Loading...
Appendix I - Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering ReportAppendix I Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 900 King Street VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK, NEW YORK Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report AKRF Project Number: 170073 Prepared for: 900 King Street Owner, LLC c/o George Comfort & Sons, Inc. 200 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Prepared by: AKRF, Inc. 34 South Broadway White Plains, NY 10601 914-949-7336 NOVEMBER 9, 2017 AKRF, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 900 King Street, Village of Rye Brook, NY Project No. 170073 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 1 4.0 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION ............................................................................... 2 4.1 Geologic Setting .......................................................................................................................... 2 4.2 Historical Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 2 5.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ................................................................................................... 2 5.1 Geotechnical Boring Program ..................................................................................................... 2 5.2 Temporary Groundwater Observation Wells............................................................................... 3 5.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................ 3 5.4 Infiltration Testing ....................................................................................................................... 3 6.0 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 4 6.1 Topsoil ......................................................................................................................................... 4 6.2 Asphalt ......................................................................................................................................... 4 6.3 Fill................................................................................................................................................ 4 6.4 Sand (Classes 4) .......................................................................................................................... 5 6.5 Soft Rock ..................................................................................................................................... 5 6.6 Foliated Rock (Class 2) ............................................................................................................... 5 6.7 Groundwater Level ...................................................................................................................... 5 6.7.1 Observation Well OW-1.......................................................................................................... 5 6.7.2 Observation Well OW-2.......................................................................................................... 6 6.7.3 Observation Well Discussion .................................................................................................. 6 6.8 Infiltration Test Results ............................................................................................................... 6 7.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS . 6 7.1 Seismic Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 6 7.2 Liquefaction Potential.................................................................................................................. 7 7.3 Shallow Foundation Recommendations ...................................................................................... 7 7.3.1 Lowest Floor Slab Support ...................................................................................................... 7 7.4 Lateral Earth Pressures ................................................................................................................ 7 7.5 Permanent Groundwater Control ................................................................................................. 8 7.5.1 Design Groundwater Level ..................................................................................................... 8 7.5.2 Foundation Waterproofing ...................................................................................................... 8 8.0 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 8 8.1 Excavation ................................................................................................................................... 8 8.2 Construction Dewatering ............................................................................................................. 8 8.3 Subgrade Preparation ................................................................................................................... 9 8.4 Fill Material and Compaction Criteria ......................................................................................... 9 8.5 Construction Documents, Special Inspections, and Quality Assurance ...................................... 9 9.0 ADDITIONAL EXPLORATIONS ............................................................................................... 10 10.0 LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 10 11.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 11 AKRF, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 900 King Street, Village of Rye Brook, NY Project No. 170073 ii FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Surficial Geologic Map Figure 3 Bedrock Map Figure 4 1947 Aerial Figure 5 1976 Aerial Figure 6 1990 Aerial Figure 7 Boring Location Plan Figure 8 Liquefaction Potential APPENDICES Appendix A Soil Boring Logs Appendix B Groundwater Observation Well Logs Appendix C Geotechnical Laboratory Results AKRF, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 900 King Street, Village of Rye Brook, NY Project No. 170073 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AKRF, Inc. (AKRF) has prepared this preliminary geotechnical engineering report to summarize the results of our recent geotechnical field exploration for the proposed new buildings located at 900 King Street in the Village of Rye Brook, New York herein after referred to as “the site.” The preliminary geotechnical evaluations and recommendations presented herein are in accordance with the 2016 New York State Uniform Code (NYUSC)1. The preliminary exploration work described in this report was performed by AKRF in accordance with our August 23, 2017 proposal, and authorized by 900 King Street Owner, LLC on September 19, 2017. AKRF used the following information in preparation of this report: • A draft site survey titled “900 King Street Development”, prepared by John Meyer Consulting, Inc (JMC), dated July 12, 2017. • Concept Plans (SK01A through SK03), prepared by Perkins Eastman, dated September 9, 2017. • Proposed boring location plan, prepared by JMC, dated September 26, 2017. • PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Site Plans, prepared by JMC, dated October 26, 2017. All elevations (el.) cited in this report are based on the draft site survey, measured in feet. The vertical datum referenced is not known at the time of preparing this report. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located at 900 King Street in the Village of Rye Brook, NY. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and is currently occupied by a 2-story office building, with the remainder of the site utilized as parking and landscaped areas (see Figure 1). The site is bounded to the north by a property occupied by the Village of Rye Brook police department, Village Hall and firehouse. The site is bounded to the east by Arbor Drive (a private driveway owned by the Arbors Homeowners’ Association for which the Owner has an access easement), and is bounded to the south by The Arbors residential community. The site is bounded to the west by a forested area, with the Hutchinson River parkway beyond. The site has varying topography and generally slopes down from west to east. The forested wetland area at the western corner of the site is about el. +275 and slopes down to the west side of the existing 2-story building at about el. +262. The existing parking lot varies between about el. +254 at the west side of the lot and slopes down to about el. +244 at the north east corner of the lot. Arbor Drive fronts the site and slopes down from about el. +250 at the south side of the site to about el. +220 at the intersection with King Street. 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development involves the construction of a 4-story senior living building, a 4-story assisted living building, and 24 townhouse units located in 12 buildings. The remainder of the site will be 1 The New York State Uniform Code incorporates the third printing of the 2015 International Building Code (from October 2015) and the second printing of the 2015 International Residential Code (from January 2016). AKRF, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 900 King Street, Village of Rye Brook, NY Project No. 170073 2 developed with new access roads, parking lots, and recreational areas. One below grade level is proposed for a parking garage below the senior living building.. A portion of the new building footprint appears to overlap with the footprint of the existing 2-story office building. We discuss the potential for possible conflict between remnant foundation elements of the existing office building, with the new foundation elements of the proposed building, in a subsequent section of this report. 4.0 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION 4.1 Geologic Setting The Surficial Geologic Map of New York (see Figure 2) shows that the site is located in an area of Rye Brook where surficial soils are composed predominantly of till. These soils are variable in texture and composition and include a variety of gravels, sands, and fine grained materials (silt/clays). The presence of cobbles and boulders within the soil matrix is common. The Geologic Map of New York (see Figure 3) shows that the bedrock underlying the site is comprised of the Harrison Gneiss Formation. 4.2 Historical Land Use We have reviewed available historical aerials from the Westchester County Geographic Systems to determine previous land use at the site. We have also reviewed an article titled, “The Arbors – Historical Perspective” by Joel Mitchell. The 1947 through 1976 aerials (Figures 4 and 5) show structures located towards the southern corner of the site and the north eastern side of the site respectively. Based off of the article by Joel Mitchells, it is possible that the structure on the north eastern side of the site was called the Harkness Pavillion, a colonial building and property. During the early 1980s, the Harkness Pavillion was demolished and the current commercial office building was constructed (see figure 6 for a 1990 historic aerial). There have been no significant changes to the site since the early 1980s. 5.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 5.1 Geotechnical Boring Program A total of 13 geotechnical borings, designated PB-1 through PB-13, were drilled at the site between October 2, 2017 and October 10, 2017, under the full-time oversight of an AKRF geotechnical engineer. The boring locations were prescribed by JMC. The borings were advanced to depths of between about 32 feet and 55 feet below the existing ground surface. The boring locations are shown in Figure 7. Drilling was performed by Craig Geotechnical Drilling Company, Inc. of Mays Landing, NJ, using a truck-mounted CME 75 drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer. The borings were advanced using the mud rotary technique with a 3-7/8-inch diameter tri-cone roller bit. Soil samples were obtained in all borings in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Specification D1586. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter split spoon sampler for a depth of 24 inches with repeated blows of a 140-pound hammer free-falling 30 inches. The standard penetration, or N-value, is defined as the number of blows required to drive the sampler for a 12-inch interval after an initial 6 inches of sampler penetration and is measured in blows per foot (bpf). All soil samples obtained from the borings were visually classified in the field using the AKRF, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 900 King Street, Village of Rye Brook, NY Project No. 170073 3 Unified Soil Classification System. Rock cores were obtained in 8 of the 13 borings using a 5-foot long NQ2 core barrel in accordance with ASTM Standard Specification D2113. The top of bedrock was estimated based on drilling operations (e.g. excessive rig chatter or difficult penetration) and practical split spoon refusal, as indicated by blow counts greater than 100 for a 6-inch interval on the split spoon sampler. Rock coring was performed to confirm the presence of bedrock, and to assess its relative quality as indicated by Core Recovery2 and the Rock Quality Designation (RQD)3. The RQD was determined in accordance with ASTM Standard Specification D6032. The soil boring logs are included in Appendix A. 5.2 Temporary Groundwater Observation Wells Two temporary groundwater observation wells, designated OW-1 and OW-2, were installed in completed boreholes PB-8 and PB-4, respectively. The wells were constructed of 2-inch nominal diameter Schedule 40 PVC pipe. Both wells were installed to a depth of about 20 feet, with a 10-foot long slotted screen at the bottom and a 10 foot long solid riser pipe extending to about 6 inches below ground surface. The annulus between the pipe and the wall of the boreholes was backfilled with clean filter sand to about 2 feet above section of pipe. A two-foot thick bentonite seal was installed at the top of the filter sand. The remainder of the annulus was backfilled with bentonite and soil cuttings generated from drilling the borings. The groundwater observation well logs are included in Appendix B 5.