HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272283(2) 1
1
1
1 Earth consultants Inc.
Geotechnical Engineers,Geologists&Environmental Scientists
PREPARED FOR
' BRUCE BLUME AND ASSOCIATES
' Nabil T. Dbaibo
Project Engineer �,EN 41,1
WAsyyc/y
• ,�' s
t GI Mann, P.E. W
Vice President �'nF��C/STEREO
0 , AL
' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
OAKSDALE AVENUE SOUTHWEST
' RENTON, WASHINGTON
E-4563
' September 27, 1989
t
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1805 - 136th Place Northeast
' Suite 101
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(206) 643-3780 ,.
e
222 East 26th Street, Suite 103
Tacoma, Washington 98411-9998
(206) 272-6608 ^sf
1 ,
i
1
1
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-4563
i Page
' INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
iScope of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
' Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Subsurface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
iGroundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
iGeneral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Site Preparation and General Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
iDock-High Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Slab-on-Grade Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
iSurcharge Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Excavations and Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Rockeries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
i Site Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Utility Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Pavement Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
' LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
' Additional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A - Field Exploration
i Appendix B - Laboratory Testing
Appendix C - Rockery Guideline
1
1
iEarth Consultants, Inc.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (con't)
ILLUSTRATIONS
' Plate 1 Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Test Pit and Boring Location Plan
' Plate 3 Legend
Plates 4 through 6 Boring Logs
Plates 7 through 15 Test Pit Logs
Plates 16 through 17 Grain Size Analyses
Plate 18 Atterberg Limits Test Data
Plate 19 Retaining Wall Drainage and Backfill
1 Plate 20 Typical Monitoring Plate Detail
Plate 21 Schematic Structural Fill
Plate 22 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
' Earth Consultants, Inc.
' IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUT YOUR
' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
More construction problems are caused by site subsur- technical engineers who then render an opinion about
face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as overall subsurface conditions, their likely reaction to
subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda-
' have been lessened considerably in recent years, due in tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual
large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ conditions may differ from those inferred to exist,
The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how
the Geosciences. qualified,and no subsurface exploration program, no
' The following suggestions and observations are offered matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by
to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, earth, rock and time. The actual interface between mate-
cost-overruns and other costly headaches that can rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report
occur' during a construction project. indicates.Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the
unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their
' REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden-
tify variances,conduct additional tests which may be
OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS needed, and to recommend solutions to problems
' A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur-
encountered on site.
face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
set of project-specific factors. These typically include:
the general nature of the structure involved, its size and CAN CHANGE
' configuration; the location of the structure on the site
and its orientation; physical concomitants such as Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly-
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi-
and the level of additional risk which the client assumed neering report is based on conditions which existed at
' by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory the time of subsurface exploration,construction decisions
program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose
geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo-
which change subsequent to the date of the report may technical consultant to learn if additional tests are
affect its recommendations. advisable before construction starts.
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and
otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not natural events such as floods,earthquakes or ground-
be used: water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions
•When the nature of the proposed structure is and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical
changed, for example, if an office building will be report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept
erected instead of a parking garage,or if a refriger- apprised of any such events,and should be consulted to
ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- determine if additional tests are necessary
frigerated one;
•when the size or configuration of the proposed GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE
1 structure is altered; PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
•when the location or orientation of the proposed AND PERSONS
structure is modified;
•when there is a change of ownership, or Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet
' •for application to an adjacent site. the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre-
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade-
which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid- quate for a construction contractor, or even some other
' ered in their report's development have changed. consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise,
this report was prepared expressly for the client involved
and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" by any other persons for any purpose, or by the client
ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi-
vidual other than the client should apply this report for its
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical
' only at those points where samples are taken, when engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose
they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- other than that originally contemplated without first conferring
sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geotechnical engineer
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING der the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming re-
REPORT IS SUBJECT TO sponsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information ,
always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing
MISINTERPRETATION the best available information to contractors helps pre-
Costly problems can occur when other design profes- vent costly construction problems and the adversarial
sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate '
of a geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid scale.
these problems, the geotechnical engineer should be READ RESPONSIBILITY
retained to work with other appropriate design profes-
sionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to CLAUSES CLOSELY
review the adequacy of their plans and specifications
relative to geotechnical issues. Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively
on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other '
design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly
unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical
BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE consultants. To help prevent this problem,geotechnical
engineers have developed model clauses for use in writ- '
SEPARATED FROM THE ten transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses
ENGINEERING REPORT designed to foist geotechnical engineers' liabilities onto
someone else. Rather, they are definitive clauses which ,
Final boring logs are developed by geotechnical engi- identify where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities
neers based upon their interpretation of field logs begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved rec-
(assembled by site personnel)and laboratory evaluation ognize their individual responsibilities and take appro-
of field samples. Only final boring logs customarily are priate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely ,
included in geotechnical engineering reports. These logs to appear in your geotechnical engineering report,and
should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in you are encouraged to read them closely. Your geo-
architectural or other design drawings, because drafters technical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank
may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. answers to your questions. '
Although photographic reproduction eliminates this
problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO
contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid prepara-
tion. When this occurs, delays, disputes and unantici- REDUCE RISK ,
pated costs are the all-too-frequent result. Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to
To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- discuss other techniques which can be employed to mit-
tion, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical igate risk. In addition, ASFE has developed a variety of
engineering report prepared or authorized for their use. materials which may be beneficial. Contact ASFE for a
Those who do not provide such access may proceed un- complimentary copy of its publications directory
1
Published by '
THE ASSOCIATION
A F OF ENGINEERING FIRMS
PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES ,
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G 106/Silver Spring, Maryland 20910/(301) 565-2733
0788/3M
Earth Consultants Inc.
G otechnical Engineers.Geologists R uwirontnental Scientists
' September 27, 1989 E-4563
Mr. Jim Garrison
Bruce Blume and Company
' 1100 Eastlake, Suite 210
Seattle, Washington 98109
Dear Mr. Garrison:
' We are leased to submit herewith our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Eland
P
Distribution Facility, Oaksdale Avenue Southwest, Renton, Washington." This report
presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering
analyses. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our July 19, 1989 proposal.
' Our study indicates that the site is underlain by soft compressible material consisting
predominantly of clayey silts to a depth of approximately eleven (11) feet.
' Based on the encountered conditions, and the results of our analyses, we believe that the
proposed structures can be supported on conventional footings provided that a surcharge
program is first satisfactorily completed.
These recommendations, along with other geotechnically related aspects of the project, are
discussed in more detail in the text of the attached report.
We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this initial phase of
project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future phases as the
' project comes to fruition. In the meantime, should you or your consultants have any
questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please call.
' Very truly yours,
EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Glen Mann, P.E.
Vice President
' GM/NTD/sar
1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 101, Bellevue,Washington 98005
' 222 E.26th Street,Suite 101,Tacoma,Washington 98411-9998
Bellevue(206)643-3780 Seattle(206)464-1584 FAX(206)746-0860 Tacoma(206)272-6608
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
OAKSDALE AVENUE SOUTHWEST
RENTON, WASHINGTON
tE-4563
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
The subject site is located in Renton and is bounded to the north by Oaksdale Avenue
Southwest near the intersection of Monster Road, to the east by an existing cardboard
manufacturing plant, and by Union Pacific railroad to the west and south (approximately as
indicated on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1). The site is low lying currently about six feet below
' Oaksdale Avenue Southwest. The general area appears to have been leveled and partially
filled in the past.
' The purpose of this study is to explore the existing subsurface conditions at the site and, on
this basis, to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development.
' At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed building locations, and our
exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan,
Plate 2.
We understand from our discussions with your architect, Mr. Bob Fadden, that you plan to
construct two warehouses, one of approximately two hundred and twenty thousand (220,000)
square feet in plan area, and the second approximately forty-eight thousand (48,000) square
feet in plan area. The structures are to be concrete tilt-up panel construction and will have
a dock-high floor. Although no specific design information is currently available, based on
our experience with similar construction, we have estimated the maximum total dead plus live
loads to be as follows:
• Wall loads _ 3-1/2 kips per lineal foot
m• Colun loads 150 kips
• Slab loads - 300 pounds per square foot (psf)
If any of the above design criteria change, we should be consulted to review the
recommendations contained in this report. In any case, we recommend that Earth
1 Consultants, Inc. (ECI) be retained to perform a general review of the final design.
' Scope of Services
We performed this study in general accordance with the scope of services outlined in our July
1 19, 1989 proposal. On this basis, our report addresses:
Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 2
• Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions;
• Suitability of existing on-site materials for use as fill, or recommendations for
imported fill materials;
• Site preparation, grading and earthwork procedures, including details of fill
placement and compaction;
• Short-term and long-term groundwater management and erosion control
g g g
' measures;
• Foundation bearing capacity and resistance of lateral loads for conventional
foundations;
' • Estimates of potential total and differential settlement magnitudes and their
rates;
• Surcharge fill construction and monitoring program; and
• Parking area and access roadway design pavement sections.
' This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only for the exclusive
use of Bruce Blume and Associates and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed
or implied, is made. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the
' project contract documents for the information of the contractor.
' SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
' At the time of our field exploration, the site was covered by dense long field grass. The site
is essentially flat and is relatively low-lying, currently about six feet below the bordering road.
' No structures are present on site, nor is there any evidence that any have been on the
property in the past. Wetland areas are apparently present in the central portion of the
property. These areas were relatively dry with no evidence of stagnant water, indicating that
' the underlying material is providing good drainage towards the Green River. We understand
from our discussions that these areas will be kept in their natural state.
' Subsurface
The site was explored by drilling three (3) borings and excavating sixteen (16) test pits at the
approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the Boring logs Plates 4 through
Earth Consultants, Inc.
' Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 3
1
6, and the Test Pit logs, Plates 7 through 15, for a more detailed description of the
conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration
methods and laboratory testing program is included in the appendix of this report. The
following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered.
All of our exploratory borings and excavations in the building areas encountered a thin
surficial layer of loose silty sand topsoil. This layer, typically about six to eight inches thick,
contains a variety of small roots and rounded gravel. It is unsuitable for support of
' foundations, floor slabs or pavements and cannot be used as a structural fill. Further, it
should not be mixed with materials that are to be used as a structural fill.
' Underlying the surficial topsoil layer, we generally encountered a loose to medium dense
silty sand containing some gravel, which becomes silt in some localized areas. Beneath this
material we found interlayered soft to stiff silty clay and clayey silt, and loose to dense silty
' sand and sand. Typically, the density or consistency increased with depth. The clayey
materials are susceptible to compression under load.
I We also excavated five Test Pits (TP-101 through 105) in the knoll located just to the
southeast of the southern building pad. The purpose was to determine the suitability of the
in-place materials for use as a structural fill elsewhere on the site. Beneath an
approximately six inch thick surficial sod layer, we found medium dense to dense silty sand
extending to the depths explored. The lower materials appeared to be a weathered
sandstone. While these soils are suitable for support of a conventional warehouse-type
structure, they are not suitable for use as a structural fill. In our opinion, the soil contains
too large an amount of fines (silt and clay sized particles) and is highly susceptible to
degradation when wet.
' Groundwater
' The groundwater levels observed while drilling and excavating range from approximately ten
to eleven feet below the existing surface and are shown on the boring and test pit logs. The
groundwater level is not considered static; thus, one may expect fluctuations in the level
depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors.
Generally, the water level is higher in the wetter winter months, typically October through
May.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
' Based on the results of our study, it is evident the site requires a substantial amount of fill
to raise the site to design subgrade elevation. Since there is no on-site fill source, the fill
must by necessity be imported from elsewhere. Placement of this fill, combined with the
Earth Consultants, Inc.
' Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 4
proposed building loads, is estimated to cause a relatively large amount of settlement in the
soft compressible soils immediately underlying the site. Such settlement is likely to lead to
structural damage. To avoid this, we recommend you employ a surcharge fill to pre-induce
as much settlement as possible before construction begins.
While it would be most helpful to surcharge the pavement and parking areas of the site as
well as the building pads, this is not normally a standard, or practical, activity. We do,
however, strongly recommend the site fills be placed and compacted under strict engineering
control to verify they are competent. This will help reduce the settlement potential.
In our opinion, once the site fills are placed and a surcharge fill program has been
' satisfactorily completed, the proposed buildings can be constructed generally as planned. We
recommend they be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on the compacted
structural fill. Post-construction settlement are expected to be relatively small and within this
form of structure's tolerable limits.
Current development plans call for the protection of an existing "wetland" area located in the
' generally central part of the site. Since site fills will closely border this wetland area, you
must construct competent and stable fill slopes and protect the toes of the slopes from water
softening. This can be accomplished by appropriate vegetation or a protective surfacing
material.
Because of the relatively soft and compressible soils underlying most of the site, utility
installation may pose some minor construction difficulties. We recommend all utilities be
provided with flexible connections to allow for settlement related movements.
' Although groundwater was not encountered at shallow depth, and considering the site grade
will be raised by about ten feet, we believe it prudent to include both short and long term
drainage control measures in design and construction. Such measures should include, but
' need not be limited to, perimeter footing drains, downspout tightlines, site grading, shallow
swales .and earthen berms.
We explored a portion of the knoll which is located just to the southeast of the site as a
potential fill source. Our exploration indicated the materials are very fine grained and
susceptible to severe disturbance when wet. As a result, we do not believe they are suitable
as a fill source. However, in the event you plan to construct an additional building in this
area, the soils should prove suitable for support of a tilt-up type structure, particularly if built
in the drier summer months. The in-place soils will likely require some degree of
recompaction prior to such construction, and will need to be protected against the elements.
These, and other geotechnically related aspects of the project are discussed in more detail
in the following sections of this report.
' Earth Consultants, Inc.
' Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 5
' Site Preparation and General Earthwork k
' Stripping and Clearing: The building and parking areas should be stripped and cleared of
all existing vegetation, existing utilities, and any other deleterious material. We estimate that
on the average, stripping depth of about six inches will be repaired. Stripped materials
' should be removed from the site and disposed. They should not be mixed with materials to
be used as structural fill.
' Subgrade Preparation: Following the stripping and excavation operations, structural fill can
be used to bring the building site to the desired subgrade. A typical detail for a structural
fill mat is provided on Plate 21. The soil surface where structural fill, foundations, or slabs
' are to be placed should be proofrolled and compacted to a reasonably non-yielding condition.
Proofrolling helps to determine the presence and approximate areal extent of any soft or
unstable soils. If any soft or unstable areas are encountered, they should be moisture-
conditioned as appropriate then recompacted. If after recompaction they remain soft or
unstable, they should be overexcavated to a depth that will provide a stable base. Typical-
ly, a depth of two to three feet is adequate for this purpose. The overexcavated unsuitable
material should be removed, disposed and replaced with structural fill. These operations
should be performed under the continuous observation of SCI's representative.
1 Structural Fill: Structural fill is defined as any fill placed around or beneath buildings, floor
slabs, pavements, walkways, or any other load-bearing areas. Ideally, but particularly for wet
weather construction, structural fill should comprise an organic-free, granular, free-draining
material with a maximum particle size of three inches. It should contain less than 5 percent
fines (silt and clay-sized particles passing the number 200 mesh sieve). During dry weather,
any organic-free, compactible material meeting the above maximum size criterion may be
' used.
Structural fill under footings, floor slabs, and pavements should be placed in thin horizontal
lifts. Lifts should not exceed eight inches in loose thickness for heavy compactors, and four
inches for hand-held compactors. Each lift should be compacted to at least 95 percent of
maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
' Fill under walkways should be placed in similar thin horizontal lifts and, with the exception
of the upper twelve (12) inches, be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density.
' The top twelve (12) inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent maximum density.
Any fill or native soils disturbed during construction should either be recompacted or
' overexcavated and replaced with compacted structural fill or crushed rock. To facilitate the
compaction process, we recommend that all fills, including the on-site soils if used, be placed
at or near their optimum moisture content. If fill soils are on the wet side of optimum they
' are likely to be difficult to compact. In this case they should then be replaced with a free-
draining granular import fill, or should be dried until they can be adequately compacted.
Drying can be achieved by aeration or by intermixing lime or cement powder to absorb.
excess moisture.
' Earth Consultants, Inc.
' Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 6
As part of our site exploration, we dug four test pits in the lower slopes of a knoll located
just to the southeast of the site. These pits were dug in an effort to determine the suitability
of the in-place soils as a structural fill material on the lower lying site. Based on the
conditions exposed, we do not believe the material on the knoll are suitable for use as a
structural fill. They contain a significant amount of fines (silt and clay sized particles) and
are highly susceptible to deterioration when wet. Excavation, movement and replacement
and compaction are likely to be difficult, if not impossible. Thus, it is virtually certain that
you will need to import materials form an outside source.
When you have retained an earthwork contractor, and he has selected a pit from which he
' intends to import fill materials, you should retain us to visit and examine the pit, to acquire
representative fill source samples and to perform the appropriate laboratory testing to
determine the materials suitability. Providing this is done early enough in the scheme of
construction, it will be possible to modify fill or compaction recommendations or even to
change fill the source, if necessary, before you are committed to performing the earthwork.
You should provide a contingency in your budget and schedule to accommodate this critical
' service.
Foundations
Based on the encountered site conditions and the preliminary building design criteria, we
believe that conventional footings supported on compacted structural fill can be used,
' provided that a surcharge program to induce settlement is successfully performed. The
surcharge program is discussed in more detail in a subsequent paragraph.
Once the preload program is successfully completed, the conventional footings can be
designed on the basis of the following criteria:
• Allowable bearing pressure, including all = 2,500 psf
dead and live loads.
' • Minimum depth of perimeter footing; below = 18 inches
adjacent final exterior grade.
' • Minimum depth of interior footings; below = 12 inches
top of floor slab.
' • Minimum width of wall footings = 18 inches
• Minimum lateral dimension of column = 24 inches
' footings
• Estimated total post-construction -- 1 inch, or less
settlement
' Earth Consultants, Inc.
' Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 7
' 4 Estimated post-construction differential = 1/2 inch, or less
settlement; across building width
' A one-third increase in the above allowable bearing pressures can be used when considering
short-term transitory wind or seismic loads.
' Lateral loads can also be resisted by friction between the foundation and the supporting
compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the
foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing soil
or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill. We
recommend the following parameters be used in design:
' • Passive pressure = 300 pcf equivalent fluid weight
• Coefficient of friction = 0.35
As mentioned earlier, we also explored the lower portion of the knoll located just to the
' southeast of the site. While the materials are not suitable for use as a structural fill in wet
weather, the area is capable of supporting construction of similar nature. In our opinion, a
"typical" concrete tilt-up building can be constructed on this area provided care is exercised
during design and construction. Such a building could be supported on conventional spread
footings bearing on the carefully recompacted and densified in-place soils. The design
parameters outlined above should prove applicable. However, we recommend you retain us
' to evaluate any design plan before proceeding to allow us to verify that the conditions can
support the proposed construction.
' Dock-High Retaining Walls
We understand that dock-high retaining walls may be constructed along portions of the
perimeter of the buildings. We recommend they be designed to resist lateral load imposed
by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of forty (40) pcf if they are allowed to rotate 0.002
times the height of the wall. If the walls are prevented from rotating, we recommend that
' they be designed to resist lateral loads of sixty (60) pcf equivalent fluid weight. These values
assume that no vehicular, floor or other surcharge loads will act on the wall. If such loads
are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressures.
' We assume that the walls will be backfilled with a suitable free-draining material. Typically,
wall backfill should consist of materials similar to structural fill. Wall backfill should have
a maximum size of three inches, be organic-free, and have a maximum of three percent fines
(materials passing the No. 200 mesh sieve). Twenty-five (25) to seventy (70) percent of the
particles should pass the No. 4 mesh sieve. A typical wall backfill detail is provided as
' Plate 19.
' Earth Consultants, Inc.
' Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 8
' As an alternative to free-draining wall backfill, you may wish to consider the use of a
geotextile drainage product such as "Miradrain". In either case, we recommend the
installation of a drain line along the base of each wall. These drains are discussed in more
' detail in the Site Drainage section of this report.
Slab-on-Grade Floors
' Slab-on-grade floors can be used with conventional foundations provided that the preload
program is satisfactorily completed. The slab should be supported on compacted structural
fill. Any fill or native soils disturbed by construction activity should either be recompacted
' or excavated and replaced with compacted structural fill or crushed rock.
To allow for moisture build-up on the subgrade, the slab should be provided with a capillary
break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free-draining sand or gravel. We also
recommend that a vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, be placed over the
capillary break beneath the slab to reduce both water vapor transmission through the slab
' and the resultant moisture related damage to interior furnishings.
Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during
' construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. It will also help prevent cement paste
bleeding down into the underlying capillary break through joints or tears in the vapor barrier.
An alternative means of slab support, if recompaction efforts are thwarted by poor weather,
is the use of a cement-bound granular fill pad. This would incorporate intermixing between
about four and seven percent portland cement powder, by weight, into the upper twelve
' inches of the dock high site fill. The cement-bound fill is then appropriately moisture-
conditioned and compacted. This will provide an approximately one foot thick layer of
essentially weak concrete on which to build the slab. It is not unusual to achieve twenty-
eight (28) day compressive strengths in excess of twelve hundred (1200) pounds per square
inch with this form of construction. Typically, the cement bound fill will provide an
allowable soil bearing in excess of three thousand (3,000) psf. If you wish to pursue this
option further, we will be available to provide more specific design parameters.
Settlements
' Based on the nature of the materials underlying the site, the need to place a substantial
amount of structural fill to achieve design site grade, and given the proposed form of
' construction, the buildings are likely to undergo a relatively large amount of settlement. This
settlement is of sufficient magnitude to cause structural damage.
The surcharge program should be designed to pre-consolidate the compressible soils found
in the upper eleven (11) feet of the site, such that the surcharge would apply loads greater
than those possible under normal fill and building loads. Resulting settlements from the
surcharge program should be about the same magnitude as the estimated settlements. A
' Earth Consultants, Inc.
Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 9
' smaller settlement than estimated could be interpreted that the clayey silt have been pre-
consolidated Y Y P
consolidated and soil conditions are better than anticipated. Conversely, a larger settlement
than that estimated could be interpreted that the soil conditions are worse than anticipated,
and additional measures should be taken to obtain satisfactory results.
' Surcharge Program
We estimate the settlement under the combined building and fill load to be on the order of
six (6) to seven (7) inches. Differential settlement could be about half this magnitude across
the building width. To avoid this, we recommend you perform a preload surcharge program
to pre-induce as much settlement as possible before construction begins.
' Current plans call for up to about ten feet of fill, generating a load on the order of twelve
hundred (1,200) psf on the original site subgrade. This fill load will cause a certain degree
' of settlement to occur before any building is constructed. In addition, there will be the
proposed floor slab load, presently estimated at about three hundred (300) psf. Although
settlements under this load are substantially smaller than those generated by the fill, they are
' still of sufficient magnitude to cause slab damage. The damage is typically in the form of
slab cracking, warping or separation. To prevent settlement under the slab load, the
surcharge fill should be of a weight that is at least equal to, but preferably greater than, the
' slab load. In this case, a minimum surcharge thickness of two and one-half feet will
approximately equal the maximum proposed floor load. To further decrease the potential
for post-surcharge and construction settlement, an additional six inches to one foot of
' surcharge can be added.
One means of reducing the cost of a surcharge program is to use a "rolling surcharge". This
' can be achieved on two separate ways. Either the surcharge fill material is to be used as
a structural fill elsewhere on the site after the surcharge program is completed, or the
surcharge fill can be used first on one building pad, then on the next. This approach
' requires less surcharge material than that required to settle both building pads at the same
time.
' Surcharge material should conform to the requirements of structural fill, described earlier in
this text, if the material is to be used as a fill elsewhere on the site. Regardless, the fill
should have a minimum unit weight of one hundred and twenty (120) pcf. The surcharge
' should extend for a distance of at least ten (10) feet beyond the building perimeter. From
this point, the surcharge fill should be sloped at an inclination of 1H:1V, or flatter, down to
the site grade.
' Based on the conditions observed in the field, and the results of our selective laboratory tests
and our engineering analyses, we estimate the settlements induced by the combined site and
' surcharge fills will take between about ten (10) and twelve (12) weeks to complete.
However, the only reasonable accurate means of verifying the time rate is to perform a
surcharge monitoring program. This program will include setting settlement monitoring
markers on the existing site subgrade before any fill is placed, then monitoring them through
' Earth Consultants, Inc.
' Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 10
completion of fill placement, then on until settlements cease or are considered within the
' building's tolerable limits. More specific details of this program are presented below:
• Settlement markers should be placed on the native subgrade of each building pad
' before any fill is placed. We recommend six markers within the larger building
footprint and four in the smaller. ECI can supply and install these markers. (A
typical detail is provided on Plate 20.)
' • A baseline reading is obtained on each marker and is referenced to a temporary
benchmark located on a feature that will be unaffected by the fill-induced
settlements.
t • The structural and surcharge fills are then placed. Settlement readings are taken at
relatively short intervals during this process, since this phase generates a relatively
tlarge amount of rapid settlement.
• Once the fill operation is completed, readings are obtained on a periodic basis,
' typically on a weekly to bi-weekly basis, until the settlement ceases or is judged by
the geotechnical engineer to be within the structure's tolerable limits.
' • Each set of settlement readings are plotted graphically against time to determine
the magnitude and rate of activity, and are matched against the predicted magnitudes
and rates. This allows us to verify the accuracy of earlier estimates and to make any
' appropriate modifications.
We recommend ECI be retained to acquire the settlement readings. If you prefer to use
another entity to collect these readings, we recommend you provide the data to us as quickly
after their acquisition as possible for plotting and interpretation. This will help avoid any
misinterpretation or misunderstanding about the success of the surcharge program.
' You should also understand that completion of primary settlements under the surcharge
program does not complete total settlement. The clayey soils underlying this site are also
' likely to undergo long-term secondary settlement. This form of settlement continues over
a much longer period, perhaps several years. This form of settlement occurs as air and
water is slowly squeezed out of the soil by the fill and building load. The greater the weight
' of the surcharge fill, the less impact this is likely to have on the structure. Secondary
settlements can be as much as about fifty percent of the primary settlement. Your structural
engineer must consider this in his design.
' One last concern in the settlement monitoring program concerns the maintenance of
settlement markers. Given that there will be a significant earthwork operation on this site
' to construct the site and surcharge fills, there will be a lot of earthwork traffic. This traffic
can be a significant threat to the integrity of the settlement markers. In our experience,
earthwork equipment (dozers and trucks) often demolish markers at a very high rate. This
' adds to the project costs in that they need to be replaced and makes the information
' Earth Consultants, Inc.
' Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 11
' fi i
obtained less reliable. To avoid this scenario, we recommend your project specifications
ons
' include a requirement that the earthwork contractor is required to immediately replace any
damaged settlement marker and have the settlement readings re-obtained at his own cost!
This has, in the past, helped maintain the integrity of the monitoring program and has made
the earthwork contractor more conscious of the client's needs.
' Excavations and Slopes
' While no major excavations or slope construction efforts are anticipated in construction, you
should be aware that in no case should excavation slopes, including utility trenches, be
greater than the limits specified in local, state and federal safety regulations. Temporary cuts
' greater than four feet in depth should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1H:1V.
If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, or if excavations greater than
four feet in depth are required, temporary shoring may be necessary. This shoring will help
t protect against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workmen in the
excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide geotechnical
shoring design criteria, if requested.
' Since it is apparent that fill slopes will be constructed and extend out to the edges of the
wetlands, we recommend the toes of these slopes be protected. A vegetative cover, or
' placement of a graded rock filter material, should be sufficient for this purpose.
All temporary slopes should be protected against the elements. Installation of a shallow
' swale or low earthen berm along the crest of each slope should be adequate to collect and
redirect water to a positive and permenant discharge. The slope face should be covered
with a pegged or sandbagged in-place impervious sheeting.
' Over the long term, the slopes should be seeded as quickly after construction as possible
with a suitable rapid growth and deep rooted vegetation. Your landscape architect can
' provide a suitable seed mix. The seed should be maintained in-place with a sprayed mulch,
with the possible addition of a pegged in-place jute matting or geotechnical fabric. This will
help keep the seed and mulch on the slope surface until the root mat has an opportunity to
' germinate and take hold.
Rockeries
' If you elect to use a rockery to protect the perimeter of the site, you should understand that
a rockery is not a retaining wall in the sense one would consider a reinforced concrete
' retaining wall. A rockery is primarily to protect the exposed soil surface against erosion and
weather damage. However, if a rockery is properly constructed, by virtue of its mass it will
provide some degree of retention. The larger the rocks used, the more mass and, therefore,
' the greater the retaining ability.
Rockery construction is, to a large extent, an art not entirely controllable by engineering
' methods. Because of this, it is imperative that your rockeries be constructed by an
Earth Consultants, Inc.
' Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 12
experienced contractor with the equipment and capability to construct rockeries of a similar
' nature to those you require built. To help you in this respect, we have provided a current
copy of the Associated Rockery Contractors (ARC) Standard Rockery Construction
Guidelines as Appendix C. We recommend that your contractor closely adhere to the
recommendations contained in that document. In the event that a rockery exceeds the
maximum height acceptable to the City or County, or if the rockery is to be constructed
against a new fill, we will be available to provide the necessary engineering and monitoring
services.
' Site Drainage
' We do not expect the site groundwater levels will present any major construction-related
problems. However, the site should be graded such that surface water is directed off the
building site. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs or
' pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be roller-sealed
at night to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades
should allow for drainage away from the building foundations. We suggest that the ground
' be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the
buildings except in areas that are to be paved.
' If seepage is encountered in foundation excavations during construction, we recommend that
you slope the bottom of the excavation to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected
water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge, such as
a nearby storm drain.
Although the groundwater level was recorded several feet below the existing site grade, and
' considering the site grade in the building pad areas will be raised several feet, we still firmly
believe drainage control measures installed at the time of construction are the most
economical insurance against long term water or seepage related problems. Because of this,
' we recommend you install footing drains around the building perimeter. These drains should
consist of a four-inch minimum diameter, perforated or slotted, rigid drain pipe laid at, or
just below, the invert of the footing with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. The drain line
' should be bedded on, surrounded by, and covered with a free-draining washed rock or other
free-draining granular material.
' Once the drains are installed, with the exception of the upper twelve (12) inches, the
excavation can be backfilled with a granular fill material. The surficial twelve (12) inches
of fill should consist of compacted and relatively impermeable soil. It can be separated from
' the underlying more granular drainage material by a layer of building paper or visqueen.
The surface should be sloped to drain away from the building wall. Alternatively, the surface
can be sealed with asphalt or concrete paving. A typical detail is provided on Plate 22.
' Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain
system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. We recommend you
' Earth Consultants, Inc.
' Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 13
install sufficient cleanouts at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the
' footing drain and downspout tightline systems.
We recommend the appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, be established
' during grading operations by ECI's representative, at which time the seepage areas, if
present, may be more clearly defined.
Based on the general grain size, we have estimated a coefficient of permeability (K) for the
t materials overlying the relatively impermeable clayey soils. The K value is likely to be on
the order of 2.4x10-2 inches per hour. For the underlying clayey materials, we estimate the
K value to be more on the order of 1.2x10"3 inches per hour.
' Utility Support
' Utility lines installed in fills or native soils should use either APWA Specifications 61-2.02
and 61-2.03, or the specific manufacturers' recommendations, for both rigid and flexible pipe
bedding. Utility trench backfill is a major concern in preventing settlement activity along
' utility alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility
line be adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped
to make sure support is provided around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed
' and hand tamped to about twelve (12) inches above the crown of the pipe before any heavy
compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be
placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve (12) inches. Trench fill, where
' not supporting a structure, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry
density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The upper
twelve (12) inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density.
If utility trench excavations encounter soft and easily compressible soils at invert elevations
that cannot be remedied by placement of the bedding material, it may be necessary to
' perform some overexcavation and replacement of unsuitable materials. Typically, an
overexcavation depth of about two feet is sufficient to provide a "bridge" across soft and
compressible soils. The overexcavation backfill should be crushed rock or clean compact
' structural fill. In addition, to help accommodate any post-construction settlement, we
recommend all underground utility lines include flexible joints.
' The trench width in soft soils should be at least three pipe diameters. This will allow for
placement of sufficient bedding and/or fill material to laterally support the pipe. Depending
on the actual nature of the in-place soils, it might also be prudent to wrap the bedding
material in a geotechnical fabric. This determination should be made at the time of
construction. However, you should include a contingency in your budget and schedule to
accommodate this possibility.
We also recommend you consult us once the final utility layout has been determined to
reevaluate the above recommendations. At that time it might prove possible to more
' accurately determine the specific nature of utility trench treatment.
' Earth Consultants, Inc.
' Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 14
Pavement Areas
The adequacy of site pavements is strictly related to the condition of the underlying
subgrade. If this is inadequate, no matter what pavement section is constructed, settlement
or movement of the subgrade will be reflected up through the paving. In order to avoid
this situation, we recommend the subgrade be treated and prepared as described in the Site
Preparation section of this report. This means at least the top twelve (12) inches of the
' subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-
1557-78). It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still
exist after this process. If so, the unsuitable materials may require overexcavation and
replacement with a compacted structural fill or a crushed rock. Depending on the nature
of the prepared subgrade at the time of construction, it may also be necessary to use a
geotextile fabric to separate pavement materials from the underlying subgrade and to help
' strengthen the pavement section. A Mirafi 500X, or approved equivalent, should be suitable
for this purpose.
' As mentioned earlier, because of the amounts of fill to be placed over this site and the
settlement susceptibility of the underlying native soils, long-term settlements in both building
and pavement areas should be expected. The building area settlements can be controlled
' to some degree by the use of a surcharge fill program. While it is not normally an
economically feasible step to surcharge the parking and roadway areas, we recommend you
give this some consideration. The greater the loads applied to the pavement area fill before
' construction, the lower the risk of settlement damage to the pavements over time. This
option might be achievable if a rolling surcharge program is used.
' On the assumption that it will not be economically feasible to surcharge the pavement areas,
we urge you to make sure that the fill in these areas is placed and compacted under our
full-time observation and of suitable material. On this basis, we have provided you with two
' alternative pavement sections for the lightly trafficked access and parking areas, and for the
more heavily trafficked truck access and loading areas. In the more lightly-loaded areas we
recommend the following:
' • Two inches of Asphalt Concrete (AC) over four inches of Crushed Rock Base
(CRB) material, or
' • Two inches of AC over three inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) material.
' For the heavier truck-traffic areas, we have made some assumptions about site usage,
pavement life and site traffic. We assumed the pavement life to be ten (10) years, that
truck traffic would be essentially confined to one lane in each direction, and that traffic
could double within the pavement life. We estimate the pavement subgrade would have an
equivalent "R-Value" of about sixty (60). On the basis of these estimated criteria, we used
Earth Consultants, Inc.
' Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 15
the State of Washington Flexible Pavement Design Method to determine a suitable pavement
' design section. As a result of this analysis, we recommend the following:
• Three inches of AC over six inches of CRB, or
• Three inches of AC over four and one-half inches of ATB.
' If the above design assumptions appear incorrect to you, or if you have more detailed and
accurate traffic criteria, please provide the information to us so that we can re-analyze these
heavier pavement sections. If we are not provided further data, we will assume these data
' in our analysis to be correct.
Because of the general nature of the site soils and the time of construction, we recommend
' you select the ATB pavement section. This will not only provide you with a competent
"blacktop" surface that will help protect the site from construction activity, but will also
provide a clean, dry and competent surface on which to store and protect construction
' materials. It has also been our experience that in spite of its slightly higher initial cost, this
form of surfacing requires considerably less maintenance either during or after a winter
construction period.
' LIMITATIONS
' Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective
laboratory testing, engineering analyses, the design information provided us, and our
experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are
' professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar
conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied.
The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the
borings and test pits. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings and test pits may
vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory
locations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear, ECI should
be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them
' in writing prior to proceeding with the construction.
Additional Services
' We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and
specifications. This will allow us to verify that the earthwork and foundation
' recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design plans and
in the construction specifications.
' Earth Consultants, Inc.
' Eland Distribution Facility E-4563
September 27, 1989 Page 16
tWe also recommend that E I be retained to provide geotechnical services during g
' construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or
recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from
those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Because of the settlement-sensitive
nature of this project we do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundations
' or earthwork unless we are retained to provide these services.
1
' Earth Consultants, Inc.
zCLa. mza
- x
' APPENDIX A
E-4563
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our field exploration was performed on August 15, August 22, and September 13, 1989.
' Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling three (3) borings to a maximum
depth of thirty nine (39) feet below the existing grade and excavating seventeen (17) test
pits to a maximum depth of eleven (11) feet below existing grade. The borings were drilled
' using a truck-mounted Acker drill rig. Continuous flight, hollow stem augers were used to
advance and support the boreholes during sampling.
' Approximate boring and test pit locations were determined by taping from property corners.
The boring and test pit elevations were determined by interpolating between contour lines
shown on a Topographic and Wetlands Survey by Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. for job
#89219, dated 6/19/89. The locations and elevations of the borings and test pits should be
' considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate
locations are shown on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2.
' The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geotechnical engineer from our firm
who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each boring and test pit,
obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site
' features. All samples were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System which is presented on Plate 3, Legend. Logs of the borings are
presented on Plates 4 through 6; and the Test Pit Lags are presented on Plates 7 through
' 15. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the
laboratory examination and selective tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the
logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions
' may be more gradual.
In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in
' general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1586. The split spoon samples were
driven with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches. The
number of blows required to drive the last twelve (12) inches of penetration are called the
t "N-value". This value helps to characterize the site soils and is used in our engineering
analyses.
' The density or consistency of the soil exposed in the test pits was estimated based on the
effort required to excavate the soil, the stability of the trench walls, and other factors.
' Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory
for further examination and testing.
' Earth Consultants, Inc.
' r, =tm}- - rvV-u+r1v 0 fSjIASTVg= IiA
> S FOUNTAIN ST ; °' 1=,�,,.:j v �.4 Tp:;
vs!!2�"_ ST n S a LEO I T --'_�-s°, .. Qv P T,
�r x e o t12TH 5T 1 2T > PQ S , 113TH
o r� > Ln I < L N -j 6, 5 114TH y ST a
.S L AV N ra ST N N N II =o J o o {�aS 115THkn ST
.�� \q $j •4UC STq� ��9,d 2"000SST o < > I S N 115Tn ;ST u S 115"f�, pL
Ln�� ST >ws n sLfJ (n I : S116TH ST .._,�_.. S co
.. .Q i
\sy I$ a 4 Q >: S ' 117TH ST 9m S1167HST zy ti S[ $
I18TH ST •� _ O r�� ul _ _ I 2 �6TH PL I _ /6 x L
K.S N5—�— 4G — -<5117T 5 118T� ST ,A—I kn A�-kp
C �, ST[(A WA LACE T =S I IEiTH PL ..43711 AV 5 'V AV Q N< $p�T1,...= n
119Tn ST ;b S.119TH ST z I- o
<p S to S. ` 120TH ST ul n S^ a
' (�N S JUNIPER ST = a N S IZp ";`• t- C?.- 1 'I� 120TH
A �` \ J N S 1215T ST I I z
122ND N Br cn �'>.o > In I G Q vA'r�.S.�:'.:..`�jkh N
> > > > ST bl �yC aI > ID Q 1�2NDST$. > 4 S .� cn S 122Nq kn
x lzD z z x ....T C JlDN a , F Z O O y NSKY,AY.�Jo K v v S.InrQ r5 124 n AST 5 I S > k0 S 1241H I STQ n 4 h�2 ry: S f( S a Y
S 125TH ST 3CEAt.
w ST BF I .'. 6SN SZ ` fS
s s S� T In > 4a glgS I 5:\ ` N ♦s I t s
eAlf(uMcroN" s' � 1 _ _� �S a In r h y_a' ,ST D
H
/L�FAR)r i S f29J 77 �a S 1
PL PL S 128TH
z S 129TH>ST > >
L`*t +^ �'. k* ..• ST a t~D; I c S 129TH> PL a Sa 1291H ST a
z
S 130TH tD_ :ST F 5130TH r sT P r
S m ^ r r .�� m
131$T$_xST $ I 'o LANGSTON RD
4 x /• , Oy 13 ST IL S AI AL7 H3 s
SP �vAA(DRA [,O 5 137 p I
� IDRD T ST S 1315T CT � $
' 172ND ST
1 sryj r �i?3 9� �� 900 S I 133H- oJSt
S 134TF
-S 1357M (39rs L_ 1
STINT T,;: i21�'E#ster 4
— r 5� - y ,�9I — P S I z
5137 p = ° 9PH G -�v �/� s 13e TH ST 1-3
tun)
'( Toinw .9
' >15 jq 7`'rT�'Ib �olErs`e''1 I Bt Sr
T : BN 0
� y N 1 EARL
Q NQy> �� `�M ,`T ,s' y`4 `•4/YEq t �9GII-RIVER--' .°?�:T
.6t,42ND 9, S < ND ST; U8 P' •��Z, \ U' '
STJCT S-"SITE.t �
' I JR HS I GI a y I) S N N� S1143Ro
r 144 N ST > f 5 43Rp PL YS 1434 EARLINGiOM I-'`'
>� 'N 5 144 MST coEr tOuaSE I ,i-
$1a61HST m fTDFN \ ; `XT,
1 rtD PARK i G
AI Fes_ S l/TH fS`ST
' Reference.
King County / Map 34
By Thomas Brothers Maps
' Dated 1988
Vicinity Map
Earth Consultants Inc. Eland Distribution Facility
' Gtxxechnk( l Fl girwem.(i(%*Visfs&F 1\•If(IfI"N Ial ti(*t ILtiIti King County,Washington
Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Date Sept. 189 Checked ND Date 9/22/89 Plate I
1
I I
TEST P/TS /O/ -/125 LOCATED
EAST OF STUDY AREA. SEE
-- TEST P/T LOGS FOR FURTHER
' TP-5 DATA.
3 I 1w � Bldg 16
B
l TP-6
LLJ TP'4 \ 1p 12 14
B-1 �-ll Approximate Scale
\ 0 50 100 200ft.
Q
W \ WETLANDS
TP-12
J I \
' Q I LEGEND
0
w TP -3 Bldg. A `' ��. i 16 B-1 Approximate Location of
10 �_.��' ECI Boring, Proj. No.
p E-4563 , Sept. 1989
14 12
1 16 � ®TP-1 Approximate Location of
IP-7 ECI 1p-10 1 WETLANDS / E-4563t P Proj., Sept. 989
1 �
-P_2 B-2 / TP-101 Approximate Location of
ECI Test Pit, Proj. No.
' E Sept.
563 1989-----�. �
1 Proposed Building
% i i Existing Building
TP 9 I I
.P-1 1% ------
B-3
� Reference
Job No. 89246.01
' Schematic Grading a utility Plan
By Bush , Roed a Hitchings, Inc.
Dated 8/24/89
' Boring and Test Pit Location Plan
Earth Consultants Inc. Eland Distribution Facility
1 (av>trchnkallinKlnccrs.(:eologiSts&Divimmnxival.S.Ientists King County, Washington
Proj No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Date Sept t89 Checked ND Date 9/22/89 Plate 2
MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL SYMBOL
GW Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand
Gravel —0? oOo gW Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
' And Clean Gravels
Gravelly (little or no fines :0; ;�
Coarse Soils GP Poorly Graded Gravels,Gravel
Coarse gp Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
Soils More Than i, GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand-
50% Coarse Gravels With �' * gm Silt Mixtures
Fraction Fines(appreciable
Retained On amount of fines) GC Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand-
No.4 Sieve gC Clay Mixtures
' Sand o,o°°oo°po°o SW Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly
And Clean Sand °° o° pOo°o SW Sands, Little Or No Fines
Sandy (little or no fines)
More Than Soils SP Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly
50% Material Sp Sands, Little Or No Fines
Larger Than More Than ••••
' No.200 Sieve :`::1:. .�. '1
Size 50% Coarse Sands With �'''' SM Silty Sands, Sand- Silt Mixtures
:...:.:.:....:: sin
Fraction Fines(appreciable
Passing No.4 amount of fines) SC
Sieve 'r-00 SC Clayey Sands, Sand Clay Mixtures
' ML Inorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock Flour,Silty-
rr>Il Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/Slight Plasticity
Fine Silts Liquid Limit CL Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity,
Grained And Less Than 50 CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean
Soils ClaysV//////I
OL Organic Silts And Organic
I � � 11 I � ! of Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity
MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fine
More Than mh Sand Or Silty Soils
50 Material Silts
Smaller Than And Liquid Limit CH Inorganic Clays Of High
No.200 Sieve Clays Greater Than 50 ch Plasticity, Fat Clays
Size
OH Organic Clays Of Medium To High
Oh Plasticity, Organic Silts
Highly Organic Soils `_�- - PT Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils
_ P With High Organic Contents
' Topsoil Humus And Duff Layer
Fill Highly Variable Constituents
' The Discussion In The Text Of This Report Is Necessary For A Proper Understanding
Of The Nature Of The Material Presented In The Attached Logs
' Notes
Dual symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classification. Upper
case letter symbols designate sample classifications based upon lab-
oratory testing; lower case letter symbols designate classifications not
verified by laboratory testing.
' I 2-O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C TORVANE READING, tsf
7� 2.4"I.D. RING SAMPLER OR qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf
11 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
P SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE,percent of dry weight
' SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED pcf DRY DENSITY,pounds per cubic ft.
Q WATER LEVEL (DATE) LL LIQUID LIMIT,percent
WATER OBSERVATION WELL PI PLASTIC INDEX
WoEarth LEGEND
Consultants Inc.
Geotechn11 Engineering and Geology
Proj. No. 4563 Date Sept'89 Plate 3
1.
Logged By ND BORING NO.
1 Date 8-22-89 Elev.us 11±*
(N)
'
Graph CS Soil Description D(ft)h Sample Blows (V%)Ft.
Gray silty SAND with gravel, moist,
medium dense
esm Gray SILT and fine sand, moist, loose 7 28.3
I� I
� cl-ml Gray-bluish silty CLAY, moist,
medium stiff I 5 45.7
i
10
I i
sm Dark gray-black silty SAND, wet,
=.......,.1.?.r
dense 20 31
15
E' �...
25 9.9
l " . 20
z23 33
25
:'.. .. .
f... -becomes sandy and dense
28 4.7
30
X
." ..
sm Dark gray-black silty SAND and sand 12 9.7
�:::::: ::: with shells, wet, medium dense
*Elevation interpolated between contour 35
lines of Bush, Roed & Hitchings
Schematic Grading and Utility Plan, job
' • '" "' #89246.01, dated 8-24-89
14 3.7
' Boring terminated at 39 feet below existing grade.
Groundwater encountered at 12 feet during drilling.
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and
judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of.
' information presented on this log.
BORING LOG
Earth Consultants Inc' ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
�I \ail, 1 'rr�,°i�ienRinrrrs.cwr�oitsrsKen.ircx,nx,vaiscia•iu�is KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 4561 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked ND Date 9-21-89 Plate 4
BORING NO.
1 Logged By ND
' Date 8-22-89 Elev. 12us ±
(N)
Graph CS Soil Description (ft)h Sample Blows (Wl
Ft.
.: � sm Gray-light brown silty SAND with gravel,
moist, medium dense
' Gray silty CLAY, moist, stiff 12 31.3
5
cl-ml Gray silty CLAY, moist, soft
T 4 58.5
' -traces of peat 10
Q
sm Dark gray-black silty SAND and sand,
11 31.4
wet, loose
15
#.t 7 43.4
2 0
cl Gray CLAY, wet, firm - stiff
# � Dark gray-black silty SAND, wet, 23 1.5
} dense
_25
110"
sm Dark gray-black silty SAND and sand
... 27 25
t . ,
': with shells wet medium dense
1 Boring terminated at 29 feet below existing grade.
Groundwater encountered at 11 feet during drilling.
1
' Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and
judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
information presented on this log.
BORING LOG
Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
Gvnrchnical 1-jigj r(n'rs.(A-oAogisis&Iim ironn—iial Socnfists KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
' Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked ND Date 9-21-89 Plate 5
Logged By ND BORING NO.
Date 8-22-89 - Elev. 15±
us Depth (N) W
Graph CS Soil Description Sample Blows
Ft.
... sm
........
...... Gray-light brown silty SAND, moist,
....
loose - medium dense, with some roots 7 14
5
ml Gray-light brown fine SAND and silt,
5 31.2
moist, loose
10
ml Gray and brown SILT and fine sand, wet, 8 35.E
medium stiff
15
... sm Dark gray-black silty SAND and sand, 6 31.E
wet, loose
20
1-cl Gray SILT/CLAY, wet, soft to medium
�$r
stiff
1 ;... 29 27.E
is :... sm Dark gray-black silty SAND, wet,
X
dense 25
29 24.1
T11 :iX:1: T
Boring terminated at 30 feet below existing grade-
Groundwater encountered at 11.5 feet during drilling.
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory ho4e,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and
judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
information presented on this log.
1
BORING LOG
Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
lil 1"11 1 Ckix cfinical En9u)—s. & I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 4563 1 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 I Checked ND Date 9-21-89 1 Plate 6
r
TEST PIT NO.
Logged By ND
' Date 8-15-89 BeV. 15.5±
Depth W
(ft) USCS Soil Description (%1
i 0
sm-ml Gray silty SAND and silt, moist, medium dense
' 30.5
5
' -increasing moisture
' 20.2
10
rTest pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade.
No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
r15
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and
judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
r information presented on this log.
Logged By ND TEST PIT NO.
Date 8-15-89 Bev. 15.5±
' 0
sm Gray silty SAND, moist, medium dense
1
18.4
5
' ml SILT and fine sand with clay, wet, medium dense
35.2
10 sm Gray silty SAND, moist, medium dense
r Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade.
No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
' 15
TEST PIT LOGS
Earth consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
' Geotechnical Enginr.rs.Grnlogists&Environn-wnial Scientists
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked ND Date 9-21-89 Plate 7
1
TEST PIT NO.
Logged By ND
Date 8-15-89 Bev. 14±
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description M)
0
Sm Gray silty SAND, moist, medium dense
J:
5
cl-ml Gray silty SAND with clay, moist, medium dense
29.2
ml Gray silty SAND with fine clay, moist, mediuip
dense
10 - 1 31.3
Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade.
No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
15
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and
judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
information presented on this log.
Logged By ND TEST PIT NO.
Date 8-15-89 Bev. 14±
0
.... Sm Gray-light brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense
-XI:X to dense
5
ml-Cl Dark gray Silty SAND with clay, moist, medium 28.4
dense
10 -increasing clay content 36.9
Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade
No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
15
TEST PIT LOGS
Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
Cr to hni l Engirwers.ckoiogisis&Fnvirowwrital Sci Lists KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Pro
Ij. No. 4563 I Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked ND Date 9-21-89 1 Plate 8
Logged By ND TEST PIT NO. 5
Date 8-15-89 Elev. 17
Depth W
(ft.) LISCS Soil Description M)
0 X
sm Gray-light brown silty SAND, dry moist, medium
dense
1 E..• .,.
-some clay and decomposed organic debris
cl-ml Dark gray silty SAND, moist to wet, medium dense
cl Dark gray-bluish CLAY with some fine sand/silt, 35.5
moist, soft to medium stiff
10 38.1
Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade.
No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
15 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and
judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
information presented on this log.
Logged By ND TEST PIT NO.
Date 8-15-89 Elev. 11
0 ':
sm Gray silty SAND, dry moist, medium dense.
cl-ml ' Silty CLAY, moist, soft with some red stain 45.8
5 land organic debris
cl Bluish CLAY, moist, medium stiff
38 6
10 - �J
sm Black silty SAND, moist, medium dense 27.1
Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade.
Groundwater seepage encountered at 10 feet during
excavation.
15
TEST PIT LOGS
Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
Geoifffinical[-:ngin(rrs.CmJogvsts&Fs ironrn ital Scion fists KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 4563 1 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked ND Date 9-21-89 Plate 9
llll� I I I J
TEST PIT NO.
Logged By ND
Date 8-15-89 Bev. 13±
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description (%)
sm Gray silty SAND, dry - moist, medium dense
i:i:t•t
' cl Gray CLAY, moist, medium stiff with red/brown
stain and decomposed roots 29.5
5
' 34
10
' Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade.
No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
15
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and
judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
information presented on this log.
Logged By ND TEST PIT N O.
Date 8-15-89 Elev. 14.2±
sm Gray silty SAND, dry, medium dense
' cl-ml CLAY with fine silt, wet, soft to medium stiff
with red stain and small roots 38.4
5
' 39
10
Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade.
No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
15
TEST PIT LOGS
Ii Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
(k-Wchni(�l Gngin(rr'.45 n109isls&Environmemal Scientists KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 4563 1 Drwn. GLS I Sept'89 Checked ND Date 9-21-89 Plate 10
TEST PIT NO.
Logged By ND
' Date 8-15-89 Bev. 12.5±
Depth W
(ft) USCS Soil Description (%)
0 sm Gray silty SAND, dry, medium dense
' cl-ml Gray CLAY with some silt, moist, medium stiff
i
43.8
5
V/z cl Bluish CLAY, wet, soft to medium stiff
36.2
10
' Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade.
No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
15
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and
judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
information presented on this fog.
Logged By ND TEST PIT NO.
Date 8-15-89 Elev. 11.5±
' •:IX..: sm Gray silty SAND, dry - moist, medium dense.
' cl-ml Gray CLAY/SILT, moist, medium stiff with red
stain
' 5
38.5
' -traces of peat at 9'
10 54.3
' Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade.
No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
15
' TEST PIT LOGS
Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
Cx Geow(finlcal Engineers. iologisis&Em•ircinnimtal scienwsis KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked ND Date 9-21-89 1 Plate 11
TEST PIT NO.
Logged By ND
Date 8-15-89 FJeV. 16.5
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description M)
0 —:
sm Light brown silty SAND with gravel, dry ,
dense
18.1
X.:t:i: I: sm Gray silty SAND, moist dry, dense
5 17.5
sm Gray silty SAND with CLAY and peat, moist wet,
medium stiff
24.2
10
Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade.
No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
15 Subsurface conditions depicted represent Our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and
judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
information presented on this log.
Logged By ND TEST PIT NO. 19
Date 8-15-89 Elev. 16.5±
0 1: -::: .
sm Light brown silty SAND with gravel, dry, dense 6.7
sm-Pt Gray dark silty SAND with peat and boulders,
moist, dense
5
19.5
Test pit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade.
10 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
' 15
TEST PIT LOGS
; I I Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
cieowchni�l Higtni-m.Gff)logisfs&Environmentalscientisis
I KING COUNTY, WASHINGOTN
Proj. o. 4 Sept' hecked - I Plate 12
1 N 563 Drwn. GLS I pt'89 I ND I Date 9-21 89
TEST PIT NO.. 101
Logged By SD
Date 9-13-89 Bev. 40±
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description M)
' 0 rX (6" of SOD)
€ SM Tan to brown silty SAND with angular gravel and
::: k __ rocker moistL medium dense 14
}+ White silty SAND, little angular gravel, moist
1 �
$ dense
.1...
�.;. �. Sedimentary structure (oxidized) visible in
soil/ruck
thin banns of ochre oxidation
SM 10
(weathered sandstone
S
Test pit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade.
10 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
' 15
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and
judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
' information presented on this log.
Logged By SD TEST PIT NO. 102
Date 9-13-89 Bev. 50±
0
#1ti�;: (6" of SOD)
SM Tan to brown silty SAND, some gravel, moist,
` X.. medium dense 14
Gray to brown silty SAND, some gravel, partially
i .t
5 °}} cemented , medium dense
:cjaa:r:;
sm Grayish white silty SAND, moist, dense
(weathered sandstone)
Test pit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade.
10 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
15
' TEST PIT LOGS
Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
Cwotvchnical FnSirr rs.Cmlogisis&Envinmm ritai-C,erilws KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Pro No. 4563 1 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked 7 Date 9-21-89 Plate 13
1
' TEST PIT NO. 103
Logged By SD
' Date 9-13-89 Bev. 35±
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description M)
e n
•i•+��•••�i (6 of SOD)
sm Tan to brown silty SAND, some gravel, moist,
medium dense to dense
•at
Brownish white silty SAND, moist, dense
14
SM Grades to white silty SAND, moist, dense
1
i.,,;•j:_, with ochre staining
(weathered sandstone)
' Test pit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade.
10 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
e
e15 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and
judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
' information presented on this log.
Logged By SD TEST PIT NO. 104
Date 9-13-89 Elev. 25±
' 0 Tan to brown silty SAND with gravel, moist,
medium dense (topsoil)
Light brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense
t..jI.
Sm Grades to an orange silty SAND, moist, medium
1 dense to dense, ochre (oxidation) staining
�••«,
(weathered sandstone)
eTest pit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade.
10 No groundwater seepage ecnountered during excavation.
e
15
eTEST PIT LOGS
Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
e lit,
Cw technical Fngineers.Crt logisis&Fm•iraimentalscirntists KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked SD Date 9-21-89 Plate 14
1
e
F�
TEST PIT NO. 105
' Logged�99 By D�
' Date 9-13-89 EJev. 20±
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description M)
(6" topsoil)
:ci 't f sm--------
Tan silty SAND, moist, dense
sm White silty SAND, moist, dense
' ss White SANDSTONE, slightly weathered, very hard
5 Test pit terminated at 3.5 feet below existing grade.
' No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
10
15
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis,and
judgement.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
' information presented on this fog.
' TEST PIT LOGS
Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
' t Geoit hnimltSnQin(•ers.Gec)toQists&EnvironmenialScientisis KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked SD Date 9-21-89 Plate 15
Q d d W Z a - X
i
1
APPENDIX B
' E-4563
LABORATORY TESTING
1 General
We conducted laboratory tests on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the
1 field soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the material's general
physical properties and engineering characteristics. A brief description of each of the tests
performed for this study is provided below. The results of laboratory tests performed on
specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual boring
log or on a separate data sheet contained in this Appendix. However, it is important to note
that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. All of
our recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in
guiding our engineering judgement. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of
these data by others.
1 In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for
this project will be discarded after a period of thirty (30) days following completion of this
report unless we are otherwise directed in writing.
Soil Classification
1 As mentioned earlier, all soil samples are visually examined in the field by our representative
at the time they are obtained. They are subsequently packaged and returned to our Bellevue
office where they are independently reexamined by one of our engineers and the original
description is verified or modified, as necessary. With the help of information obtained from
classification tests, the samples are described in general accordance with the Unified
Classification System, ASTM Test Method D-2487-83. The resulting descriptions are
provided at the appropriate sample location on the individual boring or test pit log and are
qualitative only. The attached Legend, Plate 3, provides pictorial symbols that match the
written descriptions.
' Moisture Content
Moisture content tests were performed on the samples obtain from the borings and test pits.
' The purpose of these tests is to approximately ascertain the in-place moisture content of the
soil sample tested. The moisture content is determined in general accordance with ASTM
Test Method D-2216-80. The information obtained assists us by providing qualitative
information regarding soil strength and compressibility. The results of these tests are
presented at the appropriate sample depth on the boring and test pit logs.
1
1 Earth Consultants, Inc.
Particle Size Analysis
Detailed grain size analyses were conducted on several of the shallow soil samples to
determine the size distribution of the sampled soil. The test is performed in general
accordance with ASTM Test Method D-422-63. The information gained from this analysis
' allows us to provide a detailed description and classification of the in-place materials. The
results are presented on Plates 16 and 17, and classification symbols are provided as part of
the appropriate individual sample descriptions on the boring logs.
Atterberg Limits
' Because of the large amounts of fines in some of the sampled soils from the field, we
deemed it necessary to perform several Atterberg Limit tests on the finer materials to
determine the soils plasticity characteristics and as an aid in accurate classification of the
' soils. These tests include the liquid and plastic limits which were performed in general
accordance with ASTM Test Methods D-423-66(72) and D-424-59(71), respectively. The
Plastic Index, the difference between the liquid and plastic limits, is then determined. The
' results of the liquid limit provide a measure of the tested soils shear strength and is
analogous to the direct shear test. When coupled with the plastic index, the results help us
to classify the in-place soils on the basis of these soil characteristics. The result of these
' tests are presented on the Plate 18, Atterberg Limits Test Data.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
HYDROMETERSIEVE ANALYSIS
• •• • . • • .
VOISIN
�,�• .�����■��■.��� .ate i ■■■�■ .■.���■■■■■.���
loss mm�
MONISM
mommomm
00
0010110111111
C '. C: loss".C: milowism, ■wiC�NEI:'�m� ::::'.:C 100101101 „
• ®ram
..
.. Z DESCRIPTION
• TP-1 SILT with sand 20
■ TP-11 Sandy SILT 17.5
TP-12 ! ; Silty SAND
•
SIEVE ANALYSIS
•
.�
mom noun me No IMMONNIIIIII1000
• �����■��■.fir��■IMMIM11 IIIIIIII �J•■�■■.���■■■■■.���
�����■��■.�� �■������■�ice.■.���.■■■■.���
Mm
MNMIMIMEMIMM
IM
MMMI
ME ME
OEM �ommmomm��
�����■��■.����■�����■►mil �■■.���.■■■■.��� �
• , ���■■1.■■1.1■1■.I■.III■/■I■I■��■�■.1 ■■1■■�■�.■�■■I I■■.���.■■■■.��� ��
e
• ® ••• , • • �® DESCRIPTION • •' �m•• e
•
•on m
TP-101 Brown silty SAND with gravel
•
F3 TP-101 White silty SAND
■ • tan silty SAND '
• color silty SAND
' 100
80
x 60
w
z
v "A-Line
I
' o_
C
' 20
CL-ML ""010Z
' 0 20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Natural
Key Boring/ Depth Soil Classification USCS L.L. P.L. P I. Water
' Test Pit (ft) Content
• B-2 17.5 Sandy SILT ML 25 22 3
• TP-2 6.5 SILT ML 27 27 0
■ TP-3 6.5 Lean CLAY, silt CL-ML 25 21 4
O TP-4 10 SILT ML 30 29 1
' Atterberg Limits Test Data
Earth ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
Consultants Inc. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
' Geotechnical Engineering and Geology
Proj. No. 4563 Date Sept'89 Plate 18
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
ul'==
D
° -- Z-ti.----�-
JV
II - I
1 ft. min. o
' 4_
p� a .
1ft.min. Compacted Subgrade
LEGEND
' Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material.
' i Free draining, organic free granular material with a maximum
° size of 3 inches, containing no more than 5
e • • g percent fines
Isilt and clay size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve].
Impermeable visqueen barrier or other impermeable material
approved by geotechnical engineer.
1 Weephole and drainage pocket as described below.
Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with
Operforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; with a
positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic
pipe. Drain line should be bedded on - and surrounded
' with free draining 1 inch minus rock or pea gravel, as
desired. The drainrock may be encapsulated with a geo-
technical drainage fabric at the engineers discretion.
NOTES:
' 0 For free standing walls, weepholes may be used. Surround weep-
holes with no less than 18 inches of 1 inch minus rock.
Earth RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL
i� Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
Con EnviiroEngineers,
meental sc Scientists
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Date Sept'89 Checked SD Dated 9-21-89 Plate 19
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
' NOT A CONSTRUCTION DR.'.WING
....
.. .......:...
H
.......
' #� Q�ItL
:;
.
I I
I ,
I _
I
Il Zi _ ti.
' =fill tl l
' NOTES:
• Base consists of 3/4 - inch thick, 2 foot by 2 foot plywood with
center drilled 5/8 - inch diameter hole.
• Bedding material, if required, should consist of Traction Sand.
' • Marker rod is 1/2 - inch diameter steel rod threaded at both ends.
• Marker rod is attached to base by nut and washer on each side
of base.
' • Protective sleeve surrounding marker rod should consist of 2 - inch
diameter plastic tubing. Sleeve is not attached to rod or base.
Additional sections of steel rod can be connected with threaded
' couplings.
• Additional sections of plastic sleeve can be connected with
press - fit plastic couplings.
' a Steel marker rod should extend at least 6 inches above top of
plastic sleeve.
' • Marker should extend at least 2 feet above top of fill surface.
' Earth TYPICAL SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL
, -
�! Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
Consulting Engineers,Geologists' U Environmental Scientists KING COUNTY WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Date Sept'89 Checked SD Dated 9-21-89 Plate 20
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
1 FLOOR SLAB
o•.
1 I11=111 o e o o � e .o o 111=1�1
I1!_Itl -I11
I11 0 o • s .;g'tD
y � III
1 y
�III� I.il ail-.iil_il.l II _III_I11 'pit nl
1 (
111 _ I _ I ll.)II _►11_ Ut_ 111 li1_;III iil =III
= —lil=nl_II� _til=nl� _ill= lil=
NATIVE SOIL I
' LEGEND
1 Free draining, organic free, granular material with a maximum
size of 3 inches, containing no more than 5 percent fines
Isilt and clay size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve]
' or other material approved by geotechnical engineer.
Capillary break consisting of not less than 4 inches of free
draining sand or gravel, typically overlain with a visqueen
1 vapor barrier.
6" p Footing drain surrounded with washed rock.
NOTES:
Structural fill should extend a lateral distance beyond the footing
perimeter equal to or greater than the depth of fill. D = feet.
' • Depth of structural fill beneath capillary break and slab, H = feet.
• Structural fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 10
inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than
' the degree specified in the site preparation and earth work section
of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction
is achieved.
• Excavated cut slopes should be at a stable angle, and should meet
all local, state and national safety requirements.
' • Excavation subgrade should be recompacted before placing any
structural fill. Geotechnical fabric may be required if subgrade is
soft or unstable at geotechnical engineers discretion.
1 Earth SCHEMATIC STRUCTURAL FILL
Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
Consulting Engineers,Geologists KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
1 U Environmental Scientists
Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Date Sept'89 I Checked SD Dated 9-21-89 Plate 21
' SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
O
°
oa
' SLOPE TO DRAIN e
O
o ° u
6 inch min °p O p e 0
�:r� p O • e o
C.
a: •� �� a 18 inch min.
.p' .'o.'e'o� .O .• o o °o °
' 4 inch min. '•;°;e.:° •� ,•.o °- °pp°p ° o ° e
.D��.•, . ..• .o °� O o 0 0
diameter •',.�e. . 'e. d'• ° '
°
00
•d• •� .: °• . p O O
� 'O'i •,•� •I O °O �O° 0 ° e� 0 p 0 0 0
' 2 inch min.
2 inch min./ 4 inch max. 12 inch
min.
t
LEGEND
' Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability
material.
' Gravel backfill for walls; WDOT Standard Specifications,
' Section 9-03. 12121 , or Fine Aggregate for Portlind
Cement Concrete ; Section 9-03.1 12).
' Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with
O perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed ; with a
positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic
pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing
lines.
— — — Impermeable visqeen barrier or other impermeable
material approved by Geotechnical Engineer.
' Earth TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
!
' * , Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
{ Consulting Engineers,Geologists KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
U Environmental Scientists
Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Date Sept'89 Checked SD Dated 9-21-8g Plate 22
Q d � � Z G - X U
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � r � �
ARC,
ofmoeiated Tockerfr Cowteaetozs
P.O. Box 1794 Woodinville, Washington 98072
(206) 481-3456 or (206) 481-7222
' ASSOCIATED ROCKERY CONTRACTORS
STANDARD ROCKERY CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES
' 1.01 Introduction:
' 1.01.1 Historical Background: These standard rockery construction guidelines have been developed in an effort
to provide a more stringent degree of control on rockery materials and construction methodology in the Pacific
' Northwest. They have been assembled from numerous other standards presently in use in the area, from expertise
provided by local geotechnical engineers, and from the wide experience of the members of the Association of
Rockery Contractors (ARC).
1.01 2 Goal: The primary goals of this document are to standardize the methods of construction for rockery walls
over four feet in height, and to provide a warranty for the materials used in construction and the workmanship
emploved in construction. This standard has also been developed in a manner that makes it, to the best of ARC's
knowledge, more stringent than the other standards presently in use by local municipalities.
2.01 Materials:
2.01.1 Rock ualit : All rock shall be sound weathering resistant angular ledge rock. The longest dimension
of any individual rock should not exceed three times its shortest dimension. Acceptability of rock will be
determined by laboratory tests as hereinafter specified, geologic examination and historical usage records.
All rock delivered to and incorporated in the project shall meet the following minimum specifications:
' a. Absorption Not more that 2.0%for igneous and metamorphic rock types.
Not more than 3.0%for sedimentary rock types.
' b. Accelerated Expansion (15 days)
(CRD-C-148) *1, *2 Not nnore than 15% breakdown
' c. Soundness
(MgSO4 at 5 cycles) Not greater than 5% loss
(CRD-C-137)
' d. Unconfined Compressive Strength Intact strength of 15,000 psi, or greater for igneous and
ASTM D 2938-79 (reapproved 1979) metamorphic rocks, and 8000 psi orgreater for sedimentary rock.
*1. The test sample will be prepared and tested in accordance with Corps of Engineers Testing procedure CRD-C-
1 148, "Method of Testing Stone for Expansive Breakdown on Soaking in Ethylene Glycol." Test requirements of not
more than 15 percent breakdown will be computed by dividing the number of individual pieces of initial sannplC
suffering breakdown (that is, separating into two or more pieces) by the total number of initial pieces in the sannple.
*2. Accelerated expansion tests should also include analyses of the fractures and veins found in the rock. Mazy
problenns associated with rockery failures are related to the rock fractures and veins found within the rock and not the
rock itself.
' 2.01.2 Frequency of Testinc: Quarry sources for rockery rock shall begin a testing program when either becoming
a supplier or when a new area of the source pit is opened. The tests described in Section 2.01.1 shall be
performed for every four thousand (4000) tons for the first twelve thousand (12000) tons of material blasted and
removed to establish that specific rock source. The tests shall then be performed once a year or at an apparent
change in material. If problems with a specific area in a pit or with a particular material are encountered, the
initial testing cycle shall be restarted.
' 2.013 Rock Density: Recognizing that numerous sources of rock exist, and that the nature of rock will vary not
only between sources but also within each source, the density of the rock shall be greater than one hundred fifty-
five (155) pcf. Typically, rocks used for rockery construction shall be sized approximately as follows:
Rock Size Rock Weight
Small to large 50-200 pounds
one man
Small to large 200-700 pounds
two man
Small to large 700-2000 pounds
three man
Small to large 2000-4000 pounds
four man
' Five Man 4000-6000 pounds
Six Man 6000-8000 pounds
' Two and one-man rock, and sometimes smaller, are often used to fill surface gaps along the top of the completed
rockery to create an aesthetically pleasing surface. This is an acceptable practice provided none of the events
described in Section 3.01.5 occur, and that the owner prevents people from climbing or walking on the completed
rockery.
In rockeries over eight feet in height, it should not be possible to move the large sized rocks (four to six-man size)
with a prybar. If these rocks can be moved, the rockery should not be considered capable of restraining any
' significant lateral load. However, it is both practical and even desirable that smaller rocks, particularly those used
for "chinking" purposes, can be moved with a prybar to achieve the 'best fit".
2.01.4 Submittals: The rock source shall present current geologic and test data for the testing for the minimum
' guidelines described in Section 2.01.1 on request by either the rockery contractor, the client, or the applicable
municipality.
3.01 Rockery Construction:
' 3.01.1 General: Rockery construction is a craft and depends largely on the skill and experience of the builder.
A rockery is a protective system which helps to retard the weathering and erosion process on an exposed cut or
fill soil face. While by its nature (the mass, size and shape of the rocks) it will provide some degree of reten-
tion, it is not a designed or engineered system in the sense a reinforced concrete retaining wall would be
' considered designed or engineered. The degree of retention achieved is dependant on the size of rock used; that
is, the mass or weight, and the height of the wall being constructed. The larger the rock, the more competent
the wall. To accomplish this, all rockeries in excess of four feet in height should be built on a "mass" basis.
To provide a competent and adequate rockery structure, all rockeries constructed in front of either cuts or fills
in excess of eight feet in height should be bid and constructed in accordance with these standard guidelines and
the geotechnical engineers supplemental recommendations. Both the standard guidelines and the supplemental
geotechnical recommendations should be provided to prospective bidders before bidding and the start of
construction.
' 2
' The same geotechnical engineer should be retained to monitor rockery construction and to verify, in writing, that
the rockery was constructed in general accordance with this ARC standard and with his supplemental recommenda-
tions, in a professional manner and of competent and suitable materials.
3.01.2 Geotechnical Engineer: The geotechnical engineer retained to provide necessary supplemental rockery
construction guidelines shall be a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil engineer in
the State of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer in
responsible charge, including experience with fill construction and stability and rockery construction. The
geotechnical engineer should be hired either by the rockery contractor or the client.
' 3.013 Responsibility: The ultimate responsibility for rockery "design" and construction should remain with the
rockery builder. However, rockeries protecting moderate to thick fills, with steep sloping surfaces above or below
them, with multiple steps, with foundation or other loads affecting them, protecting sandy or gravelly soils subject
to ravelling, with seepage or wet conditions, or that are more than eight feet in height, all represent special
conditions and require consultation and/or advice from qualified experts.
3.01.4 Workmanship: All workmanship is guaranteed by the rockery contractor and all materials are guaranteed
by supplying quarry for a period of six years from the date of completion of erection, providing no modification
or changes to the conditions existing at the time of completion are made.
3.01.5 Changes to Finished Product: Such changes include, but are not necessarily limited to, excavation of
' ditches or trenches within a distance of less than 1.5 times the rockery height measured from the toe of the
rockery, removal of any material from the subgrade in front of the rockery, excavation and/or removal of material
from any location behind the rockery within a distance at least equal to the rockery's height, the addition of any
surcharge or other loads within a similar distance of the top of the rockery, or surface or subsurface water forced,
directed, or otherwise caused to flow behind the rockery in any quantity.
3.01.6 Slopes: Slopes above rockeries should be kept as flat as possible, but should not exceed 2:1 (Horizon-
, tal:Vertical) unless the rockery is designed specifically to provide some restraint to the load imposed by the slope.
Any slope existing above a completed rockery should be provided with a vegetative cover by the owner to help
reduce the potential for surface water flow induced erosion. It should consist of a deep rooted, rapid growth
vegetative mat and typically will be placed by hydroseeding and covered with a mulch. It is often useful to overlay
' the seed and mulch with either pegged in-place jute matting, or some other form of approved geotechnical fabric,
to help maintain the seed in-place until the root mat has an opportunity to germinate and take hold.
3.01.7 Monitoring: All rockeries constructed against cuts or fills in excess of eight feet in height shall be
periodically monitored during construction by the geotechnical engineer to verify the nature and quality of the
materials being used are appropriate, that the construction procedures are appropriate, and that the wall is being
constructed in a generally professional manner and in accordance with this ARC standards and any supplemental
' recommendations.
On completion of the rockery, the geotechnical engineer shall submit to the client, the rockery contractor, and to
the appropriate municipality, copies of his rockery examination reports along with a final report summarizing
' rockery construction.
3.01.8 Fill Compaction: Where rockeries are constructed in front of a fill, it is imperative that the owner ensure
the fill be placed and compacted in a manner that will provide a competent fill mass. To achieve this goal, all
fills should consist of relatively clean, organic and debris free, granular materials with a maximum size of four
inches. Ideally, but particularly if placement and compaction is to take place during the wet season, they should
contain no more than five percent fines (silt and clay size particles passing the number 200 mesh sieve).
' All fills should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding ten inches in loose thickness. Each lift should be compacted
to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D-1557-78 (Modified
Proctor), before any additional fill is placed and compacted. In-place density tests should be performed at random
locations within each lift of the fill to verify this degree of compaction is being achieved.
' 3
I .
3.01.9 Fill Construction and Reinforcement: There are two methods of constructing a fill against which to build
a rockery. The first, which typically applies to rockeries of less than eight feet in height, is to overbuild and then
cut back the fill. The second, which applies to all rockeries in excess of eight feet in height, is to construct the
' fill using a geogrid or geotechnical fabric reinforcement.
Overbuilding the fill allows for satisfactory compaction of the fill mass out beyond the location of the fill face to
be protected. Overbuilding also allows the earthwork contractor to use larger and more effective compaction
equipment in his compactive efforts, thereby typically achieving a more competent fill mass. Cutting back into
the well compacted fill also typically results in construction of a competent near vertical fill face against which to
build the rockery.
' For the higher rockeries the use of a geogrid or geotechnical fabric to help reinforce the fill results in construction
of a more stable fill face against which to construct the rockery. This form of construction leads to a longer
lasting and more stable rockery and helps reduce the risk of significant long term maintenance.
This latter form of construction requires a design by the geotechnical engineer for each specific case. The vertical
spacing of the reinforcement, the specific type of reinforcement, and the distance to which it must extend back into
the fill, and the amount of lapping must be determined on a rockery-by-rockery basis.
3.01.10 Rockery Keyway: The first step in rockery construction, after general site clearing and/or general
excavation, is to construct a keyway in which to build the rockery. The keyway shall comprise a shallow trench
' of between twelve (12) and eighteen (18) inches in depth, extending for the full length of the rockery, and inclined
back slightly towards the face being protected. It is typically dug as wide as the rockery (including the width of
the rock filter layer).
' If the condition of the protected face is of concern, the keyway should be constructed in sections of manageable
length, that is of a length that can be constructed in one shift or one days work.
' The competency of the keyway subgrade to support the rockery shall be verified by probing with a small diameter
steel rod. The rod shall leave a diameter of between three-eights and one-half inch, and shall be pushed into
the subgrade in a smooth unaided manner under the body weight of the prober only.
Penetration of up to six inches, with some difficulty, shall indicate a "competent' keyway subgrade unless other
factors in the geotechnical engineer's opinion shall indicate otherwise. Penetration in excess of six inches, or of
that depth with ease, shall indicate a "soft" subgrade and one that could require treatment. Soft areas of the
subgrade can be "firmed up" by tamping a layer of coarse quarry spalls into the subgrade.
3.01.11 Keyway and Rockery Drainaue: On completion of keyway excavation, a shallow ditch or trench, approxi-
mately twelve (12) inches wide and deep, should be dug along the rear edge of the keyway. A minimum four-
inch diameter perforated or slotted ADS drain pipe, or equivalent approved by an engineer, should be placed in
this shallow trench and should be bedded on and surrounded by a free-draining crushed rock. Burial of the drain
pipe in this shallow trench provides protection to the pipe and helps prevent it from being inadvertently crushed
by pieces of the rockery rock. This drain pipe should be installed with sufficient gradient to initiate flow, and
should be connected to a positive and permanent discharge.
Positive and permanent drainage should be considered to mean an existing, or to be installed, storm drain system,
a swale, ditch or other form of surface water flow collection system, a detention or retention pond, or other
' stable native site feature or previously installed collection system.
3.01.12 Rockery Thickness: The individual rockery thickness, including the rock filter layer, should be at least
40 percent of the rockery height. Unless otherwise specified in writing, the individual rocks should be arranged
' in a single course which, when measured to include the filter layer, is equal to the required rockery thickness.
' 4
' 3.01.13 Rock Selection: The contractor should have sufficient space available so that he can select from among
a number of stockpiled rocks for each space in the rockery to be filled. Rocks which have shapes which do not
match the spaces offered by the previous course of rock should be placed elsewhere to obtain a better fit.
' Rock should be of a generally cubical, tabular or semi-rectangular shape. Any rocks of basically rounded or
tetrahedral form should be rejected or used for filling large void spaces.
Smaller rocks (one to two-man size, or smaller) are often used to create an aesthetically pleasing "top edge" to
a rockery. This is acceptable provided none of the events described in Section 3.01.5 occur, and that people are
prevented from climbing or walking on the finished rockery. This is the owner's responsibility.
3.01.14 Rock Placement: The first course of rock should be placed on firm unyielding soil. There should be full
contact between the rock and soil, which may require shaping of the ground surface or slamming or dropping the
rocks into place so that the soil foundation conforms to the rock face bearing on it. As an alternative, it is
satisfactory to place and tamp crushed rock into the subgrade to tighten it up. The bottom of the first course
of rock should be a minimum of twelve (12) inches below the lowest adjacent site grade.
As the rockery is constructed, the rocks should be placed so that there are no continuous joint planes in either
the vertical or lateral direction. Each rock should bear on at least two rocks below it. Rocks should be placed
so that there is some bearing between flat rock faces rather than on joints. Joints between courses should slope
downward towards the material being protected (away from the face of the rockery).
3.01.15 Face Inclination: The face of the rockery should be inclined at a gradient of about 1:6 (Horizontal:-
Vertical) back towards the face being protected. The inclination should not constructed flatter than 1HAV.
3.01.16 Voids: Because of the nature of the product used to construct a rockery, it is virtually impossible to avoid
' creating void spaces between individual rocks. However, it should be recognized that voids do not necessarily
constitute a problem in rockery construction.
Where voids of greater than six inches in dimension exist in the face of a rockery they should be visually examined
to determine if contact between the rocks exists within the thickness of the rockery. If contact does exist, no
further action is required. However, if there is no rock contact within the rockery thickness the void should be
"chinked" with a smaller piece of rock. If a void of greater than six inches exists in the rear face of the rockery,
' it should be "chinked" with a smaller rock.
3.01.17 Filter Laver: In order to provide some degree of drainage control behind the rockery, and as a means
of helping to prevent loss of soil through the face of the rockery, a drainage filter shall be installed layer between
' the rear face of the rockery and the soil face being protected. This filter layer should be at least twelve (12)
inches thick; and for walls in excess of eight feet in height, it should be at least eighteen (18) inches thick. It
should be composed of four inch minus crushed rock, or other material approved by the geotechnical engineer.
If one of the rockery rocks extends back to the exposed soil face, it is not necessary that the filter rock layer
extend between it and the soil face.
' In the event seepage is encountered emanating from a protected face, we recommend the use of a well-graded
filter layer. We do not recommend the use of a geotechnical fabric for other than coverage of relatively small and
isolated seepage areas because it has been the industry's experience that the filter fabric tends to clog rapidly.
This quickly leads to a buildup of hydrostatic pressure which can subsequently cause failure and collapse of the
' rockery and is to be avoided.
This clogging is apparently due to the virtual impossibility of achieving full contact between the soil face, fabric
and rock filter material. If full surface contact cannot be achieved, there is often a tendency for the soil materials
to flush from the protected face into the "pockets" in the fabric which leads to the aforementioned clogging.
' 5
' 3.01.18 Surface Drainage: It is the owner's responsibility to intercept surface drainage from above the rockery
and direct it away from the rockery to a positive and permanent discharge well below and beyond the toe of the
wall. Use of other drainage control measures should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the geotechnical
engineer prior to bidding on the project.
1/27/89
1
' 6
:® ,•web v•:= I
'1' '� 00 •Q.•�• MIS -�/�- 1 1 1
,- _ e ea �•� �,
6V 4A,
-< /o, ell,• ` II � _ /..-. ♦�-���/ '\ 1
Fig. A. ROCKERY SECTION Fig. B. ROCKERY ELEVATION
' SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
iNOTES:
Rockery construction is a craft and depends largely on the The long dimension of the rocks should extend back
i skill and experience of the builder. towards the cut or fill fence to provide maximum stability.
A rockery is a protective system which helps retard the Rocks should be placed to avoid continuous joint planes in
weathering and erosion process on an exposed soil face. vertical or lateral directions. Each rock should bear on two
While by its nature(mass, size and shape of the rocks) it or more rocks below it,with good flat-to-flat contact.
i will provide some degree of retention, it is not a designed All rockeries over 4 feet in height should be constructed on
or engineered system in the sense a reinforced concrete basis of wall mass, not square footage of face.
retaining wall would be considered designed or engineered.
The degree of retention achieved is dependent on the size Approximate Approximate
i Size Weight-lbs. Diameter
of the rock used;that is,the mass or weight, and the height
of the wall being constructed.The larger the rock,the more 1 Man 50-200 12-18"
competent the rockery should be. 2 Man 200-700 18-28"
Rockeries should be considered maintenance items that 3 Man 700-2000 26-36"
i will require periodic inspection and repair.They should be 4 Man 2000-4000 36-48"
located so that they can be reached by a contractor if 5 Man 4000-6000 48-54"
repairs become necessary. 6 Man 6000-8000 54-50"
Maximum inclination of the slopes above and behind Reference: Local quarry weight study using average weights
rockeries should be 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). of no less than six rocks of each man size conducted in
Minimum thickness of rock filter layer 8=12 inches. January, 1988.
Minimum embedment D=12 inches undisturbed native soil LEGEND:
i or compacted fill placed in accordance with report Drainage materials to consist of clean
recommendations. ,.&* '`:
Maximum rockery height H= feet. :.>�;...,4..�. angular well-graded quarry spalls, with 4-inch
maximum size, or other material approved by
Rockeries greater than 8 feet in height to be installed the geotechnical engineer.
under periodic or full time observation of the geotechnical :> Surface seal; may consist of impervious soil
i engineer. or a fine tree draining granular material.
Unless otherwise specified in writing by the rockery _
"designer," all rocks placed in the lower two-thirds of the Ill-11t—_ Undisturbed firm Native Soil.
wall should be 5 to 6 man rock,4000 lbs. or larger. Rocks —tli Drain pipe;4-inch minimum diameter,
i placed above this level should gradually decrease in perforated or slotted rigid plastic ADS pipe
size with increasing wall height using 3 to 5 man rock, O laid with a positive gradient to discharge
700 to 6000 lbs. under control well away from the wall.
TYPICAL ROCKERY DETAIL
NATIVE CUT, ANY HEIGHT OVER 4 F'f.
1
EN . Drwn. Date Checked Date Plate
t
1
v'
x
k'
1
1
T
6
........... ....... _............
........................ .... ...........I............................
4
D
1 B `R
L0
1 LEGEND
Crushed rock filter material ranging between 4 and 11/2 inches in size and free of
organics,with less than 5 percent fines(silt and clay size particles passing the
1 No. 200 mesh sieve).
® Compacted structural fill overbuild.
Compacted structural fill consisting of free-draining, organic-free material with a
maximum size of 4 inches. Should contain no more than 5 percent fines(described
LLLJ above), compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D-1557-78 maximum density.
O 1 Perforated or slotted drain pipe with 4 inch minimum diameter bedded on and surrounded by crushed rock filter material, described above.
® Designates size of rock required, i.e.4 man.
NOTES
• All fill should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 10 inches in loose thickness. Each layer
should be compacted to no less than 95 percent of maximum dry density,as determined by
' ASTM D-1557-78(Modified Proctor).
• Thickness of crushed filter rock layer, B, should be no less than 18 inches.
• Depth of burial of basal layer of rock, D, should be no less than 18 inches.
1 Height of rockery, H, should not exceed feet.
1
1 TYPICAL DETAIL
FILL CONSTRUCTION
1 ROCKERY 8 FT. AND LESS IN HEIGHT.
Proj. No. Drwn. Date Checked Dated Plate
1
e
°
a '
b
0
-0
o D
— T. o
c' a
o e o'0
0 0
Z
1
o°
6
V
-0
0
0
0
/ '\ q o o'9 C e° o°° .... .aim:::iYYYlY:i1M1!::fMM�:�:}I��i:�.Mk:;MM.1►iM!!�;:
.paga °0 ee0 00op a 0
/ o o-
O
0
p'
Z
1
eo
° a. 2
0
0 0
- o
0
e 0
o a_ p
0 0 0
% -0 p o D • .•• '. �MM................... MINE MN!E.............:MM.
6
®
.....i......
a oo p.00.p Z
°p o 2
-0a a 06
e
0
a/ oo e
H
°0
-0
ne
a
0
%%:::::53:MIMF'lM�
/r
0 0
0
D o.
S 1
0
oO Z O
oe .
o '
2
o
0
0
a
ea O O
°
e
°
O
0 O Q: • sf
MM•MMr N•✓ MYF:
1 O °q b
O
i
- Z o
♦ D
>:a
0
a e'. V
O.q.. Q.O. 1
b...
Doe:
D °°
B LR
LEGEND
Crushed rock filter material ranging between 4 and 11/2 inches in size and free
0 o`ti o of organics, with less than 5 percent fines(silt and clay size particles passing
° °e the No. 200 mesh sieve).
' .. Compacted structural fill consisting of free-draining, organic-free material with a
maximum size of 4 inches. Should contain no more than 5 percent fines
(described above), compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D-1557-78
— maximum density.
Tensar SS-1 geogrid, Mirafi, or equivalent reinforcement approved by
geotechnical engineer.
' O Perforated or slotted drain pipe with 4 inch minimum diameter bedded on and
surrounded by crushed rock filter material, described above.
® Designates size of rock required, i.e. 4 man.
NOTES
• All fill should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 10 inches in loose thickness. Each
' layer should be compacted to no less than 95 percent of maximium dry density, as
determined by ASTM D-1557-78(Modified Proctor).
• With exception of upper layer, geofabric reinforcement should be wrapped around
exposed fill face and lapped back beneath overlying fill layer a distance of at least
2 feet.
• Thickness of crushed filter rock layer, B, should be no less than 18 inches.
' Depth of burial of basal layer of rock, D, should be no less than 18 inches.
• Length of reinforcing geofabric, LR, shall be feet.
• Geofabric reinforcement layer spacing Z, and Z2, shall be and feet,
' respectively.
• Height of rockery, H, should not exceed feet.
TYPICAL DETAIL
FILL CONSTRUCTION
ROCKERY MORE THAN 8 FT. HEIGHT.
Proj. No. Drwn. Date Checked Dated Plate 71
DISTRIBUTION
' 3 Copies Bruce Blume and Associates
1199 Eastlake, Suite 210
Seattle, Washington 98109
' Attention: Mr. Jim Garrison
' 1 Copy Lance Mueller and Associates
130 Lakeside, Suite F
Seattle, Washington 98122
' Attention: Mr. Bob Fadden
' Earth Consultants, Inc.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1