staff report - vermontbgs.vermont.gov/sites/bgs/files/documents/07 appendix 02 04.pdf · staff...

STAFF REPORT

February 19, 2016

STATE OF VERMONT – Wastewater allocation request for agricultural and

environmental lab at VTC

Background

Attached is the chart of employees at the lab. According to Carl Fuller at the State, the 4 lab-based

PT employees would count as 2 FT, the lab-based temps would count as FT and he indicated that

the field-based folks wouldn’t count. But I think because there are so many of them (30 total), that

they should count as 1 FT. Based on that, the calculation for the wastewater allocation would be as

follows:

Employees

32 + 2 + 5 + 1 = 40 employees x 15 gallons per day (gpd)/employee = 600 gpd less 20% for

connection to the municipal system = 480 gpd

Process Wastewater

600 gpd x 25% = 150 gpd

Total = 480 + 150 = 630 gpd with an allocation fee of $3,150.

The lab folks’ consultant indicated that the allocation should be based on 44 employees for a total

allocation of 693 gpd. If they would like this higher number, I think they should provide some

justification as to how it was calculated.

WATER SUPPLY 2/3.1

Town of RandolphWaste Water Advisory Committee

WATER SUPPLY 2/3.2

WATER SUPPLY 2/3.3

WATER SUPPLY 2/3.4

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Agency of Natural Resources Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division

One National Life Drive - Main 2 [phone] 802-828-1535 Montpelier, VT 05620-3521 [fax] 802-828-1541 www.drinkingwater.vt.gov

To preserve, enhance, restore, and conserve Vermont's natural resources, and protect human health, for the benefit of this and future generations.

April 5, 2016

Michael Obuchowski State Of Vermont Dept Of Buildings & Gen Services 2 Governor Aiken Ave Montpelier, VT 05633

Dear Commissioner Obuchowski:

The Drinking Water Program of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation has received your Construction Permit application for the “Vermont Agriculture & Environmental Laboratory” project.

A preliminary determination has been made that the application form is administratively complete. Cynthia Parks, P.E. will review this project as soon as possible. For your convenience, our identification number for this project is PID # C-3353-16.0. The Environmental Regional Office project tracking number is BR96-0049.

If you have not already done so, please contact the Permit Specialist located in our DEC Montpelier Regional Office, Pete Kopsco, at 802-505-5367, who can help you determine if additional permits may be required for the improvement being proposed.

Sincerely,

Helen A. Banevicius Administrative Services Coordinator

c: Harry T Shanley P.E., Consulting Engineer Mike Kuhn, Project Manager ([email protected]) Cynthia Parks, P.E., Division Engineer Tim Raymond, Operations & Engineering Section Chief PID # C-3353-16.0 WSID VT0005177

WATER SUPPLY 2/3.5

AGENCY OF ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS & GENERAL SERVICES

MEMORANDUM TO: THE FILE

FROM: Sandra Vitzthum, Project Manager

CC: Mike Kuhn (BGS), Scott Stewart (DEC), Charlotte Brodie (Dubois & King)

DATE: April 25, 2016

SUBJECT: Hydrologic resources (aquifers) serving the VTC/Randolph Village municipal water supply system

Today I spoke with Scott Stewart, who is the State Hydrogeologist of the Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division for this part of Vermont. ([email protected])

We spoke about the VTC/Randolph Village public water supply system. He is familiar with the existing system and recent (and proposed) allocations, and he is familiar with the aquifer that supplies both the VTC well and the village well.

Scott is confident that the aquifer will be able to serve projected demands without depletion. He has advised Cynthia Parks, the region’s administrator for allocation permits, that there are no concerns related to approving the Vermont Agriculture and Environmental Laboratory’s allocation request.

WATER SUPPLY 2/3.6

mailto:[email protected]

MUNICIPAL SOURCE #1 2/3.7

Methane Digester

MUNICIPAL WATER SOURCE #2 2/3.8

SOILS & EROSION 4.1

Excerpt from “Environmental Assessment, Vermont State Agriculture and Environmental Laboratory, Town of Randolph, Orange County, VT: FEMA-4022-DR-VT,” April 2016, sections 3.1.1 “Geology” and 3.1.2 “Soils”

The site is located within the Connecticut River Valley Trough belt of the Gile Mountain Formation. The primary rock type is schist, and the secondary rock type is quartzite. The surficial geology is glacial till. There are no unique or protected geologic resources or geologic hazards in the project vicinity.

The soil classification according to the National Resource Conservation Service (NCRS) on-online soil database includes Buckland loam, 3-8% slope (BuB), Buckland loam, 8-15% slope (BuC) and Cabot silt loam, 0-8% slope (CaB). The parent material of all three soil series is loamy lodgement till. The Buckland soils are moderately well drained, and the Cabot soil is poorly drained.

Site clearing, grading and construction will create a potential for soil erosion and transport. The project will require a Vermont Stormwater Construction General Permit, in compliance with State law and the federal Clean Water Act, and will require construction and operational best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented. The Facility design will include a stormwater management design that minimizes the potential for soil erosion and offsite transport of soils by stormwater runoff. USGBC LEED design guidance will be used for stormwater management. No adverse environmental consequences associated with soil erosion are anticipated.

51 Knight Lane l Williston, VT 05495 l Tel: 802-879-6343 l Fax: 802-879-6376 l kcevt.com

FINAL REPORT OF

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

-

VT ANR COLLABORATIVE LABORATORIES

RANDOLPH, VERMONT

FOR

CANNON DESIGN

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

Prepared by:

Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc.51 Knight Lane

Williston, VT 05495

Preliminary Report Issued: March 31, 2015

Final Report Issued: February 26, 2016

BORINGS REPORT 4.2

51 Knight Lane l Williston, VT 05495 l Tel: 802-879-6343 l Fax: 802-879-6376 l kcevt.com

February 26, 2016

Christopher Kenney CANNONDESIGN 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1400 Boston, MA 02114

Re: Final geotechnical investigation for the proposed VT Ag Building at the VTCcampus in Randolph, Vermont.