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed on selected samples collected during the subsurface exploration. The purpose of the geotechnical laboratory testing was to confirm field soil classifications and to define the mechanical and physical soil properties for use in the foundation design and construction recommendations. The geotechnical laboratory testing consisted of 17 sieve analyses performed in accordance with ASTM Standard Specification D422. The geotechnical laboratory results are included in Appendix C. 5.4 Infiltration Testing JMC specified that two infiltration tests, designated PB-12 and PB-13, were to be performed following the guidelines of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (January, 2015), Appendix D – Infiltration Testing Requirements. The proposed test locations, along with the depth of the proposed bottom of practice, were specified by JMC as shown on drawing No. BL-1 “Boring Location Plan”, dated May 18, 2017. The infiltration test borings were drilled at the site on October 3, 2017 and the infiltration tests were performed on October 6, 2017. 2 The Core Recovery is defined as the ratio (expressed as a percentage) of the total length of the recovered core to the total length of the rock cored. 3 The RQD is defined as the ratio (expressed as a percentage) of the total length of recovered core samples having a length of at least 4 inches to the total length of the rock cored. AKRF, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 900 King Street, Village of Rye Brook, NY Project No. 170073 4 Two borings were advanced at each infiltration test location. Both borings were advanced to a depth of at least 4 feet below the proposed bottom of facility. Soil samples were retrieved at 2 foot intervals using SPT methods. Soil samples corresponding to the depth of the proposed facility bottom, and 4 feet below the proposed facility bottom, were sent for further geotechnical laboratory testing to confirm field soil classifications and to define the mechanical and physical soil properties of the soil. The geotechnical laboratory testing of disturbed samples consisted of four sieve analyses performed in accordance with ASTM Standard Specification D422. Both borings were offset about 5 feet from the first boring and were advanced using steel casing with an outside diameter of 4.5 inches. A 2-inch-thick layer of coarse sand was placed at the bottom of the borings and clean potable water was filled to a height of 2 feet above the bottom of the borehole. The water was allowed to “pre-soak” for a minimum of 24 hours. After the pre-soak period was complete, the borehole was filled with clean water to a height of 2 feet above the bottom of the borehole. The drop in water level was measured 1 hour after filling. The infiltration rate is reported as the drop in height over the 1 hour period in units of inches per hour. This procedure was repeated an additional three times, for a total of four tests (Tests 1 through 4). The summary of the observations and test results are provided in a subsequent section. 6.0 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on our review of the logs, we present our preliminary interpretation of the generalized subsurface conditions with the following strata and groundwater descriptions. 6.1 Topsoil A surficial layer of topsoil consisting of sand and silt was encountered in borings PB-1 through PB-3, PB-6 and PB-11. The topsoil is characterized by the presence of roots and ranged in thickness from about 4 inches to about 5 inches. The thickness of the topsoil was measured at the boring locations only and may vary throughout the site. 6.2 Asphalt Asphalt was encountered in borings PB-4, PB-5, and PB-7 through PB-13. The asphalt was measured to be about 4 inches thick at each boring location. 6.3 Fill Uncontrolled fill was encountered beneath the topsoil at discrete locations. The fill generally consists of brown to gray sand with varying amounts of gravel, silt, and other miscellaneous fill including brick, asphalt, concrete, and pieces of tile. The fill ranged in thickness between about 4 feet and about 9 feet. Uncorrected SPT N-values ranged from 2 bpf to 73 bpf. The fill is characterized as very loose to very dense in terms of relative density. AKRF, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 900 King Street, Village of Rye Brook, NY Project No. 170073 5 6.4 Sand (Classes 4)4 Brown sand was encountered in all borings below the topsoil, asphalt, and fill layers. The sand ranged in thickness from about 9 feet and 31 feet. Uncorrected SPT N-values ranged between about 3 bpf and 94 blows over 10 inches (practical refusal). The average SPT N-value (not including practical refusal) is about 29 bpf. The material is classified as very loose to very dense in terms of relative density and is classified as Class 4 material in accordance with NYSUC. 6.5 Soft Rock Soft rock was encountered in all borings, except boring PB-1, and consisted of brownish, orange and black, fine to medium grained sand with varying amounts of silt and mica. The top of the soft rock was encountered at depths ranging from 9 feet below existing grade in boring PB-13 to 35 feet below existing grade in boring PB-2, corresponding to an elevation of about el +227 and el. +234 respectively. The soft rock extended to the boring termination depths except in borings PB-1, PB-4, PB-6, PB-8, and PB-13. The soft rock was characterized by drilling operations, practical sampler refusal, split spoon samples, or by rock cores. Uncorrected SPT N-values ranged from 50 blows over 1 inch to 100 blows over 5 inches. The core recoveries ranged from 33 percent to 58 percent, and the RQD ranged from 10 percent to 23 percent. 