
1
10
1
2
2
S-4
13'-15'
Loose grey saturated fine SAND, some silt, little clay
16'6"
1
1
15
1
2
2
S-5
18'-20'
Loose grey saturated mf SAND, little silt
25'0"
WH
WH
20
1
1
1
S-6
23'-25'
WH
WH
25
WH
WH
0
S-7
Boring Terminated @ 25'0", Blind augered to
augur refusal at 49'0" on bedrock
Notes:
1. Water at 9'0".
2. Bore hole backfilled using auger spoils.
30
N=No. of blows to Drive 2" Spoon 12" with 140 lb. Wt. 30" Ea. Blow
LE
C
z
a
N
FO-
cn
O
J
41
ao
-wJ
F-
c U
m
Li. 0
m
o
n �
T Qi
c
cn O
CD
a
d y
V c
m
a�coyE
a o}3c°�
a�i o
� z �
0 o
Y o �
0 o U o o
d Cl 40J
U)i-MO L
C
O
y U
9
O m 1 {n
z z c m y
c"i v�, Mtos
L 2 m
CLCL LOm
o
00
u
0
N
C
V
0
O
f�0
Q
V
w
�
y Y
m
L
p
O O
c
z
Q
r,"D
> x
cn
°� o
in
0
2:- o
E
p
c
?:
g , �
c
� O U
O
-2
Z3 m
L
E mu
E
> 0 0 m
c
U c -o n.
_j
Q) 4Y
6�;aQ)
OLn
E
� cn � U)
n
O
-
o
�—iL
z �c�irid
N
y o E
0 �
L
Q
E E
z
t �
v
4-1
G w
Gj L
N
r1
l0
c0
N
m
w
O U
y
cn
J
'a
V)
m
N Y N rlj
d m N
H ri U u
Y
O
}
0 3 =
Z m L y
++ E
a E i a
� s d
a
I� LFO-0 W
ce
O
U)
0
i 4-J a
m
o,moyo
a0}3u`
3
@ � o
Uz
U')0 o
Y O
ru
Q i
00 oULn of
ro o N I, U
V V F M O fa
4-1
O
y U
O @ O (n
Z Z C
10,
d N M d Y
y++ V
aac�wom
Ln
0
J
J
N
H
L
U
O
O
U)
A
Q
H N
f
i
V)
U m
Y E
c
U N
w
QJ
O
L
O
j
•�
=
Z
�
C C
Z
O ca
LO
U
4-1
N o
N
Q
E
E
m 00 O
o
3
o FD
Lo o v
C
n
�
� cn u Ln
Om
O
o
�
F
Z 1 r, rm
s o
+� v- a.
y o E
M
,,m^
VI
� L
R 7
Z
4 3 u
E i
N
[f
l0
GO
CO
V)
rl
y
M
N
Y o
oo
�0C:
Z 'o
C
1 L 1
m
Lz
Lr)mu
o �
Y
a .Q
oUooi C
OM @
M O N n V
d I— M (D
4.0
� V
Z Z =
° 10 0
LA
d O = > y Y
4� �
a a U w G to
co
p
p
p
M
_�
Q)
t-1
J
\
C
V
m
C
U)
u
U
O
�
O)
m
_
S� Q
V
U
E >, N
iO L
_
U)
L
L
U
Q
z
@�
O
L
Lf)
0 6. C
O
N
L O
Q
V�
V
C
O
3 N
V
p
p
m
D
o c c
Q
o ra
�
�"
C
@�
�
o
goo
m
O
O O —
O
>
_lzL
O 41
O
N
}
(O
70
_0 M
N 0
�
�
00
U-)
p
I—
LL
ii
J
O
z cti ri
s
O E
oD
0 )
N y
C..O
EE
'
UZ
cu
U
= 3 u
C i
N
l0
00
rq
rl
� CC �
li
/
/
e
«
>
e
/
u
§
/
)
\
_
\
§
_
$
D
0
\
\
®
�
_
)
)
\
\
/
\
w
=
§
/
/
/ �m
(
f
/
\\/
_
3
°)
u
/
\
@±2
3
\
[
[
)7//
@
E
E
/
0 .
zeza
� %E
w
a
a
2 �
mm
U')z
� ■ S
ao2
Cu �
�
q
�
�
zi
0
\
J
a
.
4J
{/\
0
V)
C
o
3/\\
z=
\C
t¥m%
2
Lo
\ (6
0
a\;�u=
\
V)
�7
\
I
`
®
/\\oj0
V
}
-LO c,
j
\
kj
�
§
ok
zz 0'm
tt41
f [ a 2 #
m
e
%
/
%
G
%
&
E
5
/
\
_
\
k
)
t
J
£
\
2
&
§ ]
O
/
\
\ (
�
)
\
\
\
E
\
y
u
e
2
2
/
»
3
{
_
.= x
z
\
\//
D
\\o
/
\
3
\
3
\aR«
/
E
3
/QKd
CL
0
Ln
k�
§ §
12
5 ] E
a o 2
N
#
I
coq
q
L.
o � V)
y
L
Z3 a
O E
U
0
F
C6 co C
a
CD
c m O R
0
V-
_
o
m
G
LLD
o
c t V)
Z Z y
0
o
m
v U V� s
O N = M Gl Y
'O,,
d a.+ U
a a U w O m
o
0
o
m
�ln
u
J
J
�
U
p
Vl
4
a
aNU
V
O
O
+
O0
V)
N
l�
U
N
Vl Y
fa
_Q)
0
R
Ule
�Z
E
0
Q
O
L
Lo
E
U
+�
m
E ^
D
N
O
An
0 `
O
T
rho
)
LD
o
��oU
U
E D
@ O
U O
7
O
E
M
°
w
M>
OI.L
E
o
J
Z rA N co
4-1CL C
N
(UQ
0 m
L
a �
mm
� 3 �
U
�
CL
N
t0
CO
L
ri
0 m 3
LA
Y,
= U
Q A•
m
Cc O N
r (D U
C
z
a
F-
� N y
Y 4 O
ai 6 ti
Y o �
n
o U 0 C
OM O N r, V
T
.N
C
O
y V
O m � Ln
z z c41 y
V U 41 t
Gl d O > N Y
y++ V
nLCL.UW Gm
1
o
�o
o
M
o
Lo 'O
J
C
J
(d
C
4�
C
Ln
u
U
O
N
C
O
V)
v
4'
Ln
4=
N
a
w
(D
R Y
i
j
L
U
a
Q
z
Cn
n
Q:
Lnn
E
@ 0
Lo
4-1
O
E
�_
4� N
o
E
0
o �p
3
cca
o
�-
3
�
Sao
O
L _
c E fu
O
T
O rl
N U O
E
E O
Ln O Y
J
U)
N
N
in (/') Q (n
O
O
O
O
4.j v- a
y o E
a,
L
m 7
Z
� 3 v
a ° L
ry
�t
�o
co
� CO �
Ac
co
n
a
f—
O
'a
N
H
Q)
Z
0
�6
. oco um r L
^ O
Y
� =
o
c
O
m
pG�7
u..G
0
-
0 t�
zz =may
m
W c"i „ M
r
Gl d = > N Y
O
oLo
2 c�0 fV0
I d U Lu m
T
a
H
0
0
0
r'
0
V
co
J
J
N
_
U
(6
U
O
O0
V
+'
(C6
V
T
N Y
O
C
j
U m
w
c!
U N
C)
O
0 �
z
a
—
o
_
�
o
z
>
m
L
U
N
V
�
O
O
3
E
O r6
C
m
O
o
�-H m
-
>O
�_
U ti p
J
O
N e
tiO
j
N c
M
u_
LL
Z N ri
+-� c.
47 C E
cv
� L
E E
C�
Ln Z
v
4J
a ° L
ry
to
co
rq
co
V)
= U
•i.d
m =
C
LLL4
0
0
0
Q)
Y
U
0
0
m
J
0
LE
O
L
L;I'yy
Y 41 a
f0 cr m } O O n
a 0 3 v -
�� o
n
� 0 o
� m
a a
o O U to L
d u-) M I, 2
0
y U
O E 0 3
Z Z L
°- o
U Uy—r,V)
N Gl O f0 y Y
w 0 m
�1
a
F-
o
io
co
J
J
vi
N
y
O
I
O
0
�
V
Q
V)
Q
4_
+'
:N
Ln
a�
Z3
U
_
�
U)
T
O
Q
C
O
r
U')
E
Q
V
Ln
A (
�
Ul
0
U
C
z
Q
E
a
O tp
V)
V
•N
- 0
mu
o
4.1
m
> 4, O
V
U')M
_
v
;1
T
i
U Y
ifi (n � u)
d
L
CO
G
N
O
+�
Q
LL
J
++ a
0 E
aai
0 �
� L
c.