Dear Mr. Kenney:

This is a report of our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the site of the proposed VT Ag Building at the VTC campus in Randolph, Vermont. Our soil findings are based upon (15) soil borings performed by Mike’s Boring & Coring (MB&C) of East Barre, Vermont. DIG-SAFE was contacted to locate public utilities near the proposed borings (DIG-SAFE #2015-060-2123 & #2015-100-1294). Boring locations are represented on plan information provided by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers (pending).

No attempt was made by Knight Consulting Engineers to investigate for the presence, extent or nature of hazardous or toxic substances.

We appreciate the opportunity to conduct this geotechnical investigation, and stand ready to assist in future phases of this project.

Sincerely,

Eric Goddard, P.E. Senior Vice President Final VT Ag Building Geotech Report (02-26-2016).doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

DESCRIPTION OF EXPLORATION PROGRAM 1

SITE OVERVIEW 2

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3

SUBGRADE OPTIONS 4

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 5

* * * * * *

APPENDIX A - MAPS 1957 U.S.G.S. Topographic Map (Randolph, VT) 1978 U.S.D.A. SCS Soil Survey (Orange County, VT)

APPENDIX B – BORING LOCATION PLAN & SOIL PROFILES Soil Boring Location Plan Soil Profile 1-2 Soil Profile 9-3-10 Soil Profile 11-4&6-5 Soil Profile 13-14-8-12

APPENDIX C - SOIL BORING LOGS

APPENDIX D - PHYSICAL SOIL TESTS Soil Gradation (Sieves) Organic Content & Moisture Content Atterberg Limits & Moisture Content

APPENDIX E – FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN

APPENDIX F – LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAMS (ACTIVE & AT-REST) Localized Wall Element Design Overall Wall Stability Design

-1-

DESCRIPTION OF EXPLORATION PROGRAM

The soil investigation is comprised of fifteen (15) soil borings performed within and around the proposed building footprint. Ten (10) soil borings (B-1 thru B-8 and B-14 & B-15) were located in and around the proposed building footprint. Five (5) soil borings (B-9 thru B-13) were located along site drives and parking. All of the soil borings were performed using hollow stem augers and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split-spoon

sampling procedures. The soil boring locations are indicated on the plan in Appendix B.

Auger soil borings were advanced by use of hollow stem augers and SPT sampling procedures. In this method, the augers are advanced to a predetermined sampling depth. A standard 2” OD split spoon sampler is attached to the end of the drill rod and driven out ahead of the open end of the hollow augers. The SPT value (units are blows per foot) is recorded as the sum of the number of blows of a 140 pound hammer, free falling 30 inches, required to drive the sampler over the second and third of four 6 inch increments. Once the SPT value is recorded and a disturbed sample obtained, the augers are advanced to the next sampling depth and the process is repeated.

It should be noted that the information reported on the boring logs is a field interpretation by the boring contractor, and does not always match the engineer’s interpretation, which is based on inspection and/or laboratory analysis of the submitted samples.

-2-

SITE OVERVIEW The site of the proposed project is located in a sloping pasture north of the existing VTC campus in Randolph, Vermont. The project site is bounded by Furnace Street to the north, more sloping pasture to the east, a paved access road to a sewage treatment plant to the south, and athletic fields to the west. The site slopes moderately from west to east with existing elevations ranging from approximately 1310’ to 1365’. Based upon input from the Architect, the location of the proposed building will be approximately in the central to southwestern portion of the site with proposed finished floor elevations ranging from 1320’ to 1330’, respectively. The existing average grades at these footprint locations are 1330’ and 1340’, respectively. Based upon this information, the average building cut is 10 feet.

According to the 1970 Surficial Geologic Map of Vermont, native soils at the proposed site are generally glacial till mantling bedrock and reflecting the topography of

the underlying bedrock. The 1978 USDA-SCS Soil Survey of Orange County, Vermont lists the surficial soils as Buckland stony loam with 8% to 15% slopes (See

Appendix A).

According to the 1961 Geologic Map of Vermont, the native bedrock in this area is

shown as the Gile Mountain formation, a gray quartz-muscovite phyllite or schist, interbedded and intergradational with gray micaceous quartzite. This map also indicates that this site is located approximately 31 miles east of the (inactive) Champlain Thrust and approximately 21 miles west-northwest of the (inactive) Ammonoosuc Thrust. The underlying glacial till and hardpan materials were formed by compression of the older soils beneath advancing glacial ice. As the last glacier was retreating from the Connecticut Valley about 14,000 to 15,000 years ago, a fresh-water lake, known as the Connecticut Valley Lake, covered much of the valley, bounded to the south by a large delta of sand and gravel. The project site is located slightly above the elevation of the backwater from the upper reaches of the Connecticut Valley Lake. The natural topography of this area is due to erosional cutting of these glacial till soils combined with surficial alterations as a result of agricultural use.

-3-

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

At the proposed site, the boring samples indicate a general soil profile consisting of the following strata:

Silty Sand & Gravel: These soils are generally comprised of 0 to 3.5 feet of loose-to-medium dense dark gray silty fine sand with trace-to-some medium fine gravel. These soils were generally damp in nature.

Loose Silts: These soils are generally comprised of 0 to 5 feet of loose (medium stiff) dark gray sandy silt with trace-to-little fine gravel. These soils were generally wet in nature.

Dense Silty Sand & Gravel: These soils are generally comprised of 0 to 10 feet of dense dark gray silty fine sand with little-to-some medium fine gravel. These soils were generally damp-to-wet in nature.