6.6 Foliated Rock (Class 2) Foliated rock was encountered in 5 of the borings to boring termination depths. The foliated rock generally consisted of gray to black schistic gneiss of the Harrison Gneiss Formation and is intensely to moderately fractured and fresh to slightly weathered. The foliated rock was characterized by rock core recoveries. The depths to the top of foliated rock ranged from about 11 feet below existing grade in boring PB-13 and 44 feet below existing grade in boring PB- 6, corresponding to about elevation el. +232 and el. +211 respectively. The rock core recoveries ranged from 58 percent and 93 percent and the RQD ranged from 40 percent and 87 percent. 6.7 Groundwater Level The depth to groundwater was measured in two observation wells (OW-1 and OW-2) during our time on site between October 5, 2017 and October 14, 2017. 6.7.1 Observation Well OW-1 Observation well OW-1 was installed in completed borehole PB-8 near the northern side of the site. The top of the well was set at about el. +245. The well was installed on October 5, 2017 and was constructed of a 10-foot long slotted screen and a 10-foot long solid riser section. The screened section is within the sand, soft rock, and competent rock layers encountered in the boring. The well was pumped twice to a depth of about 14.5 feet and 7 feet below existing grade on October 5, 2017 and October 6, 2017 respectively. The well was then bailed to a depth of about 9 feet below existing grade on October 10, 2017. Measurements were taken during the recharge times until a consistent groundwater depth was measured. 4 Class numbers indicate material class in accordance with NYSUC. NYSUC does not classify topsoil, fill, or soft rock material. AKRF, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 900 King Street, Village of Rye Brook, NY Project No. 170073 6 During our time on site, the groundwater within the well stabilized at a depth of about 6 feet below existing ground surface, corresponding to an elevation of about el. +239. 6.7.2 Observation Well OW-2 Observation well OW-2 was installed in completed borehole PB-4 near the western side of the site. The top of the well was set at about el. +247. The well was installed on October 10, 2017 and was constructed of a 10-foot long slotted screen and a 10-foot long solid riser section. The screened section is within the sand and soft rock layers encountered within the boring. The well was pumped once to a depth of 11 feet. Measurements were taken during the recharge time after pumping. The well was then bailed to a depth of about 10 feet below existing grade and measurements were taken again during the recharge time. On October 11 and 12, 2017, the well was bailed again to depths 6 feet and 15 feet below existing ground surface, and on October 14, 2017, the well was bailed to a depth of about 19.5 feet below existing ground surface. Measurements were taken during each recharge time until the water level was observed to stabilize at a depth of 2 feet below ground surface, corresponding to an elevation of about el. +245. 6.7.3 Observation Well Discussion Considering the high water level in OW-2 with respect to OW-1, it is likely that there is a possibility of perched water flowing beneath the asphalt into OW-2, causing water level readings to be erroneous in OW-2. We recommend that additional field work, discussed in a subsequent section, is completed to confirm the depth of ground water in this area. 6.8 Infiltration Test Results The following table presents a summary of the infiltration testing. Location ID Test Depth (ft) Test 1 (inch/hr) Test 2 (inch/hr) Test 3 (inch/hr) Test 4 (inch/hr) Average (inch/hr)** PB-12 6 1.0 0.5 0.25 1.0 0.69 PB-13 7 1.0 0.25 0.875 0.375 0.63 **Average infiltration rate is average of four tests (Test 1 through Test 4). 7.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS This section presents our preliminary engineering evaluations and recommendations for the design of the foundations. The evaluations and recommendations are based on the results of the subsurface exploration, our experience on other projects, and the information we have been provided to date on the design requirements for the proposed building. 7.1 Seismic Evaluation The seismic design recommendations presented in this section are in accordance with NYSUC Section 1613. The mapped acceleration parameters for the site location outlined in the NYSUC are as follows: for a short period, SS = 0..264g and for a 1-second period, S1 = 0.071g. The subsurface exploration revealed a profile consisting of loose to very dense soil based on an evaluation of SPT N-values, with a weighted average of the corrected N60 values of about 25 bpf. Therefore, we recommend a “stiff soil” profile be assigned with a corresponding Site Class D. AKRF, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 900 King Street, Village of Rye Brook, NY Project No. 170073 7 We assume the building will be assigned to Structural Occupancy/Risk Category (SO/RC) II. The appropriate SO/RC should be confirmed by the Architect or Structural Engineer. Based on the assumed Site Class and SO/RC the recommended Seismic Design Category is B. 7.2 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is the full or partial loss of shear strength of granular or cohesionless soils during an earthquake. The potential consequences of liquefaction could include loss of bearing capacity causing collapse or excessive settlement of ground. Potentially liquefiable soil types include loose clean sands and silty sands below the groundwater table to a depth of 50 feet. While the NYSUC does not provide guidance on evaluating sites for the potential of liquefaction, Section 1813 of the 2014 New York City Building Code (NYCBC) provides a basic screening chart that indicates whether liquefaction potential should be considered. The N605 values are plotted on the NYCBC screening chart as shown in Figure 8. Based on this evaluation and considering that the seismic criteria used for evaluating liquefaction potential in New York City is likely more stringent for a larger earthquake than would be expected at the site location in Rye Brook, liquefaction is not considered a concern for the site. 7.3 Shallow Foundation Recommendations Due to the presence of the medium dense to dense sands, we recommend supporting the buildings on shallow foundations. The bearing stratum should be a minimum of 4-feet below the finished ground surface for frost protection. The recommended allowable bearing pressure is 2 tons per square foot (tsf). Estimated elastic settlements for shallow foundations bearing on dense sand of the sand stratum are estimated to be less than one inch. 7.3.1 Lowest Floor Slab Support The lowest floor slab of the proposed buildings can be designed as a slab-on-grade bearing on a 12-inch thick layer of ¾-inch gravel. We recommend the top 2-feet of existing soil is excavated and removed before the placement of controlled structural fill and the proposed slab. The exposed existing soil should be proof rolled and controlled structural fill should be placed and compacted to subgrade elevation in accordance with the construction recommendations provided in subsequent sections of this report. 