HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250566 33-35 Caroline St Site Plan Geotechnical Report 07112025DANIEL G. LOUCKS, P.E.
GLOTECHNICA L ENGINEERING
Geotechnical Report
For
Proposed Apartment Building
33-37 Caroline Street
Saratoga Springs, NY
File No. 4458
Prepared For:
Dempsey Development
n,Ew��
Loud ��
T CJ F q'' 0
15 Apri 2625
2615 PAGE STORE ROAD, CAMERON, NC 28326 0 518-369-9453 ■ F-MAIL: DGLGEOENG@GMAIL.COM
INTRODUCTION:
The subsurface investigation for the proposed Apartment
Building, 33-37 Caroline Street, Saratoga Springs, New York has
been completed. LaBella of Ballston Spa, New York has completed
three (3) soil borings at the site. The logs of these borings,
along with a location diagram, have been included in the
appendix of this report.
It is my understanding that the proposed construction will
include a five -story building, with a lower level parking garage
located approximately as indicated on the boring location
diagram. The lower two levels will have a steel frame and
reinforced concrete bearing -wall design. The upper four levels
will have a woad frame design.
The maximum column loadings were not available at the time this
report was issued, but I have estimated they could range from
45C to 600 kips. Bearing wall loads will range from 6 to 8 kips
per foot of wall. The settlement tolerances are normal.
Settlement tolerances are considered to include up to 1 inch of
total settlement and 3/4 inch of differential settlement between
column locations.
The lower parking garage floor slab will be established at
approximately 10 feet below the existing grades at the site.
The purpose of this report is to describe the investigation
conducted and the results obtained; to analyze and interpret the
data obtained; and to make recommendations for the design and
construction of the feasible foundation types and earthworks for
the project. The recommendations contained in this report are
based on the information that was provided up to the date the
report was completed. Any changes in the design of the project
or changes to the recommendations provided in this report should
be brought to my attention to determine if there needs to be any
revision of the geotechnical recommendations. I am not
responsible for any changes made to the recommendations provided
in this report unless I have provided written approval of the
changes. Additional boring(s) and pile testing will be required
to provide final design recommendations.
The scope of my services has been limited to coordinating the
boring and laboratory investigation, analyzing the soils
information, and providing a geotechnical report with
preliminary foundation recommendations and seismic site
classifications as per NYS Building Code. Environmental aspects
of the project as well as grading and site design should be
performed by qualified others. Design of any, piles, sheeting
and shoring, underpinning and dewatering should be performed by
qualified others.
FIELD INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES:
The borings were extended by means of 3.75 inch ID, hollow -stem
augers, hollow steel casing and by using various cutting bits
using circulating drilling fluid to remove the cuttings from the
casing and by continuous sampling with a split -spoon sampler.
Representative samples were obtained from the boring holes by
means of the split -spoon sampling procedure performed in accor-
dance with ASTM D 1586. The standard penetration values
obtained from this procedure have been indicated on the soil
boring logs.
Soil samples obtained from these procedures were examined in the
field, sealed in containers, and shipped to the laboratory for
further examination, classification, and testing, as applicable.
Representative samples of the boulder/cobble materials were
obtained by means of the diamond -bit sampling procedure
performed in accordance with ASTM D 2113. NQ2-size core barrels
were used for this sampling procedure.
During the investigation, water level readings were obtained at
various times where water accumulated in the boring hole. The
water level readings, along with an indication of the time of
the reading relative to the boring procedure, have been
indicated on the soil boring logs.
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION:
All samples were examined in the laboratory by the soil engineer
and classified according to the Unified Soil Classification
System. In this system, the soils are visually classified
according to texture and plasticity. The appropriate group
symbol is indicated on the soil boring logs.
Samples exhibiting significant cohesion were tested with a
calibrated, spring -loaded, penetrometer. This test is used to
3
estimate the unconfined compressive strength of the soil sample
by measuring the soil's resistance to the penetration of the
penetrometer needle. The results of these tests are listed on
the boring logs.
SITE CONDITIONS:
I understand that the site has two existing buildings with the
remaining areas being paved. The ground surface at the site
varies in elevation between approximately 5 and 7 feet. I also
understand that there is an adjacent building to the east that
is within 3 feet of the property line that has a partial
basement in one area and no basement in another portion. I
understand that the existing building in the northeast corner of
the site has a full basement that extends approximately 10 feet
below the existing grades at the site.
In addition I understand that there is a large diameter pipe the
extends through the center portion of the site that is
approximately 15 feet below the existing grade. This pipe is
owned by the City of Saratoga Springs. And its condition is not
known.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS:
The specific subsurface conditions encountered at each boring
location are indicated on the individual soil boring logs.
However, to aid in the evaluation of this data, I have prepared
a generalized description of the soil conditions based on the
boring data. Boring locations and amounts were limited due to
existing structures.
The borings encountered an upper layer of uncontrolled fill that
extends to between approximately 4 and 10 below the existing
grade at the site. This uncontrolled fill contains sand with
varying amounts of silt, gravel, ash/cinders, brick and
concrete.
Below the uncontrolled fill in borings B-1 and B-3 is a layer of
sand with clayey silt/silt and a trace to some peat. This layer
is loose and extended to between approximately 11 and 12 feet
below the existing ground surface. A layer of sand with silt was
encountered under the uncontrolled fill in B-2.
4
Underlying the sand with clayey silt/silt and peat are layered
silt and clay soils. These soils are loose/medium stiff to stiff
and extended to the bottom of boring B-3 at 17 feet and to
between approximately 38 and 40 feet in borings B-1 and B-2.
Beneath the layered silt and clay soils are sand and clayey silt
soils with varying amounts of gravel. Cobbles and boulders were
encountered in these soils at between 57 and 75 feet below the
existing ground surface. A boulder was cored between 57 and 60
feet in boring B-2. 'these soils are dense to very dense.