0
m
Ln Z
U
a
LCu
ri
.��
W
y
= U
d
0
0
0
0
N
W
J
J
V
y
u
U
O)
O
U)
m i
•�
Z
�
Y
C
N
m
Ln
i
_N
(
E
N
Z
<
U
Ln
E (6
U
C
C
C
'n
�-
� V
O
> a- O
ru
i
L -p
O
H
N
F�
Cj
U
M IQ
0
fa
Q
L
a
o
0
U
z c i cYi
Q.
N p E
in
0 m
a� y
aM
7
m
Z
U
= w
N
c}
l0
00
1-1
m 7
co
Lo
K
O U
r, m
m _
_ .Im
C
0
y
m
J
a
LW
r
O
Z
a
H
C
m L =
V o O
L E
N
a
�- O w
L a' L.
N
O� cn om E
a 3 3: u
m (L) o
oz 7-
Lr) o �
1.
� 'a
C�cc) O U M
L
C6
m� M
41
O V
O m d {n
ZZ oma)
d d C m d Y N 4+ V
L L m m
aac�wOco
o
o
N
ri
J
J
C
+
V
O
V)
O
41
V
O
Q
(Vp
0
m Y
U m
C
Y E'
ce
LO
O
—u
E
O
O
_
Z
4-
U*)Ul)
N
Z=
O
E
E
U
..0 N
Q. -d
{%
�
LA
Q
B
O
(n
O
L
0
+� C
m o
E
C
O
U
O
E
O
L
M (
L
J
EL
N
a)
N +O-+ y'
M
0
O
L
N
�
o (n
N
(n
O
LL
U-
p
J
p
J
O
Z rl N M
d
y o E
m
R
CU
fG 3
Z
3
N
cr
%O
00
L
ri
Q m 7
L y
a
m E
a�
3U0
= U
O�Ira
LL.�
o
co
in
o
in
it
rn
J
J
V
W
th
C
M
V
O
O
N
rya
Q
U
W
m YLn
U
--1_
c
U d
Ln
u
fl
O
a
�Z
O
r0
<
�
ra
Q
Z
Q
O
>
N
Z
Cn
N
r°n
�
a
3
=
3
O
2
O ra
� CO c0
o
0)�:p
C
fl
p
c O V
O
E
fu
N
0
>�
0
N
�iL
o
L
°
Zr+�im
a
y o E
Ln
� y
E E
Cn Z
U
�
=cq
- G i
N
l0
CO
ri
0 m M
y
m
n
a
C
z
a
H
M
O
4-J
h
n
CD
a
Y
U
4J
3
3
cnr
z
c
�
y y
a8r3c°�
L
�
�
Q
�Y
0
o
L
J
J
U)
y
a) u
— U
C
O
m
m Q
v
� T
w
� �
fa
fa
U
n
U a)
ate-
O
Z; C
—
C O
C
C)
E
z
>
a)
z
Q
L
4-
O
4
0
0 fu
E
o
O
Q4�
E U
o
o 0
-0@
c
J
r-a
_0
N O Y
'O L� Ou
�
N�uCn
VV)
o
O
+�
z ni o i
C a,
y o E
m
� L
c�
E E
V1 z
� 3 u
L
N
d
l0
GO
r-1
Q m 3
Ln
Y,
� U
�a
I
V
L4(11
N IC C C
0
2-
0
m f6
C,o
a •a
o O U r, i
d" U") (M N 'M
0
y V
E O
Z Z =
Qi
U U *, O N
J V1 s
W W a M y Y
a`a`vWom
'ct
0
0
0
0
_I
V
Q)
m
O
O
a
O
cn
U
+
C
Ua
Q
Q)
N ch
O Y
a�
U
=3
Y E
$,_'
0
z
Q
O
LO
z
m
m
-
4
E
E
O
E
0 0 �
C
E
C
9 O
3
u_
Qa
O
O
E
C E U
0
M U
J
p
C
U
Ln O
0
O
T
..O
in Un C)
0
i
U
m
O
4J a
y o E
0
L.
