02357_Geotechnical_Report.pdf

Submitted To:

ECH Architecture

1415 Western Avenue, Suite 418 Seattle, Washington 98101

Phone: (206)682-2857

By:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

5430 Fairbanks Street, Suite 3 Anchorage, Alaska 99518

Phone: (907)561-2120 Fax: (907)561-4483

E-mail: glj@shanwil.com

32-1-02357-001

Geotechnical Engineering Report US Coast Guard Building 576

Electronic Systems Support Unit Kodiak, Alaska

November 2013

USCG Building 576 ESU, Kodiak, Alaska 32-1-02357-001 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.0 CLOSURE/LIMITATIONS

FIGURES

1 Vicinity Map 2 Site Plan 3 Soil Description and Log Key 4 FHWA Rock Classification System 5 Log of Boring B-1 6 Log of Boring B-2 7 Grain Size Classification

APPENDIX

A Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

US COAST GUARD BUILDING 576

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS SUPPORT UNIT

KODIAK, ALASKA

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of subsurface explorations and laboratory testing conducted by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. for the proposed improvements to Building 576 at the United States Coast Guard (USCG) Electronic Systems Support Unit (ESU) in Kodiak, Alaska. The purpose of this geotechnical study was to explore subsurface conditions needed to support development of a design-build request for proposals (RFP) for improvements to the existing Building 576 in the Aviation Hill area of the Coast Guard Base in Kodiak. To accomplish this, two soil borings were advanced through soil and rock near the existing building. Soil samples recovered from the borings were tested in our geotechnical laboratory. Presented in this report are descriptions of the site and project, subsurface explorations and laboratory test procedures, and an interpretation of subsurface conditions.

Authorization to proceed with this work was received from Mr. William Arens of ECH Architecture on September 25, 2013. Our work was conducted in general accordance with our proposal dated September 10, 2013.

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project area is located on the USCG Kodiak base, about five miles southwest of the City of Kodiak, Alaska at the USCG ESU, located on Aviation Hill at the intersection of West Lane and Clark Lane. Aviation Hill is a promontory overlooking the Coast Guard base that also is the location for a recently constructed housing development for Coast Guard personnel. The topography at the site of Building 576 consists of a large, flat bench. South and east of the flat building site, the ground falls away steeply. A vicinity map showing the general project location is presented in Figure 1. The project includes improvements and retrofitting of the existing Building 576. A site plan that provides a view of the project area including Building 576, prominent site features, and our approximate boring locations is included as Figure 2.

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

Subsurface explorations consisted of advancing and sampling two soil borings, designated Boring B-1through B-2, to evaluate the subsurface conditions in the proposed development area.

Drilling services for this project were provided by Denali Drilling of Anchorage, Alaska. An experienced engineer from our office was present continuously during the field work to locate the borings, observe drilling operations, recover soil and rock samples, log the subsurface conditions, and observe groundwater levels where appropriate.

The borings were advanced using a truck-mounted Mobile B-61 drill rig. The borings were advanced with a 4¼-inch inner diameter (ID), continuous flight, hollow-stem auger. As the borings were advanced, soil samples were recovered with a 3-inch outer diameter (OD) split spoon sampler using Modified Penetration Test (MPT) procedures. In this test, samples were recovered by driving the sampler into the bottom of the advancing hole with blows of a 340-pound cathead hammer, free falling 30 inches onto the drilling rods. The number of blows required to advance the sampler the final 12 inches of a total 18-inch penetration is termed the Penetration Resistance, which was recorded for each sample. These values are shown graphically on the boring log adjacent to the sample depth. These values give a measure of the relative density (compactness) or consistency (stiffness) of cohesionless or cohesive soils, respectively. Samples were generally taken at 2.5-foot intervals until auger refusal. In addition to the split spoon samples taken while drilling, a grab sample was collected from drill cuttings starting at the existing ground surface to an approximate depth of 2 feet bgs. The soils encountered were visually described in the field. In Boring B-2, a rock core sample was taken beginning at the depth of auger refusal, 10.4 feet below ground surface (bgs), using a wire line rock coring barrel with a diamond cutting bit. Soils were generally described according to the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS) that is presented as Figure 3. Rock core samples were generally classified according to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Generalized Classification System presented in Figure 4.

The boring locations shown on the site plan presented as Figure 2 were estimated using swing-tie measurements from existing site features. The elevations shown on the boring logs were estimated from a plan drawing by St. Denny Surveying Incorporated and provided by ECH Architecture. Therefore, boring locations and elevations should be considered approximate.

