The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWP272704(9) THE CITY OF RENTON ` DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR ` 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH ` RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 C Est 4d3��it�� !�Y i �'Fv i� ii' i •� j To: Mike Giseburt/hId k't¢' Company: R.W. Beck Phone: Fax: From: Scott Woodbury Phone: 425-277-5547 Fax: 425-235-2541 Date: 7/24/97 Pages incl this cover page: Z Subject: Geotechnical report for Olympic Pipeline Culvert Replacement Following are my comments on the geotech report and your draft letter to Hong West. Draft Hong West Report Page 3, first paragraph. Replace "Panther Creek Channel" with "SW 23rd Street Drainage Channel Deepening". Page 6, first paragraph. Please quantify what the flatter side slope must be for excavations below the water table. Page 7, last paragraph. More information is needed on the suggested location and design for the recharge wells. What is meant by significant lowering of groundwater levels? Please quantify "significant". Page 8, last paragraph of 4.5.1. It appears that the culvert with water and soil overburden may be slightly over the specified 1,000 psf bearing pressure. Does the bearing pressure really matter if the culvert (with water inside) is less weight than the soil it replaced? Couldn't the allowable bearing pressure be higher with proper foundation preparation? Draft R.W. Beck letter to Hong West Comment #1. 1 agree with your comment. Please ask Hong West to provide specific requirements on how low the water can be drawn down at the Seattle Water line and at other infrastructure of concern and for what length of time. I expect Seattle to require that we monitoring the depth of dewatering near their pipeline (see comment to page 7 above). For example, on the Springbrook Widening project between Grady Way and SW 16th Street, Hong West specified and WSDOT confirmed that dewatering was to go no lower than 20 feet below the bottom of the 1-405 box culvert. Metro also specified limits for dewatering near their 90" sewer. If no drawdown is allowed at the Seattle Water line, then are we faced with tight sheeting the excavation and/or using recharge wells? Comment #2. 1 would like Hong West to evaluate of the advantages and problems associated with using only a sump pump or even no sump pump for dewatering so that the subgrade is saturated or even underwater. With no sump the water would be about 2 feet above the invert of the box based on downstream water levels. This could be reduced to about 1 foot if the planned debris removal in the downstream channel is completed first. What recommendations would Hong West have for such a construction approach (side slopes, foundation, estimated long term settlements, etc). How much water can be removed without causing heaving of the bottom of the excavation? Avoiding the installation of point wells would save on construction time and avoid construction impact issues associated with the deeper dewatering from the use of point wells. It is interesting to note that WSDOT geotechnical engineers recommended against dewatering for installation of a new culvert across SR-167 at the head of the SW 23rd Street drainage channel because of the risk of settlement. I had previously provided Hong West with a copy of the March 4, 1997, WSDOT report. To me it seems that Hong West should compare the potential impacts of construction dewatering on adjacent roads and the 60" water line and other utilities against the potential impacts of slightly greater long term settlement of the box culvert because the box foundation was place in wet conditions. If the box were projected to settle 3" instead of 1", would that really be a serious problem compared to the risk of causing settlement to the 60" water line or Lind Avenue? Last paragraph. You can go ahead and ask for a proposal for further services from Hong West, but I don't think further assistance will be needed at this time. Thanks for your help. I look forward to Hong West responding to our request for more information. Please let me know when we can expect their response as I intend to route the 50% plans to Seattle Water, Olympic Pipeline, and others after these geotechnical issues are clarified. 4L CITY OF RENTON OLYMPIC PIPELINE CULVERT REPLACEMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS ALONG SW 23RD STREET DRAINAGE CHANNEL PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE July 11, 1997 Item Unit Quantity Unit Total Cost Cost CIVIL Mobilization (5%) LS 1 $ 12,000.00 $12,000 Construction Staking LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $5,000 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 3,000.00 $3,000 Develop Construction Area(s) LS 1 $ 2,500.00 $2,500 Temporary Erosion & Sediment Control LS 1 $ 4,000.00 $4,000 Clear& Grub Culvert Areas LS 1 $ 3,000.00 $3,000 Temporary Site Security Fencing LS 1 $ 2,000.00 $2,000 Struct. Ex/Haul @ Exist.Twin Culvert Inlet& Outlet CY 450 $ 15.00 $6,750 Remove Sediment/Debris Exist. Twin Culverts LS 1 $ 7,000.00 $7,000 Remove & Dispose Existing 18-inch Culverts LS 1 $ 2,500.00 $2,500 Structural Ex/Haul 10 ft x 4 ft Box Culvert CY 750 $ 15.00 $11,250 Precast 10 ft x 4 ft Box Culvert LF 80 $ 500.00 $40,000 Rock Foundation for Box Culvert CY 100 $ 25.00 $2,500 Structural Backfill Box Culvert CY 300 $ 30.00 $9,000 30-inch Storm Drain Pipe (incl. Struct. Ex/Back) LF 90 $ 125.00 $11_,250 60-Inch Type 3 SDMH (incl. Struct. Ex/Back) EA 1 $ 3,500.00 $3,500 Rock Culvert Inlets & Outlets TN 150 $ 40.00 $6,000 Revegetate Disturbed Areas SF 12,000 $ 1.00 $12,000 Clear Vegetation Existing Drainage Channel SF 24,000 $ 0.50 $12,000 Clear Debris/Veg. Ex. Channel @ Sprgbrook Crk. SF 2,000 $ 1.50 ;$�0D Dewatering LS 1 $ 20,000.00 $20,000 Sheeting, Shoring & Bracing LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $25,000 Coffer Dam/Temporary Bypass/Pumping LS 1 $ 20,000.00 $20,000 Subtotal Civil $223,250 MISCELLANEOUS Testing & Final Clean Up (2%) LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $5,000 Bonds & Insurance (2%) LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $5,000 Subtotal Miscellaneous $10,000 Subtotal Construction > $233,250 Contingency (15%) l ; $34,988 Subtotal $268,238 Sales Tax (8.6%) $23,068 Total Construction Cost $291,306 Olympic Pipeline Construction Cost Estimate Page 1 July 11, 1997 NOTES: 1 Costs for excavation, hauling and disposal of soils do not include testing or special handling and disposal if soils are contaminated. 2 Permit requirements unknown at time of estimate. Such costs are not included. 3 Requirements of Seattle Water& Olympic Pipeline unknown at time of estimate. Such costs are not included. 4 Quantities based on incomplete plans (-V50%) and are therefore approximate and subject to change. 5. Construction survey cost does not include survey work for As-Builting if required. 6. Bypass &dewatering costs do not include special disposal requirements. It is assumed that the water can be discharged downstream of the site. Olympic Pipeline Construction Cost Estimate Page 2 July 11, 1997 S"Pef rr u lima' I +IONGWEST 11 ASSOCIATES, INC. July 10, 1997 Geotechnical Engineering HWA Project No. 8919-300 Hydrogeology Geoenvironmental Services R.W. Beck Testing &Inspection 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, Washington 98154 Attention: Mr. Michael Giseburt, P.E. _ Subject: MONITORING WELL INSTALLATIONS Wetland Bank Site Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Giseburt: Pursuant with your request, Hong West & Associates, Inc. installed three monitoring wells at the Wetland Bank Site in Renton, Washington. A proposal for the monitoring well installations was submitted to R.W. Beck on June 3, 1997. Authorization for the work was subsequently given by Mr. Michael Giseburt. The scope of work completed for this project was consistent with that described in our proposal and included drilling and installing three monitoring wells at locations selected by the City of Renton, and preparing this letter report summarizing our activities and monitoring well logs. FIELD METHODS On June 23, 1997, a geotechnical engineer from HWA logged the drilling and installation of three monitoring wells (BH-1 through BH-3), at locations designated by the City. Explorations were performed to determine the presence and depth to groundwater, and soil conditions at the site. The monitoring wells were drilled to 16'/z feet below the existing ground surface using a Mobile B-61 track-mounted drill rig owned and operated by Holocene Drilling of Pacific, Washington under subcontract to HWA. After completing the drilling, piezometers were installed. Piezometers consist of slotted PVC pipe backfilled with sand and capped with a concrete and steel monument cover. As part of the exploration program, HWA personnel recorded pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater occurrence. Soils were classified in the field in general accordance with the classification system described on Figure 1. A key to the exploration log symbols is also presented on Figure 1. The exploration logs are presented on Figures 2 through 4. 19730-64th Avenue West Lynnwood,WA 98036-59C Tel. 206-774-0106 Fax. 206-775-7506 i t July 10, 1997 HWA Project No. 8919-300 Representative soil samples obtained at selected intervals from the explorations were placed in air-tight bags and taken to our laboratory for further examination. Soil samples will be stored at HWA for a period of 60 days from the date of this report. O.O We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project. Sincerely, HONG WEST& ASSOCIATES, INC. David L. Sowers, P.E. Scott L. Hardman, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer DLS:SLH:dls Enclosures: Figure 1. Legend of Terms and Symbols Used on Explorations Logs Figure 2-4. Logs of Monitoring Wells BH-1 through BH-3 8919300.DOC 2 HONG WEST&. ASSOCIATES,INc. RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE TEST SYMBOLS COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS GS Grain Size Distribution Approximate %F Percent Fines Consisten N Iblows/ft) Undrained Shear CN Consolidation Approximate Density N Iblows/ftl Relative Density(%) cY Strength Ipsf) TX Triaxial Compression Very Loose 0 to 4 0 - 15 Very Soft 0 to 2 <250 UC Unconfined Compression Loose 4 to 10 15 - 35 Soft 2 to 4 250 - 500 DS Direct Shear Medium Dense 10 to 30 35 - 65 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 500 1000 M Resilient Modulus Dense 30 to 50 55 - 85 Stiff 8 to 15 1000 - 2000 Pp Pocket Penetrometer Very Dense over 50 85 - 100 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 - 4000 Approx.Compressive Strength (tsf) Hard over 30 >4000 TV Torvane ASTM SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Approximate Shear Strength (tsf) - CBR California Bearing Ratio MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS MD Moisture/Density Relationship PID Photoionization Device Reading Gravel and o GW Well-graded GRAVEL AL Atterberg Limits: PL Plastic Limit Coarse Clean Gravel LL Liquid Limit Gravelly Soils fines) (little or no nes) Grained I GP Poorly-graded GRAVEL Soils More than SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS 50%of Coarse Gravel with .I II GM Silty GRAVEL Fraction Retained Fines(appreciable ® 2.0"OD Split Spoon (SPT) on No.4 Sieve amount of fines) GC Clayey GRAVEL (140 lb.hammer with 30 in.drop) IShelby Tube Sand and Clean Sand SW Well-graded SAND Sandy Soils (little or no fines) �a 3.0"OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings More than SP Poorly-graded SAND 50%Retained 50% or More O Small Bag Sample on No. Send with SM Silty SANG of Coarse 200 Sieve Fin ea(appreciable Large Bag (Bulk) Sample Fraction Passing Size amount of fines) SC Clayey SAND on No.4 Sieve Core Run ML SILT Fine Silt Non-standard Penetration Test Grained and Liquid Limit Less than 50% CL Lean CLAY (with split spoon sampler) Soils Gay _ OL Organic SILT/Organic CLAY COMPONENT PROPORTIONS MH Elastic SILT Silt DESCRIPTIVE TERMS RANGE OF PROPORTION 50%or More and Uquid Limit Passing 50%or More CH Fat CLAY Trace 0 - 5% No.200 Sieve Clay j/' Few 5 - 10% Size /// OH Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Little 15 25% Some 30 % Highly Organic Soils PT PEAT - 10 Mostly 50 - 0% COMPONENT DEFINITIONS GROUNDWATER WELL COMPLETIONS Locking Well Security Casing COMPONENT SIZE RANGE Well Cap Boulders Larger than 12 in Concrete Seal Cobbles 3 in to 12 in Well Casing Gravel 3 in to No 4(4.5mm) Bentonite Seal Coarse gravel 3 in to 314 in ' Fine gravel 3/4 in to No 4(4.5mm) Q Groundwater Level (measured at Sand No.4(4.5 mml to No. 200(0.074 mm) time of drilling) Coarse sand No.4(4.5 mm)to No. 10 12.0 mm) = Groundwater Level (measured in Medium sand No. 10(2.0 mm)to No.40(0.42 mm) well after water level stabilized) Fine sand No.40(0.42 mm)to No. 200(0.074 mm) Slotted Well Casing Silt and Clay Smaller than No.200(0.074mm) Sand Backfill NOTES: Soil classifications presented on exploration logs are based on visual and laboratory observation in general accordance with ASTM D 2487 and ASTM D 2488. Soil descriptions MOISTURE CONTENT are presented in the following general order: DRY Absence of moisture,dusty, Density/consistency,color,modifier(if any)GROUP NAME,additions to group name(if anyj,moisture content dry to the touch. Proportion,gradation,and angularity of constituents,additional comments. (GEOLOGIC/NTERPRETA710N) MOIST Damp but no visible water. Please refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration logs for a more WET Visible free water,usually complete description of subsurface conditions. soil is below water table. �` LEGEND OF TERMS AND lIL1 Wetland Bank Site SYMBOLS USED ON -HONGWEST Renton, Washington EXPLORATION LOGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT NO.: 89 1 9-300 FIGURE: LEGEND 89193 7/9/97 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Site DRILLING METHOD: Track Mounted Mobile, 4-1/4" ID HSA DATE COMPLETED: 6/23/97 SURFACE ELEVATION: /, t Feet /J{.)Vf) j ftj LOGGED BY: Erik Andersen W U a CoQ r N Standard Penetration Resistance _ F- o m J z N c w co LU (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) J ON w w W co I" w Q ♦ Blows per foot J J tl) _ = m g n- D_ Z2 2 c w O w o }u) Q DESCRIPTION (n U) 0- O E:Ln LU o f 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 SM Loose, olive brown, silty SAND, moist to wet. 0 S-1 3-3-3 Some iron staining. Q t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ML Soft, gray SILT with sand, wet. 1 0 ............_............_ . . _ . - 10 S-2 1-2-2 SP Loose, dark gray, poorly graded SAND, wet Fine to medium sand. i5 S3 223 ........... ....... - - - 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ML Soft, gray SILT, wet. Bottom of boring at 16.5 feet Groundwater observed at 6 feet below the ground surface during drilling. IL- 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 20 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. - "L!", BORING: BH-1 U j� Wetland Bank Site _ flONGWEST Renton, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1 & AS S O C I A T E S, INC. PROJECT NO.: 8 91 9-300 FIGURE: 2 PZC 89193 7/9/97 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene LOCATION: South-central Portion of Site DRILLING METHOD: Track Mounted Mobile, 4-1/4" ID HSA DATE COMPLETED: 6/23/97 SURFACE ELEVATION: /9,63t Feet /116V9 IQ29 LOGGED BY: Erik Andersen N w w 0— cc Q Z N ._ U a Q L H Standard Penetration Resistance Z v~i wLU (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) a w O0 w w w� �- w Q A Blows per foot = m a d cc ° w Ow = w 0 U)) Q DESCRIPTION V)) 0 a O a V) 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0 SP Medium dense, olive brown, poorly graded 0 SM SAND with silt, moist to wet. Trace to few gravels. Fine to medium sand. S-1 5-5-6 17 SM Very loose, gray, silty SAND, wet Fine sand. Some iron staining. ...... . .. . .. .. 10 S2 1-1-1 *.. ............ _ _ _ 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ML Very soft to soft, gray SILT, wet. SP Medium dense, dark gray, poorly graded SAND, wet. Fine to medium sand. 15 :..: ...... ........... ...........;....... _ . _ . 15 ...........:.....•..... S-3 6-6-9 I Bottom of boring at 16.5 feet Groundwater observed at 6 feet below the ground surface during drilling. 20 20 0 20 40 60 s0 100 Water Content (%} Plastic Limit f— 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. BORING: BH-2 ULU Wetland Bank Site flONGWEST Renton, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1 & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT NO.: 89 1 9-300 FIGURE: 3 PZO 89193 7/9/97 7 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Site DRILLING METHOD: Track Mounted Mobile, 4-1/4" ID HSA DATE COMPLETED: 6/23/97 SURFACE ELEVATION: t Feet IJ(vVO I Q 19 LOGGED BY: Erik Andersen U) cc W W U_ Q m Z � v a Q s U) Standard Penetration Resistance -� Z t i G W �V— (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) W W w m � L A Blows per foot 2 J J CCm m 2 2i ; = N= IL W o }) Q DESCRIPTION U)) (n a° O o•N u 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0 SP Medium dense, gray, poorly graded SAND with 0 SM silt, moist. Fine to medium sand. Some iron staining. 5 =: .......�.. ............ ............_ .. . _ . 5 S-1 9-6-6 Q 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _..........-._ .. _ .. _...... :..... MH Very soft, gray, elastic SILT, wet. S 2 0/12"-1 SP Medium dense, dark gray, poorly graded SAND, wet. Fine to medium sand. _...................'. S-3 6-12-14 Bottom of boring at 16.5 feet Groundwater observed at 7.5 feet below the ground surface during drilling. 20 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content M Plastic Limit 1 --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. Zma BORING: BH-3 � Wetland Bank Site flONGWEST Renton, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1 &ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECTNO.: 8919-300 FIGURE: 4 PZO 89193 7/9/97 Arrkwo l orr +#nA )"oA8#fAf1A; WC115 13 3 ........... CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 6, 1997 Scott L.Hardman,P.E. Hong West&Associates, Inc. 19730 64th Avenue West Lynnwood,WA 98036-5904 SUBJECT: PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION Dear Mr.Hardman: Attached for your use are the following geotechnical reports and information: • WSDOT report dated March 4, 1997 • City of Seattle Test Boring Log dated April i 5, 1980 • City of Seattle Boring Log Profile noted asmicrofilmed in January 1966. • GeoEngineers report for Puget Western dated March 27, 1992 for the property south of the SW 23rd Street drainage channel between East Valley Road and Lind Avenue. 1,_hope this information is helpful. Please contact me at (425) 277-5547 if you have any questions: . Sincerely, vV Scott Woodbury,P.E.,Proj ct Manager Surface Water Utility U:65230:S W23RD.ST:97-007:SW attachments cc: Mike Giseburt(transmittal letter only) 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton,Washington 98055 JUL114-97 MON 16:21 Hong West and Associates FAX NO. 7757506 P. 01 Y iriLA 1 +IONG WEST & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical EngineeringFtAITTAL Hydrogeology Geo envi ron mental Services Testing & Inspection Date: Monday, July 14, 1997 To: Scott Woodbury Fax No.: Z5'235-Q54 1 Phone No.: From: David Sowers Project No.: 8919-200 Total number of pages including cover sheet: 5 Subject: Panther Creek Channel Project, Boring Logs and Laboratory Tests ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW BY MAIL ❑ Yes ❑ No Remarks: ■ If you did not receive the total number of pages, if the copy is unclear, or you received this fax by mistake, please call us at (206) 774-0106. 19730-64th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-5904 Tel. 206-774-0106 Fax. 206-775-7506 JUL'14-97 MON 16:23 Hong West and Associates FAX NO. 7757506 P, 03 ' DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD: Track Mounted Mobile, 4-1/4" ID HSA DATE COMPLETED: 6/20/97 SURFACE ELEVATION: t Feet LOGGED BY: David Sowers (n W rn W V Of g W Q r FW Standard Penetration Resistance _ m F z in w (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) o W w w<R f- ♦ Blows per foot = m a 0- � ; Z W ZO a v}i Q DESCRIPTION Cn W a-- O 0a 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 SP Medium dense, olive brown, poorly graded 0 SAND with gravel, moist to wet. Fine to coarse sand. (FILL) S-1 12-13-7 GS 5 SZ ...... .. .. _ .. .. _ 5 /j OH Very soft, dark grayish brown, organic SILT, S-2 0-1-1 wet. Interbeds of dark brown peat. j/ (RECENT ALLUVIUM) ...... _._. ......_............._. 10 /!/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 ML Soft, very dark gray, SILT with sand, wet S-3 1/12"-1 15 _ .. 15 S-4 14-3-2 %F 20 .................. ...... .. - 20 SM Dark gray, silty SAND, wet. Fine to medium sand. 1118" ix Bottom of boring at 24 feet. 25 -.._....... .... .._ ... .. _ .. - 25 Groundwater observed at 5 feet below the ground surface during drilling. 30 0 20 40 60 80 100 30 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1 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. BORING: BH-2 1 Panther Creek, P-9 Channel Project flONGWEST Renton, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1 & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT NO.: 8919-200 FIGURE: BORING 89192 7/14/97 c r GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY A Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine `-I U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3 o 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 15/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 z 100 90 80 i i i i i i oq 70 CD Lu 60 m W 50 - r Z U' cn i i o -u 40 i i Z 1 i i UJ u 30 Lu CL 20 � 10 i i i i i i __ o i i i i oil 1 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 c_n GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION % MC LL PL PI %Gravel %Sand % Fines • BH-1 S-1 2.5-4.0 (SP-SM)Olive brown, poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel. 8 27.4 65.5 7.1 ■ BH-1 S-4 17.5- 19.0 (ML)Very dark gray,SILT 36 91.5 A BH-2 S-4 17.5- 19.0 1 (ML) Very dark gray,SILT with sand. 130 1 1 177.7 GRAIN SIZE CD Panther Creek, P-9 Channel Project DISTRIBUTION +IONGWEST Renton, Washington TEST RESULTS &ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT NO.: 8919-200 FIGURE: 1 HWAGRSZ 89192 7/14/97 JUL-14-97 MON 16:22 Hong West and Associates FAX NO. 7757506 P, 02 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD: Track Mounted Mobile, 4-1/4" ID HSA DATE COMPLETED: 6120/97 SURFACE ELEVATION: t Feet LOGGED BY: David Sowers N W L) ca Z y W U z Q r (n H Standard Penetration Resistance _ -' Z u~i w 3 0 40 lb. weight, 30" drop) m N w w w<n Z A Blows per foot x m o- o- ¢y w _ Z o 0a o N Q DESCRIPTION ua) tan a z O 0 p 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 SP Medium dense, olive brown to gray, poorly 0 SM graded SAND with silt and gravel,moist to wet. Fine to medium sand. (FILL) S-1 15-13-8 5 SZ .. ...... . 5 OH Very soft, dark grayish brown, organic SILT, A i ) wet. Interbeds of dark brown peat. S 2 1-1-1 AL IRECENT ALLUVIUM) SM Loose, dark gray to very dark gray, silty SAND, wet. Fine to medium sand. �S3 t 53 Silt interbeds. 15 ...... ..........................._........... .. 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - S-4 4-3-1 %F ML Soft,very dark gray SILT, wet. 20 E......!...... ............_..... ......_..........._...... 20 SM Loose, dark gray, silty SAND, wet. Fine to medium sand. S-5 1-2-2 Bottom of boring at 24 feet. 25 ... _._......._... ............_ ., .. 25 Groundwater observed at 5 feet below the ground surface during drilling. 30 30 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content M Plastic Limit 1--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. =I BORING: BH-1 Panther Creek, P-9 Channel Project flONGWEST Renton, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1 & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT NO.: 89 1 9-200 FIGURE: BORING 89192 7/14197 c L 60 CL CH C.0 CD 50 z o� N IL CSl X q.p --- w 0 Z • o >- 30 °Q H � U_ `D Q 20 o_ :3> E, En 0 10 v CL-ML ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 T1 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) x z 0 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH 00 CLASSIFICATION %MC LL PL PI %Fines • BH-1 S-2 7.5-9.0 (OH) Dark greyish brown,organic SILT. 109 84 52 32 csi cn 0 rn A� 0 Panther Creek, P-9 Channel Project PLASTICITY CHART 1lONGW'EST Renton, Washington &AS S O C 1 AT E S,INC. PROJECT NO.: 8919-200 FIGURE: 1 HWAATTB 83192 7114197 AUG 25 998 14:31 FP. OLYMPIC PIPE LINE 425 271 5320 TO 4254307241 P.01i02 r OLYMPIC P1PE L1NE COMPANY 2319 Und Avenue SW P.D. Box 1800 Renton, WA 95057 (425) 235-7735 FAX (425) 271-5220 es. INCLUDING this page. i' co you need nfIrmation or We are sending �— pages. a resend of any Page, piease call (425) Rosy- DNS err P�%h FROM: DATE: TO: FAX# �75 3o- UNI Mien - h� COMMENTS: , 1�S 6LY 5 ubmi#e one rOard 4t a a � - , ti�Y o City of Renton PLANNING/BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Utility Systems - Fifth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Date: 09/01/98 Renton, WA 98055 TO: Roseann Martir FROM: Allen Quynn Phone: (425) 227-5213 Phone: (425) 430 7247 Fax Phone: (425) -5320 Fax Phone: (425) 430-7241 SUBJECT: Olympic Pipeline Culvert I Number of pages including cover sheet 2 REMARKS: ❑ Original to ❑ Urgent ❑ Reply ❑ Please ❑ For your be mailed ASAP Comment review Per our phone conversation on September 1,1998,The City recommends lowering the invert of the culvert in order to maintain the required 1.0 feet of clearance with the existing petroleum line. Based on the survey conducted by the contractor,the invert of the existing 16 inch pipeline is at elevation 10.48. Allowing for the thickness of the concrete slab of 10 inches,the invert of the culvert should be elevation 4.48 instead of the 6.6 shown on the design plans CITY OF RENTON TELEPHONE/CONTACT RECORD Contacted: Mike Giseburt, RWB Date of 8/18/97 David Sowers, HWA Contact: Scott Hardman, HWA Telephone No.: Time: City of Renton Scott Woodbury File No.: Olympic Culvert Replacement Contact: SW 43rd St Drainage Imp. SUBJECT: Location: Phone Conference Items Discussed. Olympic Pipeline. Using the loadings in HWA's draft report, Scott W calculated the depth of embed for sheet piling would be around 20 feet, assuming a 9-foot deep trench. Sheet piling comes in standard 40 foot lengths which may conflict with overhead power lines. Could potentially install in two pieces, but would cost more and take more time. The 115kv power lines crossing the channel need to be shown on the drawings. The lines cross twice traveling to and from a PSE substation south of the channel. The ability to potentially de- energize the power lines should be brought to the contractor's attention. Frank Miller of PSE indicated to Scott W in a previous phone call that a 15-foot minimum clearance from active 115kv lines is required. Constructing in wet is most critical for potential impact to the Olympic Pipelines. Hong West will revise their response to the City/RWB questions to identify the potential impacts of constructing in the wet (more settlement, more difficult to support Olympic Pipelines, etc). HWA will not produce a final report until the draft report is circulated to Seattle, Olympic, and others for comment. SW 43rd Street Drainage. Scott H ackowledged that the depth of cover was less than typically desired for jack and bore methods. Therefore, it would be even more critical to maintain head pressure and prevent sloughing at the cutting face if jack and bore is to be used. Recommended Follow-up: cc: Post-it®Fax Note 7671 Date e/id/f pages To 2/ r� From 5 0 / Co./Dept. y+r Co. S Phone# Phone# Fax# Fax# 08/18/97 1 August 6, 1997 ® � i Aug 7 �S11: Messrs. David Sowers, P.E. and Scott Hardman, P.E. 1997 Hong West&Associates, Inc. C1 P/ OF R 19730 -64th Avenue West Epprnp�ring Dept 1 Lynnwood,WA 98036-5904 Subject: Olympic Pipeline Culvert Replacement and Miscellaneous Improvements along SW 23rd Street-Draft Geotechnical Report Dear David and Scott: We thank you for your quick response and turnaround on the subject project. Your efforts in this regard were very much appreciated by us. Nevertheless, since the time of your work, it has been determined that construction this year is not possible. We do, however, want to submit 50% plans, specifications, and geotechnical information to City of Seattle and Olympic Pipeline for their review prior to moving forward with 90% design. Prior to submitting a review package, we would like your input on clarifications questions regarding your draft report. We do not want to final the report until we receive comments from City of Seattle and Olympic Pipeline. We are hoping that it would not be unreasonable to ask you to prepare a draft response in a letter so that it could be submitted along with the draft report to Seattle Water and Olympic Pipeline. Our comments/questions are below. In addition, the City of Renton reviewed a copy of our comments/questions and also provided their own comments (see attached). In general, the report addresses the key issues and provides the necessary information with which to design and construct the proposed improvements. Still, we do have a few questions and comments that we would like to bring to your attention for consideration and discussion. Our questions and comments are as follows: 1. We made a quick check on the weight of the new structure vs. the weight of the material that will be removed, and it appears to us that the existing soil load might actually be slightly lower or very close to that of the box culvert. We come up with a weight of 6,400 lbs/lf for a 4'X10'1DX10" box culvert full of water vs. a soil weight of 7,920 lbs/If @ 120 pcf, or 7,260 lbs/lf @ 110 lbs/lf using a soil area of 11.66' x 5.66'. We are making the assumption that the weight of the structural backfill is not all that much greater than the existing soil. If we are correct and this is really the case, we would think that there would not be any settlement, or at least the settlement would be substantially less than the 1" anticipated. Also, would the concern regarding the need for evaluations of the existing pipelines still be needed? If so, could you give us some idea of what sort of evaluations you think are needed and/or have in mind. We agree File: 12-00365-10000-0003/3101 O:\GISEBURTW SG425.DOC 1001 Fourth Avenue,Suite 2500 Seattle,WA 98154-1004 Phone(206)695-4700 Fax(206)695-4701 Messrs. David Sowers, P.E. and Scott Hardman, P.E. August 6, 1997 Page 2 that the language in the report should be such that it clearly points out that the potential for settlement of the pipelines is an issue and needs to be properly addressed. Given such language, a prudent contractor after reviewing the report would be concerned with the potential for settlement of these pipelines and know that he must take appropriate actions (support) and other precautions. We are thinking that this is something that can be reasonably dealt with by bringing it to his attention in the specifications and explicitly requiring the contractor to provide a plan/means which assures that there will be little to no settlement of these pipelines either during, and perhaps even after,construction. 2. We are concerned that in reading the report, Seattle Water or Olympic Pipeline will require the use of sheet piling to reduce the area impacted and potential settlement of their pipelines as a result of dewatering the site. Due to the cost, the City would like to avoid this if possible. Is it either impossible or imprudent/too risky to try and minimize the dewatering and construct the box culvert mostly in the "wet"? 3. The project also includes the installation of a 30-inch culvert on the east side of Lind Avenue and,as such, needs to be included and addressed in the report. 4. Although it may be an alternative, we do not see any advantage to using a slab for the box culvert's foundation (tremie or otherwise). To do this, it would still require overexcavation and placement of a geotextile and crushed rock to ensure a reasonably stable and level foundation. Please let us know if we are overlooking some advantage(s) that might justify the additional cost for placing such a foundation slab. Although the need for it is not mentioned, we would probably use a geotextile beneath the crushed rock as it would provide "belt and suspenders" at a low incremental cost. If unsuitable material (peat/organic soils) is encountered below the overexcavation depth (--2 feet), rather than overexcavating this material, would the geotextile be sufficient? We realize that this may have to be a judgment call made in the field. 5. We noticed that the shoring loads assume groundwater to be at the surface. We/contractor should also have the lateral load above groundwater. 6. Please discuss the un/suitability of the excavated materials for backfill. Let's discuss these and the City's questions and comments before moving ahead with addressing them. After you have had a chance to review and consider our comments, let's make arrangements for a conference call between us at a mutually convenient date and time. Also, we see that consultation during design as well as reviewing our plans and specifications is not included in your scope of work. We think that this may be prudent for File: 12-00365-10000-0003/3101 O:\G ISEBURT\MSG425.DOC Messrs. David Sowers, P.E. and Scott Hardman,P.E. August 6, 1997 Page 3 13M the project. At your convenience, would you furnish us with a proposal for providing such assistance. Sincerely, R. W. BECK, INC. Ree A. Kelly, .E. Mike Gis Zurt, '. MSG/nak c: Scott Woodbury File: 12-00365-10000-0003/3101 O:\GISEBURTNM SG425.DOC