Glacial Till: These soils are comprised of 0 to 12 feet of very dense glacial till consisting of dark gray silty fine sand with little-to-some medium fine gravel. These soils were generally moist-to-damp in nature.

Bedrock: These soils are comprised of soft/heavily weathered mica schist bedrock. Some areas contained up to 17 feet of soft or weathered rock. Shallow loose soil pockets were encountered in numerous soil boring locations. Below is a summary of the estimated groundwater and loose soil depths:

Est. Est. Est. Bot. of Boring Elev. G.W.T. Loose Soil B-1 1335.0’ 1316.0’(1) 1326.5’ B-2 1320.5’ 1312.5’(1) 1314.0’ B-3 1327.5’ 1318.0’(1) 1322.0’ B-4 1338.0’ NWTD (1)(3) 1329.5’ B-5 1324.5’ 1311.5’(1) 1318.5’ B-6 1336.0’ NWTD (1)(3) 1330.0’ B-7 1344.0’ NWTD (1) 1340.5’ B-8 1333.0’ NWTD 1329.5’ B-9 1341.0’ 1330.5’(1) 1332.5’ B-10 1318.0’ 1308.0’(1) 1309.5’ B-11 1349.5’ NWTD (3) 1341.0’ B-12 1324.0’ NWTD N/A B-13 1348.0’ NWTD 1344.5’ B-14 1344.0’ NWTD N/A B-15 1341.5’ NWTD (2) N/A

(1) Perched groundwater estimated at a depth of approximately 3.5’ below the ground surface based upon review of the loose soil samples.

(2) Groundwater estimated at a depth of approximately 8.5’ below the ground surface based upon

review of the soil samples.

(3) Groundwater estimated at a depth of approximately 13.5’ below the ground surface based upon review of the soil samples.

-4-

SUBGRADE OPTIONS Due to the presence of varying soil densities in the surface soils, subgrade preparation

should include mitigation of these conditions. Below are options for mitigating the subsurface conditions:

Option #1 (Limited Loose Soil Removal): This option includes minimal removal of the loose soils. This option should yield bearing pressures of 1200 to 1600 PSF and a 2012 IBC Seismic Site Class of “D”. This option is not recommended and is not reflected in the Soil Profiles contained in Appendix B.

Option #2 (Complete Loose Soil & Replace with Granular Fill): For this option,

completely remove the loose soils under the building footprint to the elevations indicated under the SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS and replace with Fine Crushed Gravel (VTAOT 704.05a) compacted to 95% of the Modified Proctor dry density value. Extend the replacement zone below footings 1H:2V outside the perimeter footing envelope. This option should yield bearing pressures of 1800 to 3000 PSF and a 2012 IBC Seismic Site Class of “C”. This option is reflected in the Soil Profiles contained in Appendix B.

Option #3 (Complete Loose Soil Removal & Replace with Fine Crushed Gravel): For this option, completely remove the loose soils under the building footprint to the elevations indicated under the SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS and replace with Granular Fill compacted to 95% of the Modified Proctor dry density value. Extend the replacement zone below footings 1H:2V outside the perimeter footing envelope. This option should yield bearing pressures of 4000 to 5000 PSF and a 2012 IBC Seismic Site Class of “C”. This option is reflected in the Soil Profiles contained in Appendix B.

-5-

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: A. Soil strength parameters are based upon blow-count and pocket penetrometer

analysis, laboratory testing and physical review of the samples. The soil boring

logs are contained in Appendix C and the physical soil test results are contained

in Appendix D. All physical testing results are listed on the soil boring logs, including moisture content, soil classification, organic content, Atterberg Limits and pocket penetrometer results.

B. With regard to IBC 2012 Section 1613, selection of Subgrade Option #1 should

result in a 2012 IBC Seismic Site Class of “D”, which yields a Seismic Design Category of “C” for Risk Categories 1, 2 & 3 (Site Class “D”, Ss=0.246, Fa=1.600, Sds=0.262, S1=0.087, Fv=2.400, Sd1=0.139). If the provisions of Alternate 1613.3.5.1 can be met then the Seismic Design Category can be lowered to “B”. Because the site is not located directly over an active fault, the risk of surface rupture during a seismic event is relatively low. Using the SPT values contained in the boring logs, estimated & tested silt contents from the boring samples, and a (2% in 50-year) design 5.91 Magnitude earthquake (0.13g peak ground acceleration) obtained from the U.S.G.S. Probable Seismic Hazard Deaggregation, our firm calculated that the on-site soils should not be liquefiable based upon an estimated minimum Factor-of-Safety of 1.38. Seismic settlements are estimated to be approximately 0.11” or less.

C. With regard to IBC 2012 Section 1613, selection of Subgrade Option #2 or #3

should result in a 2012 IBC Seismic Site Class of “C”, which yields a Seismic Design Category of “B” for Risk Categories 1, 2 & 3 (Site Class “C”, Ss=0.246, Fa=1.200, Sds=0.197, S1=0.087, Fv=1.700, Sd1=0.099). Because the site is not located directly over an active fault, the risk of surface rupture during a seismic event is relatively low.