Borings B-1 and B-2 were terminated at 63.3 and 75.0 feet below
the existing ground surface because the driller was not able to
advance the borings. No rock core was obtained and it is
possible bedrock could be deeper than the borings extended. If
the owner decides to use mini -piles that are. socketed into
bedrock, I recommend that at least one additional boring with a
10 foot rock core be taken to better estimate. the depth to
bedrock and the quality of the bedrock. In my experience bedrock
in this area is typically limestone.
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS:
Based on the groundwater levels observed during the boring
investigation, the moisture condition of the samples recovered
from the boring holes and coloration of the soil samples, I
judge that the groundwater level was located below depth of 7
feet.
Perched groundwater tables may occur at higher elevations in the
soil profile due to groundwater being retained by layers or
lenses of silt or clay soils.
Some fluctuation in hydrostatic groundwater levels and perched
water conditions should be anticipated with variations in the
seasonal rainfall and surface runoff.
It should be noted that the groundwater levels were obtained
during the drilling procedure. Actual water levels may vary at
the time of construction. Some groundwater could be encountered
in soil layers labeled moist to wet on the boring logs.
5
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
I understand that the final building design has not been
completed, but the owner would like to have a basement parking
garage that extends at least 10 feet below the existing grades
at the site and that the proposed building footprint will extend
to within approximately 3 feet of the existing property lines. I
also understand that the lower two building levels will be
constructed of steel and reinforced concrete, with the remaining
upper levels having a wood frame design.
The borings encountered an upper layer of uncontrolled fill
soils and a layer of soils with peat to depths of between
approximately 10 and 12 feet below the existing ground surface.
Loose/medium stiff to stiff layered silt and clay soils were
encountered below the uncontrolled fill/organic soils to a depth
of between approximately 38 and 40 feet below the existing
ground surface. Dense to very dense sand and clayey silt soils
with gravel, cobbles and bounders was encountered below the
layered silt and clay to the bottom of the borings at between
approximately 63 and 75 feet below the existing ground surface.
I understand there is also a large diameter pipe that extends
approximately 15 feet below grade at the site and the condition
is not known.
Based on the boring results and my understanding the grading,
estimated building loads and the existence of the pipe at the
site, it is my opinion that the proposed building cannot be
adequately supported on spread footing foundations because of
settlements that would occur that could affect the pipe below.
In my opinion if the pipe is shallow enough to replace the owner
should consider it, provided the City approves.
I recommend that the proposed building be supported by mini -
piles that extend to bedrock or possibly helical piles that
extend into the dense sand and clayey silt soils below 50 feet.
The pile design should be performed by qualified others. I
recommend that the owner perform a cost estimate with both
options to determine which option may be the most cost
effective.
For the mini -pile estimate I would estimate that the piles would
extend a minimum of 75 feet below the existing ground surface
and then at least a 10 feet embedment in to bedrock.
6
Preliminarily a rock socket side friction of 100 psi could be
used for design. Additional borings(s) would be required to more
accurately determine the cost and side friction values if this
option is chosen.
For estimating purposes for the helical pile option. I would
assume a minimum depth of 50 feet. Piles that extend deeper will
have higher capacities.. For the estimate, depending on the depth
that helical piles are advanced into denser soils, they could
achieve capacities of between 20 and 30 kips per pile. Test
piles should be installed to more accurately determine the
design capacity.
Either of these pile options should then be designed to support
the entire building and garage floor slab utilizing pile caps
and grade beams. The pile estimates are based on past experience
and final design values will need to be determined with
additional boring(s) and testing.
Design of any sheeting and shoring, underpinning and dewatering
should be performed by qualified others. I recommend that
adjacent site be surveyed and monitored during construction to
verify no damage is occurring to adjacent structures. Ground
vibrations during the installation of any sheeting or shoring
should also be monitored to verify that peak particle velocities
do not exceed values that could cause damage to adjacent
structures..
Site Work:
I recommend that the existing pipe be replaced with a properly
designed pipe if possible.
The proposed construction areas should be cleared and grubbed
and all organic topsoil and vegetation along with any uncon-
trolled fill and debris.. The subgrade should be observed and
probed by the soil engineer or qualified technician under the
guidance of a soil engineer in place of proof rolling. Placement
of a pad of crushed stone with geotextile will be required to
improve the stability of the subgrade soils for construction of
the grade beams and garage floor slab. This crushed stone pad
should be a minimum of 12 inches thick. If construction traffic
is placed on the crushed stone the thickness should beincreased
to a minimum of 24 inches.
A way to stabilize a spongy, but suitable, virgin, subgrade
would be to spread a reinforcement or separation type of geo-
textile (Mirafi 600X or approved equal) on the subgrade and
follow with a lift of clean, granular fill or uniform crushed
stone. The thickness of the controlled fill can range from 1.0
to 2.5 feet, as necessary, to achieve a working mat upon which
to construct the remainder of the controlled fill or to place
footings. If uniform crushed stone is used as controlled fill a
layer of geotextile should be placed between the crushed stone
and any sand/gravel controlled fill or virgin soil.
Controlled Fill:
Before any controlled fill is placed the site should be
inspected to verify that the site has been prepared according to
the recommendations contained in this report as required by the
current NXS Building Code.
Controlled fill can consist of non -organic, on -site or imported
soils free of debris and expansive soil/rock and having a
maximum particle size of 3 inches. A gradation and proctor
should be performed on the proposed soil and submitted to me for
approval. Approved, properly placed and compacted material can
be used as controlled fill within the proposed building
footprint. Free draining controlled fill material should be
placed as recommended in this report. Approved on -site or
imported soils should not be used in these locations where free
draining controlled fill is recommended unless approved by me.
Controlled, relatively clean, granular fill can be spread in
lifts not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness. These
materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the
maximum ASTM Specification D 1557-91 density, modified proctor.
On -site, silty soils, will be difficult to compact during wet
weather or poor drying conditions. These soils should not be
used as controlled fill.
If crushed stone is used as controlled fill, it should have a
layer of geotextile with a minimum tensile strength of 200 lbs
should be placed between the stone and existing soils. The stone
should be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness
and should be compacted with a, minimum of 5 passes of a
8
vibratory roller rated at 5 tons or larger. Weathered shale or
crushed shale should not be used as controlled fill within the
proposed building area.
Free Draining Controlled Fill Material: Naturally or
artificially graded mixture of sand, natural or crushed stone or
gravel conforming to NYS DOT 'fable 733-04A, Type 2 or 4 as
follows and free of any organics, expansive material or asphalt
products:
U.S. Sieve No.
2 inch
1/4 inch
No. 40
No. 200
Percent Passing by Weight
100
30-65
5-40
0-10
NYS DOT Table 703-4, Size 2 crushed stone, clean, durable,
angular, and of uniform quality throughout and non -expansive:
U.S. Sieve No.
1 '� inch
1 inch
1/2 inch
Percent Passing by Weight
100
90-100
0-15
All controlled fill should be free of organic and/or frozen
material.
Free -draining controlled fill should have less than 10 percent
fines passing the #200 sieve.
I recommend performing one field density test for every 2,000
square feet of controlled fill placed, within the overlaying
building footprint, but in no case fewer than three tests per
lift.
I recommend that for foundation wall backfill that in each
compacted backfill layer have at least one field in place
density test for each 50 feet or less of wall or footing length,
but not fewer than two tests along a wall face be performed per
lift. Walls should be backfilled uniformly on each side of the
wall to prevent uneven lateral loading on the wall, unless the
wall is designed as a retaining wall.
0
Proper placement and compaction of backfill along exterior
portions of foundation walls should. be provided, especially in
locations where there are sidewalks or building entries. Proper
placement of backfill materials can reduce possible settlements
and the use of properly designed backfill and drainage can
reduce possible frost heave movements.
Results of the field compaction test results should be sent to
my office for review. Copies of the results of soil gradation
tests should also be provided to me for review and approval.
Building Foundations:
I recommend that the proposed structure be supported by deep
foundations such as mini -pile or helical piles that extend into
bedrock or the dense sand and clayey silt soils below 50 feet.
The. pile design should be performed by qualified others. I
recommend that the owner perform a cost estimate with both
options to determine which option may be the most cost
effective.
For the mini -pile estimate I would estimate that the piles would
extend a minimum of 75 feet below the existing ground surface
and then at least a 10 feet embedment in the possible bedrock.
Preliminarily a rock socket :side friction of 100 psi could be
used for design. Additional borings(s) would be required to more
accurately determine the cost and side friction values if this
option is chosen.
For estimating purposes for the helical pile option. I would
assume a minimum depth of 50 feet. Piles that extend deeper will
have higher capacities. For the estimate, depending on the depth
that helical piles are advanced into denser soils, they could
achieve capacities of between 20 and 30 kips per pile. Test
piles should be installed to more accurately determine the
design capacity.
Loads from adjacent footings, utilities or structures should be
assumed to distribute based on the elastic theory. Typical
Boussinesq charts can be used to approximate loads at various
depths and locations due to adjacent structures.
10
Exterior grade beams in unheated areas should have a minimum of
4.0 feet of embedment for protection from frost action.
All walls that retain soil on only one side should have a drain
tile placed along the base of the wall. The drain tile should
be a minimum of 4 inches in diameter, surrounded by a minimum of
6 inches of properly graded washed sand or crushed stone wrapped
with a non -woven filter fabric with a maximum apparent opening
size of 70 and a minimum trapezoid tearing strength of 100 lbs.
The drain tile should drain to a stormwater sewer, daylight, or
a sump equipped with a pump.
The wall should then be backfilled with a controlled, well
graded, free -draining granular material. The material should
extend away from the wall a horizontal distance of two-thirds
the height of the fill being placed. The upper 1 foot of
material should be a fairly impermeable material to shed surface
water and should be pitched away from the building to provide
proper drainage.
If these procedures are used, a static lateral soil pressure of
40 psf per foot of retained soil can be used for design of the
wall. This static, active lateral soil pressure is based on a
moist unit weight of 125 pcf and an angle of internal friction
of 32 degrees.
If the retaining wall is braced or if the deflection is limited
prior to back.filling so the active soil pressure is not
achieved, a static, at -rest lateral soil pressure of 63 psf per
foot of retained soil can be used for design.
To resist overturning and sliding a static lateral passive
pressure of 250 psf per foot of embedment can be used, provided
foundations are backfilled with controlled fill. This static,
passive pressure resistance value has been reduced from the
calculated full passive pressure because of stress/strain
characteristics of the soil. To develop the full, calculated
resistance a certain amount of movement or deflection in the
structure is required. The amount of movement required to
generate this resistance generally greater than is acceptable
for structures. I therefore recommend that the full passive
pressure not be used.
11
Any surcharge loading of existing adjacent building foundations
or other adjacent structures/utilities should be addressed by
the structural engineer using Boussines.q charts.
Floor Slabs:
Concrete floor slabs can be designed to rest on grade beams that
in turn are supported by pile foundations. I recommend that a
minimum of a 4 inch thick layer of compressible material be
placed over the pipe that extends under the proposed building
and the under the floor slab to allow some settlements to occur
without imposing loads on the pipe.
Exterior/unheated concrete/asphalt pavements will experience
some frost heave movements during the winter and spring. If
these movements are not acceptable then a minimum of 4.0 feet of
approved subbase material and properly designed drains would be
required below the concrete/asphalt pavements or sidewalks. The
use of properly designed footing drains can also be used to
reduce possible frost heave movements adjacent to the proposed
structure.
If the moisture levels of floor slab areas are critical
additional drainage materials and vapor barriers will be
required beneath the door slab. Also, the moisture content of
the subbase soils should be carefully monitored to prevent
excess water from saturating these subbase soils before the
floor slab is poured. This aspect of the design should be
performed by qualified others.
Seismic Conditions:
The potential seismic conditions at the proposed site have been
investigated using the information provided in the NYS Building
Code, ASCE/SEI 7-22 and the boring information obtained during
my investigation and past experience with soils in the area.
Based on the soil boring information and my experience it is my
opinion that the Site Classification (ASCE-7 Table 20.3-I) could
be assumed to be D. Using data from Reference Document ASCE/SEI
7-22, Risk Category I, I estimate that the MCE spectral
acceleration (Sms) at short periods is 28.0 and the MCE spectral
acceleration (Smi) at 1 s period is 12.0. 1 have included a copy
12
of the spectral accelerations .for other Hazard Levels in the
appendix of this report.
The probabilistic ground motion values are for rock site class
B. Peak ground accelerations in the upper soil profile may vary.
If specific peak ground accelerations or shear wave velocities
are required for the upper soil profile additional testing would
be required. If it is determined by the structural engineer
that the Seismic Design Category is D, E or F additional
geotechnical recommendations can be provided.
The soil borings and my analysis do not indicate any significant
potential seismic hazards such as liquefaction, sensitive clays,
weakly cemented soil, or surface rupture.
CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES AND PROBLEMS:
The NYS Building Code requires special inspections and follow up
reports. These inspections should be performed to verify
compliance with the recommendations contained in this report.
All excavations of more than a few feet should be sheeted and
braced or laid back to prevent sloughing in of the sides.
Excavations should not extend below adjacent footings or
structures unless properly designed sheeting and bracing or
underpinning is installed.
A layer of geotextile (min. tensile strength of 200 lbs) and 12
to 24 inches of crushed stone may be required in excavations to
prevent disturbance of the subgrade. The stone and fabric should
be placed as described in the Controlled Fill section of this
report.
Sump -pit and sump -pump -type dewatering may be required in
excavations or low areas during wet weather or if groundwater is
encountered. If large quantities of groundwater are encountered
vacuum wells maybe required to stabilize the subgrade soils. All
excavations should be dewatered to a minimum of 1 foot below the
bottom of the excavation. All dewatering programs should be
designed to prevent bottom heave. Any dewatering program should
be performed with properly designed filtration protection on all
pumps to prevent loss of ground.
13
As previously noted, the on -site soils contain clayey silt which
will make the soils sensitive to moisture content. If the
material becomes wet or saturated, it will become spongy and
easily disturbe.d.. It will also be difficult to place as
controlled fill if it becomes too wet. Imported well draining
sand and gravel or possibly crushed stone may be required to
prevent disturbance of the subgrade soils during construction
and in roadway areas. Additional subbase, up to 24 inches of
total thickness, may be required to support traffic loadings.
Any areas of the pavement subgrades that become disturbed during
construction should be removed and replaced with subbase
materials.
Subgrades should be kept from freezing during construction.
Water, snow, and ice should not be allowed to collect and stand
in excavations or low areas of the subgrade.
Some obstacles, including foundations and utilities and
cobbles/boulders and possibly bedrock, will be encountered while
installing piles.
Design and construction
limit the potential for
shrinkage properties of
the curing of the concri
between the top and boti
in curling of the slak
through the slab should
be only indirectly rela
structural engineer shoe
procedures should include measures to
slab curl and vapor transmission. The
the concrete. should be controlled and
to controlled. Differential shrinkage
am of the slabs could otherwise result
s. The control of vapor transmission
also be addressed. These phenomena may
:ed to soil conditions. The architect/
ld address this aspect of the design.
Current American Concrete Institute recommendations for the
design and construction of floor slabs and the control of
shrinkage, slab curl and vapor transmission can be referred to.
Final Geotechnical Recommendations:
As noted, the estimated preliminary design values provided in
this report are for cost estimating purposes, NOT for final
design. After the cost estimating has been completed additional
testing including soil boring(s) and test pile installation and
testing will be required to provide final design
recommendations. The design of all pile foundations should be
performed by a qualified design build contractor/engineer.
Proposed Apartment Building
33-37 Caroline Street
Saratoga Springs, NY
File No. 4458
CONTENTS OF APPENDIX:
1. General Notes
2. Boring Location Diagram
3. Boring Logs
4. Seismic Design Values
5. Unified Soil Classification System
6. Soil Use Chart
7. General Qualifications
GENERAL NOTES
DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS
SS : Split -Spoon— IN411 I.D., 2" O.D.. except where noted
S Shelby Tube — 2" O.D., except where noted
PA Power Augur Sample
DB Diamond Bit — NX: BX: AX:
CB C'arixrloy Bit — NX: BX: AX:
OS Osterberg Sampler 3" Shelby Tube
I -IS Housel Sampler
W S Wash Sample
FT Fish Tail
RB : Rock Bit
WO Wash Out
Standard "N" Penetration: Blows per foot of a 144) pound hammer falling 30 inches
on a 2 inch 00 split spoon, except where noted
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS
WL
Water Level
WC l
Wet Cave In
MI
Dry Cave In
WS
While Sampling
WE)
While Drilling
BCR
Before Casing Removal
ACR
After Casing Removal
AB
After Boring
Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times iindicated.
In pervious soils, the indicated elevations are considered reliable ground water levels. In impervious soils
the accurate determination of ground water elevations is not passible in even several day's observation,
and additional evidence on ground water elevations must be sought.
