HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272922(2) z 1 CF--v1-1D3
DEVECQr�=,-
ClTyOF N Q�N1tV�
AUG ? 3 200,
ftcE1V'E®
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
KING COUNTY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
AND
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER
RENTON,WASHINGTON
HWA Project No. 99075-201
August 16,2001
r� 1,
Prepared for:
Hewitt Architects
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
U Ali'
HMAGEOSCIENCES INC.
+
19730-64TH AVE.W.,SUITE 200
LYNNWOOD,WA 98036-5957
August 16, 2001 TEL_425-774-0106
FAX.425-774-2714
HWA Project No. 99075-201 www.hwageosciences_com
Hewitt Architects
199 Pine Street, Suite 400
Seattle, Washington 98101-1513
Attention: Mr. John Aldredge
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
King County Regional Communications &
Emergency Coordination Center
Renton,Washington
Dear Mr. Aldredge:
In accordance with your request,HWA GeoSciences Inc. completed a geotechnical
engineering study for the proposed King County Regional Communications and Emergency
Coordination Center(RCECC)in Renton, Washington. The results of our study are
presented in the accompanying report.
We appreciate the opportunity of providing professional services on this project. If you have
any questions,please do not hesitate to call either of the undersigned at(425)774-0106.
Sincerely,
HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
- O
Erik O.Andersen,P.E. Ralph N. Boirum, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer Vice President
GEOLOGY
GEOENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
HYDROGEOLOGY
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
TESTING&INSPECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................I
1.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................1
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................2
2.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS...................................................................................2
2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................................2
2.2.1 General Geologic Conditions.........................................................2
2.2.2 Site Soil Conditions.......................................................................3
2.2.3 Ground Water Conditions..............................................................4
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................4
3.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................4
3.2 SITE EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................5
3.2.1 Subgrade Preparation for New Pavements ....................................5
3.2.2 Structural Fill Materials and Compaction......................................5
3.2.3 Wet Weather Earthwork................................................................6
3.3 STRUCTURAL PAVEMENT DESIGN..................................................................6
3.4 FOUNDATION SUPPORT..................................................................................7
3.4.1 Seismic Considerations..................................................................7
3.4.2 Spread Footings for Building Support...........................................9
3.4.3 Concrete Slabs-on-grade................................................................10
3.4.4 Communications Tower Support...................................................10
3.4.5 Shallow Piers for Lateral Load Resistance....................................12
3.5 RETAINING WALL AND LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE CONSIDERATIONS.........12
3.5.1 Buried Concrete Walls...................................................................12
3.5.2 Gabion Walls .................................................................................13
3.6 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS.........................................13
3.7 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.............................................................................14
3.7.1 Temporary Unsupported Excavations............................................14
3.7.2 Pipe Bedding and Backfill.............................................................15
3.8 CONTINUING GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES........................................................16
4.0 LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................17
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Recommended Pavement Sections.............................................................................7
Table 2: Seismic Coefficients for 1997 UBC Code Based Evaluations................................... 8
Table 3: Seismic Coefficients for IBC 2000 Code Based Evaluation...................................... 8
Table 4: Recommended Soil Input Parameters for LPILE Analyses* ................................... 11
T
Table of Contents (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES(FOLLOWING TEXT)
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site and Exploration Plan
Figure 3. Cross Section A-A'
Figure 4. Cross Section B-B'
Figure 5. Cross Section GC'
Figure 6. Site/Slope Plan and Profile
Figure 7. Contour Map, Top of Existing Glacial Drift/Till
Figure 8. 1997 UBC Zone 3 and 2000 IBC Response Spectra
Figure 9. Communications Tower Foundations Allowable Compressive and Uplift
Capacities
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Field Exploration
Figure A-1. Legend of Terms and Symbols used on Explorations
Figures A-2—A-9. Logs of Borings BH-1 through BH-8
Appendix B: Laboratory Testing
Figure B-1 —B-3. Grain Size Distribution Curves
99075-201a.doc Il HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
t
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
KING COUNTY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
AND
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER
RENTON,WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) completed a geotechnical study in support of the proposed
King County Regional Communications and Emergency Coordination Center(RCECC)in
Renton, Washington. The project is located in the vicinity of 2nd Avenue NE and Monroe
Avenue NE, south of the City of Renton Public Works/Maintenance Facility, as indicated on
Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to explore and evaluate the surface and subsurface
conditions and to provide PS&E level recommendations pertaining to geotechnical aspects of
the project. This report reflects the results of our explorations, analyses,results,and
conclusions for the project.
Our work on this project was performed in accordance with our original, October 4, 1999,
and subsequent,December 22,2000,proposals to Hewitt Architects. Verbal authorization to
proceed with the work outlined in our October 4, 1999 proposal was given by John Aldredge
at a project team meeting on November 29, 1999. We were notified to stop work on
December 23, 1999,after the project was put on hold. We submitted an updated scope and
cost estimate dated December 22,2000 (reflecting the remaining geotechnical tasks not
completed before the stop work order). Our work scope included geotechnical explorations,
laboratory testing, geotechnical evaluation of subgrade conditions, and PS&E level
geotechnical recommendations for pavement sections, site grading and drainage, seismic
design of site structures,foundation support,retaining walls and lateral earth pressure
considerations, stormwater management(infiltration)facilities, and underground utilities.
Authorization to proceed was provided in the form of a signed contract, executed by
Mr. Timothy Spelman of Hewitt Architects, dated March 21, 2001.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Our understanding of the project is based on discussions with design team members, and
review of schematic design plans. We understand the proposed RCECC facility will
accommodate a full-time regional communications staff, as well as an emergency
coordination center for temporary management of emergency response and communications.
The proposed facility will consist of a single-story, steel-frame building with concrete shear
walls, and will occupy a footprint of approximately 34,000 square feet. The facility will
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
include an approximately 180-foot high communications tower located within 30 feet of the
building. As the facility is expected to be operational following a regional emergency, such
as an earthquake, design criteria have been established to meet this serviceability
requirement.
The project includes approximately 1,500 lineal feet(approximately 25,000 square feet) of
paved driveway/access roads, and about 92,000 square feet of paved parking areas.
Stormwater will be managed by use of infiltration ponds to be designed in accordance with
the Storm Water Management Manual For Western Washington (Ecology,2000). An
approximately 250-foot long rock-filled gabion basket wall (gabion wall) is also planned as
part of site grading.
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS
2.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The proposed site is located within the City of Renton in the vicinity of 2"d Ave NE and
Monroe Ave NE, southeast of the County maintenance facilities. We understand that the site
was used as tank testing grounds during World War II, and is currently used by King County
Road Services Division as a storage and paint-striping test area. The site is relatively flat,
although the southern portion of the site is the crest of an approximately 250-foot high slope
that descends to the Cedar River to the south. The slope is inclined approximately 2H:1 V
(horizontal:vertical). Much of the site is wooded and heavily vegetated. A paved roadway
surface, reportedly built for tank traffic,cuts through the site and connects the County yard to
the City of Renton yard. There are also several gravel foot paths across the site.
Historical aerial photographs indicate that considerable re-grading of the site has been
accomplished since 1936. It is our understanding that tank trails and embankments were
constructed, presumably using native soils as fill.
2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
2.2.1 General Geologic Conditions
General geologic data for the project area was obtained from the Geologic Map of the Renton
Quadrangle, King County, Washington (Mullineaux, 1965). This map indicates that the site
is underlain by deposits of glacial recessional outwash and ground moraine deposits,
overlying glacially consolidated drifts and tills. The upper Post-Vashon recessional outwash
and moraines typically consist of loose to medium dense sands and gravels with variable silt
contents, which were deposited by meltwater streams emanating from a retreating glacier.
The underlying glacial drift and till is very dense and is typically composed of sands and silts
with varying amounts of gravel, cobbles and boulders.
99075-201a.doc 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
2.2.2 Site Soil Conditions
Soil conditions across the RCECC site were explored by drilling 5 borings, designated BH-1
through BH-5, to depths ranging from 45 to 51 feet beneath the ground surface, and
excavating 17 test pits to depths ranging from 7 to 13 feet below ground surface. The
approximate location of each exploration is indicated on the Site and Exploration Plan,
Figure 2. Except as noted on Figure 6, all elevations in this report are based on NAVD 1988,
the datum used by Symonds Consulting Engineers for the recent site and topographical
survey. Details of the field exploration program and logs of the borings and test pits are
presented in Appendix A. Our interpretation of subsurface conditions is depicted in Cross
Sections A-A' through C-C' on Figures 3 through 5, respectively. Subsurface conditions
revealed in our explorations indicate that the project site is underlain by deposits of fill and
recessional outwash overlying glacially consolidated soils. Each of these soil units is
described below:
Fill: Fill was encountered in borings BH-1, BH-4 and BH-5 and in test pits TP-2,TP-4
through TP-8, and TP-12 through TP-15. The fill was generally very loose to medium dense
and composed of gravelly sand to sandy gravel with variable silt contents, and occasional
organic debris or waste. With the exception of BH-1,the fill encountered in the explorations
extended to depths ranging from 1 Meet to 4 feet below the existing ground surface. Boring
BH-1 was located adjacent to previously-excavated test pit TP-6, and as such, encountered
about 12 feet of test pit backfill. The composition of the fill is similar to that of the native
soils and may have been derived from excavated soils from the area. The fill soils are
anticipated to exhibit moderate to high permeability, and moderate to low compressibility.
Recessional Outwash: Recessional outwash was encountered in all borings either at the
ground surface or directly beneath fill. The glacial outwash encountered was generally
medium dense and composed of clean to silty sand with variable gravel content, and clean to
silty gravel with variable sand and silt content. Occasional cobbles were encountered in the
recessional outwash. The recessional outwash coarsens with depth and boulders may be
present. The glacial outwash soils are anticipated to exhibit moderate to high permeability,
and moderate to low compressibility.
Glacial Drift/Till: Glacial drift and/or glacial till was encountered in all of the borings,
below the recessional outwash. The glacial drift/till is typically comprised of very dense silty
sand with variable gravel content,or hard silt with variable sand and gravel content. The
Glacial drift/till contains cobbles and boulders. The glacial drift/till is glacially consolidated,
and exhibits low permeability and low compressibility. It should be considered an aquitard.
Advance Outwash: Advance outwash was encountered below the glacial drift/till in all of
the borings, except of BH-4. The advance outwash is typically composed of clean sands and
gravels, sometimes with trace silt contents. It contains cobbles and may contain boulders.
99075-201a.doc 3 HWA GEOSCIENCEs INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
The glacial outwash soils are anticipated to exhibit moderate to high permeability, and low
compressibility.
2.2.3 Ground Water Conditions
Ground water was encountered in all of the borings, at depths ranging from 24 to 47 feet
below the existing ground surface. Ground water was not encountered in any of the test pits.
Ground water levels are expected to vary depending on the time of year, amount of
precipitation, and other factors.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 GENERAL
The results of our studies indicate that the site of the proposed RCECC is underlain by a
veneer of loose to medium dense fill of varying depth. About 4 feet of fill was encountered
in our explorations located within the proposed building footprint. The strength and
compressibility of the fill material is variable and the fill may experience differential
settlement when loaded by foundations or new fill. Therefore, we recommend over-
excavation and re-compaction of fill material within the building footprint. The specific
limits and depths of over-excavation should be determined in the field by the geotechnical
engineer at the time of construction. A bid item for over-excavation and re-compaction
should be included in the contract. Over-excavated materials should be generally suitable for
replacement and re-compaction as structural fills, provided all unsuitable materials are
removed. Specific recommendations for site earthwork are presented in Section 3.2.
Pavement design recommendations are presented in Section 3.3.
The RCECC building can be founded on spread footings bearing on properly prepared
structural fill, or on native recessional outwash. The communications tower should be
supported on drilled, cast-in-place foundations such as auger cast piles or drilled shafts.
Foundation support recommendations, including seismic design considerations,are presented
in Section 3.4. Recommendations for design of retaining walls and below-grade structures
are presented in Section 3.5.
Stormwater management considerations, including design infiltration rates are presented in
Section 3.6. Recommendations for underground utility design and construction are presented
in Section 3.7, and recommendations for continuing geotechnical services are presented in
Section 3.8.
99075-201a.doc 4 HWA GEoSCIENCEs INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
3.2 SITE EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
3.2.1 Subgrade Preparation for New Pavements
Subgrade preparation in the pavement areas should begin with the removal of all topsoil,
vegetation and other deleterious material. Following removal of existing surficial materials,
the exposed Subgrade soils should be proof-rolled with a fully-loaded dump truck under the
observation of the geotechnical engineer. Successive passes of the dump truck, spaced
approximately 12 inches apart, should be made. Such proof-rolling will provide visual
information needed for the assessment of the subgrade and evaluation of its acceptability as a
bearing stratum. Any soft, yielding areas identified during the proof-rolling process
(including test pit backfill) should be over-excavated and backfilled with properly compacted
structural fill.
After the subgrade has been evaluated as described above,the upper 6 inches of material
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density,as determined by
test method ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor). Disturbed areas that do not meet this
requirement, or display deflection under wheel loadings, should be excavated,moisture
conditioned or replaced as necessary, and re-compacted.
3.2.2 Structural Fill Materials and Compaction
For the purpose of this report, any material placed within building footprints or below areas
to be paved is defined as structural fill. Structural fill should consist of relatively clean, free-
draining sand and gravel free from organic matter or other deleterious materials, such as
Gravel Borrow or Select Borrow, as described in Section 9-03.14(1) and(2),respectively, of
the WSDOT Standard Specifications. In general,the on-site soils within over-excavated
areas should be suitable for re-use as structural fill provided that the organic and other
deleterious materials, and the oversize materials(greater than 6 inches) are removed. The
use of on-site materials as structural fill should be approved by the geotechnical consultant
on a case by case basis. If earthwork is performed during extended periods of wet weather or
in wet conditions,the structural fill should conform to the recommendations presented in the
Wet Weather Earthwork section of this report.
Structural fill soils should be placed in loose,horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in thickness
and compacted to a dense and unyielding condition, and at least 95 percent of the maximum
dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor). At the time
of placement,the moisture content of the structural fill soils should be within 3 percent of
optimum. The procedure to achieve the specified minimum relative compaction depends on
the size and type of compacting equipment,the number of passes,thickness of the layer
being compacted, and certain soil properties. For this project,we recommend the
compaction equipment consist of a 10-ton (minimum static weight)vibratory roller.
99075-201a.doc 5 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
When the first fill is placed in a given area, and anytime the type of fill material changes, the
area should be considered a test section. The test section should be used to establish fill
placement and compaction procedures required to achieve proper compaction. The
geotechnical consultant should observe placement and compaction of the test section to assist
in establishing an appropriate compaction procedure. Once a placement and compaction
procedure is established,the contractor's procedure should be monitored and periodic density
tests should be performed to verify that proper compaction is being achieved.
3.2.3 Wet Weather Earthwork
If earthwork is to be performed or fill is to be placed in wet weather or under wet conditions,
the following recommendations should be incorporated into the contract specifications.
Earthwork should be accomplished in small sections to minimize exposure to wet weather.
Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soil should be followed promptly by the placement
and compaction of a suitable thickness of clean structural fill. The size and type of
construction equipment used should be limited to prevent soil disturbance;
• Material used as structural fill should consist of clean, granular soil,containing less
than 5 percent by dry weight passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve,based on wet
sieving the fraction passing the'/.-inch sieve. The fines should be non-plastic.
Note,these are additional restrictions on the structural fill materials described in
Section 3.2.2;
• The ground surface within the construction area should be graded to promote runoff
of precipitation,and to prevent surface water from ponding;
• No soil should be left uncompacted so it can absorb water. The ground surface
within the construction area should be sealed by a smooth drum vibratory roller or
equivalent. Soils which become too wet for compaction should be removed and
replaced with clean granular materials;
• Excavation and placement of fill should be observed by the geotechnical consultant
to verify that all unsuitable materials are removed and suitable compaction and site
drainage is achieved; and
• Bales of straw and/or geotextile silt fences should be strategically located to control
erosion.
3.3 STRUCTURAL PAVEMENT DESIGN
Subgrade for pavement areas should be prepared in accordance with Section 3.2.1. It is our
understanding that the facility will not experience high or heavy volume traffic. Therefore,
we recommend the use of a flexible (asphaltic concrete)pavement section.
99075-201a.doc 6 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
For light traffic and passenger vehicle parking areas, we recommend the flexible pavement
section consist of at least 3 inches of ACP over 4 inches of crushed surfacing base course
(CSBC). In areas that may be loaded with heavy vehicles, such as delivery vans, media vans,
or garbage collection trucks, and in areas where vehicles may be turning at slow speeds, we
recommend at least 4 inches of ACP over 6 inches of CSBC.
Table 1: Recommended Pavement Sections
Light Traffic/Passenger Areas Vehicle Heavy Vehicle A WSDOT
g
Material Standard
Alternate Alternate S eci
Description Recommended Design Min. Recommended Design Min. p fication Min.Thickness Thickness Min.Thickness Thickness for Imported
(inches) (inches) (inches)(inches) Material
ACP,Class B 3 2 4 3 9-03.8
ATB 0 3 0 3 4-06, 9-03.6
CSBC 4 0 6 3 9-03.9(3)
ATB: Asphalt Treated Base,WSDOT Standard Specification,4-06,9-03.6
CSBC: Crushed Surfacing Base Course,compacted to 95%maximum dry density per ASTM D-1557.
WSDOT: Washington State Department of Transportation,2000,Standard Specifications for Road,Bridge,and
Municipal Construction.
3.4 FOUNDATION SUPPORT
3.4.1 Seismic Considerations
3.4.1.1 Code-Based Design
We understand that the RCECC will be designed to meet the requirements of the 1997
Uniform Building Code (UBC 1997). However,we further understand that it is imperative
that the building remain functional following a large earthquake in the region. Accordingly,
performance based objectives will be used in completing the seismic design of the structure.
These performance based criteria are similar to those that are contained in the International
Building Code (IBC)2000 (ICC 2000). The IBC 2000 reflects the current state of the art in
terms of defining and quantifying seismic hazard on a national level and designing buildings
to achieve specific performance objectives. Accordingly, earthquake design criteria
consistent with both the 1997 UBC and the IBC 2000 are provided.
As a minimum, we recommended the RCECC be designed in accordance with the 1997 UBC
for conditions that are consistent with seismic zone 3. Recommended seismic coefficients to
be used for 1997 UBC Code based evaluations consistent with zone 3 are presented below.
99075-201a.doc 7 HWA GEOSC1ENCEs INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
Table 2: Seismic Coefficients for 1997 UBC Code Based Evaluations
Seismic Soil Seismic Seismic Control Control
Zone Profile Coefficient, Coefficient, Period, Period,
Type Ca C,, To Ts
3 SD 0.36 0.54 0.12 0.60
In addition to the 1997 UBC code design requirements,we understand that the building will
be evaluated for an immediate occupancy performance objective consistent with Seismic Use
Group III as defined in IBC 2000.
The seismic ground motion procedure contained in IBC 2000 is based upon a Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE) with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years
(i.e. recurrence interval of approximately 2500 years). Although this recurrence interval is
much longer than that used for the 1997 UBC (i.e. 500 years),the IBC 2000 design motions
are scaled to two-thirds of the maximum ground motions developed for the MCE. Ground
motions for the MCE in the IBC 2000 are linked to probabilistic earthquake hazard mapping
efforts that have been conducted by the United States Geological Survey
(Frankel,et al., 1996). Table 3 presents seismic coefficients for use with the General
Procedure described in Section 1615.1 of IBC 2000. Response spectra corresponding to the
site coefficients presented in Tables 2 and 3 are presented in Figure 8.
Table 3: Seismic Coefficients for IBC 2000 Code Based Evaluation
Design
Spectral Spectral Site Spectral Control Periods
Site PGA Acceleration Acceleration Coefficients Response
Class (g) at 0.2sec.(g) at 1.Osec.(g) Parameters
S, S,
F. F„ SDs SDI To T.
D 0.64 1.37 0.48 1.0 1.52 0.91 0.49 0.11 0.54
3.4.1.2 Seismic Hazards
The site is unlikely to experience significant displacements resulting from either ground
surface rupture, landsliding, or liquefaction. The site is unlikely to experience ground
rupture associated with faulting because there are no known active faults within 5 miles of
the site.
The site is unlikely to experience significant movements related to earthquake induced
landslides because of the setback distance of the building from the slope compared with the
slope height. As illustrated on the Site/Slope Plan and Profile, Figure 6,the building is set
99075-201a.doc 8 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
back approximately 350 feet from the crest of the slope, and the slope height is less than
about 300 feet high. Note the base map for Figure 6 is based on an earlier topographic
survey by King County, which used NGVD 1929 as the vertical datum.
Soil liquefaction typically occurs in loose, saturated sands and gravels subjected to moderate
to high levels of earthquake shaking. We evaluated liquefaction potential using the cyclic
stress approach(Seed and Idriss, 1971)which compares the cyclic shear stress required to
initiate soil liquefaction to the cyclic shear stress induced by the design earthquake. The
cyclic shear stress required to cause liquefaction is estimated based on empirical curves
which relate the density (as determined in the field with penetration testing)and fines content
(determined based on laboratory and/or visual/manual testing)of the soils being analyzed.
The equivalent cyclic shear stress is determined based on the magnitude of the design
earthquake.
For our liquefaction susceptibility analyses, we assumed a magnitude 7.5 earthquake with
peak ground acceleration(PGA) of 0.43g. This is 2/3 of the PGA associated with the
MCE(0.64g). The design response spectra values determined using the 2000 IBC are based
on 2/3 of the maximum response spectra values derived for the MCE. We consider this
approach consistent with the intent of the 2000 IBC.
The results of our analyses indicate that some of the saturated portions of the recessional
outwash soils may experience limited liquefaction under the design earthquake. For boring
BH-2(located in the vicinity of the communications tower), our analyses indicate that the
medium dense, saturated, sandy gravel located 30 to 35 feet below the ground surface(or
elevation 308 to 313)could potentially liquefy under the design earthquake. However,
because of the significant depth and limited thickness of susceptible soils beneath the
building site, it is our opinion that there is a low potential for ground movement due to soil
liquefaction.
Therefore,we consider that ground surface rupture, landsliding, and liquefaction do not
represent a design consideration for this project.
3.4.2 Spread Footings for Building Support
It is anticipated that excavations for spread and strip footings will expose both loose
unconsolidated fill and undisturbed recessional outwash at the bearing elevation. Our
explorations indicate that the thickness of loose unconsolidated fill beneath the building
footprint may vary from 0 to about 4 feet. We recommend that either all fill material be
removed from beneath the building footprint and replaced with structural fill prior to
foundation excavation, or, that the footings extend through the fill and bear on undisturbed,
native recessional outwash. Any loose or unconsolidated materials encountered in
excavations for foundations should be over-excavated and re-compacted to the requirements
for structural fill as described in Section 3.2.2. We recommend the geotechnical engineer
99075-201a.doc 9 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
observe footing excavation to ensure that a suitable bearing stratum is exposed and to
determine the depth and lateral limits of over-excavation required. We recommend the
over-excavation and re-compaction be bid on a unit cost basis.
All exterior footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished
grade; interior footings may be founded a minimum of 12 inches below the top of adjacent
slabs. Continuous(strip) spread footings should be a minimum of 18 inches wide. Isolated
square or rectangular spread footings should be a minimum of 30 inches wide in the least
dimension. For isolated or continuous spread footings of the above minimum dimensions,
bearing on undisturbed,native soils, or re-compacted structural fill placed over undisturbed
native soils, a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 5,000 pounds per square foot(psf)
may be used to proportion the foundations. The recommended maximum allowable bearing
pressure may be increased by 1/3 for short term transient conditions such as wind and
seismic loading.
It is anticipated that a majority of settlement will occur during construction as the loads are
applied. Assuming construction is accomplished as recommended herein,and for the
foundation loads anticipated,we estimate total settlements of mat or spread foundations of
3/4 inch or less and differential settlements between two adjacent load-bearing components of
%2 inch or less.
3.4.3 Concrete Slabs-on-grade
Where slabs are designed as beams on an elastic foundation,the compacted subgrade may be
assumed to have a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch(pci).
Concrete slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of washed 3/8-inch
pea gravel to act as a capillary moisture break. A vapor barrier such as visqueen should be
placed between the capillary moisture break and the concrete slab. It may be helpful to place
a 2-inch layer of clean sand over the vapor barrier to aid in uniform concrete curing.
3.4.4 Communications Tower Support
Design Considerations: The proposed tower location is indicated on Figure 2, and is near
the location of boring BH-2. We understand that the preliminary design uplift, compression,
and shear loads are approximately 620 kips, 713 kips,and 96 kips,respectively, at each
tower leg(Howard Burton, email correspondence). Based on our analyses and the magnitude
of the anticipated loads,we recommend that the communications tower be supported on deep
foundations such as drilled shafts or auger-cast piles. In our opinion, 24-inch diameter auger
cast piles are likely to be more economical than drilled shafts. However, a single 24-inch
auger cast pile at each tower leg will not provide sufficient compressive or uplift capacity to
resist the above design loads. A group of auger cast piles or drilled shafts supporting a
structural pile cap at each leg may be utilized in this case. If a group of auger cast piles or
99075-201a.doc 10 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
drilled shafts is designed to support each tower leg, we recommend a minimum shaft spacing
of 4 shaft diameters, measured center-to-center.
Allowable compressive and uplift capacities are plotted on Figure 9 for 24-inch diameter
auger-cast piles, and 3-, 4-, and 6-foot diameter drilled shafts. The allowable capacities
presented include a factor of safety 3. The compressive and uplift capacities indicated on the
figure may be increased by up to thirty percent(30%) for resistance to short term,transient
loads, such as earthquakes. We recommend that wind loads not be considered as transient
loads.
We recommend the tower foundations be designed with a minimum embedment of 40 feet
beneath the existing ground surface (i.e. foundations should extend to elevation 303 feet or
deeper). Provided the shafts are proportioned as recommended in Figure 9,total settlement
should be %2 inch or less. Differential settlement between adjacent load-bearing components
should be '/4 inch or less.
Lateral loads and bending moments transmitted to the tower foundations will be resisted by
the structural capacity of the foundation elements and by lateral soil resistance. The response
of a deep foundation, or a group of deep foundations,to lateral and bending forces depends
on variables including the type and geometry of the foundation(s), shaft spacing, amount and
location of reinforcing steel, pile head fixity conditions, external forces acting on the
foundation element(s), soil conditions, and other factors. We are available to conduct lateral
analyses for the preferred foundation type(s),once determined. The analyses will be
conducted using the computer program LPILE Plus 4.0, and can include plots of deflection,
shear, and bending moment, as functions of shaft depth as desired. If lateral analyses are
conducted by others, we recommend the following soil parameters be used.
Table 4: Recommended Soil Input Parameters for LPILE Analyses*
Modulus of
Effective Friction Horizontal Soil
Depth Soil Model for Unit Weight Angle Cohesion Resistance,k,
ft LPILE c de sf) ci
0-30 Unsaturated 120 32 0 30
Sand
30-40 Saturated Sand 58 32 0 25
40-48 Saturated Sand 68 38 500 80
48+ Saturated Sand 63 38 0 80
* These values assume shafts are spaced at least 8 diameters(center-to-center)apart. If closer shaft spacings
are required,HWA should be contacted to provided revised parameters which account for group effects.
Construction Considerations: The on-site fill and recessional outwash soils are susceptible
to caving, and temporary casing may be required if drilled shafts are constructed. Any
temporary casing used during shaft excavation must be as concrete is placed. The allowable
99075-201a.doc 11 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
compressive and uplift capacities presented on Figure 9 are based on the assumption that
concrete is cast against soil (i.e. no permanent casing for drilled shafts)'.
For shafts spaced closer than 5 shaft diameters (measured center-to-center) a minimum of 8
hours should transpire between concrete placement and excavation of adjacent shafts, to
allow the fresh concrete to set and reduce the potential for communication between shafts.
3.4.5 Piers for Screen Wall Support
We understand that approximately 24-inch diameter concrete piers will be used for
foundation support for a profiled metal screen wall. The screen wall will extend north/south
on the east side of the RCECC facility. The design of these piers will conform to Section
1806.8 of the 1997 UBC. Material Class 3 (sandy gravel)in Table 18-I-A may be assumed
for design of these screen wall support piers.
3.5 RETAINING WALL AND LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE CONSIDERATIONS
3.5.1 Buried Concrete Walls
We understand that the proposed improvements may include below-grade structures such as
vaults and/or utility tunnels. The lateral earth pressures against concrete retaining walls
depend on several factors, including the inclination of the backslope, degree of wall restraint,
method and degree of backfill compaction, drainage provisions,and magnitude and location
of any surcharge and/or concentrated loads. For this project,we anticipate level grades at the
top and toe of all walls.
We recommend below-grade walls be designed for an active-plus-seismic equivalent fluid
density of 55 pcf. This assumes the soil being retained by the wall consists of free-draining
sand and gravel, such as that described in Section 9-03.12(2)of the 1998 WSDOT Standard
Specifications. Care must be taken by the contractor to avoid over-compaction near the
walls. Fill within a distance of about 3 feet of the wall should be compacted with lightweight
equipment.
Wind, earthquakes, and unbalanced earth loads will subject the walls to lateral forces which
will be resisted by a combination of sliding(base)resistance and passive pressure against the
buried portions of the structure. The passive pressure offered by properly compacted fill
against retaining wall footings, strip or spread footings, or grade beams may be estimated
using an allowable equivalent fluid pressure of 360 pcf. This value assumes drained
conditions that will prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure in the compacted fill and on
the assumption that the ground surface adjacent to the structure is level in the direction of
movement to a distance equal or greater than twice the embedment depth. The passive
pressure provided by the upper 12 inches of soil should be neglected in design computations
unless the surficial soils are protected by pavement or concrete slab-on-grade. The passive
pressure at the toe of the retaining wall or footing should not be considered in evaluating
99075-201a.doc 12 HWA GEoSCIENCES INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
resistance to lateral loading unless the backfill at the toe is carefully placed and adequately
compacted. For base sliding friction, we recommend an allowable coefficient of 0.5 between
cast-in-place concrete and soil.
3.5.2 Gabion Walls
We understand a gabion-basket wall is planned as part of site grading for this project. It
should be noted that such walls are not rigid structures, and some movement(e.g. bulging,
settlement, or rotation)may occur. If a non-yielding wall is desired,we recommend the use
of large concrete blocks, such as Lock-Blocks,which may be textured or finished to improve
their appearance.
Typically, gabion basket walls are filled with 4-to 8-inch cobbles. The native recessional
outwash contains a significant fraction of cobbles,which could potentially be utilized for
gabion wall construction. For estimating purposes,ten percent(by volume)of the
recessional outwash may be assumed to be suitable for gabion filling. If on-site materials are
planned for use as gabion basket filling, a screening operation will be necessary to sort the
cobbles. Our explorations indicated that the percentage of cobbles increases with depth.
3.6 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
We understand that storm water runoff will be handled utilizing infiltration ponds. We
anticipate infiltration design will be in accordance with the Storm Water Management
Manual(Ecology,2000). Refer to Figure 2 for the approximate location of the primary
infiltration pond areas(Proposed Easterly and Westerly Storm Water Infiltration Areas).
Symonds Consulting Engineers have estimated design storm water flows for each of the
primary ponds on the order of 1.2 cubic feet per second(Brian Vanderburg,personal
communication).
The project site lies within the City of Renton Aquifer Protection Zone 2 and the soils in the
infiltration receptor have minimal treatment capability. The recessional outwash soils
underlying the site correspond to SCS (Soil Conservation Service)Hydrologic Soil Group A.
Consequently,we recommend treatment prior to infiltration(i.e. bioswales,ponds, etc.)in
order to protect water quality.
We evaluated the receptor soils in the proposed westerly and easterly pond areas in general
accordance with draft Ecology guidelines (Ecology, 2000). We conducted a 24-hour pilot
infiltration test(PIT) at the proposed easterly pond area, and we performed several grain size
analyses for receptor soils in both pond areas. Refer to Appendix A of this report for a
detailed description of the PIT.
Our studies indicate that the recessional outwash underlying the easterly and westerly
infiltration pond locations exhibits high permeability. Using the Hazen formula, we estimate
the hydraulic conductivity of the recessional outwash to range from 10-2 to 10-1 centimeters
99075-201a.doc 13 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
per second. The glacial till/drift underlying the recessional outwash is considered essentially
impermeable. Figure 7 shows a structural contour map that illustrates the approximate top of
the glacial drift/till layer. Assuming the bottom of each infiltration pond at elevation 330 feet
or higher, a minimum of 15 feet of unsaturated recessional outwash receptor soils will exist
beneath both of the infiltration pond areas.
In our opinion,the location and normal operation of the storm water infiltration ponds will
not result in a reduction of the stability of the existing south slope. Infiltrating storm water
will seep through the recessional outwash until it encounters the relatively impermeable
glacial till/drift, and will then seep in the direction of gravity along this contact. As
illustrated in Figure 7, the contact between the outwash and the till/drift, beneath the
RCECC, slopes down toward the northwest. It is likely that ground water ultimately seeps
down to the Cedar River, but determination of the actual rate and direction of ground water
flow are not within our work scope. It is our opinion,however,that the storm water collected
and routed to the infiltration ponds will be distributed throughout the recessional outwash as
it infiltrates such that the pre- and post-development ground water flow regimes will not
significantly differ.
For both the easterly and westerly pond areas, we recommend a long-term infiltration rate of
15 inches per hour for design. This value includes a correction factor of about 10 to account
for irregular subsurface soil conditions, siltation and bio-buildup, and other factors. For
infiltration pond depths lower than elevation 325 feet,please contact HWA to perform
ground water mounding analyses and to revise infiltration recommendations accordingly.
It is our understanding that King County will expect a post-construction infiltration test at
each of the primary pond locations to confirm infiltration capacity before final approval.
All infiltration systems,however well-designed and constructed,will plug due to siltation
and bacteria growth. Periodic maintenance and/or replacement of the infiltration systems
may be necessary.
3.7 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
3.7.1 Temporary Unsupported Excavations
We anticipate that the fill and recessional outwash soils can be excavated with conventional
excavating equipment such as backhoes and trackhoes. However,the on-site soils may
contain oversize debris or boulders. The contract documents should contain provisions that
address the potential presence, handling, and disposal of oversize materials or obstructions.
Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, should be
the responsibility of the contractor. Any excavations in excess of 4 feet in depth should be
sloped in accordance with Part N of WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 296-155, or be
shored. The loose to medium dense fill and recessional outwash soils classify as Type C
99075-201a.doc 14 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
Soil. Temporary excavations in Type C Soils may be inclined no steeper than 1'/ZH:IV. In
lieu of sloped excavations, trench boxes may be used to support utility trenches. Heavy
construction equipment, construction materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should
not be allowed within a distance, measured from the edge of the excavation,equal to the
depth of the excavation, unless the shoring system has been designed for the additional
lateral pressure.
With time and the presence of seepage and/or precipitation,the stability of temporary
unsupported cut slopes can be significantly reduced. Therefore, all temporary slopes should
be protected from erosion by installing a surface water diversion ditch or berm at the top of
the slope and by covering the cut face with well-anchored plastic sheeting. In addition,the
contractor should monitor the stability of the temporary cut slopes and adjust the construction
schedule and slope inclination accordingly.
Exposure of personnel beneath temporary cut slopes should be kept to a minimum.
Construction should proceed as rapidly as feasible,to limit the time temporary excavations
are open.
At the time of this report,the profile/grades for the proposed sewer line extending west from
the RCECC were not finalized. The relatively loose, clean, sandy gravels anticipated in the
sewer excavations are prone to sloughing and caving. We anticipate that excavations can be
accomplished using sloped excavations and/or trench boxes augmented with steel sheets.
The explorations we completed along the sewer alignment (TP-15 and TP-16)may not have
extended to the final sewer design invert. It is possible that ground water may be
encountered in the sewer excavations—if water is encountered,we anticipate it can be
handled using sumps and pumps.
3.7.2 Pipe Bedding and Backfill
We anticipate that the proposed RCECC facility may include the installation and/or
relocation of various utilities. General recommendations relative to pipe bedding and utility
trench backfill are presented below.
• Pipe bedding material,placement, compaction, and shaping should be in accordance
with the project specifications and the pipe manufacturer's recommendations. As a
minimum,the pipe bedding should meet the gradation requirements for Bedding
Material for Thermoplastic Pipe, Section 9-03.16 of the WSDOT Standard
Specifications.
• Pipe bedding materials should be placed on relatively undisturbed native soils, or
compacted fill soils. If the native subgrade soils are disturbed,the disturbed
material should be removed and replaced with compacted bedding material.
99075-201a.doc 15 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
• In areas where the trench bottom encounters very soft or organic-rich subgrade
soils, it may be necessary to over-excavate the unsuitable material and backfill with
pipe bedding material. In wet conditions, 1'/4-inch-minus granular fill meeting the
gradation requirements for Crushed Surfacing, as described in Section 9-03.9 of the
WSDOT Standard Specifications, may be used to backfill the over-excavated
portion of the trench.
• Pipe bedding should provide a firm, uniform cradle for the pipe. We recommend
that a minimum 4-inch thickness of bedding material beneath the pipe be provided.
Larger thicknesses may be necessary to prevent loosening and softening of the
natural soils during pipe placement.
• Pipe bedding material and/or backfill around the pipe should be placed in layers and
tamped to obtain complete contact with the pipe.
We recommend that trench backfill meet the specifications for structural fill, as described in
Section 3.2.2. During placement of the initial lifts,the trench backfill material should not be
bulldozed into the trench or dropped directly on the pipe. Furthermore,heavy equipment
should not be permitted to operate directly over the pipe until a minimum of 2 feet of backfill
has been placed. Trench backfill should be placed in 8-inch(maximum)lifts and compacted
using mechanical equipment to at least 92 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined
by testing in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. The upper 2 feet of backfill should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density. As an alternative to compacted
granular backfill,controlled density fill (CDF)per WSDOT Standard Specification
2-09.3(1)E may be used.
3.8 CONTINUING GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
The primary purpose of this study is to assist the owners and designers design of this project.
The recommendations of this report should be reviewed when design development is
finalized. We should be retained to review all earthwork, foundation and pavement plans and
specifications related to the project. Such a review will allow HWA to verify that the design
and construction recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted
and implemented. HWA should also be allowed to revise the recommendations presented
herein should the scope of the project change.
Observation and testing by the geotechnical consultant is recommended during the
construction phases to verify that the recommendations presented herein are incorporated
into the constructed work. Of particular importance are monitoring, observation and/or
testing of the following project elements:
• Deep foundation construction;
• Loose fill identification and over-excavation within structure areas;
99075-201a.doc 16 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
• Evaluation of foundation subgrades;
• Pavement subgrade preparation; and
• Structural fill placement.
By being present on-site during the construction phase of the project, our representative will
be able to confirm conditions indicated by the explorations, verify the applicability of the
recommendations presented in this report,based on the soil conditions encountered, and, if
necessary,provide revised recommendations adapted to the conditions revealed during
construction.
4.0 LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this letter report for use by Hewitt Architects,King County and the design
team for this project. This data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for
their bidding or estimating purposes,but the conclusions and interpretations presented should
not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that
subsurface soil and groundwater conditions can vary significantly over small distances.
Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations and may not be detected by a
geotechnical study. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered
which vary appreciably from those described herein, HWA should be notified for review of
the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary.
The scope of work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the
presence or absence of hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this
site.
This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the
contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than
our own on the site;the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor
should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein
unsafe.
O.O
99075-201a.doc 17 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services for this project.
Please call either of the undersigned at (425) 774-0106 if you have any questions concerning
this report.
Respectfully submitted,
HWA GeoSciences Inc.
AND
WAS OA
15976 o "CISTE�e�`�ap"4
�bI'AL IONAL VIA 241610'
EXPIRES 7/25/�y®� EXPIRES 08/18/ pL
Ralph N. Boirum, P.E. Erik O. Andersen, P.E.
Vice President Geotechnical Engineer
EOA:RNB:eoa(99075-201 a.doc)
99075-201a.doc 18 HWA GEOSC�ENCES INC.
August 16, 2001
HWA Project No. 99075-201
REFERENCES
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2000, Storm Water Management
Manual for Western Washington, final draft dated August, 2000, Publication No. 99-11.
Frankel, A., Mueller, C., Barnhard,T., Perkins, D., Leyendecker, E., Dickman,N.,Hanson,
S., and Hopper, M., 1996,National Seismic Hazard Maps: Documentation June 1996,
USGS Open File Report 96-532.
International Code Council (ICC), 2000,International Building Code, 2000,published
March, 2000,International Code Council,Falls Church,VA.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997, Uniform Building Code.
Mullineaux,D.R. 1965, Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington,
Published by the U.S. Geological Survey,Map GQ405.
Palmer, S.P., Schasse, H.W.,&Norman, D.K., 1994,Liquefaction Susceptibilityfor the Des
Moines and Renton 78.5-minute Quadrangles, Washington, Published by the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources, Map GM-41.
Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT)/American Public Works
Association(APWA),2000,Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
Construction.
99075-20 1 a.doc 19 HWA GEoSCIENCES INC.
900 �- n� �—
_ f
N 7QTH � <" Z w [
O
1 z
uj
W
! w w
cop
Lu
40LLI s�aTe�
a
g i
co
7
�� gy�TNF L
J = Renton T chnical Cdlle e
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED m
j PROJECT LOCATION
m t
169 F
1
PROJECT LOCATION m
90
CA
169 m
v
Q
i
F 16_9� O g�
CP ��-^\\` � fib
m
169
cn
NOT TO SCALE
)cLormc. Stree[Atlas US•At �� � '
VICINITY MAP 0"" BY HAC FW E
KING COUNTY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS HEcm BY BKH 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. AND EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER RENTON, WASHINGTON 4.24.2001 99075-201
C:\lPROJECTS\99\99075-201\99075001.DWG
1 \ MATCH LINE THIS SHEET
TP-8 � \
0' 50' 100'
200'
SCALE: 1"=100' �� \
p \
I 1
T -18 � ' - - 1FF _ I
�0. 1 L- I �.'\ G..
TP-16 TP-0IL
, 1 —
•\ fF
\ 11 I \
\ P-il T -1
BPI \
s T 7
P-1 TP-3 - P\
PROPOSED
TP-4
/ \ ° WESTERLY T -14 \ PRO I
STORM WATER B _—\ STORM WATER
• I LTRATIO N INFlLTRATI AR
W' AREA �
LEGEND
I D -BH-1 BORING DESIGNATION
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
AND
TION
REFERENCE : BASE MAP PROVIDED BY HEWITT ARCHITECTS
AND BASED ON 2001 SURVEY BY SYMONDS. ELEVATIONS BASED ON NAVD 1988.
TP-1 TEST PIT DESIGNATION AND KING COUNTY REGIONAL ""''` 'pL nuu�a�a
APPROXIMATE LOCATION ULTA
COMMUNICATIONS AND SITE AND EOAMATCH LINE THIS SHEET A A' ^�
CROSS—SECTION EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER EXPLORATION PLAN an '""1eL m
HMGEOSCIENCES INC. RENTON,WASHINGTON 06.14.01 99075-201
C:\1 PROJECiS\90\99075-201\9007500Z.DWG
C C
NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST
340 m = 340
m
m op0 O �p0 jV.
? s:o�::•:oC�: :oC ° °
330 3:Q:�Od:- :OOdQ �.. :o� ;o�
:n0 'op'0. 1vop` �pQ 5 poonQc EXISTING ip d p°dopQ C 330
<1O`�:o 'Q�i �;'o� ((���;• 0(.'.�.Q((�o((�'� GROUND SURFACE o 'Q�o °t
.01 Q °d Q s Q�Od: god q:ooc q;�od 'ood '�oC
> o o c
1 pdo p0•. O O
320
s412'
s, — O�oCt. �o oo �o
Q � d. d{? �o °do 0°d�Q °do 320
vc
�pv op0•. �n �p0 ono <
015 0 =. o
t{29 Q:�°dq.` 3{1��d. ��d{�mod. oo
F �!• o O �pC O d d d .�
w g °C?°o$ ? C 20o
v .e0.. 0�� :� � �fC7 D.::C l:p.� W
310 Q: Q dQ- 7. d. d.47h . d{ v.:•a•: .. a :p.:•a.: 4.
y.. 50+ :o'er? ?'::v Z
O ° pc :•: '' 50+ . v:•v•:.'v:•v
�o. .�S.o. �.o a:.v;"•:a: v:'�'a:`-v..'..a. a:�.v_•:!�•v^.,;•a:;:v^.-•,a O_
Lu
300 v:-.v.•..o'.v- .?':2 _v:.a..r-.v''-a..t-:.?'.a..:'.:v ��:'•. ,• Y. 't,'�: 300
�r.v•..a:'-v •;v:`:v v :v:' 'a: v:..a:::p:::.a 50+
p'. .V' .V�.i �:? :'.cam:.?'. •.. ..; {.,.',•,:
v:.. v::.a'•:v. �.:
290
.;::: fir;.. `;':: ;:'; �, ';
50+
280
.....:.
280
L78QEND
`r EXPLORATION DESIGNATION AND FILL
m APPROXIMATE LOCATION
TOP OF EXPLORATION HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1`=40'
�j?o�b0 RECESSIONAL OUTWASHI 0' 20• 40' 80'
13 N-VALUE (BLOWS PER FOOT) o' S 10' 20'
v ` GLACIAL DRIFT/TILL ADVANCE OUTWASH VERTICAL SCALE: 1'-10'
GROUNDWATER LEVEL OBSERVED DURING o:.o..; ;
DRILLING (4x VERT. EXAGGERATION)
BOTTOM OF EXPLORATION KING COUNTY REGIONAL mum. 3i r�
COMMUNICATIONS AND CROSS-SECTION "-E4A-
? ?— INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT goo EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER C-C'
AGEoScffNm RENTON,WASHINGTON 06.14.01 99075-201
z
Ax�
C'-^t\\\\<f! //�
�;
omm6nic ions / ' S/
l
1 j%/ � \ J/ i � ,�%�,� / ' And�Em ,gency
i )r i , r J/'t l ' l�, i� / / �l(i O // Coordi ation / w
01.
D / N� / V SZ£
91
�I, \,� 1. ; � / H,2 , .
APPROXIMATE
EXISTING
GROUND PROPOSED
D SURFACE Wl BUILDING rt' D'
350
350
325 325
300 300
275 BH-2 275
250 BH-3 250
LLJ
LLJ 225
200 225
LLJ
�` 200
z
0O 175 175 O
Q 150 /q� 150 Q
� _ 125 125 �i
w 100 100 w
75 75
50 50
LEGEND BH-2 BORING DESIGNATION Reference: Base plan provided by Hewitt architects, based on a previous topographic survey by King County. Vertical Datum is NGVD 1929.
KING COUNTY 'm ByPL— � (^
o' 50' too' 200' TOP OF EXPLORATION SITE/SLOPE �„ EDA `+
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PLAN AND PROFILE a,< �•
SCALE: 1'=100' EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER
BOTTOM OF EXPLORATION HMGMISCENWINC RENTON,WA 05.07.01 99075-e
C:11 PROJECTS1.99199075-20119907520108.D W G
h '
� / Y
.^!i�, .• �` ! '�J' 1� `� _'�"/ Ir .._ _ r- ' _____._ __ ��� � 11
I ' `� `• ✓ �! �. �` � 111C 0 r it I I
l
1
•
L Al � I: •��� �I
-
TP-15 !�•.-DTP-9:- _ --- • I '�:�y.� p
\\ 30
I 1\ 300
\TP-1 TP-3
P�5
!
f i j 0' 50' 100' 200'\�
I ! I
+' SCALE: 1"=100'
r LEGEND
j 312
�—BH-1 BORING DESIGNATION,
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
AND ELEVATION OF TOP REFERENCE BASE MAP PROVIDED BY HEWITT ARCHITECTS
OF GLACIAL DRIFT/TILL AND BASED ON 2001 SURVEY OF SYMONDS. ELEVATIONS BASED ON NAVD 1988.
TP-1 TEST PIT DESIGNATION AND KING COUNTY REGIONAL PL now
APPROXIMATE LOCATION MW COMMUNICATIONS AND CONTOUR MAP cmccm myEOA /
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER TOP OF EXISTING "IT ..�.
IMIGEOSCENMINC. RENTON,WASHINGTON GLACIAL DRIFT/TILL 06.14.01 9907
C11 PROJECTS%99199075-20/199075007.DWG
1 .0
0.9 r - - - - -
0.8 '
� 1997 UBC Zone 3
0.7 - - - - 2000IBC
p ' •�
co 0.6 •�
0.5
0.4
0.3
a
co
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1 .0 1 .5 2.0
Period (Seconds)
KING COUNTY'REGIONAL 1997 UBC ZONE 3 DRAWN BY PL
COMMUNICATIONS AND CHECKED BY 8
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER MB
- , AND 2000 IBC Utz
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. RENTON, WASHINGTON RESPONSE SPECTRA 06.18.01 99075-201
C:11 PROJECTS\99199075-20119%75008.DWG
1 ,
0
0
10
10 24-inch Auger Cast Pile -+-24-inch Auger Cast Pile
-�-
-0-3-ft Dia.Drilled Shaft --0-3-ft Dia.Drilled Shaft
�4-ft Dia.Drilled Shaft •�4-ft Dia.Drilled Shaft
20 -�-6-ft Dia.Drilled Shaft 6-ft.Dia.Drilled Shaft
20
a so L
o a30
d ..
c o
E
d
m 4o E
Em 40
a
w E
w
so
so
so
so
70
0 100 zoo soo 40o s0o s0o goo 70
uj
Allowable Compressive Capacity(tons) 0 so 100 150 200 2so soo aso 400 4W
Allowable Uplift Capacity(tons)
ALLOWABLE ULTIMATE FRICTIONAL ALLOWABLE
,COMPRESSIVE _ COMPRESSIVE + ULTIMATE END-BEARING ULTIMATE FRICTIONAL UPLIFT RESISTANCE
CAPACITY 3 RESISTANCE RESISTANCE UPLIFT = + SHAFT WEIGHT
CAPACITY 3
NOTES
1. A safety factor of about 3 has been applied to the calculated KING COUNTY .�..
ultimate frictional and end-bearing capacities. REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS TOWER 3_L_
9
2. A 30% increase in these capacities may be assumed for FOUNDATIONS '"-�� �J
estimating resistance to short term loads such as earthquakes. , AND EMERGENCY
3. Wind loads should not be considered as transient loads. HWAGEOSCIENCE$INC COORDINATION CENTER ALLOWABLE COMPRESSIVE "it "�""'
RENTON,WASHINGTON AND UPLIFT CAPACITIES 06.14.01 99075-20
C:\1PROJECTS\994M75-201XM75MlOO5.DWG
1
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The exploration program, completed in three phases, consisted of excavating 17 test pits,
designated TP-1 through TP-17, and drilling 5 test borings, designated BH-1 through BH-5,.
The test pits and borings were located in the field by taping distances from existing site
features (such as buildings and fences), and/or surveyed, and plotted on the Site and
Exploration Plan, Figure 2. A legend to the terms and symbols used on the test pit logs is
presented on Figure A-1. The exploration logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-23.
Test pits TP-1 through TP-11 were excavated on December 17 and 20, 1999 with a Cat
E120B track-mounted excavator provided and operated by Mark Harlow Construction,under
subcontract to HWA. Representative samples of the excavated soils were examined, logged,
and placed in plastic bags for further examination and laboratory testing.
Geotechnical borings BH-1 through BH-5 were completed between March 22 and 23,2001,
by Gregory Drilling of Redmond, Washington,under subcontract to HWA,using a CME 850
track-mounted drill rig. The borings were advanced using 4'/4-inch diameter, continuous
flight, hollow stem augers,to depths ranging from about 45 to 51 feet below the ground
surface. At 2'/2-to 5-foot intervals within each boring,penetration test sampling was
completed using a 3-inch outside diameter split spoon sampler and a 300-pound automatic
trip hammer. During the test, a sample is obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the
soil with the hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6 inches
of penetration is recorded. The penetration resistance of the soil is calculated as the number
of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches. If a total of 50 blows is recorded
within a single 6-inch interval,the test is terminated, and the blow count is recorded as 50
blows for the number of inches of penetration. This resistance provides a measure of the
relative density of granular soils and relative consistency of cohesive soils.
On May 15, 2001, test pits TP-12 through TP-17 were excavated to further explore subsoil
conditions in the building and westerly infiltration pond area. TP-12 through TP-17 were
also excavated by Mark Harlow Construction,under subcontract to HWA, using a Cat
E120B track-mounted excavator.
Each of the test pits and borings was completed under the full-time observation of an HWA
geotechnical engineer. Soil samples were classified in the field and representative portions
were placed in plastic bags and returned to our Lynnwood, Washington laboratory for further
examination and testing. Pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy,
soil engineering characteristics, and ground water occurrence was recorded. The
stratigraphic contacts shown on the exploration logs represent the approximate boundaries
r
between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. The soil and ground water
conditions depicted are only for the specific dates and locations reported, and therefore, are
not necessarily representative of other locations and times.
PILOT INFILTRATION TESTING
HWA completed a single pilot infiltration test(PIT) in the proposed easterly infiltration area
in general accordance with Draft Ecology guidelines (Ecology, 2000). The test was
conducted in test pit TP-6 as shown on Figure 2. The relatively large-scale test was
conducted at a depth of approximately 6 feet below the ground surface, or approximate
elevation 327 feet. The test pit was excavated with a bottom area of approximately 10 feet
by 10 feet, and the sidewalls were trimmed to about 1'/zH:1 V. A 2-inch diameter fire hose
with a flow meter and butterfly valve were attached to a nearby hydrant located in the City of
Renton maintenance facility. The free end of the hose was inserted into a 6-inch rigid pipe
and splash bucket anchored to the test pit bottom. A 6-inch pipe marked with 1-inch
increments was installed vertically in the bottom of the test pit to measure the water level.
Water was added to the test pit at a maximum flow rate of about 125 gallons per minute for
22%hours. The cumulative volume and instantaneous flow rate were recorded every 30
minutes for the duration of the test. Approximately 20,000 cubic feet of water flowed into
the pit over the 22%2 hour test. There was no accumulation of standing water in the pit
throughout the entire test.
RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE TEST SYMBOLS
COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS %F Percent Fines
Approximate Approximate AL Atterbefg Limits: PL=Plastic Limit
�ns'tyN nsisten Nbl ftt Undrained Shear
( ows ) LL=Liquid Limit
Relative Dens") Co Strength(psf) CBR California Bearing Ratio
Very Loose 0 to 4 0 - 15 Very Soft 0 to 2 -250 CN Consolidation
Loose 4 to 10 15 - 35 Soft 2 to 4 250 - 500 DO Dry Density(pcf)
Medium Dense 10 to 30 35 - 85 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 500 - 1000 DS Direct Shear
Dense 30 to 50 85 115 Stitt 8 to 15 1000 - 2000 GS Grain Size Distribution
Very Dense over 50 85 - 100 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 - 4000 K Permeability
Hard over 30 1 -4000 MD Moisture/Density Relationship(Proctor)
MR Resilient Modulus
USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
PID Photoionization Device Reading
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS pp Pocket Penetrometer
Approx.Compressive Strength(tsf)
Gravel and s GW Well-graded GRAVEL SG Specific Gravity
Clean Gravel
Coarse TC Triaxial Compression
(little or no fines)
Grained Gravelly Soils GP Poorly-graded GRAVEL TV Torvane
Soils ° Approx.Shear Strength(tsl)
More than
50%of Coarse Gravel with ° GM Silty GRAVEL UC Unconfined Compression
Fraction Retained Fines(appreciable
on No.4 Sieve amount of fines) GC Clayey GRAVEL SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS
Sand and Clean Sand SW Well-graded SAND ® 2.0"OD Split Spoon(SPT)
Sandy Soils (little or no fines) (140 lit.hammer with 30 in.drop)
More than SP Poorly-graded SAND T
50%Retained 1 Shelby Tube
50%or More
on No. Sand with SM Silty SAND
of Coarse � 3-1/4"OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings
200 Sieve Fraction Passing Fines(appreciable
Size No.4 Sieve amount of fines) SC Clayey SAND O Small Bag Sample
Fine Sift Liquid Limit ML SILT Large Bag(Bulk)Sample
Grained and CL Lean CLAY
Less than 50% Core Run
Soils Clay _
CL Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Non-standard Penetration Test
(3.0"OD split spoon)
MH Elastic SILT
50%or More Silt Liquid Limit
Passing and 50%or More CH Fat CLAY GROUNDWATER:SYMBOLS
No.200 Sieve Clay Q Groundwater Level(measured at
Size OH Organic SILT/Organic CLAY
time of drilling)
Jr Highly Organic Soils — PT pggT I Groundwater Level(measured in well or
r open hole after water level stabilized)
COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT PROPORTIONS
COMPONENT SIZE RANGE PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS
Boulders Larger than 12 in
<5% Clean
Cobbles 3 in to 12 in
Gravel 3 in to No 4(4.5mm)
5-12% Slightly(Clayey,Silty,Sandy)
Coarse gravel 3 in to 314 in
Fine gravel 3/4 in to No 4(4.5mm)
12-30% Clayey,Silty,Sandy,Gravelly
Sand No.4(4.5 mm)to No.200(0.074 mm)
Coarse sand No.4(4.5 mm)to No.10(2.0 mm)
Medium sand No.10(2.0 mm)to No.40(0.42 mm) 30-50% Very(Clayey,Silty,Sandy,Gravelly)
Fine sand No.40(0.42 mm)to No.200(0.074 mm)
Sift and Clay Smaller than No.200(0.074mm) Components are arranged in order of increasing quantities.
NOTES. Soil classifications presented on exploration logs are based on visual and laboratory observation.
Soil descriptions are presented in the following general order. MOISTURE CONTENT
Densitykonsistency,color,modifier(if any)GROUP NAME,additions to group name(if any),moisture DRY Absence of moisture,dusty,
content. Proportion,gradation,and angularity of constituents,additional comments. dry to the touch.
(GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION) MOIST Damp but no visible water.
WET Visible free water,usually
Please refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration logs for a more
soil is below water Cable.
complete description of subsurface conditions.
�}� KING COUNTY LEGEND OF TERMS AND
ff ���1 REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND SYMBOLS USED ON
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER EXPLORATION LOGS
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-1
LEGEND 99075A.GPJ 6118/01
DRu-LING COMPANY: Gregory Drilling Inc. LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2
DRILLING METHOD: CME 850 DATE STARTED: 322/2001
SAMPLING METHOD: 3'Split Spoon w/3008 Hammer DATE COMPLETED: 322f2001
SURFACE ELEVATION: 335 t feet LOGGED BY: BKH
LLr
to w Non-Standard Penetration Resistance
g j y < (300 lb.weight,30'drop)
@ Z a UJ I— 9 ♦ Blows per foot
rn w Z
0-
Lu
o c i DESCRIPTN to (A a O p
IO
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 SM Loose,dark brown,silty,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to ....._............i-._•._i......•i...... -i -.j.......
0
coarse SAND,moist. Abundant organics/roots. i
(TEST PIT BACKFILLl......... i......{......7.....;.......i............
S
Loose,reddish brown.fine to coarse gravelly,very silty,fine ......:.........._.......i••••••i..•....i.•...........i......i•......
5to medium SAND,most. Abundantorganics/roots.
i i / t .».
S2A 14)-1 �.�......;.... ...._�..... ....................... ...... 5
�. : .......................................................................................................
• • SW Very loose.yellow brown.fine to coarse gravelly,fine to ®S-2B "; j -•i•-••••i•••••i••:••i•• ••i••••••i•• ••i•••:.
. .
SW '.coarse SAND moist.
S-3 0-" .
SM Very loose,brown.fine to coarse gravelly,slightly silty t0 ;.._....j_._.._j-----..i......i.......i......i.......j......i.......
10 silty.fine to coarse SANG,moist. & ; 10
S-4 0-0-1
'. ..............................................
GP Medium dense,olive brown.very fine to coarse sandy,fine S 5 5 8-11 GS .� .......'...�...•.. .....•. ............
. .
° to coarse GRAVEL.moist.
,. ..............f..............r......�......r............................
15 GP ECESSIONAL OUTWAS ........i............ i...... .....•i- ......
° .........................1R................_.. .Nl..... ----------- ' S-6 12-25-22 GS 15
Medium dense,dark olive brown,sandy,fine to coarse i..... ......i............ ............i......._.._.i...._
o GRAVEL.moist. Cobbles present.Fine to coarse sand. .............{.._....I.......------------I.......;------;.......
00 Note:Blow count for sample S-6 is inflated due to fractured Z S-7 5-10.9 GS �•i i .�i
coarse gravels and cobbles in sampler. . .................................. ..•--• .... •---•--••--
20 ML Becomes dark ra ish brown. Cobbles resent. ......i•••••••i♦-•i•-•••••i••••••i•••••-:iL-••i-------j......i------- 20
Very stiff to hard,brown to dark gray,slightly fine sandy, z S 8 8-12-19
SILT,moist. Silt is laminated. Silt transitions from brown to i•••••-i•-••••e............ ••••-
dark gray at 19.5 feet. ......i.......i......i......i......i.......i......
i.......i......i._._..
(GLACIAL DRIFT/TILL] r............i..............r..................... ..
25 ............ ..� ..... ......r.� ...;...... 25
S-9 6 11-17 %F
......:...... ......S•..... .........�......�.......-......
30 .. Q ....... ..... ......:..... ...... A.. —30
SM Very dense.brovun,silty fine SAND,wet. 5-10 8 18 29 9oF ......i--.....j------i-......i.._...i.......j......i•......i......i....--
Note:Heaving sands encountered at 30 feet. _ ._ ..
i i i i j j i
.. ....................................................................................................... ;
35 c......?..... ...... .>. 35
rd dark ra sli ht fine san lean C Y moist 11A 50/6 AL '« .-.-.
GW Very dense,yellow brown to dive brown,fine to coarse j" '
•' sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL,wet. Cobbles present. -11 e ............... ..j.....;...
Tracesilt. ... ............ ..... ...... ..... ....... .... ...... ......
(ADVANCE OUTWASH) {-------j------i-------i......i--.....j......
i....._.�._..__5.....
40 • ._._......i -L.....5
- -> 40
Z S-12 27-50/3' j i j j j
......:.......i......;----......... .............�------
�!.............i-------i------?-------i------ 45
5-13 20 42-50/4'
•' ......i.................... .......-•------ -
.............•:-.....L......i....................:....__S_._.'_�____..
I
50 ... ._...I......i.......t......1.......i------i...----t--____{-_>- 50
•L E S-14 22-50/6' : :..... ......:.......
Total depth=51 feet. _i.......i......i.. j......i- j - i......i. i-
Groundwater encountered at 30 feet. ........ ° ....i. i...._i-
55 55
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Content(%)
Plastic Limit —l—{ Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY BORING'.
1
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND BH- 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 of 1
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-2
BORING 99075A.GPJ 6116/Ol
DRILLING COMPANY: Gregory Drilling Inc. LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2
DRILLING METHOD: CME 9W DATE STARTED: 3r22/2001
SAMPLING METHOD: 3'Split Spoon w/3000 Hammer DATE COMPLETED: 3/22/2001
SURFACE ELEVATION: 343 * feet LOGGED BY: BKH
rn Of w
U ir Nonstandard Penetration Resistance
w m e F
U d j L COQ (300 lb.weight,30'drop)
J Z to H ♦ Blows per foot
Zco W_ M O ~
a
p y M DESCRIPTION to a 8 O Qf p
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0
GW Medium dense,brown,sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL. ......i.......i......i...... ......i-.....:.
moist. Cobbles present.Fine to coarse sand.Gravels and ........ ...............i...............
8 8
cobbles are rounded. S-1 4 -"Ai.............i.--•- -----•+-------
[RECESSIONAL OUTWASH] + i..............> + ....i...........
5— .' Organics/roots noted to approximately 4 feel. •---- ;-A.. ............ .....................••... 5
S-2 8-6-9
- 5...... .. ......................... .
10 : S-3 4 8 12 ♦ ...... ......i _-....:. .................. ......-- - 10
............ .............i = - .......
--------------
15 . S 4 4 14 19 i..... .......i•..... ...-...............A----••- ...... 15
......•...... ..................... ............•.....
� i
....................... .. ..
20 • ............................1.......�------ ------.------- 20
Sample S-5 slightly silly. S-5 18 33 34 . . ..... ......
�' Note: Fractured cobbles in sample S-5 produce artificially ......i...... ......i----------------------................
high blow Count. ......
•
25 .' S-6 7-13-17 •....- ? ? -.Ak.:..;_..'. -- ? 25
-4......i.......i------i.......i......i.......:......:.......
30 : Becomes wet. S-7 45 6 =� ...? 30
..............:....................................................
: ...
GW Medium dense,brown,slightly silly to silly,sandy,fine to --,-----..i......:.......i---•--;---•-•-;---•-----....;..--••,-•-----
GM coarse GRAVEL,wet.Fine to medium sand.
35 .. S 8A 8 10 13 - S_..... �................................ - 35
SP Medium dense,brown,slightly silty to silty,fine to medium S$B %F - ' -i
SM SAND,wet.
......+------ --------------------�------....
Note:Heaving sands encountered. <-•----•i------t-------i-•--•-i-------i------;--•-•--i--•---i--••-••
40 -- --- - ------.> 40
Very stiff,tan,slightly fine sandy SILT,moist. Sift is S-9A 9-15-40 i
SM `•,laminated. i S-9B i -i + i + i j i <
GLACIAL DRIFTlTILL
Very dense,brown,silly fine SAND,moist. ... ------------- -------------
45 ....................------...------...............................................------...... ......i,--♦ ......i,.......-------------t ---•---......<,---> 45
ML Hard,olive brown,gravelly,fine to coarse sandy SILT, S-10 18-33-23
moist.Fine to coarse gravel.
GW Very dense,yellow brown,slightly silty,sandy,fine to ' ......i-......i......:---..
' ....-•.. ------•-
50 coarse GRAVEL,wet.Fine to coarse sand. 4. '
ADVANCE OUTWASH �S-11 26 50/3'
Total depth=50.8 feet.
Groundwater encountered at 30 feet. ..............................----- - -
55
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Content(%)
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other limes and/or locations.
KING COUNTY BORING:
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND BH- 2
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 of 1
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-3
BORING 9W75&GPJ 6118/01
DRILLING COMPANY: Gregory Drilling Inc. LOCATION: See Site Plan.Figure 2
DRILLING METHOD: CME 850 DATE STARTED: 3/22/2001
SAMPLING METHOD: 3"Split Spoon w/3000 Hammer DATE COMPLETED: 3/23/2001
SURFACE ELEVATION: 338 3 feel LOGGED BY: BKH
w
� Uz<
rn Non-Standard Penetration Resistance
D r y < (300 lb.weight,30"drop)
J Z to tt--. ♦ Blows per foot
2
_ to 0- 0-g w :3 I=
It W
p to D DESCRIPTION U) N d 8 O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 O
0 MGW
Loose,dark broom,silty,sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL, ...... ......i.......i-.....L......i-•••.•i._.....y._.... ._.... 0
moist. Cobbles present.Fine to coarse sand.Abundant
....................._..............._............. ..............•---
organics/roots. ......i...... ...... ..... i...... ......:......._..............
ECESSIONAL OUTWAS i.......i...... ......i.............i-------..... .....
.. I!? ..... Hl.------....
5 ' Medium dense,olive brown to yellow brown,slightly silty to •........ ......:........... ..... ...... ..... .. 5
S-1 15 10 9
• clean,sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL,moist.Fine to coarse i-••••••i••••••i-......i--•-•-i-•--•••i------i-•••••-i••••••i--•-•
sand.Broken cobbles in samples S-1 and S-2 produce -•••••S•.... ......4.......................... .....:.....
•' inflated blow counts. ......i.............'-............ ......e....
10 ..... ............ ...... ..... ...... 10
S-2 7-13 14 }...... ......i.......:------:.............................._......
.
.. - --------------:.............i......i.......
-..... ....... ......... .... ..... ............. ....• ----"15 ...-•.............�.......i......I-......i.............. 15
GM Medium dense,yellow brown,silty,sandy,fine to coarse S-3 6-11-12 «......:......«............«....:._....;............«......
° GRAVEL,moist. Fine to coarse sand.Occasional cobbles :.......:......:......:......:......:......�.......;......�.......
present.
20 ° �..i......i.....�.....-i......i.......i------i......i......i....... 20
S 4 3-6-9
.. .. ..
.................
i_......�......j_......i......h......(......i.......i......4.......
° Q .. .. .. .. ..
Becomes wet. .�.....:..... ............i......1......i.....t. ..t
25 �.:......:...... 25
®S-SA 6-15 22 ... .....................r..... .... ......
ML Hard,yellow brown to olive gray,gravelly,sandy SILT,moist S-5B _
to wet.Fine to coarse sand. ......i....t...........i.......i.....i......}...... .._..
[GLACIAL DRIFT/TILLj i...... ...... .....:......L•........... ...._.......�_
Oxidation stains noted in sample S-6. OS-6 21-WS- i.......i......i.......i...... ..._..i•,....f......1......t.._.._
SM Very dense,dive grail,grayly,silty,fine to coarse SAND. .......«' _.�......:......T.....
wet.Fine to coarse gravel. ......_... >
35 �......«__... «..... ...._.:.. �e
"VANCE OUTWASHj z s-7 18 zg-W • i..............................
`• `. ------<------•------+-...--------4-------i......i••••-••.I------<.......
40— ...............................................................
s s 1s 3a '- - •------- 40
_...
SM Very dense,olive gray.silty,fine to medium SAND,wet. S
Note:Heaving sands encountered at approximately 40 feet. ;............................r.... .
------- _......:..........__.;...... ..............
GM Very dense,olive gray,silty,sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL. -_---_;-
45— ° wet. Two lenses of clean fine to coarse sand, S-9 22-50/5"
.gpproxi ately 2-inches thick eachx in.sampie_S-9..._•..__......••... _...._ ...................
GW Very dense,olive gray,sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL,wet. ----..r..... ......:....._.-....;..._...I......;.....-E......:.......
Fine to coarse sand. .. .i...... ..... ..... ......i....................
♦ m .............-------i------i-------i------j................>4-50
S-10 50/5"
Total depth=50.4 feet. ..................... ................._.... ..
Groundwater encountered at 24 feet. ......e__..-.-i------i.............i.......i......{.......r......
i.-•--.•
----- --------------..............................................
55
0 20 40 60 s0 100
Water Content(%)
Plastic Limit 0---0 Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY BORING:
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND BH- 3
HWAGEOSaENCES INC EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 of 1
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-4
BORING 99075A.GPJ 6/18/01
D41LLING COWANY: Gregory Drilling Inc. LOCATION: See She Plan,Figure 2
DRILLING METHOD: CME 850 DATE STARTED: 312312001
SAMPLING METHOD: 3"Split Spoon w/3001t Hammer DATE COMPLETED: 3/23/2001
SURFACE ELEVATION: 338 t feet LOGGED BY: BKH
� � w
W y w
Nonstandard Penetration Resistance
J D t N < (300 lb.weight,30"drop)
UJ
b Z ♦ Blows per foot
W w "j z
w F
_ a
p rj DESCRIPTION c- O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 G
0 GM Loose,dark brown,silty,sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL, i i . '• ` °
° moist. Cobbles present.Fine to coarse sand.Abundant ` ` i
organics/roots. ._ :......:.......:.....{_._..;......._..........j.......
;...
••'•• SW ILL ..._..r._.._.i.............i.._...i-.....:-........... ......i.......
5 Medium dense,brown,gravelly,fine to coarse SAND, ..&L..... ........A. 5
moist.Fine to coarse gravel. S 1 5-7 10 :.......:......:.......:......:.......:......:.......:......:.......
---
[RECESSIONAL OUTWASIil.........................:. ......c......:....................i..............5.............<.......
GM
Loose,tan,silty.sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL,moist.
Fine .:.... ..... ......: .
.:...... ...... .....
to coarse sand. ...... M .._.... . . .
.o
10—
----------------................._......... -- ®S 2A 2-3-2
MIL Son to medium stiff,tan,fine sandy SILT,moist. S-2B •
GW '•,Organics/rootspresent:............... i
• GM Medium dense,light olive brown,slightly silty,sandy,fine to ..............................i i
15 coarse GRAVEL,moist.Fine to coarse sand.Oxidation --j--.-�.....i.......i...-. -----••--........ -____ .._.. 15
stains noted in sample S-3. S-3 2-5-5
i _
.. ..
20 • .j.......i..._..r... ......).............j....._.�------?-•-•
S-4A 2-6-11
20
--'....................................................................... .. _
SM Medium dense,olive brown,gravelly,silty,fine to coarse S-48 %F ..._.................. ........... ...........
SM .SAND,moist,Fine tp coarse•greyel:...... .... ....... ....j.......I......�.......;......;... i j......
....................
Medium dense,olive brown,gravelly,silty,fine to medium .......------E.-----i.---. -_------.
25 SAND,moist.Fine to coarse gravel. A 14nch clean,coarse S� 6 8 12 .... ... .....` 'k L •' _ 25
sand lens in sample S•5.
30 SM Very dense,olive gray,gravelly,silty,fine to medium SAND, ...»._.._:......�........... ...........:...... ..•--- ..... �
moist.Fine to coarse gravel. Z S-6 1 t1 50/5" %F
[GLACIAL DRIFTiTILL] i.............?«...._......L.._._.......r.........................
------------- .......:......y......1------;.......r....._j.......
S-7 50/5"
.'.• .............:.------i......;.......i......;.......;..........._..
. .
..
SM Very dense,olive gray,silty,fine to medium SAND,wet.
40 .. �..... ....- �......---.--5----- ---»> 40
S 6 1532 39 i i
ML Hard,blue gray,slightly gravely,fine sandy SILT,moist. Un S-9 50/4"
Total depth=45.3 feet. ......i.............r...._ ---- ------ -------------
Groundwater encountered at 38.5 feet. ...........................................i-----------i----
50 ......1.......I......r...._}...... ......?......;.......t......----- 50
_._...i.......�......�.......1.._...t...----i......i.... .............
-
55 55
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Content(q)
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY BORING:
1
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND BH- 4
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 of 1
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-5
BORING 9W75A.GPJ 6/18/01
DRILLNNG COMPANY: Gregory Drilling Inc. LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2
DRILLING METHOD: CME 850 DATE STARTED: 3/23/2001
SAMPLING METHOD: 3"Split Spoon w/3000 Hammer DATE COMPLETED: 3/23/2001
SURFACE ELEVATION: 333 2 feet LOGGED BY: BKH
w
Ld Nonstandard Penetration Resistance
v)
w
N y < (300 lb.weight,30"drop)
_ J z rn._ A A,Blows per foot
-1
= j J LU z
w a
a c`� Sd z = O =
F-
w
0 rn D DESCRIPTION rn rn a °�. O 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 0
0 - zSW Loose,dark brown,silly,gravelly,fine to coarse SAND, • • • • : : - 0
SM moist.Fine to coarse gravel.Abundant organics/roots. ....................i......:............ ......i...... ............
GW ILL? f/..i
Medium dense,brown,sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL, ......:....._;......;....._;......;......-
• moist.Fine to coarse sand.
S-2 4-5-5
Note:Fractured gravels in sample S-1 produce inflated ;-••-••i......,.......i......{.......------------•--i-----•;------
-
blow count. ... ...... ..... ......�......';•...........
GP ECESSIONAL OUTWAS �- -
.........
oGM `-•--------------------•- --•-•----------------...---•----...... .--------•--........----:• S-3 45-6 - ....;.......-----..;.....-?----•--
Medium dense,yellowish brown,slightly silty,slightly sandy, --------•-•-•;-----•-i-•--••i--•----i.............i......{.......
10 fine to coarse GRAVEL,moist.Fine to coarse sand. ------A ? ....................................._-r.---- 10
S 4 45 6 GS
. :
MI Medium stiff Ilow brown ravel san SILT moist.AAed Ye.. aa. ...iY� dY - --i-- -- ...
o GP Medium dense,yellow brown,slightly silty,sandy,fine to S-5 3-6-6 GS �.! _ ` ` _ ::
coarse GRAVEL,moist.Fine to coarse sand.Cobbles . ••i-- -• --+-- . ...............: --•-•i........
15 Q present. S 6 3 4 46 ♦ ? i -. . 9 15
Note:Fractured cobbles in sample S-6 produce inflated = - ;
blowcount,..................................... •....................i.....-i--•-•-?------..............
.................................•---' • 4 .
Medium dense,dark olive brown,very sandy,fine to coarse S-7 5-10-19 GS ::
GRAVEL,moist.Fine to coarse sand. .....................................-"'
20 • •+ i-------------i------i-------t......? 20
;•.Medium stiff,olive brown CLAY moist.--•-.............................• S 8A 4-6-3 ......:.... _ ..
i.. ..1.....
S 88 AL E
'Madium dense olive brown,fine to medium-SAND,.moist, '` """""":"'"""" """''......"'"'-''...". """'""""""......'
' •--•--------- - ---- ---- i S-8C i.......i- .i......•i + + + i +
CL Medium still,olive brown,slightly fine gravelly,slightly fine
SM sandyCLAY moist.
25 ? ...........:..... 5
Medium dense,olive gray,gravelly,very silty,fine to z S-9 10 12-13 GS
medium SAND,moist.Fine to coarse gravel.
30 ....�....------i------- _....�....�.............�...........— '.iU
�S-10 6-14-12
SM Very dense,olive gray to olive brown,gravelly,very silty,fine35— ...................:_....;......;.....i..._..;.-....;.......
to medium SAND,moist.Fine to coarse gravel. •
[GLACIAL DRIFflTILL] �S-11 10-36-50/3" GS . """' ^_ > 35
OS-12 30-50/3" -.. ................................................ i
+ i-........... +------ -•---- ......i.......
45 (1 .... ?......!....--i-------t------? t +, > 45
IDS-13 29�l3"
Q .. .. -
SW Very dense,brownish grey,slightly gravelly,fine to coarse
SAND,wet. .. .. .-
50— [ADVANCE OUTWASH] < i i < i......i...> 50
S-14 18 36-50/3" . -
Total depth=51.3 feet. ------<------ i-----i----------------------i......
Groundwater encountered at 47 feet. = ............................ '........... ---
55 55
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Content(%)
Plastic Limit [---- Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY BORING:
90 REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND BH— 5
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 of 1
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-G
BORING 99075A.GPJ 6118/01
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See She Plan,Figure 2 .
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 12/17/99
SURFACE ELEVATION: 342 t Feet LOGGED BY: J.Schrank
c(n w
00 _ w
v w � � ~
o
cow W z Z SKETCH OF SOUTH SIDE OF PIT
~ m n� ��� O O H 00 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) CL
p LU
CC 7 DESCRIPTION r» u3 20 O 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 0
D ML Loose,brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine sandy SILT,moist. S-1 D
Abundant rootlets present. Cobbles present. i ` „--
.... .................. .•.......-----...........;.........;......
GW rTOPSOILl S-2 GS
•' Medium dense,yellowish brown,clean to slightly silty,very sandy,
fine to coarse GRAVEL,moist. Slightly layered with finer and ................... '
coarser gravel layers. Abundant cobbles present.
RECESSIONAL OUTWASH 3
3 ML t... .......................1......................
Medium stiff,brown,SILT,moist. Dark brown organics/roots O
resent S-3 i i f i i .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .....
P...........:...............................................•--................................................
SM Medium dense,yellowish brown,slightly gravelly,silty,medium to
coarse SAND,moist. Some oxidation present. ' .... ......... ----
O
S-4 GS i E
6 6
............................................................................. ..................................
ML Medium stiff,brown,SILT,moist. i i -.... .....
9
9—
Bottom of test pit at 8.5 feet.
No groundwater or seepage observed. i
12 12
15 L15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP- 1
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 or 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-7
TDI o 79ArDi ailAmi
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 12/17/99
SURFACE ELEVATION: 339 t Feet LOGGED BY: J.Schrank
g W Cn <
J d z W w Q
o o W� j it w Z SKETCH OF NORTH SIDE OF PIT
F" I�n O HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) un
ir
0 (0 D DESCRIPTION to N 20 O 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 0
SM Loose,brown,silty,fine SAND,moist. Abundant rootlets present.
SW [TOPSOIL]
Medium dense,reddish brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to S_1 - .........:..................:.........:..................:_.......;............. :- ....;.........
SM coarse SAND,moist. O ' -
SW
FILL .......................................... . .........
Medium dense,dark brown,slightly silty to silty,fine to coarse
3 gravelly,fine to coarse SAND,moist. Abundant organics/rootlets. O S 2 ` ` 3
OLD TOPSOIL
Medium dense,brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND, .............................................:.................. .......................:......... .... .... ---
GW moist. Cobbles present.
', RECESSIONAL OUTWAS .. ....
�................. .............. ......... ....................... ........ ......................-... ....
• Medium dense,gray,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL,
moist. Mostly coarse gravel present. Ravelling occurs in the
6— ' gravel. Cobbles present. 6
•
Bottom of test pit at approximately 7 feet.
.................. ...........:.........;........ ......I..... . ---- ... .......... - ---
No seepage or groundwater observed.
9 9
12 12
15 15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP- 2
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 of 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-H
TDITIS QW71d r;P.l R/PUni
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 12/17/99
SURFACE ELEVATION: 340 t Feet LOGGED BY: J.Schrank
to m WW
_
V _ N <
w O W W w Z SKETCH OF WEST SIDE OF PIT
~ m N a s O O F=- 0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) a
p v}i DESCRIPTION uai rQii 20 O O 0 3 6 9 12 15
0 0
SM Dense,brown to dark brown,silty,fine SAND,moist. Abundant
Sp rootlets present. .. .... .... .... ... .................... ...
8 S_1
Medium dense,dark yellowish brown,gravelly,medium to coarse g_2 GS _ ` __ ____ __
SAND,moist.Fine to coarse gravel.Oxidation present in small
areas. Becomes coarser with depth.
GW ! S3
3 �' (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) O 3
............................
Medium dense,gray,medium to coarse sandy,GRAVEL,moist.
Similar to gravelly sand above,except more gravel present. i........ >---
............_.......... ...,......
. Cobbles present.
..................................................... ..... . .....
6 ' Becomes more cobbly. Extensive ravelling, 6
.... E......................................... ....
...... E..................i.................. .... .... .... .... ...... ...
Bottom of test pit at 8 feet. 9
9 No seepage or groundwater observed.
12 12
15 15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP- 3
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 or 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-9
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2 y
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 12/17/99
SURFACE ELEVATION: 343 t Feet LOGGED BY: J.Schrank
W N
U j W
w J a:w Z SKETCH OF NORTH SIDE OF PIT
a co G cL O O H 0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) ua.
0 v> > DESCRIPTION v) y 20 O (9 0 3 6 9 12 15 O
ML Loose,dark brown,fine to coarse sandy SILT to silty SAND,moist. 0
SM Abundant rootlets present.
c GM OPSOIL ;. ;.......... ,........: ;..
O ....
S-1 i
Medium dense,oxidized reddish brown,slightly silty,fine to coarse
t
sandy,GRAVEL,moist. Oxidation and ravelling presen. ''
c [FILL] (� S-2 g
3 8 S-3
_....:.........:...........................---------....... >.........;.................. ....---......... .
GW Medium dense,yellowish brown,very sandy,fine to coarse
GRAVEL,moist. i i
• [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH] :.........; ..
6 ; Sand content increases. O S-4 GS 6
. - .......... ........ ............... .... .... .... ......... ... ..... ...
-- ......... .... .... -- ...
Bottom of test pit at 8 feet. 9
9 No groundwater or seepage observed.
12 12
15 15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP- 4
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: , of ,
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-1 O
TPIT15 99075A.GPJ &18J01
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2 _
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 12/17/99
SURFACE ELEVATION: 342 t Feet LOGGED BY: J.Schrank
Ui
uj
� m �
H
o W z ►W- Z SKETCH OF EAST SIDE OF PIT
~ 0° � n as O O O0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) CLt�
LLip vri DESCRIPTION vai 20 O 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 O
SM Loose,dark brown,silty,fine SAND,moist. 0
SM OPSOIL O S-1 ` - ------
Loose to medium dense,reddish brown,silty,fine to coarse l
Gay gravelly,fine to coarse SAND,moist. Black organics,including O S-2
•' wood ;....-... _..
fragments,present.
•
ILL
3 Medium dense,yellow brown,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse O 3
' S-3
GRAVEL,moist. Cobbles present. Ravelling present. E i
• (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH] ..... ....................
6 : 6
•' ................... ......... ......... ................. .... .... ... ...- .... .... ....
i E E i
' ...................
...........................
9 9
•' .... .................. ..... E...................-.. - -
E ! i
Bottom of test pit at 11 feet.
12 No groundwater or seepage observed. 12
15 15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP- 5
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 of i
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-1
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cal E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 12/17199
SURFACE ELEVATION: 333 t Feet LOGGED BY: J.Schrank
uj
g w F <
U
w o W W Ir z ►F-- Z SKETCH OF NORTH SIDE OF PIT
m ej( O 0 = 0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) CL
p 0)) 7 DESCRIPTION 2 U O O 0 3 6 9 12 15
SM Loose,brown,silty,fine SAND,moist. Abundant rootlets present. D
GW OPSOIL 0 S-1 ... —>
Medium dense,brown,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse
SM GRAVEL,moist. .... ... ... -- ... ... ....
jFILL]
:................ ---...................... ...............................
Medium oxidized reddish brown,fine gravelly,silty,fine to O S-2
3 nd present. Oxidation is 3
medium SAND,moist. Some coarse sa
more extensive on northern side(to 6.5 feet)of test pit than on
southern side(oxidation only to 3.5 feet). Roots present. .............................................L
GP Medium dense,yellowish brown,very sandy,fine to coarse g
fi o GRAVEL,moist.Fine to coarse sand.Some oxidation present. O S-3 GS
o Some cobble layers present. i .,.
O (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH] ........ ..................i.........;................ e
° .......................................... .........•--........... .... .... ... ... ......... .... .........
9-
9
o i i i i ......... .... ....
.................. ..................c.........;..................
0
. ... .... .....
0
Q
12 o Q 12
o i i i i .... .... .... ....
Bottom of test pit at 13 feet. i
..............................................I........-;......
No groundwater or seepage observed.
Very little ravelling present. The walls stand almost vertically.
15 15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP- 6
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: , or ,
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-1 2
7DiT1t oQn7rA rP.I A11M1
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 12/17/99
SURFACE ELEVATION: 338 t Feet LOGGED BY: J.Schrank
ui
_ w
U w ~ Q
J W Z z o SKETCH OF NORTH SIDE OF PIT
to~ m zi
J O O W O� HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) d
p }) D DESCRIPTION tan va
Lu
v i 20 O O 0 3 6 9 12 15
D 0
SM Loose,reddish brown,silty,gravelly,medium SAND,moist.
[FILL] i .... ... ................... .... --- ---- ...
GP Loose to medium dense,yellowish brown,very sandy,fine to i
° coarse GRAVEL,moist. Cobbles present. Ravelling present. i i i E i
.............. .... ....
o [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH] O S-1 GS
3 Q 3
o ...
... ...................................... ..................................•---..........................-.... ,.. ;..... ... ..,..................;..... ,.....-........ ,.-
GP Loose to medium dense,gray,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse
° GRAVEL,moist. .--
0
Q 6
6 °(� S'2
o i ...
° ................. .................. - ...... ... .... ......... .... .... ....
0
9
9 Bottom of test pit at 8.5 feet.
No groundwater or seepage observed. i
Test pit located in the side of existing cut bank. '
12 12
115
15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP- 7
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 or 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-1 3
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 12/17/99
SURFACE ELEVATION: 340 t Feet LOGGED BY: J.Schrank
w
W to
o LU w z o SKETCH OF WEST SIDE OF PIT
`W i' a FZ w 'Z'
�a co U O O� HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) a
o (D =) DESCRIPTION rn 20 O O 0 3 6 9 12 15
0 0
GW Medium dense,dark brown to reddish brown,silty,fine to coarse
' GM gravelly,fine SAND,moist. Organics,Including rootlets and black S-1
GW wood fragments,present. Cobbles present. 8 S-2 :.. .............. ..................; .......;..... .......
•' FILL
Medium dense,brown,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse ;
.... ..
•
GRAVEL,moist. Cobbles present.
3— (RECESSIONAL OUTWASHI 3
.. ...................................................................................................... i
SW Medium dense,gray,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND,
.... .... .... .... .... ..... ... .... ....
moist.
. . .........:...............• ......---•--................... ......
.....................................................................I-------- .............................
GW Medium dense,gray,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL, E
. i f
.........:.... .............................................i
moist. Cobbles present.
6 6
•, ------------------------------------------------_............................------......----................... --.......i........ .......................... ................. ....----i....-------...... ...................._...-..........i.........
ML Medium stiff,brown,SILT,moist. Organics/roots present. O S-3
Laminations present.
- ....................... :...-....:..................:................................... ................... . ................
GW Medium dense,gray,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL,
' moist. Cobbles present.
g 1 9
•
i
Bottom of test pit at 11 feet.
12 No groundwater or seepage present. 12
15 15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP- 8
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 of 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-1 4
TPIT15 99075A.GPJ 6/1=1
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See She Plan,Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 12120199
SURFACE ELEVATION: 337 f Feet LOGGED BY: J.Schrank
w w
0 W w z ~ o SKETCH OF WEST SIDE OF PIT
S O 0 -.1 -.1F W jr Z 2
a U D d a Z H 0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) W
o h � DESCRIPTION udi y 20 O 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 0
SM Loose,brown,silty,fine to coarse SAND,moist.Organics,
including roots,rootlets and black organic matter,present. i
sw
OPSOIL .............. .......i.-.... .... ..... ... -- .....1
0 Medium dense,gray,fine to coarse gravelly,floe to coarse SAND, S_1
moist. Some oxidation and rootlets present. Some gravel layers ""' ""
interbedded. Occasional cobbles present.
g (RECESSIONAL OUTWASHI 3
;...-...... ....................................................................... ..........................................
SW Medium dense,gray,fine to coarse SAND,moist.
6 ti
SW Medium dense,gray,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND,
.... .... .... . .... ....
moist. Cobbles present.
Bottom of test pit at 8 feet.
g No groundwater or seepage present. 9
12 12
15 15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP- 9
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 of 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-1 5
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 12/20/99
SURFACE ELEVATION: 327 t Feet LOGGED BY: J.Schrank
to w �
inw rn
U W j h Q
a o ui J W Z SKETCH OF WEST SIDE OF PIT =
CL U 2 2 0 0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feel) a
Ld
a w D DESCRIPTION vai ai 2 U O O 0 3 6 9 12 15
O SM Loose,brown,slightly silty,gravelly,fine to coarse SAND. Some
embedded gravel in the silt. Roots and rootlets present. E
GW OPSOIL S 1 ?..................:...........................
,........................_L...................... - ........
.' Medium dense,gray,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL,
•
"'"'"".........""""""'" ........."""'moist. Subrounded to rounded gravel,abundant cobbles. Some
ravelling. Some interbedded coarse sand layers. Roots extend
3 about 4 feet. 3
[RECESSIONAL OUTWASHI
i
SW Medium dense,gray,gravelly to very gravelly,medium to coarse
•;.;. SAND,moist.
6 6
Bottom of test pit at 8 feet.
9 No seepage or groundwater present. 9
12 12
15 15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
ULWA REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP-10
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 of 1
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-1 6
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See She Plan,Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 12120199
SURFACE ELEVATION: 346 t Feet LOGGED BY: J.Schrank
U) m _ w
U } Z h Q
J F- W� � o SKETCH OF WEST SIDE OF PIT
0 O J J H W W Z
00 0 d (gL O ZO O0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) a
o N � DESCRIPTION W N 2 L) O a 0 3 6 9 12 1s
C O
SM Medium dense,brown,fine to coarse gravelly,silty,fine SAND,
moist. Roots and rootlets present. O S-1 ' ......... ......... .......;..
GW Medium dense,reddish brown,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse ......... .... .... ..... ......... ..... -- .... ....
GRAVEL,moist. Cobbles present. Oxidation stains present.
GW (RECESSIONAL OUTWA3 .... .........................
3 .' Medium dense,gray,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL, O S-2 3
moist.
................................... ................................................................ ;... :..........
GW Medium dense,gray,fine to corase sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL,
moist. Abundant cobbles present. i
6 .' 6
.......................... ......................... .- ------ ----- .... .. --
'' ..................E........................... ...................-- ----. .-.. .... .... ---- .... -....
Bottom of test pit at 8 feel. 9
9 No groundwater or seepage observed.
12 12
15 15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative or other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP-11
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 or 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-1 7
TOrr1S 0(X17-;A r:PA N1Nn1
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See She Plan,Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 5/15/01
SURFACE ELEVATION: 339 t Feet LOGGED BY: E.Andersen
vi w w
U a j N <
t o w �Z ►W- o SKETCH OF EAST SIDE OF PIT
N i J W Z
a U a. as Z = HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet)
O U)) D DESCRIPTION v¢i cn 20 O 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 0
SM Loose,mottled reddish brown,sightly sit 0
g y silty,gravelly,medium SAND,
with organics,roots,and charcoal fragments,moist. i i
:.........:........ ......... .... ... ....
[FILL] O S-1 ;
............... .... .... .... ..... .... ......... ........
GP Loose to medium dense,gray,clean,sandy GRAVEL,moist.
3 ° Trace old roots from 24-30". Horizontal stratification noted. O S-2 3
Q [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]
0
Qi i i i ........ .... .... --- .... ................ "- ---
6 6
..... .. ......
0
Oi i .... ..... .... .... ..... .... ... . .... ---------
9— 0� 9
:.........:............... ........................................... .... ..... .... ....
Total depth=9 feet.
No ground water encountered during excavation.
Significant sloughing below 5 feet. - ' '
12 12
15 115
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specked location and on the date Indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
ULTA I KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP-12
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 or 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-1 8
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 5/15/01
SURFACE ELEVATION: 339 t Feet LOGGED BY: E.Andersen
N w
J o w W z o SKETCH OF SOUTHEAST SIDE OF PIT
W W Z 2
a U a.
z H 0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) a
ir
0 D DESCRIPTION h N 20 O 0 0 3 6 9 12 1s
ML Soft,very dark brown,very sandy,organic SILT,moist.
SM [TOPSOIL]
Loose,mottled reddish brown to grayish brown,slightly silty to silty,
fine to medium SAND,with roots,organics,moist.
[FILL) - .............i-......-....- ...i.... .............. ...- .... ... ... —. ....
Old charcoal laver about 2-1/2 feet below north end of pit,
3 ° GP Medium dense,gray,clean,gravelly SAND to sandy GRAVEL, 3
moist.
p (RECESSIONAL OUTWASHj '
Q —.
o Q
Q
6— ° Live tree roots at 6 feet. S 1 ti
p
° .........:.........:.........
......... -.... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .....
O
Q
9 9
....... ----...... ......... .................................. ... ..... -- -- ..... ....
Total depth=9 feet.
No ground water encountered during excavation.
Significant sloughing below 5 feet. ...................:...................... .:..................:.........:......... .. --- ....... ... ....
12 12
15 15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP-13
HWAOr GEOSCIENCES INC EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 of 1
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-19
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 5/15/01
SURFACE ELEVATION: 339 t Feet LOGGED BY: E.Andersen
`n uj U a W
y Q
o W J W 3: SKETCH OF NORTH SIDE OF PIT
a 1 U 2 0 a. 0 0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) a
p Lo D DESCRIPTION in uai 2 U O 0 0 3 6 9 12 15
SP Dense to medium dense,brown,clean to slightly silty,gravelly 0
SAND,moist. i i
(FILL] }.........:.................................................. .... ..... .... .... ................... •
............................................................ .
SP Medium dense,mottled reddish brown,slightly silty,medium O S-1 i .... ......... .... .... ..... ... .... ..................
;
SM SAND,with roots and organics.
3
3 SP Medium dense,brownish gray to gray,medium to coarse SAND,
moist. 0 S-2 ' -
[RECESSIONAL OUTWASH] - :.........: ........ ...: ........
li Live tree roots at 6 feet. S-3 6
................................ --- .......... O
Q GP Medium dense,gray,sandy GRAVEL,with occasional cobbles, E i ......... .... ..... .... .... .....
moist.
o ...........................L.. ..... .... .................... ....
9
o
O
..................... ....................................
Discontinuous pocket of medium stiff,mottled reddish brown and S4
o Q GP °,gpy,._gravelly SILT,with live rootlets,moist O >
...............
Medium dense to dense,gray,sandy GRAVEL,moist. Occasional
12 Q cobbles. 12
.. .... .... .... .... .... .... .....
o
..................;...........................;......... -- ........... ....
Total depth=13 feet.
No ground water encountered during excavation.
15 15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP-14
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 of 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-20
TPIT15 9W75A.GPJ 6/18/01
L
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 5/15/01
SURFACE ELEVATION: 328 t Feet LOGGED BY: E.Andersen
W w Ir
� w (a � F Q
o W z ~ Z SKETCH OF WEST SIDE OF PIT =
(_'- m rn a Z 2 O HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) w
O co D DESCRIPTION y y 2 U O �U' 0 3 6 9 12 15 0
D 0
SM Medium dense,dark brown to reddish brown,silty,gravelly,fine to
medium SAND,with roots,organics,and some charcoal fragments. i
Glass bottle at about 6 inches. :........-;............................ ' L.......... -
[FILL]
3 3
GP Medium dense,gray,clean,sandy GRAVEL,moist. Ocassional 6-
o3cto 8-inch cobbles. ..................:.."""-..................:.......................-...-----------------........ ----- ------------.... ....-
p [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]
Q .................................. i.................-................. ... -" .... .... ....
6 p 6
Q
o ..................r"...................................'.-............------ -•-- -... -•-• ---- ..'. ....
p i i i
Q ...........................'--................................................... .... .... -"' ......... .... .....9-Total depth=8 feet. 9
Significant caving/sloughing below 6 feet.
..................:.........:....... ........:....... .... ..... .....
No ground water encountered during excavation.
12 12
15 15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP-15
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 or 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-21
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 5115101
SURFACE ELEVATION: 320 t Feet LOGGED BY: E.Andersen
uj in to w w
Z uj ~
J ui o SKETCH OF NORTH SIDE OF PIT
= O ltl Z 2
IL U 1z0— HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) a
0 co DESCRIPTION y h U O 0 0 3 6 9 12 15
0 ML Soft,very dark brown,very sandy,organic SILT,moist,with grass 0
GP roots. i i OPSOIL i .... .... ---- .. .... •--- -
0
:• - .....- :.......... i.....
Medium dense to dense,gray,clean,sandy GRAVEL,moist.
QOccasional to numerous cobbles. Gravel and cobbles are " '" '''"'""""`"'""""""" '""" ""'""'""""' ""'""" '" "'"" "'"
subrounded to rounded.
3 ° [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH] 3
o
0
6
D
Q
....................................................................................... .... .... .... ....... ...................
0
ii i i .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
9 0 9
..-------i.........:................•-:-.......y.................................... ..... .... ......... .... ..-. .....
Total depth=9 feet.
No ground water encountered during excavation.
......... ...
Test pit sidewalls caved in at a depth of about 7 feet. E . i E-••--
12 12
15 15
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP-16
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 of 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-22
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Mark Harlow Construction LOCATION: See Site Plan,Figure 2
EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Cat E120B Track Mounted Excavator DATE COMPLETED: 5/15/01
SURFACE ELEVATION: 340 t Feet LOGGED BY: E.Andersen
g m W
W
W N �
o ? Of Z ►W- Z SKETCH OF SOUTH SIDE OF PIT
a U n a Z = O HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet)
O cn DESCRIPTION uai 0 2 U O 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 L�
0 0
ML Soft,very dark brown,very sandy,organic SILT,moist.
[TOPSOIL) i i i '
SM Loose,mottled reddish brown,slightly silty to silty,slightly gravelly,
fine to medium SAND,moist. Roots extend to about 24 inches. O S-1 .... ---- --- ---- ---
......---i-------- .........i.........:.......--•-- ..
[WEATHERED RECESSIONAL OUTWASHI
3 SP Loose,gray,clean,slightly gravelly,medium SAND,moist................... 3
ML Discontinuous zone of mottled reddish brown and gray,SILT with Q(� S-2
GP rootlets moist. u S-3 ! ! ---- ---- ----.
........:.........:....................
U Q Medium dense to dense,gray,sandy GRAVEL,moist. i i '•
o [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]
6
6 o Contains cobbles below 6 feet.
.... .... ... ...................
a Q One 12-inch boulder at about 8 feet.
o ... ... ... -- .... ....
Q
9 9
Total depth=10 feet.
No ground water encountered during excavation. 12
12 Minor test pit sloughing below 6 feet.
1
15 5
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
KING COUNTY LOG OF TEST PIT
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TP-17
EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER PAGE: 1 of 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: A-23
TPIT15 99075A.GPJ 6/18101
r
f
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with appropriate ASTM test methods.
Selected soil samples were tested to determine moisture content and grain size distribution.
The test procedures and test results are discussed below.
Moisture Content
Laboratory tests were conducted to determine the moisture content of selected samples, in
general accordance with ASTM D 2216. Test results are indicated at the sampled intervals
on the appropriate boring logs in Appendix A.
Grain Size Distribution
Grain size distribution was determined for selected samples in general accordance with
ASTM D 422. Results of these analyses are plotted on Figures B-1 through B-7.
Atterberg Limits
Tests to determine plasticity indices, or Atterberg limits,were performed on selected
fine-grained samples in general accordance with ASTM D 423. Results of these tests are
plotted on Figure B-8.
GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
Coarse Fine Coarse I Medium Fine
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3/4"
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
90
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
80 I I I I I I I I I
2 I I I I I I I I I
70
W I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
> I I I I I I I I I I
60
m I I I I 1 I I I I I
W 50 I I I I I I I
Z I I I I I I I
LL- I I 1 I I I I
Z 40 I I I I I I I
W I I I I I I I
30
W I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
20 '4c
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
10 I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION %MC LL I PL PI %Gravel %Sand %Fines
• BH-1 S-5 12.5-14.0 (GP)Dark olive brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 5 59.8 38.3 2.0
■ BH-1 S-6 15.0-16.5 (GP)Olive gray,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 2 67.2 29.5 3.2
A BH-1 S-7 17.5-19.0 (GP)Dark grayish brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 6 78.7 18.3 3.0
KING COUNTY GRAIN SIZE
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER TEST RESULTS
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: B-1
—1--7 Qo 75A rP.l RIIANN
GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
Coarse Fine I Coarse I Medium I Fine
U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3/4"
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I i
90
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
80 I I I I I I I I I
2 I I I I I I I I I i
70
LLJ I I I I I I I I I I
> I I I I I I I I I I
60
m I I I I I I I I I I
W 50 I I I I ( I I I I
Z I I I I I I I I I I
LL I I I I I I I I
F— 40
Z I I I I I I I I I I
W I I I I I I I I
W30
W I I I I I I I I I
a I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
20
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
10 I I I I I I I I I
i I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION %MC LL I PL PI %Gravel %Sand %Fines
• BH-1 S-9 25.0-26.5 (ML)Dark gray,SILT 26 89.2
■ BH-1 S-10 30.0-31.5 (SM)Strong brown,silty SAND 29 17.3
A BH-2 S-8B 35.5-36.5 (SP-SM)Strong brown,poorly graded SAND with sift 1 26 10.9
KING COUNTY GRAIN SIZE
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER TEST RESULTS
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: B-2
GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY .
Coarse Fine Coarse medium' Fine
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3/4"
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
90
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
80 I I I ( I I I I I
S I I I I I I I I I
70
lJ.l I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I 1 I I I I
} 60
m I I I I I I I I I I
W 50 I I I I I I 1 I I
Z I I I I I I I I I
L I I I I I I I I
H 40
Z I I I I I I I I I I
W I I I I I I I I I
U
0Y 30I I I I I I
W I I I I I I
20
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
10 I I I I I I I
I I I
I I I I I UR0 I
I I I I 1 I I I
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION %MC LL PL PI %Gravel %Sand %Fines
• BH-4 S-4B 21.3-21.5 (SM)Light brown,silty SAND with gravel 11 28.9
■ BH-4 S-6 30.0-31.0 (SM)Olive gray,silty SAND with gravel 10 25.9
A BH-5 S-4 10.0-11.5 (GP-GM)Yellowish brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand 4 82.1 11.0 6.9
KING COUNTY GRAIN SIZE
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER TEST RESULTS
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: B-3
•
GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium I Fine
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3/4"
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
90
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
80 I I I I I I I I I
70
LU I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
m60
I I I I I I I I I I
IJJ 50 I I I I I I
Z I I I I I I
LL I I I I I I I I
Z 40 I I I I I I I I
w I I I I I I I I
30
11J I I I I I f I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
20 t
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
10 I I I I I I
0 I
I I I I I 1 —1
I I
I I I 1 I I I
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION %MC LL I PL PI %Gravel %Sand %Fines
• BH-5 S-5 12.5-14.0 (GP)Yellowish brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 6 71.5 23.5 4.9
■ BH-5 S-7 17.5-19.0 (GW)Dark olive brown,well graded GRAVEL with sand 4 50.9 45.7 3.5
A BH-5 S-9 25.0-26.5 (SM)Olive gray,slaty SAND 8 12.8 53.5 1 33.7
KING COUNTY GRAIN SIZE
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER TEST RESULTS
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99O7J FIGURE: B-4
GRAVEL SAND
I -
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SILT CLAY
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3/4"
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
90
I I I I I I I
so
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
= I I I I I I I I I I
70
W TI I I
I I I I I I I I I I
60 I I I I I I I I I I
lb I I I I I I I I I
W 50 I I I I I I I I I I Z
LL I I I I I I I
t— 40 I I I I I I 1 I I
Z I I I I I I I I I
W I I I I I I I I I
U 30
W I I I I I I I I
IL I I I I I I I I I
20
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1
10 I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
0 I I I I I I I I
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION %MC ILL PL PI %Gravel %Sand %Fines
• BH-5 S-11 35.0-36.3 (SM)Olive gray,silty SAND with gravel 10 18.2 47.3 34.6
■ TP-1 S-2 1.0-2.0 (GW)Yellowish brown,well graded GRAVEL with sand 55.5 43.9 0.7
A TP-1 S-4 5.0-6.0 (SM)Yellowish brown,silty sand 8.7 77.6 13.7
KING COUNTY GRAIN SIZE
Ir"T", REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER TEST RESULTS
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: B-5
HWAGRSZ 99075A.GPJ 6/18101
GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3/4"
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
90
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
80 I I I I I I I I 1
2 I I I I I I I I I
70
>LlJ I I I I I I I I I I
> I I I I I I I I I I
m60 �—
I I I I I I I I I I
W 50 I I I I I I I I
Z I I I I I I I
U-
I I I I I I I I I
Z 40 I I I I I 1 I I I
W I I I I I 1 I I I
30
LLJ I I I I I I I I I I
4. I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
20
I I I I I I I I 1 I
I I I I I I I I I
10 I I I I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I I I I
I I I 1 I I
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION %MC LL PL PI %Gravel %Sand %Fines
• TP-3 S-2 1.5-2.0 (SP)Dark yellowish brown,poorly graded SAND with gravel 19.3 79.6 1.1
■ TP-4 S-4 5.5-6.0 (GW)Yellowish brown,well graded GRAVEL with sand 75.0 23.3 1.7
♦ TP-6 S-3 6.0-6.5 (GP)Yellowish brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 50.8 1 47.5 1.7
KING COUNTY GRAIN SIZE
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER TEST RESULTS
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: B-6
.11..1.1-1 nn ._I RHFni
1
GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3/4"
3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
90 --J
I I I I I I I I I
80 I I I I I I I I I
= I I I I I I I I I I
70
0-3 I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
m60
I I I I I I I I I
W 50 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I
Z I I I I 1 I I I
� I I I I I I I I I
Z 40 I I I I I I I I
W I I I I I I t I
� 30
W I I I I I I I I i
a_ I I I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I I I
20
I I I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
10 I I I I I I I I
I I I I t I I I
I I I I I I I I
0 -1 1 1 ll
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION %MC LL I PL PI I%Gravel %Sand %Fines
• TP-7 S-1 2.0-2.5 (GP)yellowish brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 50.9 46.2 2.9
KING COUNTY GRAIN SIZE
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER TEST RESULTS
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: B-7
..,...now nnmcs not a+n,n+
6000,
CL CH
50 le
a
X 40
w
0
Z_
30
U_
I-
20
J
d
10
CL-ML ML MH
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION %MC LL PL PI %Fins
• BH-1 S-11A 35.0-35.3 (CL)Dark Gray,lean CLAY 24 27 15 12
■ BH-5 S-8C 21.0-21.5 (CL)Yellowish brown,lean CLAY 26 50 24 26
KING COUNTY
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PLASTICITY CHART
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 99075 FIGURE: B-8
WWAATTR A6075A GPJ 6I16/O7