7.4 Lateral Earth Pressures Permanent below grade walls will be subject to lateral pressures from soil and vehicular surcharges. In the static loading condition, lateral pressures from soil and surcharge loads should be considered. Backfill should not be placed against below-grade walls for at least 7 days, until the concrete has reached its 28-day compressive design strength, and after adequate lateral bracing has been provided to prevent rotation of the walls, or as directed by the structural engineer. We recommend the following design parameters: • For backfill soils behind braced walls (no rotation), a unit weight of 130 pounds per cubic foot with an angle of friction of 30 degrees. The at rest lateral earth pressure coefficient is 0.5. • For braced walls, a triangular earth pressure distribution with an equivalent fluid weight of 65 pounds per square foot (psf) per foot of depth (starting from ground surface) for unsaturated soil above the static ground water level. 5 Field SPT N-values corrected for rod length and hammer efficiency. AKRF, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 900 King Street, Village of Rye Brook, NY Project No. 170073 8 • In addition to lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures due to any surcharge loads adjacent to the foundation walls should be considered. Surcharge loads should have a uniform distribution based on a pressure equal to 0.5 times the vertical surcharge for the entire depth of the walls. The magnitude of the vertical surcharge loads should be determined by the structural engineer. 7.5 Permanent Groundwater Control 7.5.1 Design Groundwater Level Considering the difference of ground water level readings observed between OW-1 and OW-2, and the possibility of perched water flowing into OW-2, the design ground water level should be decided after additional field work is completed as discussed in a subsequent section. 7.5.2 Foundation Waterproofing To limit groundwater seepage and water vapor infiltration (through the concrete, cold joints, shrinkage cracks, and/or utility penetrations) and associated dampness, we recommend that the lowest floor slab be fully waterproofed. We recommend a membrane type waterproofing be used, such as products by GCP Applied Technologies. For horizontal applications, we recommend that the waterproofing membrane be installed on a 2-inch-thick concrete substrate (mud-slab). The installation of all foundation waterproofing elements should be performed by a certified installer and be inspected on a full-time basis to confirm that the waterproofing is being installed as per the manufacturer's specifications and details. 8.0 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS This section presents a discussion of our recommendations regarding foundation construction aspects of the proposed development. Based on the most recent floor plans provided by Perkins Eastman, no below-grade levels are planned for the proposed building. The foundation construction recommendations should be re-evaluated if a lower level is proposed. 8.1 Excavation The bottom of foundations should be at least 4 feet below the proposed finished grade, and grade beams should be at least 18 inches below the proposed finished grade for frost protection. The general excavation will primarily involve the removal of fill material and sand, and can be performed with conventional earth-moving equipment such as backhoes, excavators, and dozers. Over-excavation may be required in areas where remnant foundation elements are present and excavation equipment with demolition capabilities may be required to remove these obstructions. All excavation should be performed in accordance with OSHA requirements including, but not limited to, temporary shoring, use of trench boxes, and proper benching, where necessary. 8.2 Construction Dewatering All foundation work should be conducted “in the dry.” Groundwater may be encountered during site excavation and foundation construction. Any water encountered during construction can likely be handled by localized sump pits and pumps. Groundwater must be discharged in accordance with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) regulations. AKRF, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 900 King Street, Village of Rye Brook, NY Project No. 170073 9 8.3 Subgrade Preparation The excavation will be conducted in the existing sand material to reach the proposed finished floor elevation. Care should be taken to prevent the disturbance and softening of the foundation bearing stratum. We recommend the contractor excavate the last 12 inches of soil above the proposed foundation bearing elevation using an excavator equipped with a straight-edged bucket, or by hand excavation. We do not recommend using a standard bucket with teeth as the teeth will likely disturb and loosen the subgrade soil. Upon excavating to the proposed footing and slab-on-grade subgrade elevations, the subgrade material should be inspected and approved by the Special Inspector. A proof-roll inspection should be conducted in the presence of the Special Inspector to confirm that the bearing material is stable and firm. Areas of soft, rutted, or “pumping” subgrade material should be over-excavated and replaced with controlled structural fill. We recommend areas of subgrade for slab-on-grade construction, new pavement, and footings are proof-rolled with about five to six passes of a heavy smooth-drum vibratory roller. Smaller compaction equipment such as a walk-behind roller may be used in areas of limited access such as trenches or localized areas of excavation. The exposed subgrade surface should be level and free of debris and/or other unsatisfactory material. Foundation concrete should be placed as soon as possible on the prepared subgrade to prevent disturbance. The approved subgrade surface must be protected at all times from precipitation, freezing weather, and construction traffic until concrete is placed. Methods of protection include sealing with lean concrete (mud-slab). The contractor shall not place any concrete for foundations on frozen ground, or where snow or standing water is present. We note the soil is susceptible to exposure to moisture. The contractor must use appropriate means and methods to maintain the stability of the subgrade at all times during construction. 