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory tests were performed on soil samples recovered from the borings to confirm our field classifications and to estimate the index properties of the typical materials encountered at the site. The laboratory testing was formulated with emphasis on determining gradation properties, natural water content, and frost characteristics.

Water content tests were performed on each soil sample recovered from the borings. The tests were generally conducted according to procedures described in ASTM International (ASTM) D 2216. The results of the water content measurements are presented graphically on the boring logs presented as Figures 5 and 6.

Grain size classification tests were conducted on selected samples to confirm the field classification of the soils encountered. The gradation testing generally followed the mechanical sieve procedures described in ASTM C 117/136. The grain size testing results are presented as Figure 7, and summarized on the boring logs as percent gravel, percent sand, and percent fines.

Percent fines on the boring logs are equal to the sum of the silt and clay fractions indicated by the percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Plasticity characteristics (Atterberg Limits results) are required to differentiate between silt and clay soils under USCS.

No laboratory testing was completed on the rock core sample recovered from Boring B-2, however, Rock Quality Designation (RQD) was measured for the core sample recovered during drilling. In the measurement, core specimens longer than 4 inches are measured in each run with RQD calculated as the ratio of the sum of the length of core fragments longer than 4 inches to the total drilled footage per run, expressed as a percentage. This value is used to estimate the rock mass quality (i.e. low values are indicative of low quality while RQD values approaching 100 percent reflect high quality). The results of these measurements along with the percent recovery are included on the boring logs.

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subsurface conditions described below are depicted graphically in the boring logs in Figures 5 and 6. The soils encountered by our borings generally appeared to be non-native fill material and were relatively consistent in density and composition in each boring. The soil generally consisted of gravel with sand and silt fill with occasional cobbles and boulders. According to laboratory testing, the fines content was approximately 12 percent. Based on penetration resistance values which were greater than 50 blows per foot (bpf), the soils encountered would be considered very dense. These blow counts may be biased high due to the oversized gravel and cobbles encountered at the site. Bedrock was encountered in Boring B-2 at 10.4 feet bgs and consisted of weak to medium strong, moderately to completely weathered shale. Auger refusal was encountered at 6.5 feet bgs in Boring B-1 and may indicate the bedrock surface at that location. Groundwater was not encountered in our borings at the time of drilling.

6.0 CLOSURE/LIMITATIONS

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of our client and their representatives for evaluating the site as it relates to the geotechnical aspects discussed herein. The conclusions contained in this report are based on information provided from the observed site conditions and other conditions described herein. The analyses, and conclusions contained in this report are based on site conditions as they presently exist. It is assumed that the exploratory borings are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site, i.e., the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the explorations.

If, during construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in these explorations are observed or appear to be present, Shannon & Wilson, Inc. should be advised at once so that these conditions can be reviewed and reconsidered where necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between the submittal of this report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed due to natural causes or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions considering the changed conditions and time lapse.

We recommend that we be retained to review those portions of the plans and specifications pertaining to earthwork and foundations to determine if they are consistent with our conclusions.

In addition, we should be retained to observe construction, particularly the site excavations, compaction of structural fill, preparation of spread footing foundations, and also to make field measurements of ground displacements and such other field observations as may be necessary.

Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot fully be determined by merely taking soil samples or advancing borings. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. Therefore, some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs. Shannon & Wilson has prepared the attachments in Appendix A Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of the reports.

November 2013 32-1-02357-001

USCG Building 576 ESU Kodiak, Alaska

Bentonite Cement Grout

Bentonite Grout

Bentonite Chips

Silica Sand

Perforated or Screened Casing

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, from below water table

FIG. 3

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&W), uses a soil identification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on this and the following pages. Soil descriptions are based on visual-manual procedures (ASTM D2488) and laboratory testing procedures (ASTM D2487), if performed.

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

SPECIFICATIONS

Hammer:

Sampler:

N-Value:

Dry

Moist

Wet

MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS

Modifying (Secondary)

Precedes major constituent

Major

Minor Follows major constituent

1All percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3-inch sieve.

2The order of terms is: Modifying Major with Minor.

3Determined based on behavior.

4Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage.

5Whichever is the lesser constituent.

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

(less than 50% fines)1

NOTE: Penetration resistances (N-values) shown on boring logs are as recorded in the field and have not been corrected for hammer efficiency, overburden, or other factors.

PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS

RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY

Sand or Gravel 4

30% or more coarse-grained:

Sandy or Gravelly 4

More than 12% fine-grained:

Silty or Clayey 3

15% to 30% coarse-grained:

with Sand or with Gravel 4

30% or more total coarse-grained and lesser coarse-grained constituent is 15% or more:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard

Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense

RELATIVE

DENSITY

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more fines)1

COHESIVE SOILS

< 2 2 - 4 4 - 8

8 - 15 15 - 30

> 30

1Gravel, sand, and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents, such as organics, cobbles, and boulders, estimated by volume.

2Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall.

Rope on 6- to 10-inch-diam. cathead 2-1/4 rope turns, > 100 rpm

NOTE: If automatic hammers are used, blow counts shown on boring logs should be adjusted to account for efficiency of hammer.

10 to 30 inches long Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches Barrel O.D. = 2 inches

Sum blow counts for second and third 6-inch increments.

Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or less; 10 blows for 0 inches.

RELATIVE

CONSISTENCY

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

5% to 12% fine-grained:

with Silt or with Clay 3

15% or more of a second coarse-grained constituent:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

< 5%

5 to 10%

15 to 25%

30 to 45%

50 to 100%

Surface Cement Seal

Asphalt or Cap

Slough

Inclinometer or Non-perforated Casing

Vibrating Wire Piezometer

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

< 4 4 - 10

10 - 30 30 - 50

> 50

DESCRIPTION

< #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)

#200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.)

#40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.)

#10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.)

SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE

#4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.)

3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm)

3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)

> 12 in. (305 mm)

Fine Coarse

Fine Medium Coarse

BOULDERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

FINES

SAND

Sheet 1 of 3

S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS

CONSTITUENT2

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Silt, Lean Clay, Elastic Silt, or

Fat Clay 3

PERCENTAGES TERMS 1, 2

Trace

Few

Little

Some

Mostly

WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

G

IN

T

.G P

J S

W N

E W

.G D

T

1/

/1

Kodiak, Alaska

Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Sand

Sheet 2 of 3

Gravels

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

SW

(more than 12% fines)

Silts and Clays

Silts and Clays

(more than 50% retained on No.

200 sieve)

(50% or more of coarse fraction passes the No. 4 sieve)

(liquid limit less than 50)

(liquid limit 50 or more)

GC

SC

Inorganic

Organic

(more than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve)

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC

SYMBOL

CH

OH

ML

CL

TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

Gravel

Sand

Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel

Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel

Organic

Inorganic

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

SM

Sands

Silty or Clayey Gravel

Silt; Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Silt

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay

HIGHLY-

ORGANIC

SOILS

COARSE-

GRAINED

SOILS

OL

(less than 5% fines)

GW

(less than 5% fines)

PT

Well-Graded Gravel; Well-Graded Gravel with Sand

Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay

NOTES

1. Dual symbols (symbols separated by a hyphen, i.e., SP-SM, Sand with Silt) are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart. Graphics shown on the logs for these soil types are a combination of the two graphic symbols (e.g., SP and SM).

2. Borderline symbols (symbols separated by a slash, i.e., CL/ML, Lean Clay to Silt; SP-SM/SM, Sand with Silt to Silty Sand) indicate that the soil properties are close to the defining boundary between two groups.

Peat or other highly organic soils (see

ASTM D4427)

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 3

(more than 12% fines)

MH

SP

GP

GM

Silty or Clayey Sand

Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand

(50% or more passes the No.

200 sieve)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

Elastic Silt; Elastic Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt

Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel;

Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay

Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Sand; Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

G

IN

T

.G P

J S

W N

E W

.G D

T

1/

/1

NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

(Modified From USACE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488)

Kodiak, Alaska

Angular

Subangular

Subrounded

Rounded

Flat

Elongated

Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces.

Similar to angular, but with rounded edges.

Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.

Smoothly curved sides with no edges.

Width/thickness ratio > 3.

Length/width ratio > 3.

Narrow range of grain sizes present or, within the range of grain sizes present, one or more sizes are missing (Gap Graded). Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.

Full range and even distribution of grain sizes present. Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.

Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure Will not crumble or break with finger pressure

Weak

Moderate

Strong

VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA

A 1/8-in. thread cannot be rolled at any water content.

A thread can barely be rolled and a lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit.

A thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. A lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.

It take considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. A thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. A lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.

FIG. 3

Sheet 3 of 3

Interbedded

Laminated

Fissured

Slickensided

Blocky

Lensed

Homogeneous

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-inch thick; singular: bed.

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 1/4-inch thick; singular:

lamination.

Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance.

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy;

sometimes striated.

Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps that resist further breakdown.

Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay.

Same color and appearance throughout.

At Time of Drilling Diameter Elevation Feet Iron Oxide Gallons Horizontal Hollow Stem Auger Inside Diameter Inches Pounds Magnesium Oxide Millimeter Manganese Oxide Not Applicable or Not Available Nonplastic Outside Diameter Observation Well Pounds per Cubic Foot Photo-Ionization Detector Pressuremeter Test Parts per Million Pounds per Square Inch Polyvinyl Chloride Rotations per Minute Standard Penetration Test Unified Soil Classification System Unconfined Compressive Strength Vibrating Wire Piezometer Vertical Weight of Hammer Weight of Rods Weight

ATD

Diam.

Elev.

ft.

FeO gal.

Horiz.

HSA

I.D.

in.

lbs.

MgO mm

MnO

NA

NP

O.D.

OW

pcf

PID

PMT

ppm psi

PVC

rpm

SPT

USCS

qu

VWP

Vert.

WOH

WOR

Wt.

PARTICLE ANGULARITY AND SHAPE TERMS1

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

STRUCTURE TERMS1

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

1Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

2Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Poorly Graded

Well-Graded

Irregular patches of different colors.

Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or animals.

Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel in silt and/or clay matrix.

Material brought to surface by drilling.

Material that caved from sides of borehole.

Disturbed texture, mix of strengths.

Mottled

Bioturbated

Diamict

Cuttings

Slough

Sheared

DESCRIPTION

Nonplastic

Low

Medium

High

ADDITIONAL TERMS

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

PLASTICITY2

CEMENTATION TERMS1

GRADATION TERMS

APPROX.

PLASITICTY

INDEX

RANGE

< 4

4 to 10

10 to 20

> 20

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

G

IN

T

.G P

J S

W N

E W

.G D

T

1/

1. Rock Type:

Weathered state, structure, color, grain size, rock material strength, ROCK TYPE

2. Weathering:

Term Grade

Fresh I

Slightly Weathered

II

Moderately Weathered

III

Highly Weathered

IV

Completely Weathered

V

Residual Soil

VI

3. Strength:

Grade

R0

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5

R6

4. Core Recovery:

5. Rock Quality Designation (RQD):

RQD may be used to classify the rock mass as follows:

Good

Speciman can only be chipped with geological hammer.

Specimen requires many blows of a geological hammer to fracture it.

90% - 100% Excellent

Very Poor 25% - 50% Poor 50% - 75% Fair 75% - 90%

> 35,000

15,000 - 35,000

7,500 - 15,000

3,500 - 7,500

750 - 3,500

150 - 750

Specimen requires more than one blow of geological hammer to fracture it.

Cannot be scraped or peeled with a pocket knife, specimen can be fractured with single firm blow of geological hammer.

Can be peeled by a pocket knife with difficulty, shallow indentation made by firm blow with point of geologic hammer.

Crumbles under fim blows with point of geological hammer, can be peeled by a pocket knife.

Extremely Weak Rock

Extremely Strong Rock

Very Strong Rock

Strong Rock

Medium Strong Rock

Weak Rock

Very Weak Rock

All rock material is converted to soil. The mass structure and material fabric are destroyed. There is a large change in volume, but the soil has not been significantly transported.

All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. The original mass structure is still largely intact.

More than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or disolored rock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones

Approx. Range of Uniaxial

Compressive Strength (psi)

Description Field Identification

The rock strength classifications are referenced to simple field hardness tests shown below.

Indented by thumbnail. 50 - 150

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Generalized Rock Classification System:

Less than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a continuous framework or as corestones.

Description

The following terminology was used to describe degrees of weathering. These descriptions refer primarily to chemical weathering which results in discoloration of the rock and leads to eventual descomposition of silicates to clay mineral. Some minerals, Written descriptions of rock types in geological or engineering logs, as described below, present a uniform approach, allowing continuity of description from location to location, and project to project. The following standard sequence of systematic desc

No visible sign of rock material weathering; perhaps slight discoloration on major discontinuity surfaces.

Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and discontinuity surfaces. All the rock material may be discolored by weathering and may be somewhat weaker externally than in its fresh condition.

RQD defines the fraction of solid core recovered greater than 100 millimeters in length as the Rock Quality Designation. It is calculated as the ratio of the sum of the length of core fragments longer than 4 inches to the total drilled footage per run, e

Core recovery is determined as the ratio of core recovered to the total drilled run length expressed as a percentage; the value may be recorded on a run by run basis, or over a normalized core length. The recovery percent is plotted in order to highlight

RQD Rock Classification

0% - 25%

USCG Building 576 ESU Kodiak, Alaska

FHWA GENERALIZED ROCK

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

November 2013

FIG. 4

32-1-02357-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical & Environmental Consultants

Sampler refusal

63 blows for 14 inches

Medium dense to very dense, dark gray-brown, Well-Graded Gravel with Sand and Silt (GW-GM);

moist

Auger refusal at 6.5 feet bgs

S2: 48% Gravel, 40% Sand, 12% Fines (F1)

6.5

S1

S2

S3

Bottom of Boring Boring Completed 10/2/13

Approx. Elevation:

November 2013

206 Ft.

Water Content (%)

S ym bo l

LEGEND 25

32-1-02357-001

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface materials.

Plastic Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

USCG Building 576 ESU Kodiak, Alaska

1. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual.

Grab Sample

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

3" O.D. Split Spoon Sample Rock Core Sample

D ep th , F t.

3. Water level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

Liquid Limit

FIG. 5

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , F t.

* Sample Not Recovered

S am pl es

Natural Water Content

Penetration Resistance (340 lb. weight, 30" drop)

Blows per foot Water Content (%)

NOTES

LOG OF BORING B-1

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng o n

/2

/1

G E

O T

E C

H N

IC

A

L

LO

G

G

IN

T .G

P J

S

W _G

E O

1.

G

D T

Sampler refusal

57 blows for 9 inches

Sampler refusal

50 blows for 5 inches

Medium dense to very dense, dark gray brown Well-Graded Gravel with Sand and Silt (GW-GM);

moist; with cobbles to boulders

Moderately to completely weathered, thin to medium bedding with occasional quartz and calcium carbonate infilling, rough high angle fractures, dark gray to black, weak to medium strong, Shale

S4: Recovery = 54%, RQD = 15%

10.4

15.0

S1

S2

S3

S4

Bottom of Boring Boring Completed 10/2/13 and 10/6/13

Approx. Elevation:

November 2013

208.5 Ft.

Water Content (%)

S ym bo l

LEGEND 25

32-1-02357-001

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface materials.

Plastic Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

USCG Building 576 ESU Kodiak, Alaska

1. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual.

Grab Sample

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

3" O.D. Split Spoon Sample Rock Core Sample

D ep th , F t.

3. Water level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

Liquid Limit

FIG. 6

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , F t.

* Sample Not Recovered

S am pl es

Natural Water Content

Penetration Resistance (340 lb. weight, 30" drop)

Blows per foot Water Content (%)

NOTES

LOG OF BORING B-2

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng o n

/2

/1 an d

/6

/1

G E

O T

E C

H N

IC

A

L

LO

G

G

IN

T .G

P J

S

W _G

E O

1.

G

D T

0.0010.010.11101001,000

2 #601/2

S H

A N

N O

N

W

IL

S O

N

, IN

C

#20#4 fine

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

SILT OR CLAY

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

fine

G eotechnical and Environm ental C onsultants

COBBLES

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

3/8

SAND

36 3/4 #10 #200 medium

#40

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

1 1/2 coarse coarse

HYDROMETER

#100

GRAVEL

1/4

PI

6.65

2.5 - 4.0 120.6

Depth, Ft

2.5 - 4.0 19

D60 %ClayD10

Classification

F

IG

. 7

%Gravel

Sample CcDepth, Ft

U S

C G

B uilding

576 E S

U K odiak, A laska

N ovem ber 2013 32-1-023

57-001

Cu

D100 %Silt

2.3

LL

Well-Graded Gravel with Sand and Silt (GW-GM)

Sample 480.92

D30

PL

%Sand B-1 S2 12

G R

A

IN

S

IZ

E C

L A

S S

IF

IC

A T

IO

N

B-1 S2

32-1-02357-001

APPENDIX A

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR

GEOTECHNICAL / ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

3/2004

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Attachment to 32-1-02357-001

Date: November 2013 To: ECH Architects Re: USCG Building 576, Electronic Systems

Support Unit, Kodiak, Alaska

Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report

CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS.

Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant.

THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS.

A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project-specific factors.

Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the recommendations.

Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors, which were considered in the development of the report, have changed.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.

Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally.

Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.

MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS.

Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can work together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect.

3/2004

A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.

The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction.

THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION.

Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a geotechnical/environmental report. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other project design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical, geological, hydrogeological, and environmental findings, and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to these issues.

BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT.

Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.

To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale.

READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY.

Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports and other documents. These responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant's liabilities to other parties; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions.

The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland

APPENDIX A ~ IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT