Stormwater Infiltration in Highway Embankments - Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Estimation For Natural Low Plasticity Silts

Stormwater Infiltration in Highway
Embankments – Saturated
Hydraulic Conductivity Estimation
for Natural Low Plasticity Silts
WA-RD 872.2 Tony M. Allen December 2018
WSDOT Research Report

Office of Research & Library Services
19-01-0045
Research Report
WA-RD 872.2
STORMWATER INFILTRATION IN HIGHWAY

EMBANKMENTS – SATURATED HYDRAULIC
CONDUCTIVITY ESTIMATION FOR NATURAL LOW
PLASTICITY SILTS
by
Tony M. Allen, P.E.
Washington State Department of Transportation
HQ Geotechnical Office
Olympia, Washington
Prepared for
The State of Washington

Department of Transportation
Roger Millar, Secretary
And in cooperation with

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
December 2018
1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO.
WA-RD 872.2
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
STORMWATER INFILTRATION IN HIGHWAY December 2018

EMBANKMENTS – SATURATED HYDRAULIC
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
CONDUCTIVITY ESTIMATION FOR NATURAL
LOW PLASTICITY SILTS
7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Tony M. Allen
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO.

11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.
State Materials Laboratory
1655 South Second Avenue
Tumwater, WA 98512-6951
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Research Office
Final Research Report
Transportation Building, MS 47372
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Olympia, Washington 98504-7372
Project Manager: Mustafa Mohamedali, 360-705-6307
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This study was conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration.
16. ABSTRACT:
The estimation of hydraulic conductivity (K sat ) is a key step to assess the rate of infiltration, whether that
estimate is for an infiltration pond or trench, if it is for a highway embankment, or if it is for natural dispersion
in general. This report provides a follow-up to Report WA-RD 872.1 to include results of K sat testing
conducted on undisturbed samples of natural soils. To obtain undisturbed samples, the soil needs to have
significant silt content, and even a small amount of clay. These additional samples were obtained at some
infiltration BMP research test sites set up for long-term monitoring of infiltration into embankment side slopes
in Western Washington. These test results are used to extend the K sat test results conducted as reported in
WA-RD 872.1 (Allen 2017) to finer grained natural soil deposits such as low plasticity silts. These test
results show that the optimized K sat prediction methods and porosity prediction methods developed by Allen
(2017) can be extended to these finer grained soils without further modification, supporting the robustness of
those optimized equations.
17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Infiltration, Hydraulic conductivity, No restrictions. This document is available to the public

through the National Technical Information Service,
embankments, alluvial deposits
Springfield, VA 22616
19. SECURITY CLASSIF. (of this report) 20. SECURITY CLASSIF. (of this page) 21. NO. OF PAGES 22. PRICE
None None
iii
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author, who is responsible for
the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily
reflect the official views or policies of the Washington State Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, or U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does
not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 8
THE PROBLEM ............................................................................................................... 10
OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF this Follow-up study ...................................................... 11
RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................................................... 12
Sites from Which Samples were Obtained ................................................................................ 12
Test Procedures and Equipment Used ....................................................................................... 13
TEST RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 15
K sat PREDICTION ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 18
Effect of Grain Size Parameters on K sat .................................................................................... 18
Performance of Improved K sat Predictive Equations................................................................. 20
Estimating Porosity Based on Grain Size Parameters and Compaction Level or Density ........ 26
Using Estimated η and e with Optimized K sat Prediction Methods .......................................... 29
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND METHOD PERFORMANCE .................................. 32
APPLICATION TO INFILTRATION DESIGN.............................................................. 38
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 40
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................ 42
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 43
Appendix A BORING LOGS APPLICABLE TO TEST SAMPLES USED.................... A
SR5, Union Slough BMP Effectiveness Test Site ...................................................................A-1
SR12, Montesano BMP Effectiveness Test Site .................................................................... A-5
SR8, Cloquallam Cr. Embankment Infiltration Alternate Test Site ...................................... A-19
SR5, Chehalis Flood Control Project Site ............................................................................. A-23
APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST SUMMARIES FOR UNDISTURBED SOIL
SAMPLES.......................................................................................................................... B
SR5, Union Slough BMP Effectiveness Test Site .................................................................... B-1
SR12, Montesano BMP Effectiveness Test Site ...................................................................... B-5
SR8, Cloquallam Cr. Embankment Infiltration Alternate Test Site ....................................... B-24
SR5, Chehalis Flood Control Project Site .............................................................................. B-27
5
FIGURES
Figure 1. Locations of BMP effectiveness study sites, and locations of samples obtained
for K sat testing (red arrows). ............................................................................................. 13
Figure 2. Grain size characteristics of the K sat data sets evaluated. ................................ 19
Figure 3. Measured hydraulic conductivity values as a function of the soil d 10 size for
uncompacted and compacted specimens. ......................................................................... 19
Figure 4. Measured hydraulic conductivity values as a function of the soil C u for
uncompacted and compacted specimens. ......................................................................... 20
Figure 5. K sat measured values versus predictions using the optimized Slichter Equation.
........................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 6. Method bias as a function of d 10 size for the optimized Slichter Equation at 20o
C (note: linear functions used for regressions). ............................................................... 22
Figure 7. K sat measured values versus predictions using the optimized Terzaghi
Equation. ........................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 8. Method bias as a function of d 10 size for the optimized Terzaghi Equation
(note: linear functions used for regressions). .................................................................... 23
Figure 9. Ksat measured values versus predictions using the optimized Chapuis
Equation. ........................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 10. Method bias as a function of d 10 size for the optimized Chapuis Equation
(note: linear functions used for regressions). .................................................................... 24
Figure 11. (a) Predicted versus measured porosity with PI correction factor (i.e., using
equations 5 and 7), (b) predicted versus measured porosity without PI correction factor
(i.e., using equations 4 and 5), (c) porosity prediction bias (i.e., measured/predicted
value) as a function of the soil d 10 size with PI correction factor, and (d) porosity
prediction bias (i.e., measured/predicted value) as a function of the soil d 10 size without
PI correction factor. .......................................................................................................... 28
Figure 12. Optimized Slichter Equation, but using Eq’s. 5 and 7 to estimate porosity. .. 30
Figure 13. Optimized Terzaghi Equation, but using Eq’s. 5, 7 and 8 to estimate porosity.
........................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 14. Optimized Chapuis Equation, but using Eq’s. 5, 7, and 8 to estimate porosity
and void ratio. ................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 15. Bias distributions for the optimized equations using measured porosity or void
ratio with lognormal data fit and adjusted lognormal data fit to improve match to the
lower distribution tail: (a) Slichter Method, (b) Terzaghi Method, and (c) Chapuis
Method. ............................................................................................................................. 35
6
Figure 16. Bias distributions for the optimized equations using estimated porosity or void
ratio with lognormal data fit and adjusted lognormal data fit to improve match to the
lower distribution tail: (a) Slichter Method, (b) Terzaghi Method, and (c) Chapuis
Method. ............................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 17. Ratio of optimized Slichter Equation to Massmann Equation K sat predictions
as a function of d 10 size. ................................................................................................... 39
TABLES
Table 1. Measured gradation properties for soils tested in this study. ............................. 16
Table 2. Summary of specimen index properties for tests conducted in this study....... 16
Table 3. Summary of measured Ksat values. ................................................................... 17
Table 4. Bias statistics for all optimized methods investigated, using measured
porosity or void ratio. ....................................................................................................... 33
Table 5. Summary of bias statistics for prediction of soil porosity................................. 33
Table 6. Bias statistics comparing the use of measured versus estimated porosity
values as input for the optimized (a) Slichter, (b) Terzaghi, and (c) Chapuis
methods. ........................................................................................................................... 34
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity (K sat ) is a key step to assess

the rate of infiltration, whether that estimate is for an infiltration pond or trench, a
highway embankment, or for natural dispersion in general. The focus of this research is
to extend the results from Allen (2017) to natural (i.e., as deposited) silt and clayey silt.
It was desired to obtain the soil samples in an undisturbed condition. To accomplish this,
a series of Shelby tube samples, 2.8 inches in diameter, were retrieved from BMP (i.e.,
Best Management Practices) test sites. Soil specimens were taken from the Shelby tube
samples and subjected to saturated hydraulic conductivity tests using a flexible wall
permeameter. Soil types tested included soils ranging from sandy silt to clayey silt, and
additionally silts with significant organic content, taken from alluvial flood plain
deposits. Based on the SPT N values obtained during the test hole drilling, the soils
tested in the current study can be described as soft to very soft. A total of 12 tests were
conducted. In addition, 208 saturated hydraulic conductivity tests summarized in Allen
(2017) were used as a basis for comparison to the tests from the current study to
determine if the test results from the current study are reasonably consistent with the
previous work. Testing also included the determination of soil porosity and void ratio,
since these properties are needed for the optimized K sat equations developed in Allen
(2017).
Since the current study is intended as an extension of the work reported in Allen
(2017), the recommended optimized equations (i.e., the optimized Slichter, Terzaghi, and
Chapuis equations) were investigated as to how accurately those equations predict the
K sat values measured in the lab for the finer grained soils. The test results demonstrated
that the optimized Ksat equations could accurately predict the measured Ksat values,
provided that the soil did not have significant organic content. In addition, the soil
porosity and void ratio measurements for the new soil specimens were used to extend the
data obtained in Allen (2017) to verify the ability of the soil porosity equation developed
in that study to accurately predict the soil porosity as a key input parameter in the
optimized K sat equations. The test results indicated that the porosity equation can be
extended to silts and clayey silts provided that a correction based in the soil Plasticity
8
Index (PI) is used. In fact, the COV for the porosity prediction bias decreased slightly
relative to the previous test results in Allen (2017) to 12%.
The report concludes with the recommendation that the range of applicability of
the optimized K sat equations recommended in Allen (2017) can be extended to clayey
silts.
9
THE PROBLEM
Storm water infiltration facilities are used routinely by the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT), local agencies, and private developers to
reduce the hydrologic and environmental impact of storm water runoff from constructed
facilities. Typically, the size of facilities designed to infiltrate storm water runoff is
determined assuming that all of the runoff is captured by the infiltration facility. A rather
common situation is that the stormwater could infiltrate into compacted embankment
soils. Another common situation is the need to estimate K sat for natural soils that have
become relatively dense due to natural processes such as the historic, or prehistoric,
loading due overburden soils, or even glacial loading, as well as into looser natural soils
beyond the embankment toe or below the embankment in deeper strata.
To estimate infiltration, whether in an infiltration pond or a slope infiltration
BMP, it is necessary to know the K sat properties of the soil strata below the infiltration
facility, in which the effective K sat value is determined as the harmonic mean of the
subsurface strata below the infiltration area (WSDOT, 2016). The ability to extend the
K sat prediction model to subsurface strata is needed to obtain the K sat value needed for
infiltration design. To accomplish this, it is necessary to verify the accuracy of the
improved prediction models recommended in Allen (2017) for in-situ low moderate
plasticity silty or clayey soils, especially if for some reason it is not feasible to obtain
high quality undisturbed samples that can be used for laboratory K sat testing.
10
OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THIS FOLLOW-UP STUDY
This is a follow-up study to a previous report published by Allen (2017) in which

the saturated hydraulic conductivity, K sat , was investigated for uncompacted and
compacted soils for a range of soil gradations. That investigation was focused on the
testing and analysis of K sat laboratory tests on disturbed soil samples both in a compacted
and loose state. The results of that study were considered applicable to both infiltration
into compacted embankment materials as well as natural ground beyond the toe of the
embankment slopes, both near the ground surface and deeper within the soil profile.
The purpose of this follow-up study is to collect undisturbed samples of low
plasticity sandy silt and clayey silt or sand (i.e., soils for which obtaining undisturbed soil
samples is feasible) and perform laboratory K sat tests as well as index tests to characterize
the gradation, plasticity, and density of the samples obtained. These data are then used to
extend the work reported by Allen (2017) to finer grained soils with their natural density
and structure preserved.
The additional laboratory test results to be obtained are used to verify the
accuracy of the K sat prediction methods recommended in Allen (2017) in the finer
grained soil range, or modify them if necessary to get the best fit of the data. In so doing,
the applicability of those recommended K sat prediction methods will be expanded, at least
toward finer grained natural soils. Furthermore, most of the undisturbed samples tested
were obtained as part of the site characterization for several full scale infiltration test
sites. Therefore, these test results can be used for those new case studies to hopefully
link the laboratory soil properties to the observed full scale infiltration rates.
11
RESEARCH APPROACH
The approach used in this follow-up study to Allen (2017) is to obtain undisturbed
samples of native soils at depth below existing roadway fill. By obtaining undisturbed
samples, the in-situ soil structure and density are preserved, making the test results more
representative of what can be expected in-situ. The undisturbed samples are obtained
with high quality samplers which impart minimal disturbance to the soil, such as using 3
inch nominal diameter Shelby tubes (ASTM D1587) or piston samplers (which use a
Shelby tube to obtain a sample). Once the samples are obtained, specimens are prepared
and made ready for testing in a way that minimizes disturbance to the specimens.
Laboratory testing includes the determination of K sat in the vertical direction using a flex-
wall permeameter, as well as the determination of other soil properties such as gradation,
plasticity, unit weight, and organic content.
Sites from Which Samples were Obtained

As shown in Figure 1, samples were obtained from geotechnical test hole drilling
conducted to characterize sites for full scale BMP effectiveness monitoring, as well as for
one geotechnical design project on I-5 near Chehalis. The test sites are as follows:
• SR5, M.P. 197, near Union Slough north of Everett (includes stormwater water
quantity and quality measurements).
• SR12, M.P. 9, near Montesano (includes stormwater water quantity and quality
measurements), and SR-8 near Montesano (Cloquallum Cr.).
• SR5, Chehalis River flood control project geotechnical study.
In all cases, these samples were obtained from alluvial flood plain deposits.
Note that the test results from the samples obtained from the Chehalis River flood
control project were reported in Allen (2017). However, they are also reported here since
all the K sat testing reported in the current study is conducted on undisturbed samples.
12
Test Procedures and Equipment Used
Flexible wall permeameter testing was conducted to obtain K sat values from the
undisturbed Shelby tube samples. For the weakest soils, a piston sampler was used to
assist in getting the Shelby tube sample.
Figure 1. Locations of BMP effectiveness study sites, and locations of samples

obtained for K sat testing (red arrows).
For the flexible wall permeameter testing, ASTM D5084 using Method C –
Falling Head Rising Tailwater, was used for all testing. A GEOTAC (Geotechnical
Acquisition & Control) system from Trautwein Testing Equipment was used. This
system consists of three servo-controlled pumps to control cell, influent (headwater), and
effluent (tailwater) pressures to control the effective stress and hydraulic gradient in the
specimen. The test specimens were approximately 2.8 inches in diameter by
approximately 6 inches in height.
In addition to the permeameter testing, the unit weight of the specimens before
permeameter testing was determined in accordance with ASTM D7263-09. Specimen
height was also measured as placed before saturation and testing as well as after testing to
13
verify whether or not the specimen consolidated during the testing. Soil gradation testing
of each sample was conducted after permeameter testing in accordance with ASTM C-
136-06. Based on observations during the tests, very little, if any, fines were washed
through the specimen during testing, as the water was observed to be mostly clear.
Furthermore, changes in the specimen height during testing were insignificant.
14
TEST RESULTS
The soil specimens tested were characterized with regard to gradation, moisture
content, unit weight, plasticity, and saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ksat. Boring logs
for the test holes from which test specimens were obtained are provided in Appendix A.
Based on the boring logs, the samples were obtained from strata in which the Standard
Penetration Resistance (SPT) was less than 5 blows/ft, resulting in a designation for the
soil description of soft to very soft. All of the soils sampled are considered to be
normally consolidated.
Laboratory test result summaries for each undisturbed specimen tested are
provided in Appendix B. Soil descriptions, key gradation parameters based on the post-
hydraulic conductivity test gradations, and other index properties such as plasticity and
porosity needed for estimating Ksat are summarized in tables 1 and 2. Detailed post-
hydraulic conductivity test gradation test results for each specimen tested are provided in
Appendix B.
To obtain the porosity and void ratio, the specific gravity of solids, G s , for the
source soils used is needed. G s was determined for all flexible wall permeameter tests as
part of the hydrometer test conducted in conjunction with the permeameter test. For
these tests, the finer (i.e., No. 10 sieve minus) component of the soil had a measured G s
that ranged from 2.5 to 2.9.
The samples taken were tested for permeability (i.e., K sat ) in the axial (i.e.,
vertical) direction. Since all the soils sampled were normally consolidated, the test
results for those samples are considered to be “uncompacted” in accordance with the
criteria and methodology provided in Allen (2017). K sat measurements are summarized
in Table 3. Ksat values were relatively low, ranging from 7.4x10-7 to 5.7x10-5 cm/s,
consistent with silts, including some clay content. Most of the specimens tested had
some plasticity, with a plasticity index, PI, ranging up to 29. Note that three of the
specimens from the Montesano BMP site tested also had significant organic content with
an LOI of 10 to 22%.
15
Table 1. Measured gradation properties for soils tested in this study.
Fines Coeff. of Coeff. of
d 10 d 30 d 60 d 90
Project Soil Description Fraction, Uniformity, Curvature,
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
by Weight Cu Cc
MS-7119, SR5 near
Soft silt with clay 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.059 0.938 16.0 1.00
Chehalis, FC-5-14, S-5
MS-7119, SR5 near
Very loose silt 0.002 0.009 0.021 0.063 0.938 10.5 1.93
Chehalis, FC-5-14, S-9
SR5 Union Slough BMP Soft elastic silt with
0.0005* 0.004 0.016 0.075 0.90 32.0 2.00
Study, H-4P-15, S-9 sand (MH)
SR8 Cloquallum Cr. Alt.
Very soft elastic silt 0.0025 0.038 0.21 0.40 0.36 84.0 2.75
BMP site, H-1p-16, PS-6
SR12 Montesano BMP Very soft elastic silt
0.0006* 0.002 0.0065 0.02 0.96 10.8 1.03
Study, H-3p-17, P-8 with organics (MH)
SR12 Montesano BMP Very soft elastic silt
0.0006* 0.0017 0.0064 0.02 1.0 10.7 0.75
Study, H-3p-17, P-10 with organics (MH)
SR12 Montesano BMP
Soft elastic silt (MH) 0.0003* 0.0011 0.0051 0.018 0.99 17.0 0.79
Study, H-4p-17, S-6
SR12 Montesano BMP
Soft elastic silt (MH) 0.0005* 0.0029 0.0088 0.026 0.99 17.6 1.91
Study, H-4p-17, S-8
SR12 Montesano BMP
Very soft silt (ML) 0.0004* 0.003 0.01 0.038 0.97 25.0 2.25
Study, H-5p-17, S-6
SR12 Montesano BMP
Soft silt (ML) 0.0016 0.009 0.037 0.076 0.89 32.1 1.37
Study, H-5p-17, S-8
SR12 Montesano BMP Soft elastic silt with
0.0015* 0.018 0.18 4.0 0.51 120 1.20
Study, H-6p-17, P-6 organics (ML)
SR12 Montesano BMP Very Soft elastic silt
0.0002* 0.0011 0.0061 0.03 1.0 30.5 0.9
Study, H-7p-17, P-6 (MH)
*Extrapolatred below No. 200 sieve size to obtain value.
Table 2. Summary of specimen index properties for tests conducted in this study.
Dry Unit Specific Void Loss on
Project, Boring Log, and Porosity, Plasticity
Soil Description Weight Gravity, Ratio, Ignition,
Sample No. η Index, PI
(pcf) Gs e LOI (%)
MS-7119, SR5 near Chehalis,
Soft silt with clay (ML) 87.9 2.76 0.55 1.24 11 --
FC-5-14, S-5
MS-7119, SR5 near Chehalis,
Soft silt (ML) 81.2 2.62 0.55 1.23 4 --
FC-5-14, S-9
SR5 Union Slough BMP Study, Soft elastic silt with sand
93 2.52 0.68 2.15 14 6.7
H-4P-15, S-9 and organics (MH)
SR8 Cloquallum Cr. Alt. BMP
Very loose silty sand 101 2.72 0.40 0.67 NP --
site, H-1p-16, PS-6
SR12 Montesano BMP Study, Very soft elastic silt with
60 2.60 0.65 1.83 29 10
H-3p-17, P-8 organics (MH)
SR12 Montesano BMP Study, Very soft elastic silt with
69.1 2.73 0.59 1.41 25 10
H-3p-17, P-10 organics (MH)
SR12 Montesano BMP Study,
Soft elastic silt (MH) 68.0 2.77 0.61 1.54 25 --
H-4p-17, S-6
Soft elastic silt (MH) 75.7 2.80 0.57 1.31 15 --
H-4p-17, S-8
Very soft silt (ML) 76.4 2.73 0.54 1.18 10 --
H-5p-17, S-6
Soft silt (ML) 89.3 2.90 0.51 1.03 4 --
H-5p-17, S-8
SR12 Montesano BMP Study, Soft elastic silt with
65.7 2.79 0.61 1.54 10 22
H-6p-17, P-6 organics (ML)
SR12 Montesano BMP Study, Very Soft elastic silt
65.0 2.74 0.63 1.67 28 --
H-7p-17, P-6 (MH)
16
Table 3. Summary of measured Ksat values.
Project, Boring Log, and Sample No. Soil Description K sat (cm/s)
MS-7119, SR5 near Chehalis, FC-5-14, S-5 Soft silt with clay (ML) 5.70E-05
MS-7119, SR5 near Chehalis, FC-5-14, S-9 Soft silt (ML) 9.30E-06
SR5 Union Slough BMP Study, H-4P-15, S-9 Soft elastic silt with sand and organics (MH) 1.93E-05
SR8 Cloquallum Cr. Alt. BMP site, H-1p-16, PS-6 Very loose silty sand 2.75E-05
SR12 Montesano BMP Study, H-3p-17, P-8 Very soft elastic silt with organics (MH) 7.43E-07
SR12 Montesano BMP Study, H-3p-17, P-10 Very soft elastic silt with organics (MH) 1.01E-06
SR12 Montesano BMP Study, H-4p-17, S-6 Soft elastic silt (MH) 2.00E-06
SR12 Montesano BMP Study, H-4p-17, S-8 Soft elastic silt (MH) 1.70E-06
SR12 Montesano BMP Study, H-5p-17, S-6 Very soft silt (ML) 1.20E-06
SR12 Montesano BMP Study, H-5p-17, S-8 Soft silt (ML) 9.45E-06
SR12 Montesano BMP Study, H-6p-17, P-6 Soft elastic silt with organics (ML) 4.11E-06
SR12 Montesano BMP Study, H-7p-17, P-6 Very Soft elastic silt (MH) 9.00E-07
17
KSAT PREDICTION ANALYSIS
Effect of Grain Size Parameters on Ksat

Allen (2017) investigated the effect of key grain size parameters on K sat ,
including the d 10 size (the soil grain diameter in which 10% of the particles by weight are
finer) and C u (the uniformity coefficient, defined as d 60 /d 10 ). With regard to grain size
parameters for the various data sets investigated in the previous and in the current study,
Figure 2 illustrates how the new data (identified in the plot as orange circles and green
diamonds in the plot) fits in with the grain size data gathered in the previous study. Most
of the new test data follows the trend for the data gathered by Chapuis (2004), which
have a gradation that is relatively more uniform than the new test data obtained in the
Allen (2017) study.
As shown in figures 3 and 4, the additional Ksat data gathered through the current
study (again, identified in the plot as orange circles and green diamonds in the plots) have
been added to the data gathered by Allen (2017). As shown in Figure 3, the new Ksat test
results have been divided into soils with LOI of more than 5% (organic soils – solid
green diamond data point symbol) and soils with an LOI of less than 5% (solid orange
circle data point symbol).
With regard to the effect of the d10 size, Figure 3 shows that the new Ksat data
from the present study follows the same trend as the data gathered in the previous study.
The organic soil data, however, tend to exhibit lower measured K sat values than the soils
not classified as organic.
While there appears to be a moderate relationship between C u and K sat , in which
Ksat decreases as Cu increases (i.e., as the gradation becomes less uniform and more well
graded), the data exhibit significant scatter. As shown in Figure 4, this trend in
increasing data scatter as C u increases continues for the silts tested in the current study.
The reason for this trend in data scatter is not clear, but may be related to greater
tortuosity of flow paths and irregular particle shapes.
18
Figure 2. Grain size characteristics of the K sat data sets evaluated.
Figure 3. Measured hydraulic conductivity values as a function of the soil d 10 size for uncompacted
and compacted specimens.
19
Figure 4. Measured hydraulic conductivity values as a function of the soil C u for uncompacted and
compacted specimens.
Performance of Improved Ksat Predictive Equations

The K sat prediction equations contained in this section, i.e., the optimized Slichter,
Terzaghi, and Chapuis equations, were developed in Allen (2017). Data gathered in the
present study are used to assess whether or not these equations are applicable to the finer
grained soil investigated or if they need any modifications to better fit all the data. These
equations from Allen (2017) are repeated for convenience here.
Optimized Slichter equation:
1.75
𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 21.2η3.5 𝑑𝑑10 (1)
where,
K sat = saturated hydraulic conductivity, in cm/s
d 10 = soil particle diameter in which 10% by weight of soil is finer, in mm, and
η = soil porosity.
20
Optimized Terzaghi equation:
1.7
𝜇𝜇10 𝜂𝜂−0.13 1.75
𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 𝐶𝐶0 �3 � 𝑑𝑑10 (2)
𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 �1−𝜂𝜂
where,
C 0 = 4.6 for smooth and irregular shaped soil grains
µ 10 = water viscosity at 10o C
µ t = water viscosity at the soil temperature “t” (usually 20o C)
For laboratory conditions, the ratio µ 10 /µ t can usually be taken as 1.30.
Optimized Chapuis equation:
1.25
1.4 𝑒𝑒 1.9
𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 4.0 �𝑑𝑑10 � (3)
1+𝑒𝑒
where,
e = void ratio
It should be noted that the combined exponent in the optimized Chapuis equation for d10
is 1.4 x 1.25 = 1.75, which is consistent with the d10 exponent of 1.75 in both the
optimized Slichter and Terzaghi equations.
Chapuis (2012) defined “good predictions” for K sat as predicted values that fall
within one-half and twice the measured values. However, NAVFAC (1974) focused on a
range of 0.33 to 3 times the mean of the measured values and indicated that two-thirds of
the measured values fall within that range. A range of 0.33 to 3 times the mean of the
measured values is shown in figures 5, 7, and 9 as dashed blue lines. In figures 6, 8, and
10, the dashed blue lines also demonstrate a range of 0.33 to 3 times the mean of the
measured values; however, the solid blue lines illustrate a range of a range of 0.5 to 2
times the mean of the measured values.
21
Figure 5. K sat measured values versus predictions using the optimized Slichter Equation.
Figure 6. Method bias as a function of d 10 size for the optimized Slichter Equation at 20o C (note:
linear functions used for regressions).
22
Figure 7. K sat measured values versus predictions using the optimized Terzaghi Equation.
Figure 8. Method bias as a function of d 10 size for the optimized Terzaghi Equation (note: linear
functions used for regressions).
23
Figure 9. Ksat measured values versus predictions Ksat optimized Chapuis Equation.
Figure 10. Method bias as a function of d 10 size for the optimized Chapuis Equation (note: linear
functions used for regressions).
24
Inevitably, there will be a small percentage of data points that fall outside these
sets of ranges randomly distributed throughout the range of either predicted K sat value or
some soil parameter such as the d 10 size. This is especially true when dealing with
angular or irregularly shaped soil particles. Chapuis (2012) used both ranges when
assessing the acceptability of the predictions for the various K sat prediction equations.
Therefore, both ranges are considered in this report (at least approximately) when
assessing the range of applicability of the various K sat equations.
The new test data obtained from undisturbed silt samples, with the exception of
the samples defined as organic, fit within the dashed lines in all the plots and also follow
the one-to-one trend line. All three methods have similar accuracy with regard to the new
finer-grained soil test data. This indicates that no modifications to the optimized
equations are needed for finer grained soils, and that at least the equations are empirically
robust for the soil deposits tested. However, for soils with significant organic content,
the optimized equations, in general, significantly over-predict K sat , and the data scatter is
significant. These results indicate that the range of applicability for these methods can be
extended to finer grained, non-organic soils. Allen (2017) suggested a bottom range of
0.003 mm d 10 size, though he noted that due to lack of data at the fine soil end, more test
data is needed to confirm this value. The additional data obtained from the current study
appears to justify that the range of applicability could be extended to a d 10 size of
approximately 0.0003 mm, and a predicted K sat of 0.000002 cm/s (0.0028 in./hr), though
there is a tendency for the K sat value prediction to be over-estimated as the d 10 size
decreases. However, at this range, the soils are likely fine enough to obtain undisturbed
samples that could be subjected to laboratory K sat testing, which would be preferred over
grain size based empirical correlations.
Others have attempted to improve the K sat equation predictive accuracy for clays
using the plasticity index (PI) or the liquid limit (Chapuis 2012). This was attempted for
the current study. However, little improvement could be obtained with regard to the
undisturbed silt sample test results. Chapuis also indicated, however, that grain size
based methods could be used down to predicted K sat values of 10-7 cm/s for low plasticity
silts. Given that the measured K sat values from the present study are 10-7 cm/s or higher,
it is not unreasonable to use a predictive equation that is grain size based without
25
considering the PI. However, this assumes that grain size data are available for the
smaller particles, though the specimens tested are at or just past the limit of plasticity for
which Ksat equations based on grain size alone have been used in the past.
Estimating Porosity Based on Grain Size Parameters and Compaction

Level or Density
Allen (2017) developed a methodology to predict the soil porosity from soil grain
size data if a “measured” porosity is not available (i.e., a porosity determined from soil
specimen volume and density measurements). The estimated porosity could be used with
the optimized Terzaghi or optimized Slichter methods, for example, if the measured
porosity is not available, or can be converted to a void ratio for use with the optimized
Chapuis method. Both grain size and degree of compaction or density were considered.
In the current study, this work is extended to silts and clayey silts.
The porosity, η, prediction equations developed from the previous study are as
follows:
η = P x d 10 a x C u b x (F cp ) (4)
where,
P = empirical porosity coefficient (P = 0.4)
d 10 = soil particle diameter in which 10% by weight of soil is finer, in mm
C u = coefficient of uniformity = d 60 /d 10
a = empirical d 10 exponent (a = -0.08)
b = empirical coefficient of uniformity exponent (b = -0.1)
F cp = compaction factor for porosity (set equal to 1.0 if not compacted or is loose)
in which,
F cp = C f d 10 c (5)
where,
C f = compaction factor coefficient (C f = 0.85)
26
c = compaction factor exponent (c = 0.08)
For compacted soils, and natural soils in which the SPT N value is 30 blows/ft or
more, equations 4 and 5 can be combined and simplified to:
η = 0.34C u -0.1 (6)
To provide some improvement in the porosity predictions for the soils with some
plasticity, a correction factor can be developed to consider the soil plasticity index (PI).
The correction for the soil PI was developed such that the test results for all the soils with
plasticity fall as close to the one-to-one correspondence line as possible, and have a bias
as close to 1.0 as possible. To accomplish this, Equation 4 is modified as follows:
η = P x d 10 a x C u b x (F cp ) + 0.0015PI (7)
where,
PI = plasticity index
If the void ratio is needed instead of the porosity (i.e., for use with the optimized
Chapuis equation), η can be converted to void ratio e using the following equation:
η
𝑒𝑒 = (8)
1−η
Figure 11 illustrates the accuracy of the porosity predictions using equations 5

and 7 with the additional test data gathered in the current study and provides comparison
to the prediction accuracy if the PI correction is not used (i.e., using equations 4 and 5).
Parts (a) and (b) of Figure 11 show all the data sets separately, but the regression lines
are for all the data together. The data scatter does seem to increase for the higher values
of porosity. However, the R2 values for the data regressions are moderately strong, and
the accuracy of the predictions is judged visually to be acceptable. Parts (c) and (d) of
27
Figure 11 illustrate that there is little, if any, dependency between the porosity prediction
bias and the d 10 size, indicating that the porosity prediction equation adequately
addresses the most important variables for the data set considered.
Figure 11. (a) Predicted versus measured porosity with PI correction factor (i.e., using equations 5
and 7), (b) predicted versus measured porosity without PI correction factor (i.e., using equations 4
and 5), (c) porosity prediction bias (i.e., measured/predicted value) as a function of the soil d 10 size
with PI correction factor, and (d) porosity prediction bias (i.e., measured/predicted value) as a
function of the soil d 10 size without PI correction factor.
28
Overall, the test data obtained from the current study indicates that the porosity
prediction can be extended to finer grained soils (i.e., silts and clayey silts), especially if
the small PI correction is used. The improvement obtained when using the PI correction
is small but not insignificant. The soils from the present study that have significant
organic content exhibit greater scatter than the inorganic soils.
Using Estimated η and e with Optimized Ksat Prediction Methods

Using the porosity estimated with equations 5 and 7 which are based on grain size
data, the PI, and Fcp if the soil has been compacted, the prediction performance of the
optimized Slichter, Terzaghi and Chapuis equations using the estimated porosity is
illustrated in figures 12 through 14, respectively. For the optimized Chapuis Equation,
the void ratio, e, was estimated from Eq. 8 using the estimated porosity, η from eq’s. 5
and 7. A range of 0.33 to 3 times the mean of the measured values is shown in figures 12
through 14 as dashed blue lines, identified in the figures as the “acceptable range”. In all
cases, including for the new data from the current study, the effect of using a porosity or
void ratio estimated from grain size and plasticity parameters plus a compaction factor
appears visually to be relatively small with regard to the K sat prediction performance of
these methods when a “measured” porosity or void ratio is used.
29
Figure 12. Optimized Slichter Equation, but using Eq’s. 5 and 7 to estimate porosity.
Figure 13. Optimized Terzaghi Equation, but using Eq’s. 5, 7 and 8 to estimate porosity.
30
Figure 14. Optimized Chapuis Equation, but using Eq’s. 5, 7, and 8 to estimate porosity and void
ratio.
31
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND METHOD PERFORMANCE
This report section updates the statistical comparison of the various prediction
methods investigated to include the test results obtained in the current study. Table 4
summarizes the mean and COV for the optimized methods using the measured porosity
or void ratio. Considering only the undisturbed inorganic silts tested in the current study,
the mean bias values were significantly below 1.0 (i.e., K sat was over-estimated) but not
outside the acceptable accuracy range. The COV for this portion of the data was lower
than for all the data sets evaluated. For the organic soils tested, the bias values were also
significantly below 1.0 but were outside the acceptable accuracy range. Furthermore, the
COV for the organic soils was much higher than all the rest of the data sets. To detect the
change in statistics resulting from including the new test data for the inorganic soils,
compare the last two rows of the table. Since the number of additional tests is relatively
small relative to all the tests for the entire data set, the effect of the new test data on the
summary statistics was very minor.
Table 5 summarizes the statistics for the porosity prediction from the present
study using the bias (i.e., measured/predicted porosity) for eq’s. 4, 5, and 7. The mean
and COV for the combined data set, excluding the test results on soils with significant
organic content, are 1.00 and 12%, respectively. This is a slight improvement relative to
the previous test results reported in Allen (2017), primarily due to the very low COV for
the undisturbed inorganic test results from the current study. Regarding the undisturbed
tests results for the soils with significant organic content, the scatter in the test results was
significantly greater than for the other data sets, and the recommended equation tended to
under-predict the porosity. Given that the K sat prediction for the soils with organic
content also had significantly greater scatter than the K sat prediction for the other data
sets, the soils with organic content have not been included in the statistics for all the data
sets combined.
The best proof regarding the impact of using an estimated porosity or void ratio
rather than a measured one is the effect this has on the Ksat prediction accuracy. Table 6
presents a comparison of the mean bias and COV of the K sat prediction equations with
and without using an estimated porosity or void ratio. Based on this assessment as
32
presented in Table 6, the optimized Chapuis Method did slightly better overall when
using an estimated void ratio, followed by the optimized Terzaghi and Slichter methods
when using an estimated porosity. Figures 15 and 16 illustrate the data distributions (i.e.,
the Cumulative Distribution Functions, CDF) for the predictions using all three methods,
both when using a measured porosity or void ratio and using an estimated porosity or
void ratio. In all cases, a lognormal distribution fits the data well. For Ksat predictions
using the “measured” porosity or void ratio (i.e., Figure 15a-c), and the Chapuis method
using an estimated void ratio (Figure 16c), a slight adjustment to COV could be made to
provide a better fit to the lower tail (see Allen 2017 for a more complete discussion on
this topic). This adjustment was not necessary when Ksat is predicted using the estimated
porosity for the Slichter and Terzaghi methods (Figure 16a and b).
Table 4. Bias statistics for all optimized methods investigated, using measured porosity or void ratio.
No. of Terzaghi
Slichter Method Chapuis Method
Data Set Meas., Method
n Mean COV Mean COV Mean COV
WSDOT uncompacted tests 34 1.23 79% 1.13 78% 1.20 77%
WSDOT compacted tests 37 1.01 73% 0.90 73% 0.85 75%
WSDOT BMP site undisturbed
6 0.62 49% 0.73 42% 0.67 48%
tests (not organic)
4 0.59 166% 0.79 167% 0.57 163%
tests (only organic soils)
Chapuis (2004) tests 137 1.02 57% 1.00 54% 1.06 55%
All test data except WSDOT
210 1.06 67% 1.02 66% 1.06 66%
BMP site undisturbed tests
All test data except organic soils 216 1.05 68% 1.01 66% 1.05 66%
Table 5. Summary of bias statistics for prediction of soil porosity.

Using Eq’s 5 and Using Eq’s 4 and
No. of
Statistical 7 (including PI 5 (not including
Data Set Meas.,
Parameter Correction for PI Correction,
n
soils with PI > 0) or PI = 0)
All uncompacted WSDOT Mean 1.01
34
tests COV 8.0%
Mean 1.00
All compacted WSDOT tests 37
COV 10%
WSDOT BMP site Mean 1.00 1.03
6
undisturbed tests (not organic) COV 2.9% 4.9%
WSDOT BMP site Mean 1.17 1.23
4
undisturbed tests (organic) COV 17% 15%
Mean 0.99
Chapuis (2004) tests 107
COV 15%
All Test data except WSDOT Mean 0.99
180
site undisturbed tests COV 13%
All Test data except organic Mean 1.00 1.05
186
soil BMP test data COV 12% 12%
33
Table 6. Bias statistics comparing the use of measured versus estimated porosity values as input for
the optimized (a) Slichter, (b) Terzaghi, and (c) Chapuis methods.
(a) Optimized Slichter Method
Measured η Estimated η
Data Set Mean COV Mean COV
WSDOT uncompacted tests 1.23 79% 1.24 91%
WSDOT compacted tests 1.01 73% 1.07 93%
0.62 49% 0.61 45%
tests (not organic)
0.59 166% 1.30 174%
tests (organic)
Chapuis (2004) tests 1.02 57% 1.03 70%
All Test data except WSDOT
1.06 67% 1.09 80%
site undisturbed tests
All Test data except organic soil
1.05 68% 1.08 80%
BMP test data
(b) Optimized Terzaghi Method

Measured η Estimated η
0.73 42% 0.72 41%
tests (not organic)
0.79 167% 1.57 175%
tests (organic)
Chapuis (2004) tests 1.00 54% 1.03 67%
1.02 66% 1.05 80%
1.01 66% 1.04 80%
BMP test data
(c) Optimized Chapuis Method

Measured e Estimated e
0.67 48% 0.65 43%
tests (not organic)
0.57 163% 1.44 174%
tests (organic)
Chapuis (2004) tests 1.06 55% 1.09 68%
1.06 66% 1.09 77%
1.05 66% 1.08 77%
BMP test data
34
Figure 15. Bias distributions for the optimized equations using measured porosity or void ratio with
lognormal data fit and adjusted lognormal data fit to improve match to the lower distribution tail:
(a) Slichter Method, (b) Terzaghi Method, and (c) Chapuis Method.
35
Figure 16. Bias distributions for the optimized equations using estimated porosity or void ratio with
lognormal data fit and adjusted lognormal data fit to improve match to the lower distribution tail:
(a) Slichter Method, (b) Terzaghi Method, and (c) Chapuis Method.
36
In summary, based on these analyses, the optimized Slichter, Terzaghi, and
Chapuis equations are all similar with regard to their K sat prediction accuracy for the full
range of soils tested. Therefore, any of these three K sat prediction equations can be
recommended for use even for finer grained soils. The conclusions drawn by Allen
(2017) regarding prediction accuracy at the coarse end of the range have not changed
(i.e., acceptable accuracy is obtained for d 10 sizes up to about 3 mm). If the d 10 size is as
much as 8 mm, all three equations tend to under-predict the K sat value, but only by a half-
order of magnitude, which may still be acceptable.
If a measured soil porosity is not available (which is likely to be true for new
roadway fill, if needed for the project), the porosity can be estimated from grain size data
and degree of compaction, making it possible to estimate K sat from grain size data alone.
All three methods have similar accuracy when using an estimated porosity or void ratio.
37
APPLICATION TO INFILTRATION DESIGN
The observations and recommendations provided in Allen (2017) appear to be

consistent with the results provided in the current study. As a minimum, the range of
applicability of the proposed K sat equations provided in Allen (2017) is confirmed by the
results from the current study. Furthermore, based on these new test results, it appears
feasible to extend the Allen (2017) recommendations to finer grained soils, i.e., down to a
d 10 of 0.0003 mm and a predicted K sat of 0.000002 cm/s (0.0028 in/hr).
Considering the current requirements in the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual
(WSDOT 2016), in which the Massmann (2003a) equation is recommended, Figure 17
illustrates how the proposed K sat prediction using the optimized Slichter, Terzaghi, or
Chapuis equations will compare to the current Highway Runoff Manual requirements.
This comparison is accomplished via a ratio of the optimized method, in this case the
Slichter Equation, to the Massmann Equation provided in the Highway Runoff Manual.
The other optimized equations will produce similar results. Within a fairly narrow d10
range of 0.1 to 1.0 mm, both equations provide a similar estimate of Ksat i.e., a ratio near
1.0), though in general, the Slichter Equation is slightly more conservative than the
Massmann Equation even within this range, especially for the compacted soils. Outside
this narrow range, however, the difference between the Massmann and the optimized
Slichter equations is much more obvious. For the current study, this figure illustrates that
for high silt content soils, the Massmann Equation over-predicts Ksat (i.e., is less
conservative) by a factor of 10 to 100 times relative to the optimized Slichter Equation
prediction. Furthermore, as illustrated in Allen (2017), the Massmann Ksat Equation
over-predicts Ksat (i.e., is unconservative for infiltration design) for high silt content soils
relative to Ksat values measured in laboratory tests. The current study confirms this for
high silt content soils.
Regarding the full scale pond infiltration sites from which measured infiltration
rates are compared to predicted ones based on grain size data, two sites had d 10 values
which were at or below 0.01 mm (in one case, as low as 0.003 mm). Based on the
available grain size data provided in Massmann (2003a), predicted infiltration rates using
the optimized Slichter Equation were considerably smaller than the measured ones (Allen
38
2017). As stated in Allen (2017), the reason for this is was not clear. However, all of the
available soil gradation data available was within the top 1 to 2 ft of the pond bottom.
Therefore, it is possible that coarser soils could have been present below the soils tested.
Furthermore, one must consider the accuracy of the hydraulic gradient used with the
predicted K sat value to compare to the infiltration measured in the full scale ponds.
Massmann (2003b) indicated that the hydraulic gradient equations he developed should
be considered to provide lower bound estimates of the hydraulic gradient. Since the
hydraulic gradient equations developed by Massmann (2003a, 2003b) were used in
combination with the predicted Ksat values for the full scale ponds, the conservative
hydraulic gradient values could also explain why the predicted infiltration rates for some
of the ponds using the Optimized Slichter Equation were much smaller than the measured
infiltration rates. This issue will need to be evaluated further through future research.
Figure 17. Ratio of optimized Slichter Equation to Massmann Equation K sat predictions as a
function of d 10 size.
39
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The estimation of hydraulic conductivity (K sat ) is a key step in the assessment of

the rate of infiltration, whether that estimate is for an infiltration pond or trench, for a
highway embankment, or for natural dispersion in general. The focus of this research is
to assess available methods for estimating K sat . Allen (2017) provided this assessment
for soils ranging from very silty sands to gravels, and for soils in a loose and compacted
(i.e., dense) state. The purpose of the current research is to extend those results to high
silt content soils with minimal plasticity using undisturbed soil samples obtained from
test hole drilling.
Soil samples were primarily obtained from sites in which BMP effectiveness for
embankment side slopes is being investigated. Test holes, from which Shelby tube
samples were obtained, were drilled at several sites. The undisturbed soil samples were
tested in the lab to obtain measured K sat values. A total of 12 soil specimens were tested
for K sat and related soil properties such as porosity, gradation, and plasticity, two of
which were reported previously in Allen (2017). Since the samples tested were
undisturbed, the measured K sat values should accurately reflect the K sat of the soil in-situ
at the location where the sample was obtained, but only in the vertical direction.
The K sat test results for these 12 soil specimens indicate that the empirical trend
shown in Allen (2017) holds for these finer grained soils, at least for soils without
significant organic content. With regard to measured versus predicted K sat using the
three optimized prediction methods recommended in Allen (2017), which include the
optimized Slichter, Terzaghi, and Chapuis methods, these test results exhibited minimal
scatter and a trend line that parallels the one-to-one correspondence line.
However, for the soil samples with significant organic content, the available
optimized methods tended to over-predict the K sat value, and the predictions exhibited
greater data scatter (high COV) than the other data sets. This would result in an
unconservative prediction (i.e., would predict the stormwater would infiltrate faster than
would actually occur) and overall with poorer prediction accuracy. Therefore, the use of
the optimized grain size based methods presented herein are not recommended for soils
with significant organic content.
40
The accuracy of these three optimized equations were evaluated statistically, and
the new test results had very little impact on the overall method accuracy, in part due to
the smaller number of test results compared to the combined data set from the previous
work. All three optimized equations have similar accuracy and therefore all three are
recommended for K sat prediction.
Porosity prediction accuracy was also evaluated for the new test results. Since
several of the soils tested had some plasticity, a plasticity correction, using the soil
plasticity index, PI, was developed to improve the prediction accuracy. With that
correction, which was fairly small, the new test data illustrated that the porosity
estimation equations provided in Allen (2017), with the PI correction, could be used for
finer grained soils. When using the estimated porosity (or void ratio), it was
demonstrated that the optimized K sat prediction equations were as accurate for the finer
grained soils (silt and clayey silt) as they were for the coarser grained soils (sands and
gravels). All three optimized equations (i.e., the Slichter, Terzaghi, and Chapuis
equations) provided similar prediction accuracy when using the estimated porosity or
void ratio.
Based on the additional test results obtained in the present study, it is
recommended that the optimized Slichter, Terzaghi, and/or Chapuis equations be
considered acceptably accurate for high silt content soils. However, for the finer end of
the soil gradation range, if it is possible to obtain good quality undisturbed soil samples,
laboratory K sat tests should be considered as superior to empirical grain size based K sat
estimates.
Regarding the test method uncertainty factor in the DOE Stormwater Manual
(WSDOE 2014), the greater accuracy of the optimized Slichter, Terzaghi, and Chapuis
equations, and the comparison to full scale pond infiltration rate measurements, indicates
that the test method uncertainty factor should be much closer to 1.0 than currently
recommended in the DOE Stormwater Manual (WSDOE 2014).
41
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the support provided by the WSDOT

Environmental Services Office during this study to promote the funding needs and for
general guidance to develop this study. The author also wishes to acknowledge the
contributions by Bob Grandorff and Sam Wade in developing the laboratory testing
which were key in being able to carry out this study. Finally, the author wishes to
acknowledge the data provided by Dr. R. P. Chapuis that were used in the analyses he
conducted in his 2004 paper in the Canadian Geotechnical Journal cited in this report.
His help in supplying that data is much appreciated.
42
REFERENCES
Allen, T.M., 2017, Stormwater Infiltration in Highway Embankments – Saturated

Hydraulic Conductivity Estimation for Uncompacted and Compacted Soils, WA-
RD 872.1, 161 pp.
ASTM, 2015, ASTM D1587, Standard Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Fine-
Grained Soils for Geotechnical Purposes, ASTM, West Conshohocken PA, 10
pp.
ASTM, 2014, Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates,
C-136-06, ASTM, West Conshohocken PA, 5 pp.
ASTM, 2009, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Density (Unit
Weight) of Soil Specimens, D7263-09, ASTM, West Conshohocken PA, 7 pp.
ASTM, 2016, Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials
Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter, Method C – Falling Head, Rising Tailwater,
D5084-16a, ASTM, West Conshohocken PA, 24 pp.
Chapuis, R. P., 2004, “Predicting the Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Sand and
Gravel Using Effective Diameter and Void Ratio,” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 787-795, DOI: 10.1139/T04-022.
Chapuis, R. P., 2012, “Predicting the Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Soils: A
Review,” Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ., 71, pp. 401-434, DOI: 10.1007/s10064-
012-0418-7.
Massmann, J. W., 2003a, Implementation of Infiltration Ponds Research, WA-RD 578.1,
218 pp.
Massmann, J. W., 2003b, A Design Manual for Sizing Infiltration Ponds, WA-RD 578.2,
72 pp.
NAVFAC, 1974, Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Earth Structures, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Design Manual DM7. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Washington State Dept. of Ecology (WSDOE), 2014, Stormwater Management Manual
for Western Washington, Publication Number 14-10-055, 1192 pp. (specifically
Vol. III, Chapter 3).
43
WSDOT, 2016, WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual, M31-16, 522 pp. (specifically
Appendix 4D).
44
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS APPLICABLE TO TEST SAMPLES USED
A
SR5, Union Slough BMP Effectiveness Test Site
A-1
LOG OF TEST BORING
WSDOT Start Card RE-11283
HOLE No. H-4p-15

Job No. AH-0315 GP11 SR 005 Elevation 13.6 ft
Sheet 1 of 3
Project I-5 BMP Effectiveness Stormwater Monitoring Sites Driller Nelson, Brad Lic# 2969
Component Inspector Fetterly, Jamie #2507
Start May 7, 2015 Completion May 12, 2015 Well ID# BHV-630 Equipment CME 45 (9C4-8)
Historical
SPT Efficiency 88.3%
Station Offset Hole Dia 5
(inches)
Northing 377587.0093 Easting 1311866.5219 Collected by Region Survey Crew Method Casing Advancer
Lat 48.0272789 Long -122.1761190 Datum NAD 83/91 HARN, NAVD88, SPN (ft) Drill Fluid Water
SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N) Blows/6"
Depth (ft)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content (N)
Lab
Description of Material
and/or
RQD RQD
20 40 60 80 FF
12 D-1 Sandy SILT with gravel and organics, angular, medium
18 dense, brown, dry, stratified. HCl not tested. stratified
11 with poorly graded sand, sample split into 2 bags A&B
MC
10 Recovered: 2.0 ft Retained: 2.0 ft
GS
(22) Sampler OD = 2.5 in, ID = 2 in
SP-SM, MC=5%
ENTERPRISE BORING LOG AH-0315 005 BMP EFFECTIVENESS STORMWATER MONITORING SITES.GPJ ENTERPRISE DATA TEMPLATE.GDT 12/5/16
6 D-2
8 Poorly graded SAND with silt.
12 Sandy SILT with gravel, medium dense, olive, moist,
(15) homogeneous. HCl not tested.
10.0
6 D-3 Recovered: 1.5 ft Retained: 1.5 ft
12
05-11-2015
Sampler OD = 2.5 in, ID = 2 in
17 Sandy SILT with gravel, dense, olive, moist,
(22) homogeneous. HCl not tested.
5
15 Sampler OD = 2.5 in, ID = 2 in
15
16 Poorly graded SAND with trace organics, dense, olive,
(23)
moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
Recovered: 1.5 ft Retained: 1.5 ft
7 D-5 Sampler OD = 2.5 in, ID = 2 in
11 Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, olive, wet,
9 stratified. HCl not tested. stratified with sandy silt with
(15) MC
5.0 GS organics, sample split into 2 bags A&BPacker test
2 D-6 performed, constant head test performed and falling head
3 test performed. (see field notes for results)
(6) MC
10 GS Sampler OD = 2.5 in, ID = 2 in
S-7
AL SP-SM, MC=19%
HT Poorly graded SAND with silt.
08-24-2016
SG SILT with organics, loose, dark gray, moist, stratified.
MC HCl not tested. stratified with poorly graded sand, sample
SG split into 2 bags A&B
2 D-8 LOI
MC Sampler OD = 2.5 in, ID = 2 in
5 MC
(7) ML, MC=42%, PI=11
0.0 >> S-9
GS SILT.
AL MC=44%, LOI=6.7%
HT SILT, dark gray, moist. HCl not tested.
SG Recovered: 1.4 ft Retained: 1.4 ft
15 MC
GS
MH, MC=43%, PI=13
>> 0 D-10 AL
Elastic SILT with sand and trace organics, loose, dark
from 05-11-2015 to 09-13-2016
Groundwater readings were taken
0 HT
gray, moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
1 SG
(1) LOI
0 D-11 MC ML, MC=259%, PI=5, LOI=15.7%
1 GS Sandy SILT with organics, dark gray, moist. HCl not
1 AL tested.Constant head test performed, (see field notes for
1 HT results)
-5.0
(2) SG Recovered: 1.7 ft Retained: 1.7 ft
S-12 LOI MH, MC=101%, LL=69, LOI=16.8%
MC Elastic SILT with sand and organics, very loose, dark
20
A-2
LOG OF TEST BORING
WSDOT
HOLE No. H-4p-15
Sheet 2 of 3
Project I-5 BMP Effectiveness Stormwater Monitoring Sites Driller Nelson, Brad
SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Blows/6"
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N)
Depth (ft)
(N)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content
Lab
and/or Description of Material
RQD
RQD
FF
20 40 60 80
GS gray, moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
AL Recovered: 1.5 ft Retained: 1.5 ft
HT Sampler OD = 2.5 in, ID = 2 in
0 D-13 SG Elastic SILT with sand with organics, very loose, olive,
0 LOI wet, stratified. HCl not tested. stratified with gray silt with
3 MC organicsPacker test performed. (see field notes for
4 GS results)
(2) AL Recovered: 1.5 ft Retained: 1.5 ft
HT Sampler OD = 2.5 in, ID = 2 in
-10 SG ML, MC=36%, PI=6, LOI=5.4%
P-14 SILT with organics, gray, moist. HCl not tested.
25 SILT with organics, very loose, dark gray, moist,
stratified. HCl not tested. stratified with sandy silt with
organics, stratified with poorly graded sand with
organics, sample split into 3 bags A&B&C
4 D-15 MC
7 GS
15
ML, MC=42%, PI=5
16
SILT.
(17)
Poorly graded SAND, gray. HCl not tested.
-15
SM, MC=28%
S-16 Silty SAND with Rootlets, medium dense, gray, moist,
stratified, laminated. HCl not tested. stratified with silt
30 laminae
5 No Recovery. Refusal at 1.2' ,sand pulled out
6 No Recovery. possibly driving a large chunk of wood
4 D-18 Silty SAND with Rootlets, medium dense, gray, wet,
8 homogeneous. HCl not tested.
-20 20 Sampler OD = 2.5 in, ID = 2 in
(18)
6 D-19 Poorly graded SAND with silt, dense, gray, wet,
35
(28)
11 D-20 MC SP-SM, MC=23%

22 GS Poorly graded SAND with silt, dense, gray, wet,
24 homogeneous. HCl not tested. Heaving sands present
-25
5 D-21 Poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, gray, wet,
40 12 Recovered: 1.5 ft Retained: 1.5 ft
(18)
3 D-22 Poorly graded SAND with silt and trace organics and shell
6 fragments, medium dense, dark gray, wet, homogeneous.
8 HCl not tested.
-30
5 D-23 Poorly graded SAND with trace shell fragments, dense,
9 dark gray, wet, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
45
A-3
LOG OF TEST BORING
WSDOT
HOLE No. H-4p-15
Sheet 3 of 3
Project I-5 BMP Effectiveness Stormwater Monitoring Sites Driller Nelson, Brad
SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Blows/6"
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N)
Depth (ft)
(N)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content
Lab
RQD
RQD
FF
20 40 60 80
(21)
6 D-24 MC SP, MC=19%

9 GS Poorly graded SAND with shell fragments, dense, dark
20 gray, wet, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
(22) Recovered: 1.5 ft Retained: 1.5 ft
-35
A flush mount monument was installed on this boring.

50
The implied accuracy of the borehole location

information displayed on this boring log is typically
-40 sub-meter in (X,Y) when collected by the HQ Geotech
Office and sub-centimeter in (X,Y,Z) when collected by
the Region Survey Crew.
55
End of test hole boring at 48.5 ft below ground elevation.

This is a summary Log of Test Boring.
Soil/Rock descriptions are derived from visual field
identifications and laboratory test data.
Note: REF = SPT Refusal
-45
For any non-standard sized sampler, the N value has
been corrected back to an SPT value per the Manual on
Subsurface Investigations 1988. This correction is solely
60 for the sampler size, and does not purport to address
hammer efficiency, overburden, or any other correction
factors. Refusals are left as is and are uncorrected. The
blow counts for each 6-inch increment are uncorrected.
A bag sample was collected at the outfall area of a PVC

pipe at the boring location. The Northing and Easting
coordinates are available in field notes.
-50
65
-55
70
A-4
SR12, Montesano BMP Effectiveness Test Site
A-5
LOG OF TEST BORING
HOLE No. H-3p-17

Sheet 1 of 3
Project BMP Effectiveness - Stormwater Infiltration Montesano Driller Shepherd, Robert Lic# 2710
Component US12 MP9, Montesano Vicinity Site Inspector Fetterly, Jamie #2507
Start February 7, 2017 Completion February 7, 2017 Well ID# BJT-603 Equipment CME 850 (9C2-5)
Historical
(inches)
Northing 614782 Easting 859371.8 Collected by Region Survey Crew Method Casing Advancer
Lat 46.9766915 Long -123.6297552 Datum NAD 83/91 HARN, NAVD88, SPS (ft) Drill Fluid Water
SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Depth (ft)
Profile
Tests
Lab
and/or
RQD RQD
20 40 60 80 FF
ASPHALT
ENTERPRISE BORING LOG AH-0315 012 BMP EFFECTIVENESS STORMWATER INFILTRATION SITE 2 (MONTESANO).GPJ ENTERPRISE DATA TEMPLATE.GDT 6/28/18
13 D-1 MC SP-SM, MC=8%, LL=19

24 GS Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel with organics,
22 AL sub-angular, dense, olive brown, moist, homogeneous.
27 HT HCl not tested.
(46) SG Recovered: 1.2 ft Retained: 1.2 ft
25.0
21 D-2 Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, sub-angular,

25 very dense, olive, moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
(52)

26 very dense, greenish gray, moist, homogeneous. HCl not
20.0 26 tested.

23 dense, greenish gray, wet, homogeneous. HCl not
10 22 tested.
5 D-5 Well graded GRAVEL with sand, sub-rounded, loose,

3 greenish gray, wet. HCl not tested. stratified with silty
15.0 2 sand with gravel and organics, sample split into 2 bags
(5) A&B
1 D-6 MC GM, MC=28%
1 GS Silty GRAVEL with sand, sub-rounded, very loose, dark
15 1 greenish gray, wet, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
1 D-7 MC MC=69%, PI=20, LOI=9.9%

1 AL SILT with organics, very loose, greenish gray, moist,
10.0 1 LOI homogeneous. HCl not tested.
P-8 MC MH, MC=83%, PI=29

GS Elastic SILT with organics, greenish gray, moist. HCl not
20
A-6
LOG OF TEST BORING
WSDOT
HOLE No. H-3p-17
Sheet 2 of 3
Project BMP Effectiveness - Stormwater Infiltration Montesano Driller Shepherd, Robert

SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Blows/6"
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N)
Depth (ft)
(N)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content
Lab
RQD
RQD
FF
20 40 60 80
AL tested.
HT Recovered: 1.8 ft Retained: 1.8 ft
SG MH, MC=67%, PI=24
1 D-9 MC Elastic SILT with sand.
1 GS MH, MC=64%, PI=25
1 AL Elastic SILT with organics, very loose, greenish gray,
1 MC moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
(2) MC Recovered: 2.0 ft Retained: 2.0 ft
5
SG
MC
GS
P-10
AL MH, MC=60%, PI=25
HT Elastic SILT with organics, greenish gray, moist. HCl not
25 SG tested.
MC Recovered: 2.0 ft Retained: 2.0 ft

GS MH, MC=63%, PI=20
0 D-11 AL Elastic SILT with organics.
0 HT MC=63%, PI=17
1 SG SILT, very loose, greenish gray, moist, homogeneous.
1 MC HCl not tested. Zero blow counts are weight of the
(1) GS hammer
0 AL Recovered: 2.0 ft Retained: 2.0 ft
MC
MC
P-12 SG SILT, greenish gray, moist. HCl not tested.
30 AL
0 D-13 MC MC=46%, PI=18

0 AL SILT, very loose, greenish gray, moist, homogeneous.
1 HCl not tested. Zero blow counts are weight of the
1 hammer
-5
P-14 SILT, greenish gray, moist. HCl not tested.

35
0 D-15 SILT, very loose, greenish gray, moist, homogeneous.

0 HCl not tested. Zero blow counts are weight of the
1 hammer
(1)
-10
P-16 SILT, dark greenish gray, moist. HCl not tested.

40
0 D-17 MC MC=56%, PI=11, LOI=4.4%

1 AL SILT with organics and wood debris, very loose, dark
1 LOI greenish gray, moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
1 Zero blow counts are weight of the hammer
-15

45
A-7
LOG OF TEST BORING
WSDOT
HOLE No. H-3p-17
Sheet 3 of 3

SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Blows/6"
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N)
Depth (ft)
(N)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content
Lab
RQD
RQD
FF
20 40 60 80
MC MC=63%
0 D-19 MC MC=68%
1 SG ML, MC=76%, LL=44, LOI=7.5%
1 MC SILT with sand, very loose, dark greenish gray, moist,
2 GS homogeneous. HCl not tested. Zero blow counts are
(2) AL weight of the hammer
-20 LOI Recovered: 2.0 ft Retained: 2.0 ft
0 D-20 SILT with sand and organics and wood debris, very loose,
1 dark greenish gray, moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
50 1 Zero blow counts are weight of the hammer

(2)

-25 information displayed on this boring log is typically
sub-meter in (X,Y) when collected by the HQ Geotech
55
End of test hole boring at 51 ft below ground elevation.
water after install was at 8.5'

-30
60
-35
65
-40
70
A-8
LOG OF TEST BORING
HOLE No. H-4p-17

Sheet 1 of 3
Project BMP Effectiveness - Stormwater Infiltration Montesano Driller Wilson, Jamie Lic# 2941
Component US12 MP9, Montesano Vicinity Site Inspector Haller, Robert #2779
Start February 28, 2017 Completion March 1, 2017 Well ID# BJT-604 Equipment CME 45 (9C4-3)
Historical
(inches)
SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Depth (ft)
Profile
Tests
Lab
and/or
RQD RQD
20 40 60 80 FF
8 D-1 MC GP-GM, MC=6%
28 GS Poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, sub-rounded,

40 very dense, dark gray, dry, homogeneous. HCl not
50/5'' tested.
20.0
03-02-2017
21 D-2 MC GP-GM, MC=10%
20 GS Poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, sub-rounded,
5 14 dense, dark gray, moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
15.0 13 D-3 Silty SAND with gravel, sub-rounded, dense, dark gray,
14 wet, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
from 03-01-2017 to 03-02-2017

(29)
7 D-4 Well graded SAND with gravel, sub-rounded, medium
8 dense, dark gray, wet, homogeneous. HCl not tested. silt
10 7 contact at 10.5ft
10.0 1 D-5 MC MH, MC=64%, PI=21

2 GS Elastic SILT, medium stiff, dark grayish brown, moist,
3 AL homogeneous, laminated. HCl not tested.
(5) HT Recovered: 1.3 ft Retained: 1.3 ft
S-6 SG MH, MC=73%, PI=28
MC Elastic SILT with organics, dark grayish brown, moist.
15 GS HCl not tested.
03-01-2017
HT
1 D-7 SG MH, MC=53%, PI=30
2 MC Elastic SILT, soft, dark bluish gray, moist, homogeneous,
2 GS laminated. HCl not tested.
(4) AL Recovered: 1.3 ft Retained: 1.3 ft
5.0 HT
SG
MC
MC
S-8 SG MH, MC=24%, PI=15
MC Elastic SILT, dark bluish gray, moist. HCl not tested.
20 GS
A-9
LOG OF TEST BORING
WSDOT
HOLE No. H-4p-17
Sheet 2 of 3
Project BMP Effectiveness - Stormwater Infiltration Montesano Driller Wilson, Jamie

SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Blows/6"
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N)
Depth (ft)
(N)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content
Lab
RQD
RQD
FF
20 40 60 80
HT
SG
1 D-9 MC MH, MC=56%, PI=22
2 GS Elastic SILT, soft, dark bluish gray, moist, homogeneous,
1 AL laminated. HCl not tested.
0
SG
MC
GS
AL
S-10
HT Elastic SILT, dark bluish gray, moist. HCl not tested.
SG Recovered: 1.9 ft Retained: 1.9 ft
25 MC
MC
SG
2 D-11 MC Elastic SILT, soft, dark bluish gray, moist, homogeneous,
2 GS laminated. HCl not tested.
(4) HT
-5 SG
MC
MC
SG
S-12 Elastic SILT, dark bluish gray, moist. HCl not tested.
30
0 D-13 Elastic SILT with organics/wood inbedded in the silt, soft,

0 dark bluish gray, moist, homogeneous, laminated. HCl
2 not tested.
-10
0 D-14 Elastic SILT with organics/wood inbedded in the silt, soft,

2 dark bluish gray, moist, homogeneous, laminated. HCl
35 1 not tested.
-15 0 D-15 MC MH, MC=59%, PI=11

0 GS Elastic SILT, soft, dark bluish gray, moist, homogeneous,
0 D-16 SG Elastic SILT with organics/wood inbedded in the silt, soft,
1 gray, moist, homogeneous, laminated. HCl not tested.
(3)
A standpipe monument was installed on this boring.
-20 The implied accuracy of the borehole location

45
A-10
LOG OF TEST BORING
WSDOT
HOLE No. H-4p-17
Sheet 3 of 3

SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Blows/6"
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N)
Depth (ft)
(N)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content
Lab
RQD
RQD
FF
20 40 60 80
-25 Bail/Recharge test:

Hole Diameter: 4 inches.
Depth of boring during bail test: 40.5ft.
Depth of casing during bail test: 40ft.
Water depth before bailing: 2ft.
Bailed bore hole water level to 29.7ft.
50 Recharge after 1 minutes :28ft.
Recharge after 2 minutes :27.3ft.

Recharge after 4 minutes :26ft.
-30 Recharge after 20 minutes :19.9ft.
55 Recharge after 50 minutes :15.3ft.
The hwt casing was sealing the hole so we put in the hq

and pulled the HWT casing out then did the bail and
recharge test.
-35
60
-40
65
-45
70
A-11
LOG OF TEST BORING
HOLE No. H-5p-17

Sheet 1 of 2
Project BMP Effectiveness - Stormwater Infiltration Montesano Driller Wilson, Jamie Lic# 2941
Component US12 MP9, Montesano Vicinity Site Inspector Haller, Robert #2779
Historical
(inches)
Northing 614835 Easting 859375.04 Collected by Region Survey Crew Method Casing Advancer
SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Depth (ft)
Profile
Tests
Lab
and/or
RQD RQD
20 40 60 80 FF
11-23-2017 - Highest water level was observed at 0.7 feet above the ground surface, Elevation 18.0
9 D-1 MC MH, MC=32%, PI=13
6 GS Elastic SILT with sand and organics, sub-rounded, stiff,

3 AL dark bluish gray, wet, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
4 HT Recovered: 1.0 ft Retained: 1.0 ft
(9) SG
15.0
S-2 Elastic SILT with gravel and organics/wood, sub-rounded,

dark bluish gray, wet. HCl not tested.
09-17-2017
MC
0 D-3 MC GM, MC=58%, PI=26
1 SG Silty GRAVEL, soft, dark bluish gray, moist,
2 MC homogeneous, laminated. HCl not tested.
10.0 2 GS Recovered: 1.4 ft Retained: 1.4 ft
(3) AL
HT
SG
S-4 Elastic SILT, dark bluish gray, moist. HCl not tested.
10
MC
0 D-5 MC MH, MC=56%, PI=20
0 SG Elastic SILT, very soft, dark bluish gray, moist,
0 MC homogeneous, laminated. HCl not tested.
5.0 0 GS Recovered: 2.0 ft Retained: 2.0 ft
(0) AL
HT
SG
S-6 MC ML, MC=46%, PI=10

GS SILT, dark bluish gray, moist. HCl not tested.
HT MH, MC=49%, PI=18
SG
from 02-28-2017 to 12-27-2017
Elastic SILT.
0 D-7 MC Elastic SILT and organics/wood, soft, dark bluish gray,
0 GS moist, homogeneous, laminated. HCl not tested.
0.0 2 HT
(2) SG
S-8 MC ML, MC=34%, PI=4

GS SILT, dark bluish gray, moist. HCl not tested.
20
A-12
LOG OF TEST BORING
WSDOT
HOLE No. H-5p-17
Sheet 2 of 2

SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Blows/6"
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N)
Depth (ft)
(N)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content
Lab
RQD
RQD
FF
20 40 60 80
HT
SG
2 D-9 MC ML, MC=45%, PI=5
2 GS SILT, soft, dark bluish gray, moist, homogeneous,
-5 1 Recovered: 2.0 ft Retained: 2.0 ft
HT
(4) SG

25 sub-meter in (X,Y) when collected by the HQ Geotech

-10 End of test hole boring at 23 ft below ground elevation.

30
Bail/Recharge test:
Depth of boring during bail test: 23ft.
Depth of casing during bail test: 20ft.
-15
Bailed bore hole water level to 17ft.
Recharge after 5 minutes : 0ft.
After bailing the hole the casing was sealing off the water
table we pulled the casing back to 5ft and the water was
already ground level the crew is standing in water at the
jobsite.
35
-20
40
-25
45
A-13
LOG OF TEST BORING
HOLE No. H-6p-17

Sheet 1 of 3
Historical
(inches)
Lat 46.9766712 Long -123.6304451 Datum NAD 83/91 HARN, NAVD88, SPS (ft) Drill Fluid Polymer
SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Depth (ft)
Profile
Tests
Lab
and/or
RQD RQD
20 40 60 80 FF
ASPHALT
20 D-1 Poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, sub-angular,

27 very dense, olive, moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
35
(53)
25.0
14 D-2 MC GP-GM, MC=10%

13 GS Poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, sub-angular,
5 10 medium dense, olive gray, moist, homogeneous. HCl not
(23) tested.
1 D-3 MC GM, MC=26%, LL=32

1 GS Silty GRAVEL with sand and organics, sub-angular, very
20.0 1 AL loose, olive, wet, homogeneous. HCl not tested. had to
(2) use O/S sampler to recover material
1 D-4 Silty GRAVEL with sand, sub-rounded, very loose, olive,
(2)
0 D-5 MC ML, MC=35%

1 GS Gravelly SILT with sand and organics, sub-rounded, very
15.0 1 loose, olive brown, wet, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
P-6 MC SILT, gray, wet. HCl not tested.

GS Recovered: 2.0 ft Retained: 2.0 ft
15 AL ML, MC=37%, PI=10
HT Sandy SILT.
SG MH, MC=68%, PI=7
0 D-7 MC Sandy elastic SILT.
1 GS MC=65%
1 AL MC=68%
2 HT MC=74%, PI=19
10.0 (2) SG Elastic SILT with trace organics, soft, greenish gray,
MC moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested. low plasticity
SG
>> P-8 MC MH, MC=146%, LL=87, LOI=22.1%
AL Elastic SILT with sand and organics, gray, moist. HCl not
20 >>
A-14
LOG OF TEST BORING
WSDOT
HOLE No. H-6p-17
Sheet 2 of 3

SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Blows/6"
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N)
Depth (ft)
(N)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content
Lab
RQD
RQD
FF
20 40 60 80
>> MC tested.
AL MC=112%
0 D-9 HT MC=140%
1 SG MH, MC=85%, PI=26
1 LOI Elastic SILT with wood, very loose, dark gray, moist,
1 MC homogeneous. HCl not tested.
(2)
5 MC Recovered: 2.0 ft Retained: 2.0 ft
SG
MC
GS
0 D-10
AL MC=69%, PI=25
1
HT SILT, very loose, greenish gray, moist, homogeneous.
25 1
SG HCl not tested.
(2)
AL
0 D-11 SILT with organics, very loose, dark greenish gray, moist,
1
(2)
30
0 D-13 SILT, very loose, dark greenish gray, moist. HCl not
1 tested. stratified with 2'' of silty sand seperatly bagged
1 within sample bag
-5 (2) At 32.5ft, a 2'' layer of silty sand was encountered.
0 D-14 MC ML, MC=40%, PI=7

1 GS Sandy SILT with organics, very loose, greenish gray,
35 1 AL moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
(2)
0 D-15 MC MC=45%, PI=11

-10 2 HCl not tested.
(3)
P-16 SILT, greenish gray, moist. HCl not tested.
40

1 HCl not tested.
1
-15 (2)

0 HCl not tested.
45
A-15
LOG OF TEST BORING
WSDOT
HOLE No. H-6p-17
Sheet 3 of 3

SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Blows/6"
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N)
Depth (ft)
(N)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content
Lab
RQD
RQD
FF
20 40 60 80
1
(1)
0 D-19 MC MC=53%, PI=8

-20 1 HCl not tested.
(1)

50

-25
55
Water in piezo was at 5.5ft. after install.
-30
60
-35
65
-40
70
A-16
LOG OF TEST BORING
HOLE No. H-7p-17

Job No. AH-0315 GP10 SR 012 Elevation No data
Sheet 1 of 2
Start March 30, 2017 Completion March 30, 2017 Well ID# BJT-607 Equipment CME 45 (9C4-4)
Hole Dia Historical

Station Offset 6 SPT Efficiency
(inches)
Northing 614810.3 Easting 859065.6 Collected by HQ Geotech Office Method Casing Advancer
Lat 46.9767357 Long -123.6309854 Datum NAD 83/91 HARN, NAVD88, SPS (ft) Drill Fluid Bentonite
SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Depth (ft)
Profile
Tests
Lab
and/or
RQD RQD
20 40 60 80 FF
3 D-1 MC GM, MC=8%, LL=NA, PL=NP
6 GS Silty GRAVEL with sand, sub-angular, medium dense,

11 AL olive brown, moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
11-23-2017
5
4 D-2 Silty GRAVEL with sand, sub-rounded, loose, olive, wet,
2
(6)
2 D-3 Silty GRAVEL with sand, sub-rounded, very loose, gray,
09-06-2017
(2)
10
0 D-4 MC MH, MC=46%, PI=21
0 GS Elastic SILT with organics, very loose, gray, moist,
1 AL homogeneous. HCl not tested.
(1) SG
0 D-5 MC MH, MC=84%, PI=23

0 GS Elastic SILT with organics, very loose, greenish gray,
1 AL moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
SG
15
P-6 MC MH, MC=51%, PI=28
GS Elastic SILT, gray, moist. HCl not tested.
from 03-30-2017 to 12-27-2017

HT MH, MC=71%, PI=18
SG Elastic SILT.
0 D-7 MC MH, MC=70%, PI=19
0 GS Elastic SILT with organics, very loose, greenish gray,
0 AL moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested. slight plasticity
(0) SG
MC
MC
SG
20
A-17
LOG OF TEST BORING
WSDOT
HOLE No. H-7p-17
Job No. AH-0315 GP10 SR 012 Elevation No data
Sheet 2 of 2

SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Blows/6"
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N)
Depth (ft)
(N)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content
Lab
RQD
RQD
FF
20 40 60 80
P-8 MC SILT, gray, moist. HCl not tested.
AL
HT
SG
0 D-9 MC MH, MC=60%, PI=14
1 MC Elastic SILT with organics, soft, greenish gray, moist,
1 SG homogeneous. HCl not tested.
1 MC Recovered: 2.0 ft Retained: 2.0 ft
(2) GS
AL
HT
SG
25

30

Bail/Recharge test:
35 Depth of boring during bail test: 24ft.
Depth of casing during bail test: 23.5ft.
Bailed bore hole water level to 21.6ft.
Hole was moved upslope 8ft. from staked location, 2
bucket samples were collected just East of boring.
40
Bail test was performed with a 5ft. bailer witch yeilded
appx. 1.5 gallons of water per full pull.
Hole was bailed from 0ft. to 21.6ft. with 12 pulls in 6

minutes.
45
A-18
SR8, Cloquallam Cr. Embankment Infiltration Alternate Test Site
A-19
LOG OF TEST BORING
HOLE No. H-1p-16

Job No. AH-0315-Gr10 SR 005 Elevation 63.0 ft
Sheet 1 of 3
Project I-5 BMP Effectiveness Stormwater Montioring Sites Driller Shepherd, Robert Lic# 2710
Component Site 1 Inspector Cooper, Kerry #2552
Start August 23, 2016 Completion August 23, 2016 Well ID# BJT-523 Equipment CME 850 (9C2-5)
Historical
(inches)
Northing 623249.886 Easting 921247.162 Collected by HQ Geotech Office Method Casing Advancer
Lat 48.6704155 Long -123.8102558 Datum NAD 83/91 HARN, NAVD88, SPS (ft) Drill Fluid Bentonite
SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Depth (ft)
Profile
Tests
Lab
and/or
RQD RQD
20 40 60 80 FF
from 09-07-2016 to 10-17-2016

12 D-1 MC GP-GM, MC=4%
20 GS Poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, sub-angular,
33 very dense, gray, moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
ENTERPRISE BORING LOG RH-0512 005 BMP EFFECTIVENESS STORMWATER MONITORING SITES.GPJ ENTERPRISE DATA TEMPLATE.GDT 1/26/17
60.0
>> 28 D-2 Well graded SAND with silt and gravel, sub-rounded, very
50/3'' dense, brown, wet, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
5 (REF) Recovered: 0.5 ft Retained: 0.5 ft
15 D-3 MC SW-SM, MC=9%

18 GS Well graded SAND with silt and gravel, sub-rounded,
10-17-2016
55.0 16 dense, gray, moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
11 D-4 Well graded SAND with silt and gravel, sub-rounded,

9 medium dense, gray, wet, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
(14)
0 D-5 Elastic SILT, very soft, dark gray, wet, homogeneous.

0 HCl not tested.
50.0 0 Recovered: 0.3 ft Retained: 0.3 ft
(0)
09-10-2016
PS-6 MC MC=40%
SG Elastic SILT, dark gray, wet. HCl not tested.
MC
GS SM, MC=26%, LL=27
AL Silty SAND.
0 D-7 HT SM, MC=35%, PI=7
1 SG Silty SAND with siltstone, very loose, dark gray, moist,
2 MC homogeneous. HCl not tested.
(3) GS Recovered: 1.5 ft Retained: 1.5 ft
AL
45.0
PS-8 MC SM, MC=29%, LL=NA, PL=NP

GS Silty SAND, sub-rounded, dark gray, moist. HCl not
20
A-20
LOG OF TEST BORING
WSDOT
HOLE No. H-1p-16
Sheet 2 of 3
Project I-5 BMP Effectiveness Stormwater Montioring Sites Driller Shepherd, Robert
SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Blows/6"
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N)
Depth (ft)
(N)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content
Lab
RQD
RQD
FF
20 40 60 80
AL tested.
SG
14 D-9 DN Clayey GRAVEL with sand, sub-rounded, very dense,
22 dark gray, moist, stratified. HCl not tested.
(56)
40
14 D-10 Well graded GRAVEL, sub-rounded, dense, grayish

17 brown, wet, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
(43)
35
18 D-11 MC MH, MC=29%, PI=20

26 GS Elastic SILT with sand and sand lenses, very dense, dark
30 45 AL gray, moist, stratified. HCl not tested.
SG
30
>> 24 D-12 Elastic SILT with sand and sand lenses, very dense, dark
31 gray, moist, stratified. HCl not tested.
35 50/6'' Recovered: 1.5 ft Retained: 1.5 ft
(REF)
25
>> 50/6'' D-13 MC SM, MC=27%

(REF) GS Silty SAND with siltstone, very dense, gray, moist,
40 stratified. HCl not tested.
20

45 identifications and laboratory test data.
A-21
LOG OF TEST BORING
WSDOT
HOLE No. H-1p-16
Sheet 3 of 3
Project I-5 BMP Effectiveness Stormwater Montioring Sites Driller Shepherd, Robert
SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Blows/6"
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N)
Depth (ft)
(N)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content
Lab
RQD
RQD
FF
20 40 60 80
Bail/Recharge test:
Hole Diameter: 4
15 Depth of boring during bail test: 26'
Depth of casing during bail test: 21.5'
Water depth before bailing: 11.5'
Bailed bore hole water level to 12.2'
Recharge after 5 minutes :12.2'
50 Recharge after 10 minutes :12.2'
10
55
60
65
-5
70
A-22
SR5, Chehalis Flood Control Project Site
A-23
Washington State LOG OF TEST BORING
Department of Transportation Start Card SE-52054/ AE-27745
HOLE No. FC-5-14

Job No. MS-7119 SR 005 Elevation 172.2 ft
Sheet 1 of 3
Project I-5 Chehalis Flood Control Study Driller Nelson, Brad Lic# 2969
Component Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Inspector Harvey, Thomas #2599
Start July 21, 2014 Completion July 22, 2014 Well ID# Equipment CME 850 (9C2-3)
Historical
Station N/A Offset Hole Dia 4 SPT Efficiency Past Rig Efficiency 86.9%
(inches)
Northing 500259.79 Easting 1019931.22 Collected by Region Survey Crew Method Mud Rotary
Lat 46.6784973 Long -122.9724704 Datum NAD 83/91 HARN, NAVD88, SPS (ft) Drill Fluid Various
SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Depth (ft)
Profile
Tests
Lab
and/or
RQD RQD
20 40 60 80 FF
170.0 S-1 SILT, dark gray, moist. HCl not tested.

S-2 MC MH, MC=56%, PI=52

GS Elastic SILT with gravel and organics, dark brown, moist.
ENTERPRISE BORING LOG MS-7119 005 CHEHALIS FLOOD CONTROL STUDY.GPJ ENTERPRISE DATA TEMPLATE.GDT 10/16/14
5 AL HCl not tested.

SG
1 D-3 SILT with clay, very loose, grayish brown, moist,
07-22-2014
1 stratified. HCl not tested.
165.0
2
(3)
S-4 SILT with clay with organics, dark gray, moist. HCl not
tested.
10
S-5 MC ML, MC=35%, PI=11
GS SILT, dark gray, moist. HCl not tested.
HT
SG
160.0 S-6 SILT with clay, grayish brown, moist. HCl not tested.
S-7 No Recovery. HCl not tested.
15
S-9 MC ML, MC=40%, PI=4

GS SILT, gray, moist. HCl not tested.
155.0
HT
SG
2 D-10 Poorly graded SAND with silt, loose, gray, wet, stratified.
5 HCl not tested.
(9)
20
A-24
HOLE No. FC-5-14

Sheet 2 of 3
Project I-5 Chehalis Flood Control Study Driller Nelson, Brad

SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Blows/6"
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N)
Depth (ft)
(N)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content
Lab
RQD
RQD
FF
20 40 60 80
150
S-11 SILT with sand, gray, wet. HCl not tested.

25
2 D-12 SILT with sand, loose, gray, wet, stratified. HCl not
2 tested.
145
(7)
S-13 Poorly graded SAND, wet. HCl not tested.

30
2 D-14 Poorly graded SAND, loose, gray, moist, stratified. HCl

5 not tested.
140
(10)
S-15 SILT with sand, gray, moist. HCl not tested.

35
2 D-16 SILT with sand, loose, gray, moist, stratified. HCl not
3 tested.
135
(5)
S-17 SILT with sand, gray, wet. HCl not tested.

40
4 D-18 Silty SAND, medium dense, gray, moist, stratified,

4 laminated. HCl not tested.
130
(14)
5 D-19 Poorly graded SAND with silty sand and trace gravels,
8 medium dense, gray, moist, stratified. HCl not tested.
45
A-25
HOLE No. FC-5-14

Sheet 3 of 3
Project I-5 Chehalis Flood Control Study Driller Nelson, Brad

SPT Efficiency
Sample Type
Groundwater
Blows/6"
Elevation (ft)
Sample No.
(Tube No.)
Instrument
Field SPT (N)
Depth (ft)
(N)
Profile
Tests
Moisture Content
Lab
RQD
RQD
FF
20 40 60 80
(15)
125
14 D-20 Silty GRAVEL with sand, sub-rounded, dense, dark gray,

26 moist, homogeneous. HCl not tested.
(43)
120
17 D-21 SILT, very dense, gray, moist, homogeneous. HCl not

21 tested.

(55)
115
>> 25 D-22 Silty SAND, very dense, gray, moist, homogeneous. HCl
42 not tested.
60 50/6'' Recovered: 1.5 ft Retained: 1.5 ft
(REF)

110 identifications and laboratory test data.

65
Test borings FC-1-14 through FC-4-14 were not drilled

during this study.
105
70
A-26
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST SUMMARIES FOR UNDISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES
B
SR5, Union Slough BMP Effectiveness Test Site
B-1
Job No. AH-0315 GP11 Date January 26, 2017
H-4p-15 1 Laboratory Summary
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
Project I-5 BMP Effectiveness Stormwater Monitoring Sites
Depth Sample Moist Density Specific Gravel Sand Fines
USCS Description MC% LL PL PI (lbs/ft3 ) Gravity (%) (%) (%) Cc Cu D60 D50 D30 D20 D10
(ft) No.
1.0 D-1-B SP-SM POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT 5 0.1 92.2 7.7 1.2 3.4 0.282 0.24 0.17 0.13 0.084
8.0 D-5-B SP-SM POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT 19 0.7 93.3 6.0 1.2 3.5 0.331 0.27 0.19 0.16 0.095
9.5 D-6-B ML SILT 42 49 38 11 2.61 0.0 2.3 97.7 0.010 0.01 0.00 0.00
10.0 S-7 MC, SG, and LOI Only 44 111 2.59
11.5 S-7 MC Only 39
US Sieve Opening In Inches US Sieve Numbers Hydrometer Analysis

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200
100
AH-0315 005 BMP EFFECTIVENESS STORMWATER MONITORING SITES.GPJ PUBLIC-COMMON LIBRARY.GLB 1/26/17
90
80
70
Percent Finer By Weight
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.001
Grain Size In Millimeter

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Medium Fine
B-2
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
12.0 D-8 MH ELASTIC SILT with SAND 43 50 37 13 2.65 3.5 20.2 76.3 0.038 0.02 0.01 0.00
13.5 S-9 ML SANDY SILT 259 32 27 5 88 2.65 12.4 35.8 51.9 0.3 134.8 0.249 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.002
14.0 S-9 MH ELASTIC SILT with Organics 82 59 45 14 2.52 0.0 9.9 90.1 0.015 0.01 0.00 0.00
15.5 D-10 MH ELASTIC SILT with SAND and Organics 101 69 NP NA 2.53 0.0 15.3 84.7 1.5 4.4 0.015 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.004
19.0 S-12 ML SILT 36 30 24 6 107 2.75 0.3 4.5 95.2 0.014 0.01 0.00 0.00

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-3
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
21.5 D-13-B ML SILT 42 34 29 5 2.67 0.0 6.8 93.2 1.8 14.8 0.023 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.002
26.0 D-15 SM SILTY SAND with Rootlets 28 0.2 76.1 23.7 0.169 0.14 0.09
37.0 D-20 SP-SM POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT 23 0.0 93.3 6.7 1.6 3.3 0.367 0.32 0.25 0.20 0.112
47.0 D-24 SP POORLY GRADED SAND 19 0.0 98.3 1.7 0.8 3.2 0.701 0.54 0.34 0.28 0.216

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-4
SR12, Montesano BMP Effectiveness Test Site
B-5
Job No. AH-0315 GP10 Date October 17, 2017
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
Project BMP Effectiveness - Stormwater Infiltration Montesano
USCS Description MC% LL PL PI (lbs/ft 3 ) Gravity (%) (%) (%) Cc Cu D60 D50 D30 D20 D10
(ft) No.
0.5 D-1 SP-SM POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL with Organics 8 19 NP NA 2.86 43.1 49.7 7.2 0.8 25.1 5.539 3.12 1.01 0.59 0.221
14.0 D-6 GM SILTY GRAVEL with SAND 28 34.4 30.2 35.4 2.970 0.78
17.0 D-7 MC, AL & LOI Only 69 67 47 20
19.0 P-8 MH ELASTIC SILT with Organics 83 74 45 29 2.60 0.0 3.9 96.1 0.007 0.00 0.00 0.00
20.0 P-8 MH ELASTIC SILT with SAND 67 73 49 24 7.7 20.8 71.5

AH-0315 012 BMP EFFECTIVENESS STORMWATER INFILTRATION SITE 2 (MONTESANO).GPJ ENTERPRISE LIBRARY.GLB 10/17/17
3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-6
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
20.5 P-8 MC & Unit Weight Only 66 102
20.9 P-8 MC & SG Only 67 2.72
21.0 D-9 MH ELASTIC SILT with Organics 64 67 42 25 2.61 0.0 0.6 99.4 0.005 0.00
24.0 P-10 MH ELASTIC SILT with Organics 60 61 36 25 2.73 0.0 0.2 99.8 0.006 0.00 0.00 0.00
25.0 P-10 MH ELASTIC SILT with Organics 63 61 41 20 0.1 14.4 85.5

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-7
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
25.9 P-10 MC & SG Only 63 2.67
26.0 D-11 MC & AL Only 63 53 36 17
31.0 D-13 MC & AL Only 46 50 32 18
41.0 D-17 MC, AL & LOI Only 56 40 29 11

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-8
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
45.9 P-18 MC & SG Only 68 2.65
46.0 D-19 ML SILT with SAND 76 44 NP NA 1.0 19.9 79.1

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-9
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
0.0 D-1 GP-GM POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND 6 46.0 42.4 11.7 3.8 126.8 5.956 3.86 1.03 0.41
4.0 D-2 GP-GM POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND 10 50.9 40.4 8.7 3.5 60.2 6.858 4.90 1.66 0.59 0.114
12.5 D-5 MH ELASTIC SILT 64 69 48 21 2.67 6.3 3.4 90.4 0.009 0.01 0.00 0.00
14.0 S-6 MH ELASTIC SILT with Organics 73 69 41 28 2.64 12.2 2.2 85.5 0.007 0.01 0.00 0.00
15.0 S-6 MH ELASTIC SILT 56 70 45 25 2.77 0.0 1.0 99.0 0.005 0.00 0.00

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-10
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
15.5 S-6 MC & Unit Weight Only 62 103
15.9 S-6 MC & SG Only 67 2.67
16.0 D-7 MH ELASTIC SILT 53 72 42 30 2.65 0.0 0.2 99.8 0.006 0.00 0.00
19.0 S-8 MH ELASTIC SILT 24 52 37 15 2.80 0.0 0.7 99.3 0.009 0.01 0.00 0.00
19.1 S-8 MH ELASTIC SILT 53 51 32 19 2.75 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.009 0.01 0.00 0.00

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-11
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
20.9 S-8 MC & SG Only 62 2.65
21.0 D-9 MH ELASTIC SILT 56 60 38 22 2.61 0.0 0.4 99.6 0.007 0.00 0.00
25.9 S-10 MC & SG Only 38 2.67

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-12
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
37.5 D-15 MH ELASTIC SILT 59 52 41 11 2.62 0.0 2.1 97.9 0.009 0.01 0.00 0.00

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-13
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
0.0 D-1 MH ELASTIC SILT with SAND and Organics 32 52 39 13 2.63 1.8 21.0 77.2 0.024 0.02 0.01 0.00
5.9 S-2 MC & SG Only 66 2.63
6.0 D-3 GM SILTY GRAVEL 58 67 41 26 2.57 45.0 8.5 46.6 7.377 2.81 0.01 0.00

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-14
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
10.9 S-4 MC & SG Only 60
11.0 D-5 MH ELASTIC SILT 56 59 39 20 2.65 0.0 0.4 99.6 0.008 0.01 0.00
14.0 S-6 ML SILT 46 45 35 10 2.73 0.0 2.8 97.2 0.010 0.01 0.00
15.0 S-6 MH ELASTIC SILT 49 54 36 18 2.77 0.0 1.5 98.5 0.010 0.01 0.00 0.00
19.0 S-8 ML SILT 34 35 31 4 2.90 0.0 10.7 89.3 1.3 21.2 0.036 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.002

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-15
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
21.0 D-9 ML SILT 45 35 30 5 2.70 0.0 10.8 89.2 0.030 0.02 0.01 0.00

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-16
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
4.0 D-2 GP-GM POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND 10 53.7 38.7 7.6 3.2 42.0 7.206 5.32 2.00 0.74 0.172
7.0 D-3 GM SILTY GRAVEL with SAND and Organics 26 32 NP NA 51.0 36.6 12.4 7.0 144.7 6.590 4.89 1.44 0.34
12.0 D-5 ML GRAVELLY SILT with SAND and Organics 35 28.8 20.9 50.3 0.136
14.1 P-6 ML SANDY SILT 37 40 30 10 2.79 12.7 22.7 64.5 0.053 0.03 0.01 0.00
15.0 P-6 MH SANDY ELASTIC SILT 68 50 43 7 2.73 7.5 41.2 51.3 0.132

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-17
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
15.9 P-6 MC & SG Only 68 2.67
16.0 D-7 MC & AL Only with Organics 74 60 41 19
19.0 P-8 MH ELASTIC SILT with SAND and Organics 146 87 NP NA 2.19 0.0 22.8 77.2 0.014 0.01 0.00 0.00

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-18
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
20.3 P-8 MC & SG Only 140 2.30
21.0 D-9 MH ELASTIC SILT with Wood 85 74 48 26 2.41 0.0 4.1 95.9 0.007 0.00 0.00
24.0 D-10 MC & AL Only with Organics 69 69 44 25
34.0 D-14 ML SANDY SILT with Organics 40 34 27 7 0.0 30.8 69.2
37.0 D-15 MC & AL Only 45 39 28 11

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-19
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
47.0 D-19 MC & AL Only 53 42 34 8

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-20
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
0.0 D-1 GM SILTY GRAVEL with SAND 8 NA NP NA 40.8 25.9 33.3 4.919 2.32
10.0 D-4 MH ELASTIC SILT 46 65 44 21 2.58 6.7 1.6 91.7 0.008 0.01 0.00 0.00
13.0 D-5 MH ELASTIC SILT 84 71 48 23 2.56 0.0 1.0 99.0 0.006 0.00 0.00
15.0 P-6 MH ELASTIC SILT 51 68 40 28 2.74 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.006 0.00 0.00
15.1 P-6 MH ELASTIC SILT 71 69 51 18 2.73 0.0 0.4 99.6 0.005 0.00 0.00

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-21
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
16.9 P-6 MC & SG Only 59 2.59
17.0 D-7 MH ELASTIC SILT 70 62 43 19 2.61 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.006 0.00 0.00
21.9 P-8 MC & SG Only 58 2.59

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-22
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
(ft) No.
22.0 D-9 MH ELASTIC SILT 60 51 37 14 2.60 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.013 0.01 0.00 0.00

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.0018 5 4 3 2 0.0001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-23
SR8, Cloquallam Cr. Embankment Infiltration Alternate Test Site
B-24
Job No. AH-0315-Gr10 Date January 20, 2017
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
Project I-5 BMP Effectiveness Stormwater Montioring Sites
(ft) No.
0.3 D-1 GP-GM POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND 4 46.5 42.2 11.3 3.2 112.8 6.055 3.93 1.01 0.42
7.0 D-3 SW-SM WELL-GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL 9 45.3 45.6 9.2 1.7 65.9 6.200 3.71 1.00 0.42 0.094
14.0 PS-6 MC Only 40 2.67
15.0 PS-6 SM SILTY SAND 26 27 NP NA 2.72 0.0 64.5 35.5 2.6 86.9 0.222 0.18 0.04 0.01 0.003
16.0 D-7 SM SILTY SAND with Siltstone 35 30 23 7 1.0 60.5 38.6 0.257 0.18

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200
100
RH-0512 005 BMP EFFECTIVENESS STORMWATER MONITORING SITES.GPJ PUBLIC-COMMON LIBRARY.GLB 1/20/17
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-25
Job No. AH-0315-Gr10 Date January 20, 2017
WSDOT
Hole No. Sheet
Project I-5 BMP Effectiveness Stormwater Montioring Sites
(ft) No.
19.0 PS-8 SM SILTY SAND 29 NA NP NA 120 2.68 1.8 79.8 18.4 7.5 29.3 0.342 0.28 0.17 0.09 0.012
29.0 D-11 MH ELASTIC SILT with SAND 29 50 30 20 2.66 2.5 16.3 81.3 0.020 0.01 0.01 0.00
39.0 D-13 SM SILTY SAND with Siltstone 27 1.4 58.0 40.6 0.186 0.12

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200
100
RH-0512 005 BMP EFFECTIVENESS STORMWATER MONITORING SITES.GPJ PUBLIC-COMMON LIBRARY.GLB 1/20/17
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-26
SR5, Chehalis Flood Control Project Site
B-27
Job No. MS-7119 Date August 26, 2014
Washington State
Hole No. FC-5-14 Sheet 1 Laboratory Summary Department of Transportation
Project I-5 Chehalis Flood Control Study
(ft) No.
4.0 S-2 MH ELASTIC SILT with GRAVEL 56 95 43 52 2.69 15.3 5.9 78.8 0.003 0.00
10.0 S-5 ML SILT 35 37 26 11 2.76 0.0 6.2 93.8 0.016 0.01 0.00 0.00
16.0 S-9 ML SILT 40 34 30 4 2.62 1.1 5.1 93.8 2.1 11.7 0.021 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.002

3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200
100
90
80
MS-7119 005 CHEHALIS FLOOD CONTROL STUDY.GPJ PUBLIC-COMMON LIBRARY.GLB 8/26/14
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 4 3 2 10 8 5 4 3 2 1 8 5 4 3 2 0.1 8 5 4 3 2 0.01 8 5 4 3 2 0.001

Sand Silt
Gravel Clay
B-28
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information:
This material can be made available in an alternate format by emailing the Office of Equal Opportunity at wsdotada@wsdot.
wa.gov or by calling toll free, 855-362-4ADA(4232). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may make a request by calling the
Washington State Relay at 711.
Title VI Statement to Public:

It is the Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) policy to assure that no person shall, on the grounds of race,
color, national origin or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be otherwise discriminated against under any of its federally funded programs and activities. Any person who
believes his/her Title VI protection has been violated, may file a complaint with WSDOT’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). For
additional information regarding Title VI complaint procedures and/or information regarding our non-discrimination obligations,
please contact OEO’s Title VI Coordinator at (360) 705-7082.

Stormwater Infiltration in Highway Embankments - Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Estimation For Natural Low Plasticity Silts

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Stormwater Infiltration in Highway Embankments - Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Estimation For Natural Low Plasticity Silts

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Stormwater Infiltration in Highway

WSDOT Research Report

STORMWATER INFILTRATION IN HIGHWAY

The State of Washington

And in cooperation with

STORMWATER INFILTRATION IN HIGHWAY December 2018

Washington State Department of Transportation

17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Infiltration, Hydraulic conductivity, No restrictions. This document is available to the public

The estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity (K sat ) is a key step to assess

This is a follow-up study to a previous report published by Allen (2017) in which

Sites from Which Samples were Obtained

Figure 1. Locations of BMP effectiveness study sites, and locations of samples

Effect of Grain Size Parameters on Ksat

Performance of Improved Ksat Predictive Equations

Optimized Slichter equation:

Optimized Chapuis equation:

Estimating Porosity Based on Grain Size Parameters and Compaction

η = 0.34C u -0.1 (6)

Figure 11 illustrates the accuracy of the porosity predictions using equations 5

Using Estimated η and e with Optimized Ksat Prediction Methods

Table 5. Summary of bias statistics for prediction of soil porosity.

(b) Optimized Terzaghi Method

(c) Optimized Chapuis Method

The observations and recommendations provided in Allen (2017) appear to be

The estimation of hydraulic conductivity (K sat ) is a key step in the assessment of

The author wishes to acknowledge the support provided by the WSDOT

Allen, T.M., 2017, Stormwater Infiltration in Highway Embankments – Saturated

HOLE No. H-4p-15

Component Inspector Fetterly, Jamie #2507

11 D-20 MC SP-SM, MC=23%

6 D-24 MC SP, MC=19%

A flush mount monument was installed on this boring.

The implied accuracy of the borehole location

End of test hole boring at 48.5 ft below ground elevation.

A bag sample was collected at the outfall area of a PVC

HOLE No. H-3p-17

13 D-1 MC SP-SM, MC=8%, LL=19

21 D-2 Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, sub-angular,

21 D-3 Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, sub-angular,

18 D-4 Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, sub-angular,

5 D-5 Well graded GRAVEL with sand, sub-rounded, loose,

1 D-7 MC MC=69%, PI=20, LOI=9.9%

P-8 MC MH, MC=83%, PI=29

Project BMP Effectiveness - Stormwater Infiltration Montesano Driller Shepherd, Robert

MC Recovered: 2.0 ft Retained: 2.0 ft

0 D-13 MC MC=46%, PI=18

P-14 SILT, greenish gray, moist. HCl not tested.

0 D-15 SILT, very loose, greenish gray, moist, homogeneous.

P-16 SILT, dark greenish gray, moist. HCl not tested.

0 D-17 MC MC=56%, PI=11, LOI=4.4%

P-18 SILT, dark greenish gray, moist. HCl not tested.

Project BMP Effectiveness - Stormwater Infiltration Montesano Driller Shepherd, Robert

1 Recovered: 2.0 ft Retained: 2.0 ft

A flush mount monument was installed on this boring.

The implied accuracy of the borehole location

water after install was at 8.5'

HOLE No. H-4p-17

28 GS Poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, sub-rounded,

from 03-01-2017 to 03-02-2017

10.0 1 D-5 MC MH, MC=64%, PI=21

Project BMP Effectiveness - Stormwater Infiltration Montesano Driller Wilson, Jamie

0 D-13 Elastic SILT with organics/wood inbedded in the silt, soft,