8.4 Fill Material and Compaction Criteria The fill material should be well-graded, have less than 10 percent passing the No. 200 sieve (based on dry weight), and should be free of organics, clay, and other deleterious or compressible materials and should have a maximum particle size of 3 inches. We note that the existing uncontrolled fill material at the site is unlikely suitable for re-use as controlled fill. Soils meeting these requirements may be used as controlled fill material. Any fill material placed in restricted areas where only hand-operated compactors can be used should be placed in maximum lifts of 8 inches thick. We recommend using a 0.5-ton maximum walk-behind roller or other equipment capable of effecting the necessary compaction. The appropriate water content at the time of compaction should be plus or minus 2 percentage points of optimum as determined by the laboratory compaction tests of proposed fill material, performed in accordance with ASTM Standard Specification D1557. No backfill material should be placed on areas where free water is standing or on frozen subsoil areas. Compaction of all fill material should be verified by the Special Inspector using visual inspection and the performance of in-place density tests. 8.5 Construction Documents, Special Inspections, and Quality Assurance Design specifications and drawings should incorporate our findings and recommendations discussed in this report, so that subsurface conditions and other geotechnical issues at the site are adequately addressed in the construction documents. AKRF should assist the design team in preparing specification sections related to geotechnical issues such as subgrade preparation. AKRF should also review foundation design drawings and details, and all contractor submittals and construction procedures related to geotechnical work. AKRF, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 900 King Street, Village of Rye Brook, NY Project No. 170073 10 A geotechnical engineer familiar with the site subsurface conditions and design intent should perform the quality assurance observations and testing of geotechnical-related work during construction. Per the requirements of NYSUC, the construction of foundations (foundation subgrade preparation, earthwork, pile driving, etc.) requires Special Inspection by a Professional Engineer currently registered in the State of New York and retained by the Owner. We recommend that AKRF provide the required Special Inspections to verify that the foundation design is implemented during construction and to provide appropriate responses to field questions and changes. 9.0 ADDITIONAL EXPLORATIONS We recommend additional explorations be completed at the site consisting of additional borings and/or test pits to confirm the depth of groundwater in the area of OW-2. 10.0 LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations provided by AKRF in this preliminary report have been prepared based on professional judgment of the subsurface conditions inferred from borings made at the site, as well as plans and/or drawings provided by Perkins Eastman. The recommendations provided herein are solely for the conditions encountered at the site, and should not be used independently at other sites where other subsurface conditions are presumed to exist. In the event that the proposed building is changed, modified, or its location moved, AKRF should be informed to determine whether such modification would change AKRF’s recommendations as presented herein. Geological and groundwater conditions presented herein represent conditions encountered at the time and specific locations where exploration work was performed. In the event that conditions during construction differ from those presented in this report, they should be brought to AKRF’s immediate attention for evaluation, as recommendations in this report may be affected. AKRF has prepared this preliminary geotechnical engineering report for the site for use by the Owner, the Project Architect and Project Structural Engineer in the design process and is only applicable for this specific site and the planned design work. The information in this report should not be relied upon by engineers or contractors involved in other unrelated aspects of design or construction work at the site without first verifying from AKRF whether the information contained herein is applicable for such use. Special Inspections have been recommended as part of the foundation construction. When authorized, AKRF can provide the Owner with the appropriate Special Inspection and quality assurance observations during foundation construction. By providing this service, AKRF will be able to continue its responsibility on this project to verify geotechnical-related foundation construction, and quality assurance follows our recommendations provided in this report. If the Owner opts to retain another entity to perform these services, the other entity will be responsible for final geotechnical design, along with the required Special Inspection, and quality assurance observations. This entity will also serve as the geotechnical engineer of record. Environmental issues (such as potentially contaminated soil and groundwater) are outside the scope of this study and should be addressed in a separate study. AKRF, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 900 King Street, Village of Rye Brook, NY Project No. 170073 11 11.0 REFERENCES • American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). ASTM Standard D422. “Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils.” West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2007. • ---. ASTM Standard D1557. “Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort.” West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2012. • ---. ASTM Standard D1586. “Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils.” West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2011. • ---. ASTM Standard D2113. “Standard Practice for Rock Core Drilling and Sampling of Rock for Site Investigation.” West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2008. • ---. ASTM Standard D6032. “Standard Test Method for Determining Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core.” West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2008. • Cadwell, Donald H. “Surficial Geologic Map of New York – Lower Hudson Sheet.” N.Y.S. Geological Survey, 1989. • International Code Council. “2015 International Building Code”. Country Club Hills, IL. October 2015. • John Meyer Consulting, Inc. (JMC). “900 King Street Redevelopment.” October 26, 2017. • New York State Museum and Science Service. “Geologic Map of New York – Lower Hudson Sheet.” 