D. Based upon the SPT data, pocket penetrometer data, visual classification

of the soils and following the recommendations listed under the SUBGRADE OPTIONS, these soils should have sufficient strength to support conventional strip and spread footings with the following Allowable Net Foundation Loading:

-6-

OPTION #1 (Limited Soil Removal – Not Recommended) (1) (2) (3)

Interior & Perimeter Footings:

Footing width: Strip Ftg. Sq. Ftg. B < 6.0’ 1200 PSF 1600 PSF B = 8.0’ 1175 PSF 1600 PSF B =10.0’ 1095 PSF 1590 PSF B =12.0’ 1035 PSF 1445 PSF B =15.0’ 975 PSF 1300 PSF B =20.0’ 915 PSF 1150 PSF B >20.0’ Consult Geotechnical Engineer

OPTION #2 (Full Granular Fill Replacement) (1) (2) (3)

Interior & Perimeter Footings:

Footing width: Strip Ftg. Sq. Ftg. B < 3.5’ 3000 PSF 3000 PSF B = 4.0’ 2750 PSF 3000 PSF B = 5.0’ 2500 PSF 3000 PSF B = 6.5’ 2250 PSF 3000 PSF B = 9.0’ 2000 PSF 2750 PSF B =12.0’ 1800 PSF 2500 PSF B =16.0’ 1700 PSF 2350 PSF B =20.0’ 1600 PSF 2200 PSF B >20.0’ Consult Geotechnical Engineer

OPTION #3 (Full Fine Crushed Gravel Replacement) (1) (2) (3)

Interior & Perimeter Footings (Pending Final Building Location):

Footing width: Strip Ftg. Sq. Ftg. B <10.0’ 5000 PSF 5000 PSF B =12.0’ 4950 PSF 5000 PSF B =15.0’ 4550 PSF 5000 PSF B =20.0’ 4150 PSF 5000 PSF B >20.0’ Consult Geotechnical Engineer

Notes: (1) Footing & subgrade conditions should be inspected prior to placement of the footing.

Inspections should be performed by a qualified geotechnical engineer licensed in the State of Vermont.

-7-

(2) Strip and square footings: At these design loads and footing depths, the bearing strength factor-of-safety should be a minimum of 3.0. For Option 1, projected differential and total settlements should be less than 0.86” and 1”, respectively. For Option 2, projected differential and total settlements should be less than 0.80” and 1”, respectively. For Option 3, projected differential and total settlements should be approximately 0.50” and 1”, respectively (pending final building location).

(3) Allowable Net Foundation Loading includes the above-grade loads plus the displaced weight of the foundations (use approximately 20 to 50 PCF for the density difference between the concrete and the soil).

E. Based upon the soil borings and the projected 10’ average cut within the building footprint, construction de-watering will likely be required. Groundwater elevations are likely to be higher during the Spring months of April, May and June. Care should be taken during construction to divert surface water away from open excavations as damp or saturated soils may destabilize excavation sidewalls or make proper compaction difficult.

F. The local frost depth is approximately 5.5 feet; unheated foundations and

utilities should be designed accordingly or properly insulated. Heated foundations may be designed with a minimum exterior depth of 5 feet to the bottom of footing. Clean crushed stone below the footing (where applicable) can be counted as part of the footing depth relative to frost. For foundations to be considered heated, the interior space should be heated and there should be no insulation under the slab no insulation on the interior face of the foundation walls.

G. Structural fill for footing and slab subgrade should be compacted in 8”

maximum lifts to at least 95% of the Modified Proctor dry density value. After excavation of the loose soil materials, all disturbed granular subgrade soils should be removed or compacted to at least 95% of the Modified Proctor dry density value. If the soils at subgrade elevation appear to be too damp or saturated such that compaction cannot be achieved, consult the Project Geotechnical Engineer.

H. Neither concrete rubble nor other construction debris should be used as structural fill or backfill. Use either compacted Granular Fill or Fine Crushed Gravel (VTAOT 704.05a) to construct the building pad depending upon the SUBGRADE OPTION selected. Compact to 95% of the Modified Proctor dry density value.

I. Remove any soils containing greater than 2% organic content (by dry unit weight)

encountered within the building footprints. Replace with Granular Fill or Fine Crushed Gravel (VTAOT 704.05a) depending upon the SUBGRADE OPTION selected. Compact to 95% of the Modified Proctor dry density value.

-8- J. Structural fill should be placed and compacted in layers of 8-inch

maximum thickness (12” maximum loose). Field density tests should be accomplished on each lift to verify that adequate compaction is achieved. A reasonable guideline would be to perform at least 1 test per 2500 SF per lift for bulk filling; additional tests may be conducted on each lift at isolated excavation locations.

K. If construction is to take place during periods of freezing temperatures, the

existing materials must be protected against freezing heave until they can be properly insulated or backfilled.

L. The existing surface soils are very frost-active. Perimeter foundations or

isolated exterior foundations should be installed at least as deep as the local frost depth or properly insulated (see note “F”). Where minimizing frost heaving is critical, such as entry slabs or pads supporting equipment connected to buried piping or building piping, exterior structural slabs-on-grade should be constructed on 60” of clean crushed stone wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 500X) or on 30” of clean crushed stone wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 500X) on top of 3” of rigid insulation (extend the insulation out 3 feet beyond the edges of the slab).

M. Utilities susceptible to damage from frost should be installed at least 5.5

feet (6 feet in paved areas) below grade or properly insulated to limit typical frost penetration to above the top of the utility.

N. Excavation and trenching in excess of 4 feet should be kept to a maximum

slope of 1.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (OSHA Class C). Where slopes are adjacent to critical structures, permanent (unsaturated) slopes should be 2.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical or flatter.

O. For SUBGRADE OPTION 1, allowable resisting/bearing pressures may be

increased 33% for wind only. For SUBGRADE OPTION 2 & 3, allowable resisting/bearing pressures may be increased 33% for both wind and seismic loading.

-9- P. The design internal friction angle for granular fill placed behind retaining

walls should be assumed to be 30°. The design coefficient of friction (ultimate) should be 0.55 for concrete cast directly on the native silty soils or clean Granular Fill. Design soil unit weights should be in the range of 105 to 135 PCF for the native silty soils (unsaturated). Design soil unit weights should be in the range of 100 to 120 PCF for sand and silty sand fill (unsaturated) and 130 to 140 PCF for gravel fills (unsaturated). At 30 degrees, the following design lateral earth coefficients should be assumed:

Active (Ka): 0.333 At-rest (Ko): 0.500 Passive (Kp): 3.000

If design for permanent traffic or temporary construction traffic is

applicable, our firm recommends a lateral surcharge pressure of 0.333q (100 PSF) for active earth conditions and a lateral surcharge pressure of 0.500q (150 PSF) for at-rest earth conditions. These values are based upon a 300 PSF effective surcharge. Retaining walls free to rotate at the top may be designed using active earth pressures; retaining walls restrained at the top should be designed using at-rest earth pressures. Perimeter drains should be properly designed to eliminate hydrostatic pressures on retaining structures where possible.

Q. For permanent foundation walls designed to retain soil, the design passive

pressure resistance should not exceed the at-rest lateral earth pressures for soils that will remain in-place during and after backfilling of these foundation walls. This requirement is to insure that excessive displacements are not experienced in an attempt to develop the passive resistance. The appropriate Factors-of-Safety (Resistance Forces/Driving Forces) shall be a minimum of 1.5 for sliding and 2.0 for overturning. For temporary sheeting/bracing systems where lateral displacement will not have significant adverse effects, the design passive pressure resistance should not exceed 50% to 67% of the full passive pressure value for soils that will remain during the entire use of these sheeting/bracing systems. At these values the Factors-of Safety (Resistance Forces/Driving Forces) should be in the range of approximately 1.5 to 2.0.

R. Flexible pavement design calculations were performed using estimated traffic

information based upon the site development information provided. Pavement cross-sections were developed for both 20-year and 40-year designs. Since each parking level has 2 entrances, traffic flow was divided by 2. Refer to

Appendix E.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

MIKE’S BORING & CORING LLC. PO Box 75 East Barre, Vermont 05649 802 476-5073

TO: Sandra Vitzthum

Dept. of Bldg. and General Services Engineering Division 2 Gov. Aiken Avenue Drawer 33 Montpelier, VT 05633

PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: MBC JOB #:

Proposed VT Ag Building Randolph, VT 15015

SHEET: DATE: HOLE #: LINE & STA. OFFSET:

1 2-27-15 B-1 N/A

Ground Water Observations N/A due to coring perched water estimated @ 3.5’

Augers-Size I.D. 3.25” Split Spoon 2” Hammer Wt. 140# Hammer Fall 30"

Surface Elevation: Date Started: Date Completed: Boring Foreman: Inspector: Soils Engineer:

1335’+/- 2-27-15 3-2-15 Mike McGinley Eric Goddard Eric Goddard

LOCATION OF BORING: As staked and mapped Sample Depths

From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample

Blows per 6" on Sampler

Moisture Density or Consist.

Strata Change

Elev.

Soil Identification Sample

No. Pen. Rec. Inches Inches

0’-2’ Dry 6/4/4/5 Frozen/damp Loose-to-medium dense brown/gray mf sand & silt, little f gravel

1 24 18

5’-7’ Dry 2/2/2/2 Wet Loose gray non-plastic silt, trace organics (ML, LL=23, w=25.9%, PP=0.56 TSF)

2 24 6

10’-12’ Dry 10/20/21/28 Damp Very dense gray silt & f sand, some f gravel – probable re-worked glacial till

3 24 23

15’-17’ Dry 17/45/100 Damp Very dense gray silt & f sand, some weathered rock fragments – probable glacial till

4 18 16

19.5’- Dry 50 for ½” Dry 19.5’ Rock fragments (schist) 5 ½ ½

Run #1 Set up to core

19.5’-20.5’ C Cored a 0.5’ boulder (Dark gray to black quartzite) then 4.5’ of till with shale boulders.

20.5’-21.5’ C Run = 60”

21.5’-22.5’ C Recovery = 18”

22.5’-23.5’ C RQD = 12% (Very poor)

23.5’-24.5’ C Dip Angle = N/A

Mohs Hardness = N/A

24.5’-26.5’ Dry 75/100 for 1” Gray silt, fine sand and stones (hard pan) 6 7 7

Ground Surface to 19.5’ Used 3.25” augers: Then S.S. to refusal at 19.5’ set up to core Earth Borings 21’ Rock Coring 7’ Samples: 6 HOLE NUMBER B-1


TO: Sandra Vitzthum





2 2-25-15 B-5 N/A

Ground Water Observations 13’ at 72 hrs Perched water est. @ 3.5’



1324.5’+/- 2-25-15 2-25-15 Mike McGinley Eric Goddard Eric Goddard


From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample



Strata Change

Elev.



0’-2’ Dry 8/4/4/4 Frozen/damp 1’ Loose-to-medium dense brown/gray mf sand & silt, little mf gravel (SM)

1 24 20

5’-7’ Dry 4/5/15/19 Wet/damp 6’ Medium dense gray mf sand & silt, little f gravel into dense-to-very dense gray f sand & silt, some mf gravel - probable re-worked glacial till

2 24 18


3 24 20

15’-17’ Dry 43/34/40/40 Damp Very dense gray silt & f sand, some f gravel (cobbles at 18’) – probable glacial till

4 24 23

20’-22’ Dry 47/43/60/100 Damp Very dense gray silt & f sand & weathered rock (cobbles from 22’-23.5’) – probable glacial till

5 24 23

25’-27’ Dry 100 Damp Very dense gray silt with weathered rock & mf gravel – probable glacial till

6 6 6

27’- Dry 50 for ½” Rock fragments – probable boulder or bedrock 7 ½ ½

Auger refusal at 27’

SS refusal at 27’-0.5”

Ground Surface to 27’ Used 3.25” augers: Then S.S. to refusal at 27’ Earth Borings 27’ Rock Coring Samples: 7 HOLE NUMBER B-5


TO: Sandra Vitzthum





3 2-26-15 B-2 N/A

Ground Water Observations 8’ at 72 hrs Perched water est. @ 3.5’





From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample



Strata Change

Elev.



0’-2’ Dry 7/4/4/4 Frozen/damp 1’ Loose-to-medium dense brown/gray silt & f sand, trace organics

1 24 18

5’-7’ Dry 3/2/2/15 Wet/damp 6.5’

7.5’

Loose gray silt, trace of clay (CL-ML, LL=26, PL=22, PI=4, w=24.5%, PP=1.56 TSF) into weathered schist

2 24 18

10’-12’ Dry 10/11/13/14 Wet Dense gray silt & f sand, some f gravel 3 24 23

15’-17’ Dry 11/13/16/14 Wet Dense gray silt, trace f gravel 4 24 23

20’-22’ Dry 41/70/100 Wet/damp 18’ Very dense gray silt & f sand, some f gravel – probable glacial till

5 18 18

25’-27’ Dry 52/100 Moist Very dense gray silt & f sand, some f gravel – probable glacial till

6 12 12

SS refusal at 26’

Ground Surface to 25’ Used 3.25” augers: Then S.S. to refusal at 26’ Earth Borings 26’ Rock Coring Samples: 6 HOLE NUMBER B-2


TO: Sandra Vitzthum





4 2-26-15 B-9 N/A

Ground Water Observations 10.5’ at _96 _ hours Perched water est. @ 3.5’



1341’+/- 2-26-15 2-26-15 Mike McGinley Eric Goddard


From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample



Strata Change

Elev.



0’-2’ Dry 11/4/4/4 Frozen/damp 1.5’ Loose-to-medium dense brown/gray mf sand & silt, some f rock fragments

1 24 18

5’-7’ Dry 2/2/2/3 Wet Loose gray non-plastic silt, trace weathered schist (ML, LL=25, w=23.8%, PP=0.53 TSF)

2 24 18

10’-12’ Dry 55/27/31/39 Damp 8’ Very dense gray silt & f sand, trace clay, some mf weathered schist – probable re-worked glacial till

3 24 14

15’-17’ Dry 34/87/78/94 Damp Very dense gray silt & f sand, some mf gravel & weathered schist – probable glacial till

4 24 20

Ground Surface to 15’ Used 3.25” augers: Then S.S. to 17’ Earth Borings 17’ Rock Coring Samples: 4 HOLE NUMBER B-9


TO: Sandra Vitzthum





5 2-25-15 B-10 N/A

Ground Water Observations 10’-3” at 24 hrs





From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample



Strata Change

Elev.



0’-2’ Dry 4/2/4/5 Frozen/damp 1.5’ Loose brown/gray mf sand & silt, some f gravel

1 24 22

5’-7’ Dry 3/2/2/5 Wet Medium stiff brown/gray silt, trace clay & organics & weathered rock (CL-ML, LL=26, PL=22, PI=4, w=26.4%, PP=0.57 TSF)

2 24 20

10’-12’ Dry 8/13/17/27 Wet Dense brown/gray silt & f sand, little f weathered rock, trace organics – probable re-worked glacial till

3 24 23

15’-17’ Dry 25/100 for 4.5” Wet Very dense gray silt & f sand, some f rock fragments – probable re-worked glacial till

4 10.5 10.5

20’-22’ Dry 31/21/20/18 Wet Very dense gray silt & f sand, some f rock fragments – probable re-worked glacial till

5 24 23

Ground Surface to 20’ Used 3.25” augers: Then S.S. to 22’ Earth Borings 22’ Rock Coring Samples: 5 HOLE NUMBER B-10


TO: Sandra Vitzthum





7 2-26-15 B-11 N/A

Ground Water Observations NWTD at 24 hrs



1349.5’+/- 2-26-15 2-26-15 Mike McGinley Eric Goddard


From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample



Strata Change

Elev.



0’-2’ Dry 8/4/4/4 Frozen/damp 1.5’ Loose-to-medium dense brown/gray silt, some f sand

1 24 20

5’-7’ Dry 4/3/3/4 Damp 7.5’ Loose brown/gray silt, some f sand, trace f gravel (PP=1.41 TSF)

2 24 18

10’-12’ Dry 17/54/100 for 6”

Damp Very dense gray cmf sand & silt, little mf rock fragments – probable decomposed rock

3 18 18

15’-17’ Dry 35/100 Wet Very dense gray cmf sand & silt, little f rock fragments (SM) – probable decomposed/weathered rock

4 12 12

20’-22’ Dry 100 for 5” Moist 18’ Weathered schist – probable bedrock 5 5 5

SS refusal at 20’-5”

Ground Surface to 20’ Used 3.25” augers: Then S.S. to refusal at 20’5” Earth Borings 20’5” Rock Coring Samples: 5 HOLE NUMBER B-11


TO: Sandra Vitzthum





7 2-25-15 B-12 N/A

Ground Water Observations 14’ Cave-in at 24 hrs





From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample



Strata Change

Elev.



0’-2’ Dry 7/6/6/11 Frozen/damp 1’ Medium dense brown/gray mf sand & silt, some f gravel

1 24 18

5’-7’ Dry 100 for 2” Damp Refusal on stone (Brown/gray mf sand & silt, some mf gravel & rock fragments – probable glacial till

2 2 ½

10’-12’ Dry 43/100 for 3” Damp Very dense gray silt & f sand, some mf rock fragments – probable glacial till

3 9 8

15’-17’ Dry 100 for 3” Moist Very dense gray silt & f sand & rock fragments – probable weathered rock

4 3 3




TO: Sandra Vitzthum





8 2-25-15 B-13 N/A






From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample



Strata Change

Elev.



0’-2’ Dry 7/7/4/4 Frozen/damp 1’ Loose-to-medium dense brown/gray mf sand, some silt, little f rock fragments (SM)

1 24 18

5’-7’ Dry 42/100 for 4” Dry Very dense weathered rock 2 10 4

10’-12’ Dry 100 for 5.75 Damp Very dense weathered rock (fine sand & silt & mf rock fragments)

3 5.75 5

15’-17’ Dry 100 for 3” Damp Very dense weathered rock (fine sand & silt & mf rock fragments)

4 5 5

20’-22’ Dry 100 for 3” Moist Very dense weathered rock (fine sand & silt & mf rock fragments)

5 3 3




TO: Sandra Vitzthum





9 3-4-15 B-4 N/A

Ground Water Observations NWTD at 144 hrs (Cave-in @ 20’) Perched water est. @ 3.5’





From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample



Strata Change

Elev.



0’-2’ Dry 8/4/4/5 Frozen/damp 1’ Loose-to-medium dense brown mf sand & silt, some f gravel

1 24 20

5’-7’ Dry 4/2/3/4 Wet Loose brown non-plastic silt, some f sand & f weathered rock fragments, trace organics (ML, LL=24, PL=23, PI=1, w=22.2%, PP=1.32 TSF)

2 24 16


3 24 23

15’-17’ Dry 24/75/64/100 for 5“

Wet/damp 16’ Rock fragments into very dense gray silt & f sand, some f rock fragments – probable glacial till

4 23 23

20’-22’ Dry 54/100 for 5.5” Moist Very dense gray silt & f sand, some mf rock fragments – probable glacial till

5 11.5 12

25’-27’ Dry 100 for 3” Moist Weathered rock 6 3 3

Auger refusal at 26’-6”



TO: Sandra Vitzthum





10 3-3-15 B-6 N/A






From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample



Strata Change Elev.



0’-2’ Dry 9/4/2/4 Frozen/damp 1’ Loose-to-medium dense brown silt, little f sand, trace organics (PP=2.18 TSF)

1 24 20

5’-7’ Dry 2/4/8/10 Damp/wet Loose-to-medium dense brown/gray silt, trace clay, little f weathered rock (CL-ML, LL=25, PL=21, PI=4, w=21.8%, PP=1.66 TSF)

2 24 23

10’-12’ Dry 50 for ½” Damp Refusal on stone (Gray silt with rock fragments)

3 ½ ½

15’-17’ Dry 16/16/36/36 Wet/damp/moist 16’ Dense gray silt & f sand, little f rock fragments into very dense weathered rock

4 24 22

20’-22’ Dry 100 for 3” Dry Weathered rock 5 3 3

25’-27’ Dry 100 for ½” Damp Weathered rock 6 ½ ½




TO: Sandra Vitzthum





11 3-2-15 B-3 N/A

Ground Water Observations 9.5’ at 24 hours Perched water est. @ 3.5’





From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample



Strata Change

Elev.



0’-2’ Dry 2/2/5/6 Frozen/damp 1’ Loose-to-medium dense brown/gray silt & fine sand, trace f gravel (PP=1.94 TSF)

1 24 14

5’-7’ Dry 2/10/11/21 Wet/damp Medium dense-to-dense gray silt, little f sand & f gravel, trace clay (CL_ML, LL=24, PL=18, PI=6, w=17.7%, P=2.45 TSF)

2 24 23


3 24 18

15’-17’ Dry 16/22/100 for 5”

Damp Very gray silt & f sand, some f rock fragments, trace organics – probable re-worked glacial till

4 17 17

20’-22’ Dry 50 for ½” Damp Rock fragments – probable bedrock 5 ½ ½


SS refusal at 20’-0.5”

Ground Surface to 20’ Used 3.25” augers: Then S.S. to refusal at 20’ Earth Borings 20’ Rock Coring

Samples: 5 HOLE NUMBER B-3


TO: Sandra Vitzthum





12 3-10-15 B- 14 N/A






From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample



Strata Change

Elev.



0’-2’ Dry 8/4/5/6 Frozen/damp 1’ Medium dense brown/gray silt & fine sand 1 24 18

5’-7’ Dry 11/20/21/50 Damp Very dense weathered rock & silty f sand – probable re-worked glacial till

2 24 20

10’-12’ Dry 60/100 for 4” Moist Very dense weathered rock 3 10 10

15’-17’ Dry 71/100for 3” Moist Very dense weathered rock 4 9 4

17.5’ Dry 100 for 3” Dry Weathered rock 5 3 3

Auger refusal at 17.5’

SS refusal at 17.75’

Ground Surface to 17.5’ Used 3.25” augers: Then S.S. to refusal at 17.5’ Earth Borings 17.5’ Rock Coring



TO: Sandra Vitzthum





13 3-9-15 B- 7 N/A

Ground Water Observations NWTD at 22 hrs (Cave-in @ 11.5’) Perched water est. @ 3.5’





From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample



Strata Change

Elev.



0’-2’ Dry 4/2/2/2 Frozen/damp 1’ Loose brown mf sand & silt, trace f gravel (SM)

1 24 18

5’-7’ Dry 5/5/6/6 Wet/damp Medium dense brown/gray silt, some f sand & f weathered rock, trace organics (w=22.3%, Org=1.6%, PP=1.66 TSF) into medium dense brown/gray silt & f sand, some f weathered rock

2 24 16

10’-12’ Dry 21/64/100 for 3”

Moist Very dense weathered mica schist with iron pyrite inclusions

3 15 15

14’ Auger refusal at 14’

Set up to core

Run #1 Dark gray mica schist w/quartz layers

14’-16’ C Run= 24”, Rec= 18”, RQD= 0% (Very poor)

Dip Angle = N/A, Mohs Hardness = 3.5 to 7

Run #2 Gray quartzite & dark gray mica schist


Dip Angle = 44°, Mohs Hardness = 2.5 to 7

Run #3 6” Oxidized dark gray mica schist into 24” black quartzite


Dip Angle = N/A, Mohs Hardness = 3.5 to 7

Ground Surface to 14’ Used 3.25” augers: Then auger refusal at 14’ Earth Borings 14’ Rock Coring 10’



TO: Sandra Vitzthum





14 3-9-15 B- 8 N/A

Ground Water Observations NWTD at 19 hrs (Cave-in @ 6.5’)





From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample



Strata Change

Elev.



0’-2’ Dry 9/9/3/3 Frozen/damp 1’ Loose brown mf sand, some silt, trace f gravel (SM)

1 24 24

5’-7’ Dry 8/13/10/53 Damp 6’ Dense brown silt & f sand, trace clay into very dense weathered rock

2 24 24

8’-10’ Dry 0’ or ½” Dry Rock fragments 3 ½ ½


Set up to core

Run #1 Dark gray to black quartzite & mica schist

8’-13’ C Run = 60”

Recovery = 22.5”

RQD = 7% (Very poor)

Dip Angle = N/A

Mohs Hardness = 3.5 to 7

Run #2 Dark gray quartzite into light gray quartzite

13’-18’ C Run = 60”

Recovery = 30”

RQD = 20% (Very poor)

Dip Angle = N/A


Ground Surface to 8’ Used 3.25” augers: Then auger refusal at 8’ Earth Borings 8’ Rock Coring 10’



TO: Sandra Vitzthum





15 3-10-15 B- 15 N/A

Ground Water Observations NWTD due to coring 8.5’ est. at 0 hrs





From/To (Feet)

Type of Sample



Strata Change

Elev.



0’-2’ Dry 6/4/5/6 Frozen/damp 1’ Medium dense brown cmf sand, some silt, little f gravel (SM)

1 24 14

5’-7’ Dry 14/18/18/16 Damp Dense-to-very dense brown silt & f sand & mf rock fragments – probable decomposed rock

2 24 18

10’-12’ Dry 16/100 for 1” Wet Dense brown silt & f sand, little mf rock fragments – probable decomposed rock

3 7 7


Set up to core

Run #1 Dark gray to black quartzite & mica schist

10’7”-15’7” C Run = 60”

Recovery = 57”

RQD = 31% (Poor)

Dip Angle = 31°


Run #2 22” Black mica schist, 5” oxidized light gray mica schist with iron pyrite, 7” black mica schist, 7” dark gray/black quartzite, 15” oxidized dark gray/black mica schist

15’7”-20’7” C Run = 60”, Recovery = 56”

RQD = 40% (Poor)

Dip Angle = 33°, Mohs Hardness = 3.5 to 7

Ground Surface to 10’ 7” Used 3.25” augers: Then auger refusal at 10’7” Earth Borings 10’7” Rock Coring 10’


APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN Upper Lot: The pavement design includes 2 levels of ESAL design (161,000 & 322,000 per entrance) to be used depending upon either a 20-year or 40-year design life. Traffic calculations include the following: (25) passes per storm for a 40,000# plow truck and (2) round-trips per day for 45 employee spaces (6,000# personal vehicles).

Lower Lot: The pavement design includes 2 levels of ESAL design (222,500 & 445,000 per entrance) to be used depending upon either a 20-year or 40-year design life. Traffic calculations include the following: (5) round-trips per week for a 72,000# delivery truck, (2) round-trips per week for 40,000# trash and recycling trucks, (25) passes per storm for a 40,000# plow truck, (8) round-trips per day for 7 visitor spaces (6000# personal vehicles), and (2) round-trips per day for 14 VT State truck & trailer spaces (12,000# average). Below are the recommendations for the 20-year & 40-year ESAL levels: 40-Year Pavement Design Parameters (445,000 ESAL per entrance): Local Road 40-year ESAL = 445,000 Serviceability Loss = 4.0 - 2.0 = 2.0 PSI Reliability Factor = 90.9% (nomograph approach) Overall Standard Deviation = 0.45 Design Frost Depth = 70” Minimum Design Profile Depth = 28”

Limiting Silty Subgrade: Subgrade Resilient Modulus = 440 PSI (N60 SPT = 6.5) Min. SN = 7.70 4” Pavement + 6” Crushed Gravel + 36.5” Dense Grade Crushed Stone: Design SN = 4(0.44) + 6(0.14) + 36.5(0.14) = 7.71 (Thickness = 46.5”)

3” Pavement + 6” Crushed Gravel + 39.5” Dense Grade Crushed Stone: Design SN = 3(0.44) + 6(0.14) + 39.5(0.14) = 7.69 (Thickness = 48.5”)

3” Pavement + 24” Crushed Gravel + 27.5” Granular Fill: Design SN = 3(0.44) + 24(0.14) + 27.5(0.11) = 7.70 (Thickness = 54.5”)

20-Year Pavement Design Parameters (222,500 ESAL per entrance): Local Road 20-year ESAL = 222,500 Serviceability Loss = 4.0 - 2.0 = 2.0 PSI Reliability Factor = 90.9% (nomograph approach) Overall Standard Deviation = 0.45 Design Frost Depth = 70” Minimum Design Profile Depth = 28”

Limiting Silty Subgrade: Subgrade Resilient Modulus = 440 PSI (N60 SPT = 6.5) Min. SN = 7.00 4” Pavement + 6” Crushed Gravel + 31.5” Dense Grade Crushed Stone: Design SN = 4(0.44) + 6(0.14) + 31.5(0.14) = 7.01 (Thickness = 41.5”)

3” Pavement + 6” Crushed Gravel + 34.5” Dense Grade Crushed Stone: Design SN = 3(0.44) + 6(0.14) + 34.5(0.14) = 6.99 (Thickness = 43.5”)

3” Pavement + 24” Crushed Gravel + 21” Granular Fill: Design SN = 3(0.44) + 24(0.14) + 21(0.11) = 6.99 (Thickness = 48.0”)

APPENDIX F

staff report - vermontbgs.vermont.gov/sites/bgs/files/documents/07 appendix 02 04.pdf · staff...

Documents