MM
EE
z
s u
v
+,
v_
N
It
tC
00
CC 7
if
= U
O
[=L
M
cn
= •7A
04)
L1. G
'O
L
a� y
� G
R E
30 Ln
0
Z-
Y O
a 0 -
oUr\
co— L
MO ' O M y
O
C
U
N
O m d (n
Z Z .2 O
v v of _
F.L d ++ U
_ m m
itku a co
Ln
a
I-
0
0
0
4
in
o
J
J
vi
U3
M
v
L
o
Q
U
T
N i
R
=3
U
Y E
U N
N
A
O:
O
4-
0
_
>
m
N
_
Q_
Vp
Ln c
�
o
z
`�
o
$ o
to
N
U
p
> 4� O
O
Q)
U - -6
H
O
0)
N
M M Q)
4-1
N
(n Ul
Ln
p
O
�--
LL.
J
Z +--I N M
s �
41 n.
y o E
0 �
� L
CL
E E
V) Z
s 3 u
U
C w
N
ct
t0
GO
N
]-
co
y
11
F
O
W O U N41
C711
0
7 (n M Il� m
�a
m
d
LL.G
o
�
o cn
ZZ =my
o
'++
m
V V y V) s
a) a1 = co Y
aac�Lu
0
0 0
r'
In
a�
0
J
J
N
a)
�
C
V
O)
O
f�0
Q
V
w
�
Y
4�
7
V m
�
u7
V a)
O
O
Z
m
>
(=0
Q
Q
—
V)
N
Vf
E
o
E
`d
�3
O U
'
to
> a) O
m
3
>
v o
�o
>
of
o -1
in in
Ln
0-E
(�
O
OIL
O
J
Z rl N M
s °1
+� a
p E
in
co
0 m
� L
as
r-1
N
c
E
C!)
(n
E
s 3 �
U
a w
N
�0
00
0 m 3
Ln
li
cn
O
J
a
L�
r
i
0
Z
a
Gl
F-
m L =
V E
cma.
u '3
a
F- 0 w
m
Lo
+T Y N ,
�o
y
co r
Z 'a
vi
L 7 CU y
ca
E
a 0 } 3 v
@ N O
O
�0 o
Y �
a .Q
O O U 0 L
� 00 0
v ingm�
c
0
0 v
E d 0.
Z Z C IC a,
v � 41Ln
d C M y Y
aac�wom
91
o
o
J
J
vi
U
0
0
LO
m
Q
U
w
�
v
� H
L
�
U ra
cn
Ln
V)
Q
C C
O t0
o
o
E
�C:
O
E
C
n '"
E
3
O
u
@ O O
J
E
fl
i O
U C
O Y
O
w
(a QJ
�
'a L'
U)
v
4-1
O
p
3
O
J
F
+� a
d C E
CV
0 �
L
aM
E =
r
Z
U
s 3 �
�
L
N
(0
GO
ri
Q m 7
Ln
Y
(m
0
J
4-J
E
4-J
�
Q
�
5
\ /w^
% aw%\
\
z 3G��
z=0
[
/ \�0J
\
j
a G
\
a
(
/{\a§�
E�
eeJ\jt
\
@t+mw2
j
_/
� p
\
o�
z/ §\§
WCUrM
\
ff222\
aaQQom
\
x
/
%
b
%
o
r
m
_
»
/
\
§
\
\
<
t
&
m LA
\
=fa LO
—
\ (
\
\
\
Ln
§�
\
//
2
/
J
2>
m
®
®
J
\
.)2
\
/
Ea°
\0
4-
e
m
7D
/
�
\
o
=
/
= e §
2
a
2
®SJ
e
\
§=e
�\
*
°2
G
\
\
� J
>
$
/\
\
\\\\
\
koE
G
S
m
S
w
I
�\
\
/
mm
It
Go
q
q
o CoCo«
u
cn
0
J
4-1
E
4-1
�
m
F-
(
a
(
C6.L
E
m orj
@terw�
to
)
C
_/
p
\
a
zz §\§
tt�M
%
\
uoc•ua
ff±!%2
aaOQcm
e
&
/
S
G
G
&
5
a
/
}
k
/
\
�
� $
\
\ (
2�
_
/
k
ƒ
\
\
<
£
$
\
/
J
O
o
E
»
_
\
» /
\
0
(
y
°#_
\
\«/
@
Q)
E
§
/
E
\
\uwd
�0
c �
E\
J
� k S
CL02
#
=
S
q
o Co @
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
APPENDIX C
Foundation Design, P.C. Laboratory Report
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
July 28, 2017
Top Capital of New York
400 Andrews Street
Suite 360
Rochester, New York 14606
Attention: Mr. Lou Giordino
Chief Development Officer
Reference: Station Park
Station Lane, Saratoga Springs, New York
Laboratory Test Results, 4308.0
Dear Mr. Giordino:
Foundation Design, P.C. is pleased to present the following results of the laboratory testing
performed on the referenced project. The testing was performed in accordance with the following
ASTM test methods:
6 Sieve Analysis ASTM D-422/ASTM D-1140
14 Moisture Content Test ASTM D-2216
6 Plastic Limits/Liquid Limits/Plasticity Index ASTM D-4318
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these testing services and look forward to hearing from
you again in the near future.
Very truly yours,
FOUNDATION DESIGN, P.C.
Elizabeth Ashley
Laboratory Manager
Foundation
Design, P.C.
SOIL • BEDROCK • GROUNDWATER
Station Park
Station Lane
Saratoga Springs, New York
4308.0
Moisture Content Test Report
(ASTM D-2216)
Moisture Content Test Results
Boring/Test Pit Number
B17-2
B17-3
B17-3
B17-3
B17-4
Sample Number
S-6
S-3
S-9
S-15
S-4
Depth
18'-20'
4'-6'
33'-35'
78'-80'
8'-10'
Moisture Content (%)
23.2
5.4
23.0
31.4
23.1
Moisture Content Test Results
Boring/Test Pit Number
B17-6
B17-7
B17-8
B17-9
B17-10
Sample Number
S-6
S-2
S-6
S-3
S-5
Depth
18'-20'
2'-4'
18'-20'
8'-10'
18'-20'
Moisture Content (%)
26.8
18.1
49.6
56.4
27.8
Moisture and Organic Content Test Results
Boring/Test Pit Number
B17-13
B17-14
B17-17
TP17-4
Sample Number
S-3
S-7
S-5
S-3
Depth
8'-10'
20'-23'
13'-15'
8'
Moisture Content (%)
29.7
20.8
27.6
26.5
100
90
80
70
w 60
Z
Z 50
W
U
W 40
a_
30
20
10
Particle Size Distribution Report
C C. O O
c0 M N \ \ M } O N M t�0 O V N
# �k ik �k � # ik
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
��M
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse I Medium Fine Silt I Cla,
0 0 0 0 0 4 96
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*
PERCENT
PASS,
(X=NO)
#40
100
#60
100
#100
100
#200
96
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Material Description
Grey
SILT/CLAY, trace fine sand
Atterberg Limits
PL=
NP LL= NV
PI= NP
Coefficients
Dqp=
D85=
D60=
D50=
Dgp=
D15=
D10=
Cu=
Cc=
Classification
USCS= NLL AASHTO=
A-4(0)
Remarks
*Test
performed on 327.21 grams of oven dried material.
(no specification provided)
Source of Sample: B17-2 Depth: 18'-20'
Sample Number: S-6 Date: 07.24.17
Client: Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrew St., Suite 360, Rochester, N.Y.
Foundation Project: Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Design, P.C.
Project No: 4308.0 Figure
Tested By: BJV Checked By: EAA
100
90
80
70
L
z 60
LL
z 50
W
U
W 40
W
30
20
10
Particle Size Distribution Report
C C O O O
C C G� C C C� V � N M � �
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
+3„ % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt I Cla}
0 0 0 0 1 10 81 9
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC."
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
#10
100
920
99
#40
90
#60
61
#100
30
#200
9
J
10
?0
30
m
40
m
z
50 C)
C7
O
D
30
m
70
30
D0
100
Material Description
Orange -brown mf SAND, trace silt/clay
Atterberg Limits
PL= NP
LL= NV
PI= NP
Coefficients
D90= 0.4237
D85= 0.3757
D60= 0.2453
D50= 0.2111
D30= 0.1510
D1 5= 0.0982
D10= 0.0777
Cu= 3.16
Cc= 1.20
Classification
USCS= SP-SM AASHTO=
A-3
Test performed on 338.16 gams of oven dried material.
(no specification provided)
Source of Sample: B17-3 Depth: T-6'
Sample Number: S-3 Date: 07.24.17
Client: Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrew St., Suite 360, Rochester, N.Y.
66 Foundation Project: Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Design, P.C.
Project No: 4308.0 Figure
Tested By: BJV Checked By: EAA
Particle Size Distribution Report
100
90
80
70
W 60
Z
z 50
W
U
Ir
W 40
n
30
20
10
0
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% +3" % Gravel % Sand
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
0 0 0 0 12 74
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
#10
100
#20
100
#40
88
#60
31
#100
18
#200
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% Fines
Silt Clay
14 -- -
Material Description
Brown mf SAND, littel silt/clay
Atterberg Limits
PL= NP
LL= NV
Pl= NP
Coefficients
D90= 0.4653
D85= 0.4114
D60= 0.3278
D50= 0.3012
D30= 0.2457
D15= 0.0858
D10=
Cu=
Cc=
Classification
USCS= SM
AASHTO=
A-2-4(0)
Remarks
*Test performed on 368.11 grams of oven dried material.
(no specification provided)
Source of Sample: B17-4 Depth: 8'-10'
Sample Number: S-4 Date: 07.24.17
Client: Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrew St., Suite 360, Rochester, N.Y.
Foundation Project: Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Design, P.C.
30 Project No: 4308.0 Figure
Tested By: BJV Checked By: EAA
Particle Size Distribution Report
100
90
80
70
W 60
Z
z 50
W
U
W 40
n
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% +3„ % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine coarsel Medium Fine Silt I Clay
0 0 0 0 1 1 97 2
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
#10
100
#20
100
#40
99
#60
45
4100
11
#200
2
Material Description
Black mf SAND, trace silt/clay
Atterberg Limits
PL= NP
LL= NV
Pl= NP
Coefficients
D90= 0.3777
D85= 0.3586
D60= 0.2860
D50= 0.2613
D30= 0.2101
D15= 0.1641
D10= 0.1445
Cu= 1.98
Cc= 1.07
Classification
USCS= SP
AASHTO=
A-3
Remarks
*Test performed on 320.78 grams of material.
(no specification provided)
Source of Sample: B17-6 Depth: 18'-20'
Sample Number: S-6 Date: 07.24.17
Client: Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrew St., Suite 360, Rochester, N.Y.
Foundation Project: Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Design, P.C.
Project No: 4308.0 Figure
Tested By: BJV Checked By: EAA
Particle Size Distribution Report
100
90
80
70
W 60
Z
LL
z 50
W
U
tY
W 40
n
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarsel Medium I Fine Silt Clay
0 0 1 1 1 53 1 39 6
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
1/2"
100
3/8"
99
1/4"
99
#4
99
#10
98
#20
94
#40
45
#60
17
#100
8
#200
6
Material Description
Brown -black cmf SAND, trace silt/clay, trace gravel
Atterberg Limits
PL= NP LL= NV
P1= NP
Coefficients
D90= 0.7827 D85= 0.7199
D60= 0.5158
D50= 0.4541 D30= 0.3369
D15= 0.2377
D10= 0.1879 Cu= 2.74
Cc= 1.17
Classification
USCS= SP-SM AASHTO=
A-1-b
Remarks
*Test performed on 291.82 grams of oven dried material.
(no specification provided)
Source of Sample: B17-13 Depth: 8'-10'
Sample Number: S-3 Date: 07.24.17
Client: Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrew St., Suite 360, Rochester, N.Y.
Foundation Project: Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Design, P.C.
Project No: 4308.0 Figure
Tested By: BJV
Checked By: EAA
100
90
80
70
o'
z 60
LL
z 50
W
U
W 40
a_
30
20
10
Particle Size Distribution Report
_000
C C
Cq
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I HIH
I I I I I
I I I I I I I
100 16 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% +3„ % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clad
0 0 0 3 I 71 25 1
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
1/4"
100
#4
100
#10
97
#20
60
#40
26
#60
10
9100
4
#200
1
J
10
?0
30
IT
40
IT
z
50 n
0
D
30
m
70
30
00
100
Material Description
Black -grey cmf
SAND, trace silt/clay
Atterberg Limits
PL= NP
LL= NV
Pl= NP
Coefficients
D90= 1.5764
D85= 1.3970
D60= 0.8548
D50= 0.7075
D30= 0.4665
D1 5= 0.3072
D10= 0.2502
Cu= 3.42
Cc= 1.02
Classification
USCS= SP
AASHTO=
A-l-b
*Test performed on 369.03 grams of oven dried material.
(no specification provided)
Source of Sample: B17-14 Depth: 20'-23'
Sample Number: S-7 Date: 07.24.17
Client: Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrew St., Suite 360, Rochester, N.Y.
Foundation Project: Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Design, P.C.
Project No: 4308.0 Figure
Tested By: BJV
Checked By: EAA
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60
DashedDashed�lleDashed line indicates the approximate
rUpper lilnit boundary for J311'l1!°al 5091s
SOIL DATA
NATURAL
SYMBOL SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX USCS
B17-3 S-9 33'-35' 23.0 17 25 8 CL
•
Tested By: BJV
Checked By: EAA
Tested By: BJV
Checked By: EAA
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60
50
40
X
W
0
Z
30
U
f—
U)
Q
J
n
20
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
Client: Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrew St., Suite 360, Rochester, N.Y.
Foundation
Project: Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Design, P.C.
Project No.: 4308.0 Fi ure
t;���l�ecl line indicates the approximate/
Upper iilni� F�o�lncl�tr� fos' natural soils
/
/
fir,
/
/
/ V
/
Gt.�1L
�r
�::�1..
l�.�l-•I �r
SOIL DATA
NATURAL
SAMPLE
DEPTH
WATER
PLASTIC
LIQUID
PLASTICITY
SYMBOL
SOURCE
USCS
NO.
CONTENT
LIMIT
LIMIT
INDEX
•
B17-3
5-15
78'-80'
31.4
21
36
15
CL
Tested By: BJV Checked By: EAA
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60
50
40
X
W
0
Z_
�= 30—
fz
U
W
Q
J
20
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
Client: Top Capital of New York, 400 Andrew St., Suite 360, Rochester, N.Y.
Foundation
Project: Station Park, Station Lane, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
.a.�;:. Design, P.C.
Project No.: 4308.0 Figure
(�B���Cj line indicates the approximate
/
Upper �I#7#3t I3C1�1r#Ci�ry �9r i3atr.#r�i Sfl1iS
/
/
/
/
/
/
i
cL-NIL
I
Mil- or
O$.-
J'`Ji� �r
OH
SOIL DATA
NATURAL
SAMPLE
DEPTH
WATER
PLASTIC
LIQUID
PLASTICITY
SYMBOL
SOURCE
USCS
NO.
CONTENT
LIMIT
LIMIT
INDEX
�
B17-8
S-6
18'-20'
49.6
24
55
31
CH
Tested By: RJR Checked By: EAA
Tested By: RJR Checked By: EAA
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60
50
40
X
w
0
z
tz
30
U
U)
Q
d
20
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
Client: Top Capital of New York,
400 Andrew St., Suite 360, Rochester,
N.Y.
Foundation
Project: Station Park, Station Lane,
Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
r,
Design, P.C.
Project No.: 4308.0
Fi ure
Dashed line ir�c3lc�ries t)�e ���r�Y;rrd�dte
/
�Ij313�r limit boundary ��r d`Ic 111d'�ll soils
/
/
/
C7
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Cd_-r��
i��i�, �r
N.
�iii-i 0,
Oi.j
SOIL DATA
NATURAL
SYMBOL
SOURCE
SAMPLE
DEPTH
WATER
PLASTIC
LIQUID
PLASTICITY
USCS
NO.
CONTENT
LIMIT
LIMIT
INDEX
•
B17-10
S-5
18'-20'
27.8
NP
NV
NP
Non -Plastic
Tested By: BJV Checked By: EAA
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60
Dashed line ificlicates theapproximate
Upper limit bOLIrICI.c�I'y for iis'1.$t,li's']l S0315
SOIL DATA
NATURAL
SYMBOL SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX USCS
B17-17 S-5 13'-15' 27.6 NP NV NP Non -Plastic
•
Tested By: BJV Checked By: EAA
Tested By: BJV Checked By: EAA