1970. • Westchester County Geographic Information System. “Municipal Tax Parcel Viewer.” White Plains, NY: Westchester County. https://giswww.westchestergov.com/taxmaps/default.aspx?sMun=WhitePlains • 2015 Building Code of New York State, New York Department of State – Division of Code Enforcement and Administration. • "NYS Orthos Online." New York State. October 10, 2017. http://www.orthos.dhses.ny.gov/ FIGURES Source: http://www.orthos.dhses.ny.gov/ Project Site (on Key Map) Approximate Location of Site Environmental, Planning, and Engineering Consultants AKRF Engineering, Inc. 440 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10016 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY Project Location DATE 170073 Legend Site Location Map 11/8/2017 PROJECT No. 1FIGURE 900 King Steet Rye Brook, NY 10573 KEY MAP Source: Surficial Geologic Map of New York - Lower Hudson Sheet. © 1989 by NYSGS. -Approximate Location of Site -Till Soils -Bedrock exposed or within about 3 feet of surface -Fluvial sand and gravel Environmental, Planning, and Engineering Consultants AKRF Engineering, Inc. 440 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10016 Rye Brook, NY 10573 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY Project Location 900 King Steet DATE11/8/2017 Legend PROJECT No. 2Surficial Geologic Map 170073 FIGURE Till (t) SITE Source: New York State Museum and Science Service. "Geologic Map of New York." 1970. -Approximate Location of Site -Manhattan Formation -Harrison Gneiss -Hartland Formation Environmental, Planning, and Engineering Consultants AKRF Engineering, Inc. 440 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10016 PROJECT No. Rye Brook, NY 10573 Legend Project Location 900 King Steet 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY Bedrock Map 170073 FIGURE 3 DATE 11/8/2017 SITE Approximate Location of Site Environmental, Planning, and Engineering Consultants AKRF Engineering, Inc. 440 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10016 DATE 11/8/2017 Source: Westchester County Geographic Information Systems Project Location 900 King Steet Rye Brook, NY 10573 PROJECT No. 1947 Aerial 170073 FIGURE 4 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY Legend Source: Westchester County Geographic Information Systems Approximate Location of Site Environmental, Planning, and Engineering Consultants AKRF Engineering, Inc. 440 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10016 1976 Aerial 170073 FIGURE Rye Brook, NY 10573 5 DATE 11/8/2017 PROJECT No. 900 King Steet Project Location 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY Legend Source: Westchester County Geographic Information Systems Approximate Location of Site Environmental, Planning, and Engineering Consultants AKRF Engineering, Inc. 440 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10016 PROJECT No. 11/8/2017900 King Street Rye Brook, NY Project Location 900 King Steet Rye Brook, NY 10573 1990 Aerial FIGURE DATE Legend 170073 6 PB-1 PB-2 PB-3 PB-5 PB-9 PB-7 PB-10 PB-13 PB-12 PB-6 PB-11 PB-4(OW-2) PB-8(OW-1) AKRF INC. 440 PARK AVENUE SOUTH NEW YORK, NY 10016 (212) 696-0670 (PHONE) (212) 726-0942 (FAX) PROJECT SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY SCALE DATE SHEET NO. 900 KING STREET RYE BROOK, NY FIGURE 7 BORING LOCATION PLAN 1" = 80'05/22/2018 JRJH SCALE: 1" = 80' 0'40'80'160' LEGEND: SOIL BORING LOCATION SOIL BORING WITH OBSERVATION WELL NOTES: 1.BASE PLAN AND APPROXIMATE BUILDING LOCATION TAKEN FROM A TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY TITLED "EXISTING CONDITIONS" COMPLETED BY JMC DATED 9/28/2017 2.DRILLING WAS PERFORMED BY CRAIG GEOTECHNICAL DRILLING CO. INC. OF MAYS LANDING, NEW JERSEY BETWEEN OCTOBER 2, 2017 AND OCTOBER 10, 2017. 3.ALL BORINGS WERE INSPECTED FULL TIME BY AN AKRF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 4.BORING LOCATIONS WERE MEASURED IN THE FIELD AND ARE APPROXIMATE. 5.LOCATION OF PROPOSED BUILDING IS APPROXIMATE. ARBOR DRIVE PB-3 PB-8(OW-1) APPROXIMATE EXTENTS OF BASEMENT Environmental, Planning, and Engineering Consultants AKRF Engineering, P.C. 440 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10016 PROJECT No. Liquefaction Potential 170073 FIGURE 8 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY Rye Brook, NY 10573 DATE 11/8/2017 Project Location Note: 1. This figure is based on Section 1813 of the 2014 NYC Building Code for Structural Risk/Occupancy Category II/III structures.900 King Steet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 1020304050 De p t h   b e l o w   G r o u n d   S u r f a c e   ( f e e t ) SPT N60‐values (blows per foot) SPT N‐values vs. Depth GW Structural Risk/Occupancy Category II/III B‐1 B‐2 B‐3 B‐4 B‐5 B‐6 B‐7 B‐8 B‐9 B‐10 B‐11 B‐12 B‐13 Liquefaction  evaluation not  required Liquefaction evaluation  required APPENDIX A SOIL BORING LOGS AKRF, Inc. Reference Tables for Soil Boring Log Table A-1: Unified Soil Classification System Table A-2: Particle Sizes of Geologic Material Material Size Size Range Passing Sieve Size Retained Sieve Size Boulder Greater than 12 in. – – Cobble 3 in. to 12 in. – – Coarse Gravel ¾ in. to 3 in. 3-inch ¾-inch Fine Gravel 19.1 mm (¾ in.) to 4.76 mm ¾-inch No. 4 Coarse Sand 4.75 mm to 2.00 mm No. 4 No. 10 Medium Sand 2.00 mm to 0.425 mm No. 10 No. 40 Fine Sand 0.425 mm to 0.074 mm No. 40 No. 200 Silt 0.074 mm to 0.005 mm Requires Hydrometer Analysis Clay Less than 0.005 mm AKRF, Inc. Reference Tables for Soil Boring Log Table A-3: Quantity Descriptors Descriptor Percentage of Sample (by weight) Examples “CAPITALIZED” > 50% Brown SAND and 35 to 50% and silt some 20 to 35% some gravel little 10 to 20% little clay trace < 10% trace silt APPENDIX B GROUNDWATER OBSERVATION WELL LOGS APPENDIX C GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY RESULTS Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Gray silty sand .