CLASSIFICATION
COHESIONLESS SOILS
"Trace"
I % to 104"+
"Trace to some"
10% to 20%,
"Some..
20% to 35%
"And"
35% it) 501X%
Loose
0 to 9 Blows
Medium Dense
10 to 29 Blows
Dense
30 to 59 Blows
°r
Very Dense
> 60 Blows equirtlern
COHESIVE SOILS
If clay content is sufficient so that clay
dominates soil properties, then clay becomes
the principle noun with the other major soil
constituent as modifiers: i.e., silty clay. Other
minor soil constituents may be added according to
classification breakdown for cohesionless soils,
i.e., silty clay, trace to some sand, trace gravel.
Soft
(Wo-0.59
tons/ft,
Medium
0.60-0.99
tons/ft2
Stiff
1.00
— 1.99 €onslft2
Very Stiff
2.00 —
3.99 tons W
Hard
> 4,00
tons/fF
Q
Lt
Ln
6
vi
N
CV
M
V
Proposed Apartment 33-37 Caroline Street
Project Number: 4458
Boring No. 1
Saratoga Springs, NY
Drilling Contractor: LaBella
Drill Rig Type: ATV
Daniel G Loucks PE
2615 Page Store Road
Hammer Type:
Date: March 2025
Cameron, NC
Automatic
d I eoen mail.com
Hammer Weight:
Hammer Drop:
518-369-9453
140 Ibs
30 inches
Groundwater Depth: 8 ft WS
Blow Counts
Lithology
w
Q-
(blows/foot)
N Q
Soil Group Naglp modifier, color, moisture, demitylconsistency, grain size,
z
a,;
other descriptors
=
C- M
�-
E
Z
c
p E
N
-
Q
Bock DaKdntion: modifierm color, hardnessidegree of concentration, bedding
N
Q U
andjoint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.
1
SS
23-15-7-7
22
Fine to Coarse Sand, trace to some Silt, Ash/Cinders
Brown/Gray, Moist, Medium Dense (SM) FILL
2
SS
7-7-9-10
16
4.0
3
SS
4-4-2-2
6
Fine to Medium Sand, trace to some Silt, trace Brick
Brown, Moist, Loose (SM) FILL
4
SS
5-6-6-9
12
8.0
5
SS
9-6-5-2
11
Fine to Medium Sand, trace Silt, Brown, Wet
10
10.0
Medium Dense (SM-SP)
6
SS
54-5-6
9
Fine to Coarse Sand, trace to some Silt, trace Peat
12.0
Brown/Gray/Black, Wet, Loose (SM) (Pt)
PA
Silt, some Clay, Brown, Moist to Wet, Loose/Stiff
(ML)(CL) Layered Qu = 1.8 tsf
7
SS
6-2-2-4
4
PA
20
8
SS
2-1-2-2
3
PA
23.0
Silt and Clay, Dark Gray, Moist to Wet, Loose/Medium
Stiff (ML)(CL) Qu = 0.5 to 0.8 tsf
9
SS
WR-3-4
3
PA
Daniel
G Loucks
PE
Ground Surface Elevation: NIA
Proposed Apartment 33-37 Caroline Street Project Number: 4458 Boring No. 1 Continued
Saratoga Springs, NY
Drilling Contractor: La Bella Drill Rig Type: ATV
Daniel G Loucks PE
2615 Page Store Road Hammer Type: Date: March 2025
Cameron, NC Automatic
d I eoeng a().gmail.com Hammer Weight: Hammer Drop:
518-369-9453 140 Ibs 30 inches
Groundwater Depth: 8 ft WS
Blow Counts Lithology
50. (blowstfoot) R M
E d soil Qroun Name: modifier, color, moisture, densit&onsistency, grain size,
Z m t] other descriptors
Q. , K
°- E z
p E fn - C t Rock Descf tin inn: modifierm color, hardness/degree of concentration, bedding
N Q U and joint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.
10
SS
WR-3 1
Silt and Clay, Dark Gray, Moist to Wet, Loose/Medium
Stiff, (ML)(CL) Layered Qu = 0.5 to 0.8 tsf
PA
11
SS
WR-3-5 3
PA
40
40.0
12
SS
5-11-11-8 22
Fine to Coarse Sand, Clayey Silt, trace to some Gravel
Dark Gray, Medium Dense to Very Dense (SM-ML)
PA
13
SS
6-19-25-33 44
PA
50
14
SS
18-17-50/.5 67
PA
53.0
Fine to Medium Sand and Silty Clay, some Gravel
Dark Gray, Wet, Dense to Very Dense (SC-CL)
15
SS
10-31-14-23 45
PA
Daniel
G Loucks PE
Ground Surface Elevation: NIA
Proposed Apartment 33-37 Caroline Street
Project Number: 4458
Boring No, 1 Continued
Saratoga Springs, NY
Drilling Contractor: La Bella
Drill Rig Type: ATV
Daniel G Loucks PE
2615 Page Store Road
Hammer Type:
Date: March 2025
Cameron, NC
Automatic
dglgeoeng(a�gmail. com
Hammer Weight:
Hammer Drop:
518-369-9453
140 Ibs
30 inches
Groundwater Depth: 8 ft WS
�
Blow Counts
Litholo 9Y
+=
Q E
a (blows/foot)
3
a
H
; m
COG
Soil Grotto me: modifier, color, moisture, density/consistency, grain size,
Z
y
;
other descriptors
a m
d a
p E
a
E
cn
c a�
z L
a
Rock Qescr' Lion: modifierm color, hardness/degree of concentration, bedding
N
Q V
andjoint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.
16
SS 18-27-44-50/.4
71
Fine to Medium Sand and Silty Clay, some Gravel
Dark Gray, Wet, Very Dense (SC-CL)
PA
63.5
End of Boring at 63.5 Feet
Auger Broken in Bottom of Hole
70
80
Daniel G Loucks
PE
Ground Surface Elevation: NIA
Proposed Apartment 33-37 Caroline Street Project Number: 4458 Boring No. 2
Saratoga Springs, NY
Drilling Contractor: LaBella Drill Rig Type: ATV
Daniel G Loucks PE
2615 Page Store Road
Hammer Type: Date: March 2025
Cameron, NC
Automatic
d l eoen mail.com
Hammer Weight: Hammer Drop:
518-369-9453
140 Ibs 30 inches
Groundwater Depth: 7 ft WS
Blow Counts
Lithology
B
CL
(blows/foot)
o-
0
m
Snit Groun Name: modifier, color, moisture, density/consistency, grain size,
Z
7
N o
other descriptors
+• 2
m Q-
C.
E
Z
X of
L- a
p R
N
_
Q
ti
Rode Descripon" modifierm color, hardness/degree of concentration, bedding
r/y
Q V
andjoint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.
1
SS
16-6-6-5
12
Fine to Medium Sand, trace to some Silt, trace Gravel
Brown, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense (SM) FILL
2
SS
3-2-2-1
4
3
SS
1-1-1-1
2
6.0
4
SS
10-5-5-4
10
Fine to Medium Sand, trace to some Silt, Brick, Brown
Moist to Wet, Loose to Medium Dense (SM) FILL
5
SS
5-3-1-3
4
10
10.0
6
SS
1-1-1-3
2
Fine to Coarse Sand, trace to some Silt, trace Gravel
Brown, Wet, Loose (SM)
PA
12.0
No Sample
7
SS
8-4-2-1
6
PA
18.0
Silt, some Clay, Brown, Moist to Wet, Loose/Stiff
20
(ML)(CL) Layered Qu = 1.3 tsf
8
SS
3-1-1-2
2
PA
23.0
Silt and Clay, Dark Gray, Moist to Wet, Loose/Medium
Stiff (ML)(CL) Layered Qu= =0.5 to 0.8 tsf
9
SS
WR-3-2
3
PA
Daniel
G Loucks
PE
Ground Surface Elevation: NIA
Proposed Apartment 33-37 Caroline Street
Project Number: 4458
Boring No. 2 Continued
Saratoga Springs, NY
Drilling Contractor: La Bella
Drill Rig Type: ATV
Daniel G Loucks PE
2615 Page Store Road
Hammer Type:
Date: March 2025
Cameron, NC
Automatic
dglcieoeng(d)gmail.com
Hammer Weight:
Hammer Drop:
518-369-9453
140 Ibs
30 inches
Groundwater Depth: 7 ft WS
Blow Counts
iLithology
E
a
(blows/foot)
a
F
A-, a)Sojl,Groun
Name: modifier, color, moisture, densitylconsistency, grain size,
` Z
y
m
other descriptors
Q.
�"
I- C
p E
Z
-
Q tRoGk
DescrIntion: modifierm color, hardness/degree of concentration, bedding
N
Q V
and joint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.
10
SS
WR-3-2
3
Silt and Clay, Dark Gray, Moist to Wet, Loose/Medium Stiff
(ML)(CL) Layered Qu = 0.8 tsf
PA
33.0
Silt, some Clay, Dark Gray, Moist to Wet, Loose to Medium
Dense/Soft (ML)(CL) Occasional Clay Layers
11
SS
4-4-4-7
8
Qu = 0.4 tsf
PA
38.0
Clayey Silt, trace to some Sand, trace Gravel, Dark Gray
40
Moist to Wet, Medium Dense (ML)
12
SS
5-7-8-7
15
PA
43.0
Clayey Silt and Sand, trace Gravel, Dark Gray, Moist to
Wet, Danse (ML-SM)
13
SS
53-18-17-20
35
PA
48.0
Fine to Coarse Sand, some Clayey Silt, trace to some
50
Gravel, Dark Gray, Moist to Wet, Very Dense (SM)
14
SS
24-25-46-50
71
PA
Cobble/Boulders noted at 57 + feet
15
SS
35-32-50/.4 82+
PA
Driller Notes Boulder between 57 and 60 feet
Daniel
G Loucks
PE
Ground Surface Elevation: NIA
Proposed Apartment 33-37 Caroline Street Project Number: 4458 Boring No. 2 Continued
Saratoga Springs, NY
Drilling Contractor: La Bella Drill Rig Type: ATV
Daniel G Loucks PE
2615 Page Store Road
Hammer Type: Date: March 2025
Cameron, NC
Automatic
d�c fgeaenq(c-gmail.com
Hammer Weight: Hammer Drop:
518-369-9453
140 Ibs 30 inches
Groundwater Depth: 7 ft WS
Blow Counts
lithology
CL (blows/foot)
�, bCL
3 d
modifier, odor, moisture, density/consistency, grain size,
Z
Qy
M
other descriptors
L
m Q-
E
0
Z `O C
p
- a t
134rdzQescrintion: modifierm color, hardnessldegree of concentration, bedding
y
Q V
and joint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.
16
SS 15-16-38-32
54
Fine to Coarse Sand, some Clayey Silt, trace to some
Gravel, Dark Gray, Wet, Very Dense (SM)
PA
7
SS 501.1 50+ 63.1
PA
Driller noted Sand with Gravel, Silt, Cobbles/Boulders
No Samples
70
75.0
End of Boring at 75.0 Feet
80
Daniel G Loucks
PE
Ground Surface Elevation: NIA
Proposed Apartment 33-37 Caroline Street
Project Number: 4458
Boring No. 3
Saratoga Springs, NY
Drilling Contractor: LaBella
Drill Rig Type: ATV
Daniel G Loucks PE
2615 Page Store Road
Hammer Type:
Date: March 2025
Cameron, NC
Automatic
d I eoen mail.com
Hammer Weight:
Hammer Drop:
518-369-9453
140 Ibs
30 inches
Groundwater Depth: 6 ft WS
Blow Counts
Lithology
^.
m E
E
a
(blows/foot)
M
a
H
3
d
soil Groin me: modifier, color, moisture, density/consistency, grain size,
Z
M
to O
other descriptors
Q M
E
;
z
o CM
p E
m
-
Q tRock
Description: modifierm color, hardness/degree of concentration, bedding
Q V
and joint characteristics, solutions, void conditions.
1
SS
9-4-2-3
6
Fine to Coarse Sand, trace to some Silt, trace Brick Brown
2.0
Moist, Loose (SM) FILL
2
SS
6-5-3-2
8
Fine to Coarse Sand, some Ash/Cinders, trace to some
4.0
Silt, Dark Brown/Gray, Moist, Loose (SM) FILL
3
SS
4-3-2-3
5
Fine to Coarse Sand, trace to some Silt, Brown. Moist to
Wet, Loose (SM-SP) Possible Fill
4
SS
1-WR
1
8.0
5
SS
2-1-2-2
3
Fine to Coarse Sand and Clayey Silt, trace to some Peat
10
Dark Brown/Gray, Moist to Wet, Loose (SM) (Pt)
6
SS
3-1-1-2
2
11.0
Sift and Clay, Brown/Gray, Moist to Wet, Loose.Stiff
PA
13.0
(ML)(CL) Layered Qu = 1.5 tsf
Clayey Silt, some Clay, Gray, Moist to Wet, Loose/Stiff
(ML)(CL) Occasional Clay Layers Qu = 1.5 tsf
7
SS
2-3-4-6
7
17.0
End of Boring at 17.0 Feet
20
Daniel
G Loucks
PE
Ground Surface Elevation: NIA
REPORT SUMMARY
Site Information
Address:
35 Caroline St, Saratoga Springs, New York, 72866
Elevation:
276 ft (NAVD 88)
Lat:
43.081913
Long:
-73.783039
Standard;
ASCE/SEI7-22
Risk
Category:
f
Soil
Class:
D - Stiff Soil
Seismic Data
Iss —
............
0.23
5! 7
0.055 ---
SMs
0.28
SM1
0.12
SD.S:
0.19
:Sn1
0.078
TL
6
PGAM
0.13
VS30
-
260
Seismic
Design
Category
B
Nate
Where values of the multi -period 5%-damped MCER response
spectrum are not available from the USGS Seismic Design
Geodatabase, the design response spectrum shall be permitted to
be determined in accordance with Section 11.4.5.2
Q)
oyu
4
v
6II o❑ e
d
r Fr'
Y�
c X
C
.-. Y
",C 'C..
c
Via`d�
4nQ
C
0.
q-
R rt
nQ
Q•
4-
sTogwX& lcnp
jO osn 3Ulltnbol sPm jrgN.4Psog %Z1 01 %;
JS Ws '39 'WD "/. Z{ usgl a1ow
dS'MSVD'AD %S °8111" -I
li
�l��Illllll
lllllfllllll
llllli
Imlf
fllllllll
'
Illlllllflll,
1111lllll
lllll
lilllllillll''�Illllllllllllll
li
II
11-
Il -
11=
11-
1111
lllf
IIlI
fllf
llll
IIII
= -
.
-
�f
flllllllllllll
llllfh�lMUD
_
ilfliil��.
Illlllllllfl+'fl
lllllllll�
�
IIllilllill�l
OO C U.Cd°CL
1t CU4.UU
p
M
_
O
w u ❑U❑ - � u 7� c
u O K A C
° # C� y� �
r sp.
zb'• 'u r
ro
rY«N y !�s
m F
o�,T�
bVCR
^Orv=�
men
30•w+u�£� w.
=B�au:e
iszw.,7ga
o
NCD
Gu
.�V_
V3�C�aH Vy
uo�
O
O
m
�n'�.C�p S E'ZE��r
LG"O.COd�u
YA
=oc�.
u`as—wit'^ era,
y6+ �G..V Y d«P ,CNym
oN -Staollcj
anemts Pori e.1j)pos sougtoaaclunladPo avrpu dZQ ko � v m cp.� p a u o > T�;
onm3 '0 0°.� ° 'Eck-cU�3�o�a
azls UIe1a mosj PUss PUs 12AWa;O s-aaal=MPd PUT P;P(j XaPM 4011seld c E U �.$ v '� o E.E 9.9�!
q O
yy4���.mE 5Vyli".Cp CVT�T
P011e7 1lPa S la 1 Pn PaAia 56 Suop0e1 O 1 2upc 1u7 i P aA1riD aZts Pieta as V y •[ 4 m u m V r w O 2-
B F. D 13 aP J q jf P l CI a{ : Sawn .;S E u u u e^
p.-gy G°i.,C. tlOL C Xu2CGu GO yNTOvO
R HORS.. pp °V7FRC eu 0—� 0 m uRa=_ NO_ 1c0Y
d
O i.`D yarF aq Osi
b 'AAUP usac$yt0 n6Uq �•a'C
EP.-4Z aE
ot°
��O PTU��Y 9G3tr�T
w4yjo 3���� 3 p 00.n _aA.Nnn
..�R 4Olug �• tl'Y a, �y o+..�3u.• 5°p uocmn °
EC p.�m Q� o�=�� —u R mga Twc fj aXR q�N�
^w A � :1
c ��x.cd�.Ec�K39 E=E�•euo.� Cynu Egan � `era w3w�'a c+.'''yv
Y G�T a qN er�7auY mnrCaC
d0.,qm V0UE OCtiEd Yag A..o_vc.
V—rlyRycYcGu
o,434
°cecL'e�� aopo>• E�=-Y+nuFL:&.y. `a8rooeiuc 3racc E•°''acEo. a y� � u�E�V�a �
�awwwgee a 7uEa my i R Pq e�c e
`o x wruY e�cm oE'CRR U ez u � � c-•+..cu° w m � w r� o s�' � 9 .m•�� 4E"
if
Z
ao0
yG°
C
w
i u
°'�
2 m
4 A
e„
a
u
qri
m-
Y
ch„��'c.E
•u
;w
cE
42
'c
v`-'
e
am
a,"
aY.c
am:�
er�su.a°
as
der
dnw
�a'�
ar..au
�3
N
�k�a
����
��
o
I
! y
y
y
u
c
qq
y
c
r
z
N
y Ei
x
2�10
N
L
°
rU
vs
`w
o
E
R
V
M1
9
°
R• ppC
w
C#
c
°
oT
0
p�
pC
m—
•w
of
y�
Y
v
°.�
'h�
�wi
",
C
.0
Ayq�
�N
04
zy
V1
�C
N
°
z
Ow
Z�
;.c
oA
�N
ns
ac
ACo
a
C Cam^
E
E E
OP
iw� C C
�°J
Cwi
=w
D
C`j C
a.
o.,
aR
11
■C
q
1
In
r'-a
t�
ox
7q
$
3R
3
z
E
#
w
Zw
s
y
yE
;g
!
3a..
z�
OTT
Q_4
d'O
(��
(�
(AVB
oP 10 alit!"
)
afgsl+dds)
{AII�
OP 10 0111!"
j° ]tnl0uni
aEgTlwdde)
C
sPAWS UTZ
souB
spUss Ural,
raUB
g1lAl spnsxrJ
q1!•+s spur$
OSutUTgl s7l
11ss r] Dlnbll
OS
u11tutql 1aMJ3
pinbqs{a5
a
vu1
.E
a'
(azlS aa!s >'O`oq1 Ol luaTAlnba c
pun aq kow azls'ut { agl uonnglsetP Esns!A 10
a
Sills
s�Calo pus s11?S
ergs
aAols
s''o�[
MS oAals
y "PN
cri
a
iUM
laaxrl
51 UO! m 1j
Pegi n{lsuss s1 uo1lDa.rj
a
0
u
x1Too So 31eq
uagi a1oN
=Vo0 O
S
usgl a1oys{
a
s1aAa.1�
s3P$g
P s
A
W* patlen
Ol olq!srA *Jollied
1m11ew2 aql tnogs sl Pits aAals ppZ 'oN oqj.)
2
g3:ry 7Aa!8 W( 'ON
Usg1 J2SIVI
I
n!s gnats WZ -ON ueg7
sl f111a1eu1 j° 31eq uegl WON
,�Jjv z sr M12iVUS )O )�eq tregl
*.cow
c11os POUlsla-aslsoO
!I
silos PaUse20-1u!d-
w Eotzv0�c—o
o w TG
era°wv
E C y
0 ()cE4rRU�r•�L ed
` r�qt8c°i d� CU�w'G ..�q■
L 4� Cyyk Ux
way`-13JP aoaa 4a3
Q.
E v
r Q °Z
•a rY .; c°�
0 Y �'O a a'[ "r; L w C .
o ? as s8,o3�,�53w
Z41 la
uu��ao��u[�
v E u"°t na ate..
Ec , u 'Rr-
�.gcaE--Ew���Bu
G Y
C_d ° DCr'O>O Iu
P+A y CEc70
�nuiV C
u T
r R
a�0 °O��a air~r°w�LE
q4u E.- ONOYi�u�aLs -
3s�
w. � A
F-iai
O oe IL C
v
v
F.
ern
rhi
m
Al
_ v
.2
u
2
2 2 a
},
g2t
is
S
RiiUi
a
a E
E
2
#r=E
.c
�"
m
eo E
E
O0..vi H
y
Hti
E
Y
u
',
�,LmLt.2ce
m
°
m
N ep
Z o0
m
m
E m
E
E
o X-r
Z
E 'e6
4 $ m
G �
o
�
Y
V
p
C
g
O
s
1
Y
V
V
V
V V
42
4
Z 2S
4,
d
U
LL
z
z
z z z
F O
L 4 + G
J L O
R
—
�
G
-
y rW[ :h K
a �
RR
�
T,
�
eC •'� v
y 6
ep O _y
-
W .� c q
V V
'� U J U
O ran
ran
p 9
ran
H �
J
D
U
i
O c
J
,}j
T
Z
[
D
Z
W Z h
K
J
U Kai
[N
2
O
O
[i
O
_
L
w n
v
GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS
This report has been prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and
to assist the architect and/or engineer in the design of this project. The scope of the
project and` Iocation described herein, and my description of the project
represents my understanding of the significant aspects relevant to soil and
foundation characteristics. In the event that any changes in the design or location
of the proposed facilities, as outlined in this report, are planned, I should be
informed so the changes can be reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified
or approved in writing by myself.
It is recommended that all construction operations dealing with earthwork
and foundations be inspected by an experienced soil engineer to assure that the
design requirements are fulfilled in the actual construction. If you wish, I would
welcome the opportunity to review the plans and specifications when they have
been prepared so that I may have the opportunity of commenting on the effect of soil
conditions on the design and specifications.
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data
obtained from the soil borings and/or test pits performed at the locations indicated on
the location diagram and from any other information discussed in the report.
This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between these boring
and/or test pits. In the performance of subsurface investigations, specific informatioon
is obtained at specific locations at specific times. However, it is a well-known fact
that variations in soil and rock conditions exist on most sites between boring
locations and also such situations as groundwater conditions vary from time to
time. The nature and extent of variations may may not become evident until the course
of construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary for a reevalua-
tion of the recommendations of this report after performing on -site observations
during the construction period and noting the characteristics of any variations.