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 98.9 97.5 94.9 88.8 79.3 69.4 47.7 41.5 0.9520 0.6237 0.1730 0.1175 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-1 Depth: 15-17 ft. Sample Number: S-7 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.6 15.6 37.8 41.5 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Gray-orange-brown silty sand .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 93.1 89.0 85.3 79.7 71.5 61.6 43.6 37.8 5.8318 1.8722 0.2313 0.1461 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-2 Depth: 6-8 ft. Sample Number: S-4 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 11.0 3.7 13.8 33.7 37.8 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Gray-orange-brown silty sand .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 99.4 96.8 90.9 80.7 69.0 49.0 41.7 0.7820 0.5422 0.1716 0.1112 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-3 Depth: 4-6 ft. Sample Number: S-3 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.6 16.1 39.0 41.7 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Gray silty sand .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 98.7 96.6 92.5 85.9 77.5 69.2 44.9 38.3 1.3689 0.7848 0.1784 0.1285 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-3 Depth: 15-17 ft. Sample Number: S-7 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 3.4 4.1 15.0 39.2 38.3 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Gray and white silty sand .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 89.9 88.1 84.0 78.0 69.5 59.4 41.5 35.4 9.6867 2.3667 0.2573 0.1614 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-4 Depth: 3-5 ft. Sample Number: S-2 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 11.9 4.1 14.5 34.1 35.4 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Gray and black silty sand with gravel 1 .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 77.2 71.2 66.8 58.4 46.6 35.4 27.8 19.5 16.9 22.6951 21.3531 2.3268 1.0558 0.2957 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-5 Depth: 7-9 ft. Sample Number: S-4 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 22.8 10.4 8.4 23.0 18.5 16.9 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Gray-orange-brown silty sand .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 94.5 89.2 83.3 76.2 68.7 62.5 45.8 41.1 5.3069 2.5557 0.2165 0.1327 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-6 Depth: 4-6 ft. Sample Number: S-3 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 10.8 5.9 14.6 27.6 41.1 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Gray-orange-brown silty sand .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 95.3 92.8 87.2 78.0 66.3 52.9 32.9 27.3 2.8738 1.5751 0.3277 0.2242 0.0892 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-6 Depth: 20-22 FT. Sample Number: S-8 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 7.2 5.6 20.9 39.0 27.3 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Gray-orange-brown silty sand with gravel .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 81.6 72.0 61.5 51.0 39.4 29.1 16.2 12.9 13.5003 11.1202 1.7566 0.7941 0.2629 0.0938 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-8 Depth: 3-5 ft. Sample Number: S-2 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 28.0 10.5 22.1 26.5 12.9 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Gray-orange-brown and black silty sand with gravel .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 88.2 83.9 79.4 72.6 63.2 55.3 38.2 33.7 10.9665 6.2250 0.3369 0.1914 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-9 Depth: 7-9 ft. Sample Number: S-4 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 16.1 4.5 16.2 29.5 33.7 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Gray-brown silty sand .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 91.7 88.5 82.7 74.8 65.8 57.3 44.2 40.0 7.0395 2.6746 0.2939 0.1588 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-10 Depth: 1-3 ft. Sample Number: S-1 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 11.5 5.8 16.9 25.8 40.0 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Gray-orange-brown sandy silt .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 98.3 95.6 91.1 84.9 77.6 69.7 56.2 51.0 1.6758 0.8642 0.1359 ML Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-10 Depth: 5-7 ft. Sample Number: S-3 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 4.4 4.5 13.5 26.6 51.0 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Orange-brown and black silty sand 1 .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 94.4 89.3 85.6 80.2 71.9 61.7 51.2 34.0 30.1 11.4231 4.3158 0.3863 0.2368 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-11 Depth: 2-4 ft. Sample Number: S-2 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 5.6 8.8 5.4 18.5 31.6 30.1 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Brown silty sand .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 94.2 87.6 76.4 62.0 47.8 36.8 22.6 18.5 6.0011 3.7765 0.7678 0.4707 0.1728 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-12 Depth: 7-9 ft. Sample Number: S-4 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 12.4 11.2 28.6 29.3 18.5 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Brown silty sand .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 97.1 91.6 74.1 54.8 37.4 26.2 15.1 12.6 4.2689 3.2618 1.0612 0.7013 0.3047 0.1048 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-12 Depth: 9-11 ft. Sample Number: S-5 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 8.4 17.5 36.7 24.8 12.6 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Gray-brown silty sand with gravel .75 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 87.3 83.7 74.9 60.5 48.0 38.4 25.2 21.5 11.5678 6.7804 0.8245 0.4754 0.1504 SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-13 Depth: 7-9 ft. Sample Number: S-4 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 16.3 8.8 26.9 26.5 21.5 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT Tested By: DB, AB Checked By: VRS SKYLANDS TESTING, LLC Sparta, NJ 10-27-2017 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Dark brown poorly graded sand with silt .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200 100.0 97.6 84.6 65.4 44.1 29.6 14.7 11.3 2.6889 2.0417 0.7069 0.5140 0.2539 0.1091 SP-SM Sample washed on #200 sieve AKRF 900 King Street Rye Brook, NY 17-056 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Source of Sample: PB-13 Depth: 9-11 ft. Sample Number: S-5 Date: Client: Project: Project No:Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 2.4 13.0 40.5 32.8 11.3 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1 ½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT