Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272306(1) FlIVAL 'FI LE- COPY kTI KLEINFELDER An employee o"ned company r I ' k%j KLEINFELDER 1 tREPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION NE 5`h STREET AND EDMONDS AVENUE NE STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON 1 1 1 Kleinfelder, Inc. 3380 146th Place SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98007 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 (fax) October 13, 1997 1 1 1 ' kog KLEINFELDER An employee owned company October 9, 1997 ' Kleinfelder File No.: 60-1674-01 City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department ' 200 Mill Avenue South, Surface Water Utility Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Mr. Ronald J. Straka, PE Utility Engineering Supervisor ' SUBJECT: Report of Geotechnical Investigation NE 5th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE Storm System Improvement Project Renton, Washington ' Dear Ron: ' The attached report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the NE 5th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE storm system improvement project planned by the City of Renton. This investigation was performed in accordance with Consultant Contract Agreement CAG-97-107 dated June 19, 1997. ' We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services to the City of Renton on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or if we can provide assistance with other ' aspects of the project. Sincerely. ' KLEINFELDER, INC. SB,THp � Robert M. McIntosh, PE 'r O Project Geotechnical Engineer 19409 �q W 7IBbompson, PE ' Principal Geotechnical Engineer 7C'=kP,7-s 4.103h9U't' Note: The material contained in this report was prepared under the direct supervision of the undersigned, whose seal as a registered professional engineer licensed to practice in the State of Washington is affixed to this page. ' Enclosures: Report (2 copies) Akli sea\voll\library\I 997\wpdraft15017r095.doc Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. ' KLEINFELDER 3380 146th Place SE,Suite 110, Bellevue,WA 98007-6472 (206)562-4200 (206)562-4201 fax ' k" KLEINFELDER tTABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE........................................................................................I ' 1.1 Project Description........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................... 1 ' 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS..................................................................................................2 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING................................................................................................2 ' 4.0 DISCUSSION......................................................................................................................3 4.1 Geologic Hazards .............................................................................................................3 ' 4.2 Site Conditions.................................................................................................................4 4.3 Subsurface Conditions ......................................................................................................4 ' 5.0 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................4 6.0 RECONINIENDATIONS....................................................................................................5 ' 6.1 Construction Considerations.............................................................................................5 6.1.1 Dewatering ...............................................................................................................5 6.1.2 Excavations...............................................................................................................6 ' 6.1.3 Open-Cut Slopes.......................................................................................................6 6.1.4 Temporary Excavation Support.................................................................................6 6.1.5 Backfill .....................................................................................................................7 ' 6.2 Design Considerations ......................................................................................................8 6.2.1 Pipe and Manhole Support ........................................................................................8 6.2.2 Hydrostatic Uplift......................................................................................................9 ' 6.2.3 Pavement Sections ...................................................................................................9 7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ................................................................................................9 ' 7.1 Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation ..........................................................................9 7.2 Project Bid Documents.....................................................................................................9 7.3 Construction Observation and Testing.............................................................................. 10 8.0 LIMITATIONS.................................................................................................................10 1 APPENDICES ' A Plates B Application for Authorization to Use 1 ' \Vdi sea\voltlibrary\1997\wpdraft\6017r095.doc Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. t ' kn KLEINFELDER ' REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION NE 5TH STREET AND EDMONDS AVENUE NE ' STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE ' 1.1 Project Description This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the NE 5th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE storm system improvements planned by the City of Renton. The general location of the site is shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Plate 1. ' The project consists of improving the existing storm system in the following city streets: Northeast 5th Street between Edmonds Avenue Northeast and Harrington Avenue Northeast, Edmonds Avenue Northeast between Northeast 5th Street and Camas Avenue Northeast; Camas Avenue Northeast between Edmonds Avenue Northeast and Northeast 6th Street; Northeast 6th Street between Camas Avenue Northeast and Aberdeen Avenue Northeast; and Aberdeen Avenue ' Northeast between Northeast 6th Street and Northeast 7th Street (the northern terminus of the project). The southern terminus of the project will be at the intersection of Northeast 5th Street and Harrington Avenue Northeast. ' Conventional pipeline trench construction is planned for the storm system improvements. The depth of the trench is expected to range from about 5 to 15 feet below existing grades. New manholes will be installed as part of the storm system improvements. 1.2 Purpose and Scope ' The purpose of this study is to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions along the alignment of the proposed storm system improvement project, and to develop geotechnical ' recommendations and criteria for project planning and design. Our specific scope of services includes an evaluation of the following: ' • Geologic setting, seismicity and geologic hazards; • Soil and ground water conditions along the alignment, with emphasis on how these conditions are expected to affect the proposed construction; ' • Recommendations for earthwork during construction including site preparation recommendations, a discussion of the re-use of excavated soils ' as structural fill, and a discussion of the effects of wet weather on construction activities, • Recommendations for subgrade support of new stormsewer pipe and ' manhole structures, • Design parameters for manhole structures to resist the effects of hydrostatic uplift pressures, where appropriate; Akli sea\volIUihrary11997!wpdraR\6017r095.doc Page I of I I Date Printed: 10/10/97 ' Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. ' k'q KLEINFELDER ' • Recommendations for cut slopes in trenches and temporary shoring requirements; ' • Potential effects of new construction on existing facilities; • Recommendations for temporary construction dewatering including ' conceptual dewatering techniques, where appropriate, • Recommendations for trench cutoffs to control the flow of groundwater in trench backfill and pipe bedding; ' • Recommendations for pavement sections which will be used for reconstruction of the disturbed portions of the roadway. 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions along the project alignment were explored by drilling 6 test borings at the locations shown on Plate 2. The exploration locations were located in the field by measuring from existing site features. ' The subsurface explorations were monitored b y a geologist from our firm who maintained P y _ ' detailed logs of the explorations and obtained representative samples of the soils encountered for further examination in our laboratory. The soils encountered were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification Svstem as described in Plate 3. A key to the boring log symbols is presented in Plate 4. Representative samples of the soils encountered were ' obtained from the borings using an SPT (Standard Penetration Test) sampler. The SPT sampler obtains disturbed samples and was driven into the soil using a 140-pound hammer free-falling 30 ' inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches, or other indicated distance, are recorded on the boring logs. Piezometers were installed in the borings to permit future monitoring of groundwater levels. The logs of the test borings are presented on Plates 5 ' through 10. ' 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING All soil samples were brought to our laboratory for further examination. Moisture content tests were performed on selected samples in conjunction with the other laboratory tests. The results of ' moisture content tests are presented in the boring logs. ' Sieve analyses were completed on 4 selected soil samples, the results of which are presented in Plates 11 through 14. The results of another sieve test completed on a composite sample are presented in Plate 15. The composite sample was created by combining several samples of granular soils that will be excavated during construction and possibly re-used for structural fill. A summary of the sieve test results is presented in Table 1. A compaction test was completed in accordance with ASTM D-1557 using the composite soil sample. The compaction test results are presented in Plate 16. \Udi_seawolPlibrary\1997\wpdraft\6017r095.doc Page 2 of 11 Date Printed: 10/10/97 ' Copyright 1997 Kieinfelder,Inc. ' k'q KLEINFELDER ' TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIEVE ANALYSES ' Percent Depth Percent Percent Fine to Medium Percent USCS t Sample (feet) Gravel Coarse Sand Sand Silt and Clay Classification B-1, S-1 3 31.0 6.1 57.5 4.5 SP B-2, S-1 3 5.4 4.4 87.3 2.9 SP B-3, S-2 8 0.8 3.7 91.9 4.4 SP B-5, S-1 1 18.9 4.4 47.5 29.2 SM COMPOSITE NA 18.9 5.1 57.5 18.5 SM ' 4.0 DISCUSSION ' 4.1 Geologic Hazards Slope Stability and Landslide Hazards ' Slopes which are steeper than 40 percent are typically considered to be potential slope stability and landslide hazard areas. We did not observe any slopes which are steeper than 40 percent along the project alignment. Therefore, it is our opinion that slope stability and landslide hazards ' are not a concern for the existing site slopes under both static and seismic conditions. The stability of temporary excavation slopes are discussed below under Construction Considerations. ' Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards relate to risks of injury to people and damage to property resulting from earthquakes. Seismic hazards include surface fault rupture, ground shaking, associated landslides, ' and liquefaction. The Puget Sound area is a seismically active region which has experienced numerous earthquakes ' in historical time. On the basis of past earthquake activity, the Uniform Building Code assigns the Puget Sound region a Zone 3 rating for seismic activity on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest). tGiven the thickness of glacial and post-glacial soil deposits in the region, surface fault ruptures are very rare. No known surface fault ruptures are present in the site vicinity. As described in the previous section, it is our opinion that landslide hazards are not a significant concern for the existing site slopes. Liquefaction is the phenomenon wherein soil strength is dramatically reduced when subjected to vibration or shaking. Liquefaction generally occurs in saturated, loose sand deposits. The results ' of our test borings indicate that liquefaction is not a significant concern the storm system alignment. \Udi sea\volI\library\I99T,wpdraft\6017r095.doc Page 3 of 1 I Date Printed: 10/10/97 ' Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. ' k'q KLEINFELDER 4.2 Site Conditions ' The existing storm system is located in residential streets which are surfaced with asphalt concrete pavement. There is an elevation difference of approximately 75 feet between the southeast and northern ends of the alignment. A number of existing buried utilities are present in the vicinity of ' the proposed storm system improvements. 4.3 Subsurface Conditions ' The following paragraphs summarize the results of our subsurface explorations. The logs of the test borings should be reviewed for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the locations explored. t All of the test borings were drilled in existing pavement areas. The asphalt concrete pavement g P ' encountered in the borings, with the exception of Boring B-5, was observed to be approximately 3 inches thick. At Boring B-5, the asphalt concrete was measured to be approximately 12 inches thick, with a 1 Inch thick layer of crushed rock in the middle of the pavement section. ' Except for Boring B-4, approximately 1-1/2 to 5 feet of very loose to medium dense sand, silty sand and sandy gravel fill was encountered in the test borings. Below the fill, and beneath the ' asphalt concrete in Boring B-4, the test borings encountered native soil deposits consisting of medium dense to very dense sand and gravel with varying silt content and very stiff to hard silt and sandy silt. These native soils contain varying amounts of cobbles. ' The depth to groundwater was measured in the borings during drilling and on September 3, 1997. The depth to groundwater was measured to range from 5.2 to 24.5 feet in the borings on ' September 3, 1997. No groundwater was measured in Boring B-1 on that date. It is important to note that site groundwater levels may vary significantly with seasonal variations in rainfall duration and intensity. It should be expected that these groundwater levels may be slightly higher ' than those measured in this investigation, particularly during the late winter and early spring months. 1 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ' Based on our geologic reconnaissance, field explorations and analyses, we conclude that the proposed improvements to the existing storm system can be completed using conventional cut and cover construction methods. At some locations, the space available for trenching operations may be limited. Ground loss should be avoided in order to protect the existing roadway, structures and utilities, and to protect ' personnel. The existing roadway, along with structures and utilities which are located in close proximity to the storm sewer alignment, may present space limitations for deep open-cut excavations. Consequently, we expect that the storm system trench will require temporary ' support in areas of deeper cuts, high ground water levels, and where it will be close to other structures and utilities. 41i_sea\volIUibrary\I997\wpdraft\6017r095.doe Page 4 of I 1 Date Printed: 10/10/97 ' Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. ' k" KLEIN FELDER ' In our opinion, the subsurface soils encountered during our field exploration program will provide adequate support for properly bedded pipe. However, where soft and loose subgrade soils are ' encountered, additional excavation will be needed to provide suitable support for the pipe and manhole structures. Some of the on-site soils contain a substantial amount of silt and will be susceptible to disturbance if they become wet. Care should be taken to avoid disturbing these soils where they support pipes or other related structures (e.g., manholes). Removal and replacement of the upper portions of subgrade soils might be necessary should they become disturbed. ' Excavation dewatering will likely be necessary along portions of the storm sewer alignment. We anticipate that some combination of pumping from sumps in the trenches, wells or wellpoints will be used to control groundwater seepage during construction. Manholes constructed in areas of high groundwater levels should be designed to resist uplift pressures due to groundwater. ' Specific recommendations for project design and construction including mitigation of potential problems described above are presented in Section 6.0. ' 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Construction Considerations 6.1.1 Dewatering We understand that the stormwater pipe will likely be installed to a depth of 5 to 15 feet below existing grades. Groundwater levels were observed to be within 15 feet of existing grades during ' and/or after drilling in all of our explorations except for Boring B-3. Groundwater levels were observed to be about 5 to 8 feet below the existing grades at Borings B-4 and B-5 on September 3, 1997. As mentioned previously, the groundwater levels at the site may experience seasonal ' variations. It should be expected that groundwater levels may be higher than those measured in this investigation, particularly during the winter and early spring months. tBecause of the proximity of groundwater to the expected pipe invert elevations, we recommend that the contract documents include a provision which states that the contractor shall dewater all excavations in a manner which will maintain the groundwater level at a minimum depth of 2 feet ' below the bottom of the excavation while work is being performed in the bottom of the excavation. ' Possible dewatering measures include the use of ditches and sumps within the excavation, well points and/or wells. In our opinion, the contractor should be responsible for designing and ' installing the appropriate dewatering system needed to complete the work. This dewatering system should include provisions for disposal of the collected water. We recommend that the contractor be required to submit the proposed dewatering plan to the engineer for review prior to ' start of construction. Ndi sea\volI\library\1997\wpdrat1\60I7r095.doc Page 5 of I 1 Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. ' kn K L E I N F E L D E R 6.1.2 Excavations All excavations and other construction activities should be completed in accordance with ' applicable city, state and federal safety standards. We anticipate that all on-site soils can be excavated using conventional earth moving equipment. Cobbles were observed in some of our test borings. Boulders are often found in these soils as well. The contractor should be prepared to deal with these conditions. 6.1.3 Open-Cut Slopes We anticipate that some of the excavations will made as open cuts. The stability of open-cut slopes is a function of soil type, groundwater levels, slope inclination and nearby surface loads. ' The use of inadequately designed open-cuts could impact the stability of adjacent roadways, nearby structures and existing utilities, and endanger personnel. In our opinion, the contractor will be in the best position to observe subsurface conditions continuously throughout the ' construction process and to respond to variable soil and groundwater conditions. We therefore believe that the contractor should have the primary responsibility for deciding whether or not to use an open-cut slope rather than some form of temporary excavation support. ' For preliminary planning purposes only, we expect that temporary cut slopes of 1/2:1 to 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) may be used for excavations up to 4 feet deep. Cut slopes of I:I to 2:1 ' will likely be required for deeper, unshored, excavations. ' The above guidelines assume that surface loads, such as equipment loads and storage loads, will be kept a sufficient distance away from the top of the cut so that the stability of the excavation is not affected. The guidelines also assume that the excavations will be dewatered in such a way that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter slopes and/or excavation support will be necessary for those portions of the excavations which are subjected to significant seepage in order to maintain the stability of the cut. It should be expected that the excavation face will experience some sloughing and raveling. Berms should be installed around the perimeter of the excavation to intercept surface runoff and ' reduce the potential for sloughing and erosion of the cut slope. 6.1.4 Temporary Excavation Support We recommend that a trench shoring system be used where excavations will be located in close proximity to roadways, utilities or structures where these excavations might result in ground loss and damage to these facilities. A trench box is one type of support system which might be used. The zone behind the trench box and the excavation face should be backfilled as necessary to limit ground movement. Alternatively, braced or unbraced shoring of various types could be ' considered. \Udi sea\vol 1'',library\1997\wpdrafl\6017r095.doc Page 6 of 11 Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. ' k% KLEINFELDER ' The lateral soil pressures acting on a temporary excavation support system will depend on the ground surface configuration adjacent to the trench, and the amount of lateral movement which ' can occur as the excavation is made. For support systems that are free to yield at the top at least one-thousandth of the height of the excavation, soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing. ' We recommend that yielding systems be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for horizontal ground surfaces. This is based on a water level at or below the ' bottom of the excavation. For nonyielding systems, we recommend that the shoring be designed for a uniform lateral pressure of 25H in pounds per square foot (psf), where H is the depth of the planned excavation in feet below a level ground surface. ' The above recommended lateral soil ( .pressures do not include the effects of surcharges e. P g g , ' equipment loads, storage loads, tragic loads, or other surface loading). Surcharge effects should be considered as appropriate. ' Existing structures may be sensitive to vibrations. If shoring is driven or vibrated as part of this project, the effect on nearby facilities should be adequately evaluated. We recommend that the contractor submit their shoring plan to the engineer for review prior to the start of construction. 6.1.5 Backfill We recommend that materials and procedures used for bedding and backfill of the proposed storm ' sewer improvements be in accordance with applicable provisions of the City of Renton specifications. Backfill material should be placed in 6-inch lifts and mechanically compacted to a firm, nonyielding condition. Within pavement areas, trench backfill in the upper 2 feet below the ' finished subgrade surface should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557. Other backfill material placed within pavement ' areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent of ASTM D-1557. We recommend that trench cutoffs be installed, where appropriate, to control the flow of ' groundwater in trench backfill and pipe bedding. The trench cutoffs should extend from the base of the trench to at least 12 inches above the top of the pipe. We recommend that the cutoffs consist of compacted impervious soil or concrete. The cutoffs should be at least 3 feet in length. Most of the soils encountered in the borings consist of sand or gravel with a fines content (percent of soil by dry weight that passes through the U.S. Standard No.200 sieve) ranging from about 3 to 20 percent. These soils are shown on the boring logs as having USCS soil classification Symbols of SP, SP-SM, GP and GP-GM. We anticipate that the in-situ moisture contents of these soils are generally at or near optimum where they are located above the groundwater table. These soils should be suitable for use as backfill provided that moisture contents are not allowed to increase during construction. Some of this material would be difficult, or impossible, to use as trench backfill during wet weather due to a high fines content. \Udi_sea\volI\Iibrary\l997\wpdraft\G017r095.doc Page 7 of 1 I Date Printed: 10/10/97 ' Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. ' k'q KLEINFELDER Deposits of fine-grained silt and silty sand (USCS Group Symbols NIL and SM, respectively) were encountered in some of the borings. These materials will be unsuitable for use as backfill ' due to a high fines content. Sands and gravels excavated from below the ground water table will also not be suitable for use as backfill due to moisture contents being wetter than the optimum moisture contents for compaction. These unsuitable materials should be segregated from the ' other excavated soils and replaced with imported backfill. An allowance for the use of imported backfill should be included in the project budget. ' For placement during periods of wet weather, imported backfill material should consist of sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines (material passing US Standard No. 200 sieve) by weight of the fraction of the soil passing the 3/4-inch sieve. A tines content of up to 10 to 12 ' percent will be acceptable for the imported fill for placement during periods of dry weather. We recommend that the placement and compaction of trench backfill be observed by a ' representative of our firm. An adequate number of in-place density tests should be performed in the backfill as it is being placed to determine if the specified compaction is being achieved. ' 6.2 Design Considerations 6.2.1 Pipe and Manhole Support ' We anticipate that the storm system improvements will be constructed using conventional pipe trenching techniques. We anticipate that the subgrade soils at pipe and manhole inverts will ' generally be suitable for support of these facilities. However the subgrade soils may be susceptible to disturbance as a result of construction activities. ' To address this concern, we recommend that a zone of select material be placed on the base of the excavations for manholes, and other critical structures, to provide a stable "working pad" for these structures. Further, we recommend that all slough and disturbed subgrade soils be removed ' from the base of the manhole excavations before placing the "working pad" and that the manhole excavations be made with a smooth-bucket backhoe (e.g., without teeth) to facilitate the removal of slough. We recommend that the "working pad" material consist of 3- to 6-inch sized quarry ' spalls or recycled concrete, or an equivalent material approved by the engineer. We recommend that the "working pad" have a minimum thickness of 18 inches beneath manhole structures. The working pad material should be densely compacted into the subgrade soils with the backhoe 1 bucket or compactor during placement. All slough and disturbed subgrade soils should be removed from the base of the pipe trench before ' placing the pipe bedding material. The post-construction settlement of pipeline segments or manholes constructed using conventional trenching techniques is not expected to exceed 1/2 inch, provided that the subgrade is prepared as described above. t \\Idi sea\vol I\library\1997\wpdraft\6017rO95.doc Page R of 1 I Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. ' k" KLEINFELDER ' 6.2.2 Hydrostatic Uplift Some of the manholes will be subject to hydrostatic uplift due to a relatively shallow groundwater ' table. Please refer to the logs of the borings for information on site groundwater levels. Resistance to uplift can be developed by the dead weight of the structure and friction along the ' sides of structure. Friction resistance can be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.35 applied to the lateral soil pressures. This coefficient of friction value includes a factor of safety of about 1.5. We recommend that lateral soil pressures for uplift resistance be computed using an ' equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf below the groundwater table, and 30 pcf below the groundwater table. 6.2.3 Pavement Sections We anticipate that it will be most cost effective to restore the pavement in construction areas by repairing the disturbed areas rather than by repaving the entire street. ' We recommend that the subgrade in areas to be paved be probed or proofrolled with heavy rubber-tired construction equipment prior to paving. Any unsuitable areas should be ' recompacted, if practical, or removed and replaced with structural fill. We recommend that the probing or proofrolling of subgrade areas be observed by a representative of our firm to identify ' areas needing remedial work and to assess the adequacy of subgrade conditions. Provided that trench backfill and pavement subgrade areas have been prepared as recommended, t we recommend that pavement sections be designed using a CBR value of 15. We can review the pavement designs prepared by the City of Renton, if desired. ' 7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 7.1 Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation Some of the design details for the project were not available at the time of preparation of this report. We strongly recommend that our firm be given the opportunity to review the geotechnical aspects of the project plans and specifications as the design is being developed to confirm the applicability of our recommendations, or to make the appropriate modifications. It is possible that ' this review might indicate the need for supplemental field explorations and engineering analysis, depending on the issues involved. 7.2 Project Bid Documents During the bidding process any questions regarding this report shall be directed to the City. The ' geotechnical consultant will not respond to any questions from bidders, but will direct them to the City. t It has been our experience during the bidding process that contractors often contact us to discuss the geotechnical aspects of the project. Informal contacts between Kleinfelder and an individual contractor could result in incorrect or incomplete information being provided to the contractor. 41i_sea\volIUibrary\I997\wpdraft\6017r095.doc Page 9 of 11 Date Printed: 10/10/97 ' Copyright 1997 Klein.elder,Inc. ' k" KLEINFELDER ' Therefore, we recommend a pre-bid meeting be held to answer any questions about the report prior to submittal of bids. If this is not possible, questions or clarifications regarding this report ' should be directed to the project Owner or his designated representative. After consultation with Kleinfelder, the project Owner (or his representative) should provide clarifications or additional information to all contractors bidding the job. ' 7.3 Construction Observation and Testing ' The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be made during construction to verify compliance with these recommendations. These tests and observations should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: 1. Observations and testing during site preparation and earthwork. ' 2. Observation and testing of construction materials. 3. Consultation as may be required during construction. 8.0 LIMITATIONS ' The recommendations contained in this report are based on the field explorations and our understanding of the proposed project. The investigation was performed using a mutually agreed ' upon scope of work. It is our opinion that the study was a cost-effective method to explore the subject site and evaluate some of the potential geotechnical concerns. ' The soils data used in the preparation of this report were obtained from the test borings completed at the site. It is possible that variations in soils exist between the locations explored. The nature and extent of soil variations may not be evident until construction occurs. If any soil conditions are encountered at the site which are different from those described in this report, our firm should be immediately notified so that we may make any necessary revisions to our recommendations. In addition, if the scope of the proposed project, pipeline grades, or other ' aspects of the project change from the descriptions given in this report, our firm should be notified. ' Our scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. ' This report has been prepared for use in design and construction of the subject project in P P P g J P J ' accordance with the generally accepted standards of practice at the time the report was written. No warranty, express or implied, is made. \Vdi_sea\volIUibrary\199Twpdraft\6017r095.doc Page 10 of'I I Date Printed: 10/10/97 ' Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. ' kn K L E I N F E L D E R ' This report may be used only by the Client and for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both on- and off-site), or other factors including ' advances in man's understanding of applied science may change over time and could materially affect our findings. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after 12 months from its issue. Kleinfelder should be notified if the project is delayed by more than 12 months from the ' date of this report so that a review of site conditions can be made, and recommendations revised if appropriate. ' It is the CLIENT'S responsibility to see that all parties to the project including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the Contractor's ' option and risk. Any party other than the Client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such ' intended use by executing the "Application for Authorization to Use" which follows this document as an appendix. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party. \\kli sea\volHibrary\1997`.wpdraR\6017rO9S.doc Page l l of I Date Printed: 10/10/97 ' copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. ' APPENDIX A 1 1 1 1 6 -V BM 4 A x43: r ,•�rr'i '� .ass _ I '.. \ •� ' • I ,�••' , BDY - --- e Plant ON l �• ! �� \� �,' + Wit' h ! — SITEI — — • i :: ✓. :BM /—J ■ n' Par + r — •y 1 I II 1►thletic � � � ' � I � � ti �� ----=-- � ■ field 1 i a Greenwood .1 ••�' •u } —- %406 Ctrve _ era .' asebatl Park \" �rwS�., SM APPROXIMATE SCALE ' Reference: USGS 7.5' Topographic Map, Issaquah and 0 1000 2000 — — Renton Quadrangles Washington, 1949 and 1950, Photo Revised 1973 1 inch=2000 feet 1 ' Site Plan PLATE KLEI NFELDER City of Renton NE 5th St Storm System Improvements 1 ' PROJECT NO. 60-1674-01 September, 1997 Renton, WA FILE NO. 167401.PPT c� c� O '^v.4 • \, ter,:r ,✓'.•' •�,,. .O w M V,�•,w,.,.w.v,•.��+ „),, M ww.v,,..,n^V^V^w , s "•'IS:•h•' „ ',:• CIO NN CD .. ......: ., fin' ww.ww,. n5et B u #.. . C .. ....., ..L ,I: .. _. ....,, �• �� z.......... ,n,h Aberd 'e...w n Ave`NE ,. .: ,nY^•Lj' U Q\ ....i �•.. ............:w.w.ww.;;,• .,. �•• l� `''•.y t�sy �o.♦ \•ay' •�:,�`,'� '•�' ?j,,...Y I� a�fO�g•: s?1� .S•. '• '.ts...}t f "' ' 1 , 1 1 Qom" ') f i Nf+,•^„ ... •,... I f[1.... f 's u5 `f... N !•• ..? ..... ........ f� ..! F .iS )j df t• W j mF.COO :.,•.........:LL 4 `\�° ,j, / ; ',✓ , sw. <w :Bib.ine. I ,.... J1 jJ• s }},�..�...... ILA O <? / \` i; - �• + , :...:..,.+w,..w,„... Cam6s Ave NE t or'kG E. y ' wq............n dm d�Av ...... t+ PRI - S i P. N gin. 1'[///'� L•.:` .,, i•, , A 1 N _ N .T •. , a^^� . M i �N i." , .... .,. ,... h^fps •:• ,� >, ,� ?. . _ ...j. tngton..,Avga....,.......^,:................................:...Har..rtngton..A.v.e..NE...� ..,.....w. .w», .. ; - m 1 t i k..:.... u N .P... Y..F ` ,S .t...L. ,.. ...iy i 111{{{G4�i �G • Index AYe NEw..............M.M„ � Index�PC N i• ,,t 4„ wM. .,., ,.,,,...�. `:.. . Z � .. •..... ... `• "µ ... •• ,, ,yam.. �hn•' . .y., ......,� ,e 2 � ..S � �V •'N ..n..fVn.e �w:.,•w.w...,.� t, "� �.. co T f•'1 , 1 / �,✓• V t kQh).......:..... .. i ° iN ''a 1 S. ,y :k• y. �-. f...... �+ ....... •,;,:••:�,;,/aka 't,�" `'••., .''p�,..N�� .••� i M �.. >t� � j Y1 r71 ` �4 '\ i`' L ,.-....,,ww.,...i,..^..d:+.c1.,....i L.....• � � '+• .. ..�..',Y l,''�.., >t:y . �,••g�,.,^.,.^ ..... .w ..�..:....M,w.,........w,•• ,R G' ,,' •,s ,•i _ �PF;.: %p is Z FerSo�i'A:/ .p � ' ,� ' ..........N. i .,...... 't <. y''\r'JeF er5on�A4e NE...w, i. 0 ..... ...;. t � � ,�' .i �• .,,... �x � '" ..,, ....,„� Ktrklgnd,�.Y.�.;MNB.....s m G 7 i u "`^,.^.—: Ktr,.kland...A..0 E.... ..-µ-I.^r..�w w ^„In^., ...,.�, .,..•• „„ -..,.•. .-� Lynnwood , PnP it d ti. tt.:Y. . ....!! 7 :i....1F•... i mE li- cn O v' 0, M r oCD o - o o a I. 114, r � z �. z 0 ar r O y OD N SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM t MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL WELL-GRADED GRAVEL,FINE TO COARSE COARSE GRAVEL CLEAN GW GRAVEL ' GRAINED GRAVEL SOILS More Than 50°/u GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL of Coarse Fraction Retained on GRAVEL GM SIITY GRAVEL t No.4 Sieve WITH FINES More Than 50% GC CLAYEY GRAVEL Retained on No.200 Sieve SAD CLEAN SW WELL-GRADED SAND,FINE TO COARSE SAND ' SAND POORLY-GRADED SAND More Than 50% SP of Coarse Fraction SM SIITY SAND Passes SAND ' No.4 Sieve WITH FINES SC CLAYEY SAND SILT AND CLAY ML SIIT FINE INORGANIC ' GRAINED CL CLAY SOILS Liquid Limit Less Than 50 ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT,ORGANIC CLAY ' More Than 50o/u SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY,ELASTIC SILT Passes No.200 Sieve CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAY Liquid Limit ' 50 or More ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY,ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT ' PARTICLE SIZE LIMITS GRAVEL SAND BOULDERS COBBLES SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 12" 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 0.002 mm t DESCRIPTIVE TERMS USED WITH SOILS CONSISTENCY&APPARENT DENSITY MOISTURE CONTENT SILTS AND CLAYS SANDS&GRAVELS Strongest Hard Very Dense Wettest Wet Very Stiff Dense Very Moist Stiff Medium Dense Moist ' Meditun Stiff Loose Slightly Moist West Soft Very Loose Driest. Dry Very Soft ' NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: I. Field classifcation is based on visual examination of soil Dry - Absence of moisture,dusty,dry to touch in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. ' 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on Moist - Damp,but no visible water ASTM D2487-90. 3. Description of soil density or consistency are based on Wet - Visible free water or saturated,usually soil is interpretation of blow count data,visual appearance of obtained from below water table ' soils and/or test data. KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND TERMS k'qKLEINFELDER ' Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. LEGEND2.PRE PLATE 3 SYMBOLS SAMPLE TYPE LABORATORY TESTS ' AL Atterberg limits a BULK/BAG SAMPLE CP Compaction CS Consolidation ' DS Direct shear GS Grain-size analysis eMODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER %F Percent fines (2-1/2 inch outside diameter) HA Hydrometer analysis ' SK Permeability SM Moisture content STANDARD PENETRATION MD Moisture and density SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER SP Swelling pressure (2 inch outside diameter) PP Pocket penetrometer TV Torvane TX Triaxial compression ' SHELBY TUBE UC Unconfined compression (3 inch outside diameter) CA Chemical analysis (_) SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED Note: Blow count is the number of blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches, or other indicated distance, using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. "P" indicates sample pushed with weight of hammer or against weight of drill rig. 1 GENERAL NOTES 1. The reader must refer to the discussion presented in the report text, the Key to Soil Classification ' and Terms, and the exploration logs for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 2. Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual. 3. No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil conditions between individual sample locations. q. Boring logs represent general soil conditions observed at the point of exploration on the date indicated. t �'F] KLEINFELDER BORING LOG LEGEND ' Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. KA_LOG_LEGDM PLATE 4 Surface Conditions: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Date Drilled: 7/15/97 1 Logged By: KLB ' Groundwater: Groundwater observed at 14.5 ft.during drilling. Piezometer installed Approx.Surface Elev.(ft): 285 to 17.5 ft. No groundwater measured in piezometer on 9/3/97. Total Depth: 19 ' Laboratory Field DESCRIPTION d 0 � C d o � � (D GP GM 3"asphalt concrete pavement Brown sandy gravel with silt(medium dense,moist)FILL ' o SP Brown fine to medium sand with occasional gravel(medium dense,moist) GS 4 14 5 5 SM 2 63 Becomes very dense with gravel 10 10 ' S M 10 50/5 t15 Becomes wet 15 QJ GP Gray sandy gravel with occasional cobbles and a trace of silt(very dense,wet) ' 50/5 Q D o ° ' 20 20 t 25 25 ' LOG OF BORING B-1 City of Renton k'4 KLEINFELDER Northeast Sth Street Storm System Improvements 5/97 copyrc 1997 w.:reldw.hoc i.oa_�ao�a doi�1� Project# 60-1674-01 PLATE 5 ' NOTE: See Plates 3 and 4 for Explanation of Symbols Surface Conditions: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Date Drilled: 7/15197 Logged By: KLB ' Groundwater: Groundwater observed at 13.5 ft.during drilling. Piezometer installed Approx.Surface Elev.(ft): 281 to 17.5 ft. Groundwater measured at 17.4 ft.in piezometer on 9/3197. Total Depth: 19 Laboratory Field DESCRIPTION 2R a E ^ F o d N c n cai E $ n o a Z U g o a fn JF- MV 0a m J C� SP SM 3"as haft concrete pavement Brown fine sand with sift(very loose to loose,moist) FILL t GS 13 7 5 SP Brown fine to medium sand with a trace of silt(medium dense,moist) 5 1 ' SM 5 25 10 10 ' SM Brown silty fine to medium sand(dense to very dense,moist to wet) ' SM 14 33 ' 15 15 64 20 20 25 25 LOG OF BORING B-2 City of Renton k" KLEINFELDER Northeast Sth Street Storm System Improvements CWrW i'�10"t` b" O6°F BO�'o 60101 � Project# 60-1674-01 PLATE 6 ' NOTE: See Plates 3 and 4 for Explanation of Symbols Surface Conditions: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Date Drilled: 7/15197 Logged By: KLB ' Groundwater observed at 23.5 ft.during drilling. Piezometer installed Approx.Surface Elev.(ft): 280 Groundwater: g g• to 24.0 ft. Groundwater measured at 24.5 ft.in piezometer on 9/3/97. Total Depth: 25 Laboratory Field T Q DESCRIPTION y� F 0 d Lo 0. y y L E 05 Di O u- CO -J J r-9 0 SP 3"asphalt Concrete Pavement Brown fine to medium sand with a trace of silt(very loose,moist)FILL SM 7 4 5 SP Brown fine to medium sand with a trace of silt(dense,moist) 5 ' GS 4 34 10 10 SP-SM Gray fine to medium sand with silt,occasional gravel and cobbles(very dense,moist) SM 8 50/4 ' 15 15 Becomes with gravel and cobbles ' SM 5 50/5.5 20 20 GP Gray fine gravel with sand,a trace of sift and occasional cobbles(very dense,moist to wet) a D SM 7 50/6 0 oO D 25 25 ' LOG OF BORING B-3 City of Renton KLEINFELDER Northeast Sth Street Storm System Improvements ' c°�n'd IMKkaaaa•be. Loa_oF_BOWNG 60inwoi7.GPJ Project# 60-1674-01 PLATE 7 ' NOTE: See Plates 3 and 4 for Explanation of Symbols Surface Conditions: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Date Drilled: 7/15/97 Logged By: KLB Groundwater: No groundwater observed during drilling. Piezometer installed to 14.0 Approx.Surface Elev.(ft): 258 ft.Groundwater measured at 8.0 ft.in piezometer on 9/3/97. Total Depth: 15 ' Laboratory Field DESCRIPTION E N H 0 C C G. d16 L Vl LL E U 3 d L ' a v m o o �U o n O cA $H Tt -A O M L 3"asphalt concrete pavement Gray brown sandy silt with occasional gravel(hard,moist to wet) SM 13 45 5 5 SM Gray brown to wet silty fine to medium sand with occasional gravel and cobbles(very dense,moist) S M 13 50/6 1 10 10 ' S M 8 50/6 15 15 ' 20 20 1 25 25 LOG OF BORING B-4 City of Renton k4KLEINFELDER Northeast Sth Street Storm System Improvements Cora 1997 w"x`'°',e` l.00_°F-BO 6017MO17. Project# 60-1674-01 PLATE 8 ' NOTE: See Plates 3 and 4 for Explanation of Symbols Surface Conditions: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Date Drilled: 7/15/97 ' Logged By: KLB ' Groundwater: Groundwater observed at 12 ft.during drilling. Piezometer installed to Approx.Surface Elev.(ft): 249 15.0 ft.Groundwater measured at 5.2 ft.in piezometer on 9/3197, Total Depth: 15 ' Laboratory Field DESCRIPTION a E r. H o a D a E. y c o t6 C V 7 L M �N o o -0 p3 c o a cn �F� �U '�a m ::J 0 p 12"asphalt concrete pavement with a 1"thick zone of base course in the middle ' SM Brown silty fine sand(medium dense,moist)FILL SM Dark gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional gravel and cobbles(medium dense, GS 15 29 moist to wet) 5 SM 14 25 Becomes silty fine sand with occcasional gravel and cobbles 10 10 ' SPSM Brown fine sand with sift and occasional gravel(medium dense,wet) 1 26 ' 15 15 ' 20 20 1 25 25 ' LOG OF BORING B-5 City of Renton k4KLEINFELDER Northeast Sth Street Storm System Improvements ' Copyrif[199/Kkiridda.inc. 1"G-0-B0R1N0 601M0t7.GPJ Project# 60-1674-01 PLATE 9 ' NOTE: See Plates 3 and 4 for Explanation of Symbols 1 Surface Conditions: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Date Drilled: 7/15/97 1 Logged By: KLB 1 Groundwater: Groundwater observed at 13.5 ft.during g�drillin Piezometer installed Approx.Surface Elev.(ft): 211 to 18.0 ft. Groundwater measured at 11.8 ft.in piezometer on 913197. Total Depth: 20 Laboratory Field 1 DESCRIPTION �. E QN 7 d >` 4) d C O E 1 m , 0 o �U O to V a m O O SM 3"asphalt concrete pavement Dark brown silty fine sand(very loose,moist FILL 1 SM Dark brown silty fine to medium sand with roots and occasional gravel(very loose, moist)FILL SM 19 4 1 ML Gray sandy silt with occasional gravel(hard,moist) 5 5 1 1 SM 15 49 10 10 1 SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with occasional gravel(dense,wet) 1 39 1 15 15 ML Brown silt with occasional sand(very stiff,wet)) 1 SM 28 31 1 20 20 1 1 25 1 f I I 125 1 LOG OF BORING B-6 City of Renton k4KLEINFELDER Northeast 5th Street Storm System Improvements 1 Cop}ri&1997 K]cirfkida,H. LO-O-BORNE 6017)M19i� Project# 60-1674-01 PLATE 10 1 NOTE: See Plates 3 and 4 for Explanation of Symbols !IMES �� S55=5=5��5 ® a ®� MON M MIM C) m i5� ■_ii5_ > z tz HIM OMEN IMM m IM mommmomm III N1 IMIME MMM rn IMM mmm EMM sm Im IMM MmlMmMM IMM 01100010101010101 ME IMIM IMIM MUMMI ES IMM INN 1 CD Ml C: - Ml IMM milmom MMM IMM 0 011MIMEMMIM MMMMMMIM IMEMIN MMM z -441mommill lmmmmmm-- • 1 1 � � 1 • ;7m ELI MM ..mom=- IME ����-■� ■■�..■ _m MEE M�I�MBD�C�GS� Elm . , , fill 1 1 INE 1 NMI ikillml III I��0 MIMESka� � �ml SIMON MIN IMM MOM NMRI 0 MMMMMMMMO •_ . 1 . 1 1 1 .1 11 .._�_� 1 1 • ;7m LIM o�� MEN Mom EM limmol mQamaab���®�=� • aaa�a�a�®ate®®QQQ®����' ��_' • iQQ��aQs�i�==■•i�aQ���ii�i.��� SI it 1 � • ;� • i 1 • • r • 1 1 � � p • MEL tTj pion co — •=—_CSC--®_ __�"�aG���C�' ��if fill 1440 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION; Composite Sample- Brown gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel 135 1 kl TEST SYMBOL TEST METHOD ASTM D-1557 ' MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (PCF) 133 130 I OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT (%) 8 ' UNIFIED SOIL S.M � CLASSIFICATION Qi NATURAL WATER O CONTENT (%) 9 U. LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT m j � I SPECIFIC GRAVITY U W W a N1 z i o I dZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES 2 � W 115 i 2.75 2.70 2.65 z r o 110 I log 1000 4 8 12 16 20 24 WATER CONTENT - PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT ' PLATE k%jKLE1 N FELDER COMPACTION TEST RESULTS 16 17-7177' NO . 60-1674-01 Sept.5, 1997 M -6 ' OVEN DRY MOISTURE TEST ASTM D <16 PRO J ECT G`Y o '�� �`� n J E rT Nn SAMPLE L.-AB NO. TESTED 5"; fc 3 D;)� E113O/47 DATE REC I EVER REVIEWED B'�` Specimen Numbor ram, Dish Number ' Wc. Dish & Net Soil ?�%, ' Wt. Dish L Dry Soil ""r' / ?, c�cY t 2- Wt. of Dish Wt_ of Water L Vt. of Dry Soil 4.4 ' u CT- c, -7 Percent YCisture Spacinen ?tunbar Dish =bar �} 1 _ l 7-0 2� Wt. Dish b Wac Soil 7 �9 2 �� ? 44- D ' Wt. Diah & Dry Soil r,� ' Wc. of Dish uG . Jr vfC, -2. ! J J Wt_ of Water 2 Vt. of Dry Soil Percent Hoisture Specimen Number f -�z C.1q _e-j $_2 ' Di9h Nucbar 3 c� Wt. Dish & Vat Soil �4 r �C( ' Wt. Dish & Dry Soil 2. tWt_ of Dish Wt. of Uatar ' Wt. of Dry Soil ' Percent Y.oisturn OVEN DRY MOISTURE TEST ' ASTM D-2216 PROJECT G-'`y PROJECT NCI- ' SAMPLE I NFO. LAB NO. TESTED BY 1-/ 4- _ .ATE_ 7 3d/°�7 DATE RECIEVED REVIEWED BY ' Speciana Vusbnr Dish Number ' Nc. Dish & Net Soil ?_ ? 7, p 7, /4' �� f Wt. Dish Q D �' =T! ' ry SO i 1 r i� r ., L 7 G.L Nt. of Dish ' Nt. of Water . Vt. of Dry Soil t Percent Moisture , , 3 Spacina.a t;uaSar Dish mbar ' Vt. Dish b War- Soil 3L/v$ , ' Nt. Dish & Dry Soil Nc. of Dish 7C`f r 7 Fo? ' s C' I Wt. of Water G� • ? 3-7, CJ ' Wt. of Dry Soil Percear- "Ho iscure- CD • 1 .2 , 7© �yt� W,+f rSpecimen hljmber ' Dinh Number G7c. Dish & Uet Soil -S 74�s ?f ' Nt- Dish & Dry Soil 1 , Nt_ of Dish twt. of Nacar 7 ' 'Jr. of Dry Soil Percent Yoiscura Z �• �� ' U SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE ' ASTM C-136 , ' PROJECT s-f�=� PROTECT NO. SAMPLE INFO. — j LAB NO. TESTED BY �L>> �' DATE ' DATE RECEIVED REVIEWED BY ' MOISTURE CONTENT Total Wet Weight Plus Tare Dish No. ' Wet Weight Sample and Dish Tare Total Wet Weight Dry Weight Sample and Dish Weight of Water Wet Weight Minus No. 4 Weight of Dish ' D Weight of Sample Dry Weight Minus No. 4 �' g Water Content, % Dry Weight 3 . Sa ' Total Dry Weight Dry Weight of Sub-Sample ' PERCENTU.S. WEIGHT RETAINED PERCENT STANDARD ACCUMULATIVE RETAINED PERCENT PERCENT ' SIEVE GROSS TARE NET ACCUMULATIVE PASSING OF TOTAL ; a Z4 $O.S7 ►r . $ 3 G ,o 7 7/. z� nto yL �$ 20 , . g-7 - -2 ) • 2 , 7& z_ '� y. J Z 1 n� GE00017.DOMLS ' S30133N131 )i d� SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE ' ASTM C-136 ' PROJECT �j P ;, �o.� PROTECT NO. SAMPLE INFO. LAB NO. TESTED BY DATE ' ' DATE RECEIVED REVIEWED BY MOISTURE CONTENT rC Total Wet Weight Plus Tare Dish No. � ' Tare Wet Weight Sample and Dish S �_• 0 9 Total Wet Weight Dry Weight Sample and Dish Weight of Water Wet Weight',sinus No. 4 Weight of Dish ' D Weight of Sample u '` Dry Weight Liinus No. 4 Dry l g � Water Content, % Dry Weight • �-� ' Total Dry Weight Dry Weight of Sub-Sample U.S. WEIGHT RETAINED PERCENT STANDARD ACCUMULATIVE RETAINED PERCENT PERCENT ' SIEVE GROSS TARE NET ACCUMULATIVE PASSING OF TOTAL 7' Gj 3 =r'' 3 c D, $• ,o.� Zsg•Sg 9? O z.9 i z , � z —Zro GE00017.D0C1XLS ' b3a133N131A �� SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE ' ASTM C-136 PROJECT PROJECT NO. SAMPLE INFO. c _2 LAB NO. DATE TESTED BY ' DATE RECEIVED REVIEWED BY ' MOISTURE CONTENT Total Wet Weight Plus Tare Dish No. Tare Wet Weight Sample and Dish t LZ Total Wet Weight Dry D Weight Sample and Dish 1� ' 51 Weight of Water 7 Weight of Dish hpe 11 Wet Weight Minus No. 4 � s3c� Dry Weight Minus No. 4 Dry Weight of Sample Water Content, % Dry Weight ' Total Dry Weight Dry Weight of Sub-Sample U.S. WEIGHT RETAINED PERCENT STANDARD ACCUMULATIVE RETAINED PERCENT PERCENT ' SIEVE GROSS TARE NET ACCUMULATIVE PASSING OF TOTAL / S2 3 . 7 7. "13-57 V7.-t ' ��.s� , 9 iota �7. 25 9 � . ?�? 7, i GE00017.DOCJXLS ' 2l3Ol3 � Nl31 � �� SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE ASTM C-136 , ' PROJECT PROTECT NO. '��^ SAMPLE INFO. P _ � LAB NO. 1 j TESTED BY !r; DATE DATE RECEIVED REVIEWED BY MOISTURE CONTENT Total Wet Weight Plus Tare Dish No. ' Wet Weight Sample and Dish Tare Total Wet Weight Dry Weight Sample and Dish -5 l.. 1 ' Weight of Water 3 3 Wet Weight Minus No. 4 Weight of Dish D Weight of Sample �2a' 76 Dry Weight Minus No. 4 Dry g Water Content, % Dry Weight ' Total Dry Weight Dry Weight of Sub Sample ' U.S. WEIGHT RETAINED PERCENT STANDARD ACCUMULATIVE RETAINED PERCENT PERCENT ' SIEVE GROSS TARE NET ACCUMULATIVE PASSING OF TOTAL (' . 7 q 3. 3 61 •. 7 3 .� G� Pt(1,u? 2 76 , 7 41,`4 2� 2 ,7 f �I S6 4k. Z�. 3 7 f , 7 $ .D 3 3 79 v 3 g�F % ig.i). ' �Cl RT,y) �tv.3Y iJ�-. z mil . (f ►z.0 tJ � (D ) , nZG- �f' 15.`63 131 .1 z- z9i, Z GEo0017.DOClX1S f2J3413 � N131 � �� SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE ' ASTM C-136 P ROJECT NO. l f—1 2 7`" PROJECT �vac'ry SAMPLE INFO. LAB NO. TESTED BY GAS DATE ' DATE RECEIVED REVIEWED BY MOISTURE CONTENT Total Wet Weight Plus Tare Dish No. Tare Wet Weight Sample and Dish 3 -- Total Wet Weight Dry Weight Sample and Dish -1 ' Weight of Water Wet Weight Minus No. 4 Weight of Dish ' Dry Weight Minus No. 4 Dry Weight of Sample `V A 6 3 Water Content, % Dry Weight ' Total Dry Weight Dry Weight of Sub-Sample U.S. WEIGHT RETAINED PERCENT STANDARD ACCUMULATIVE RETAINED PERCENT PERCENT ' SIEVE GROSS TARE NET ACCUMULATIVE PASSING OF TOTAL G � 1 .qS W�4 7-0. 27 3 2 , Li � gel 5"1, 70 314 i�. r E e GE00017.DOGXLS 2i30131N13IN hn � APPENDIX B 1 ' k" KLEIN FELDER ' APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO USE ' REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION NE 5th STREET AND EDMONDS AVENUE NE STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON KLEINFELDER PROJECT NUMBER 60-1674-01 ' DATED ' October 13, 1997 TO: Kleinfelder, Inc. 3380 146th Place SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98007 FROM: Applicant hereby applies for permission to: ' [State here the use(s) contemplated] ' for the purpose(s) of: [State here why you wish to do what is contemplated as set forth above] Applicant understands and agrees that Kleinfelder, Inc. is the copyright owner of the above identified report and that unauthorized use or copying of the above identified report is strictly ' prohibited without the express written permission of Kleinfelder, Inc. and Kleinfelder's client. Applicant understands that Kleinfelder, Inc. and/or Kleinfelder's client, may withhold such permission at its sole discretion, or grant such permission upon such terms and conditions as it ' deems acceptable. ' Dated: _ Applicant tby ' its ' IAI997\,Apdraft\6017r095.doc Page 1 of 1 Date Printed: 10/13/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. k'q KLEINFELDER REPORT OF GEOTECHMCAL INVESTIGATION NE 51h STREET AND EDMONDS AVENUE NE STORINI SYSTEM 1NIPROVEMENT PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON Kleinfelder, Inc. 3380 146th Place SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98007 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 (fax) October 13, 1997 ORIGINAL -- S A vt VI S L, Y'Or P, -�ro C -o; fJ W�Q/h 11tL� Z�. k19 KLEINFELDER An employee owned company October 9, 1997 Kleinfelder File No.: 60-1674-01 City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South, Surface Water Utility Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Mr. Ronald J. Straka, PE Utility Engineering Supervisor SUBJECT: Report of Geotechnical Investigation NE 5th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE Storm System Improvement Project Renton, Washington Dear Ron: The attached report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the NE 5th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE storm system improvement project planned by the City of Renton. This investigation was performed in accordance with Consultant Contract Agreement CAG-97-107 dated June 19, 1997. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services to the City of Renton on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or if we can provide assistance with other aspects of the project. Sincerely. KLEINFELDER, INC. THO Robert M. McIntosh, PE H Q Project Geotechnical Engineer 19409 �"`^'"' ¢��DNP�L tires, ames B. Thompson, PE Principal Geotechnical Engineer `='sr � Note: The material contained in this report was prepared under the direct supervision of the undersigned, whose seal as a registered professional engineer licensed to practice in the State of Washington is affixed to this page. Enclosures: Report (2 copies) \\kIi sea\voII\library\1997\wpdraR\6017r095.doc Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. KLEINFELDER 3380 146th Place SE,Suite 110, Bellevue,WA 98007-6472 (206)562-4200 (206)562-4201 fax k" KLEINFELDER TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE........................................................................................I 1.1 Project Description........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................... 1 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS..................................................................................................2 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING................................................................................................2 4.0 DISCUSSION......................................................................................................................3 4.1 Geologic Hazards .............................................................................................................3 4.2 Site Conditions .................................................................................................................4 4.3 Subsurface Conditions ......................................................................................................4 5.0 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................4 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................5 6.1 Construction Considerations.............................................................................................5 6.1.1 Dewatering .................................................................... ..............5 ............................. 6.1.2 Excavations...............................................................................................................6 6.1.3 Open-Cut Slopes.......................................................................................................6 6.1.4 Temporary Excavation Support.................................................................................6 6.1.5 Backfill .....................................................................................................................7 6.2 Design Considerations ............................................................................ .........................8 6.2.1 Pipe and Manhole Support ........................................................................................8 6.2.2 Hydrostatic Uplift......................................................................................................9 6.2.3 Pavement Sections ...................................................................................................9 7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ................................................................................................9 7.1 Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation ..........................................................................9 7.2 Project Bid Documents..................................................................................I..................9 7.3 Construction Observation and Testing............................................................................. 10 8.0 LIMITATIONS.................................................................................................................to APPENDICES A Plates B Application for Authorization to Use \\kli sea\volI\library\I997\wpdraft\6017r095.doc Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. kn KLEINFELDER REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION NE 5TH STREET AND EDMONDS AVENUE NE STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE 1.1 Project Description This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the NE 5th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE storm system improvements planned by the City of Renton. The general location of the site is shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The project consists of improving the existing storm system in the following city streets: Northeast 5th Street between Edmonds Avenue Northeast and Harrington Avenue Northeast; Edmonds Avenue Northeast between Northeast 5th Street and Camas Avenue Northeast; Camas Avenue Northeast between Edmonds Avenue Northeast and Northeast 6th Street; Northeast 6th Street between Camas Avenue Northeast and Aberdeen Avenue Northeast, and Aberdeen Avenue Northeast between Northeast 6th Street and Northeast 7th Street (the northern terminus of the project). The southern terminus of the project will be at the intersection of Northeast 5th Street and Harrington Avenue Northeast. Conventional pipeline trench construction is planned for the storm system improvements. The depth of the trench is expected to range from about 5 to 15 feet below existing grades. New manholes will be installed as part of the storm system improvements. 1.2 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study is to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions along the alignment of the proposed storm system improvement project, and to develop geotechnical recommendations and criteria for project planning and design. Our specific scope of services includes an evaluation of the following: • Geologic setting, seismicity and geologic hazards; • Sol] and ground water conditions along the alignment, with emphasis on how these conditions are expected to affect the proposed construction, • Recommendations for earthwork during construction including site preparation recommendations, a discussion of the re-use of excavated soils as structural fill, and a discussion of the effects of wet weather on construction activities, • Recommendations for subgrade support of new stormsewer pipe and manhole structures, • Design parameters for manhole structures to resist the effects of hydrostatic uplift pressures, where appropriate; \\kli sea\volIUibrary\1997\wpdraft\60I7r095.doc Page 1 of l l Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. k9l KLEINFELDER • Recommendations for cut slopes in trenches and temporary shoring requirements, • Potential effects of new construction on existing facilities; • Recommendations for temporary construction dewatering including conceptual dewatering techniques, where appropriate, • Recommendations for trench cutoffs to control the flow of groundwater in trench backfill and pipe bedding, • Recommendations for pavement sections which will be used for reconstruction of the disturbed portions of the roadway. 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions along the project alignment were explored by drilling 6 test borings at the locations shown on Plate 2. The exploration locations were located in the field by measuring from existing site features. The subsurface explorations were monitored by a geologist from our firm who maintained detailed logs of the explorations and obtained representative samples of the soils encountered for further examination in our laboratory. The soils encountered were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Sol] Classification System as described in Plate 3. A key to the boring log symbols is presented in Plate 4. Representative samples of the soils encountered were obtained from the borings using an SPT (Standard Penetration Test) sampler. The SPT sampler obtains disturbed samples and was driven into the soil using a 140-pound hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches, or other indicated distance, are recorded on the boring logs. Piezometers were installed in the borings to permit future monitoring of groundwater levels. The logs of the test borings are presented on Plates 5 through 10. 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING All soil samples were brought to our laboratory for further examination. Moisture content tests were performed on selected samples in conjunction with the other laboratory tests. The results of moisture content tests are presented in the boring logs. Sieve analyses were completed on 4 selected soil samples, the results of which are presented in Plates 11 through 14. The results of another sieve test completed on a composite sample are presented in Plate 15. The composite sample was created by combining several samples of granular soils that will be excavated during construction and possibly re-used for structural fill. A summary of the sieve test results is presented in Table 1. A compaction test was completed in accordance with ASTM D-1557 using the composite soil sample. The compaction test results are presented in Plate 16. \Ucli sea\volIUibrary\1997\wpdraft\60I7r095.doc Page 2 of 11 Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. k'% KLEINFELDER TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIEVE ANALYSES Percent Depth Percent Percent Fine to Medium Percent USCS Sample (feet) Gravel Coarse Sand Sand Silt and Clay Classification B-1, S-1 3 31.0 6.1 57.5 4.5 SP B-2, S-1 3 5.4 4.4 87.3 2.9 SP B-3, S-2 8 0.8 3.7 91.9 4.4 SP B-5, S-1 3 18.9 4.4 47.5 29.2 1SM COMPOSITE NA 18.9 5.1 57.5 18.5 SM 4.0 DISCUSSION 4.1 Geologic Hazards Slope Stability and Landslide Hazards Slopes which are steeper than 40 percent are typically considered to be potential slope stability and landslide hazard areas. We did not observe any slopes which are steeper than 40 percent along the project alignment. Therefore, it is our opinion that slope stability and landslide hazards are not a concern for the existing site slopes under both static and seismic conditions. The stability of temporary excavation slopes are discussed below under Construction Considerations. Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards relate to risks of injury to people and damage to property resulting from earthquakes. Seismic hazards include surface fault rupture, ground shaking, associated landslides, and liquefaction. The Puget Sound area is a seismically active region which has experienced numerous earthquakes in historical time. On the basis of past earthquake activity, the Uniform Building Code assigns the Puget Sound region a Zone 3 rating for seismic activity on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest). Given the thickness of glacial and post-glacial soil deposits in the region, surface fault ruptures are very rare. No known surface fault ruptures are present in the site vicinity. As described in the previous section, it is our opinion that landslide hazards are not a significant concern for the existing site slopes. Liquefaction is the phenomenon wherein soil strength is dramatically reduced when subjected to vibration or shaking. Liquefaction generally occurs in saturated, loose sand deposits. The results of our test borings indicate that liquefaction is not a significant concern the storm system alignment. \\kli sea\volt\library\1997wpdraft\6017rO95.doc Page 3 of 1 l Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. k'9 KLEINFELDER 4.2 Site Conditions The existing storm system is located in residential streets which are surfaced with asphalt concrete pavement. There is an elevation difference of approximately 75 feet between the southeast and northern ends of the alignment. A number of existing buried utilities are present in the vicinity of the proposed storm system improvements. 4.3 Subsurface Conditions The following paragraphs summarize the results of our subsurface explorations. The logs of the test borings should be reviewed for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the locations explored. All of the test borings were drilled in existing pavement areas. The asphalt concrete pavement encountered in the borings, with the exception of Boring B-5, was observed to be approximately 3 inches thick. At Boring B-5, the asphalt concrete was measured to be approximately 12 inches thick, with a I inch thick layer of crushed rock in the middle of the pavement section. Except for Boring B-4, approximately 1-1/2 to 5 feet of very loose to medium dense sand, silty sand and sandy gravel fill was encountered in the test borings. Below the fill, and beneath the asphalt concrete in Boring B-4, the test borings encountered native soil deposits consisting of medium dense to very dense sand and gravel with varying silt content and very stiff to hard silt and sandy silt. These native soils contain varying amounts of cobbles. The depth to groundwater was measured in the borings during drilling and on September 3, 1997. The depth to groundwater was measured to range from 5.2 to 24.5 feet in the borings on September 3, 1997. No groundwater was measured in Boring B-I on that date. It is important to note that site groundwater levels may vary significantly with seasonal variations in rainfall duration and intensity. It should be expected that these groundwater levels may be slightly higher than those measured in this investigation, particularly during the late winter and early spring months. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on our geologic reconnaissance, field explorations and analyses, we conclude that the proposed improvements to the existing storm system can be completed using conventional cut and cover construction methods. At some locations, the space available for trenching operations may be limited. Ground loss should be avoided in order to protect the existing roadway, structures and utilities, and to protect personnel. The existing roadway, along with structures and utilities which are located in close proximity to the storm sewer alignment, may present space limitations for deep open-cut excavations. Consequently, we expect that the storm system trench will require temporary support in areas of deeper cuts, high ground water levels, and where it will be close to other structures and utilities. Ndi sea\volI\library\1997\wpdraR\6017r095.doe Page 4 of I I Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. k'q KLEINFELDER In our opinion, the subsurface soils encountered during our field exploration program will provide adequate support for properly bedded pipe. However, where soft and loose subgrade soils are encountered, additional excavation will be needed to provide suitable support for the pipe and manhole structures. Some of the on-site soils contain a substantial amount of silt and will be susceptible to disturbance if they become wet. Care should be taken to avoid disturbing these soils where they support pipes or other related structures (e.g., manholes). Removal and replacement of the upper portions of subgrade soils might be necessary should they become disturbed. Excavation dewatering will likely be necessary along portions of the storm sewer alignment. We anticipate that some combination of pumping from sumps in the trenches, wells or wellpoints will be used to control groundwater seepage during construction. Manholes constructed in areas of high groundwater levels should be designed to resist uplift pressures due to groundwater. Specific recommendations for project design and construction including mitigation of potential problems described above are presented in Section 6.0. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Construction Considerations 6.L I Dewatering We understand that the stormwater pipe will likely be installed to a depth of 5 to 15 feet below existing grades. Groundwater levels were observed to be within 15 feet of existing grades during and/or after drilling in all of our explorations except for Boring B-3. Groundwater levels were observed to be about 5 to 8 feet below the existing grades at Borings B-4 and B-5 on September 3, 1997. As mentioned previously, the groundwater levels at the site may experience seasonal variations. It should be expected that groundwater levels may be higher than those measured in this investigation, particularly during the winter and early spring months. Because of the proximity of groundwater to the expected pipe invert elevations, we recommend that the contract documents include a provision which states that the contractor shall dewater all excavations in a manner which will maintain the groundwater level at a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the excavation while work is being performed in the bottom of the excavation. Possible dewatering measures include the use of ditches and sumps within the excavation, well points and/or wells. In our opinion, the contractor should be responsible for designing and installing the appropriate dewatering system needed to complete the work. This dewatering system should include provisions for disposal of the collected water. We recommend that the contractor be required to submit the proposed dewatering plan to the engineer for review prior to start of construction. \\!di sea\volt\library\1997\wpdraft\60I7r095.doe Page 5 of 1 I Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. k" KLEINFELDER 6.1.Z Excavations All excavations and other construction activities should be completed in accordance with applicable city, state and federal safety standards. We anticipate that all on-site soils can be excavated using conventional earth moving equipment. Cobbles were observed in some of our test borings. Boulders are often found in these soils as well. The contractor should be prepared to deal with these conditions. 6.1.3 Open-Cut.Slopes We anticipate that some of the excavations will made as open cuts. The stability of open-cut slopes is a function of soil type, groundwater levels, slope inclination and nearby surface loads. The use of inadequately designed open-cuts could impact the stability of adjacent roadways, nearby structures and existing utilities, and endanger personnel. In our opinion, the contractor will be in the best position to observe subsurface conditions continuously throughout the construction process and to respond to variable soil and groundwater conditions. We therefore believe that the contractor should have the primary responsibility for deciding whether or not to use an open-cut slope rather than some form of temporary excavation support. For preliminary planning purposes only, we expect that temporary cut slopes of 1/2:1 to 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) may be used for excavations up to 4 feet deep. Cut slopes of 1:1 to 2:1 will likely be required for deeper, unshored, excavations. The above guidelines assume that surface loads, such as equipment loads and storage loads, will be kept a sufficient distance away from the top of the cut so that the stability of the excavation is not affected. The guidelines also assume that the excavations will be dewatered in such a way that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter slopes and/or excavation support will be necessary for those portions of the excavations which are subjected to significant seepage in order to maintain the stability of the cut. It should be expected that the excavation face will experience some sloughing and raveling. Berms should be installed around the perimeter of the excavation to intercept surface runoff and reduce the potential for sloughing and erosion of the cut slope. 6.1.4 Temporary Excavation Support We recommend that a trench shoring system be used where excavations will be located in close proximity to roadways, utilities or structures where these excavations might result in ground loss and damage to these facilities. A trench box is one type of support system which might be used. The zone behind the trench box and the excavation face should be backfilled as necessary to limit ground movement. Alternatively, braced or unbraced shoring of various types could be considered. \\kli sea\vol I\library\1997\,wpdra8\6017r095.doc Page 6 of 1 1 Date Printed: 10/10/9 7 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. k9l KLEINFELDER The lateral soil pressures acting on a temporary excavation support system will depend on the ground surface configuration adjacent to the trench, and the amount of lateral movement which can occur as the excavation is made. For support systems that are free to yield at the top at least one-thousandth of the height of the excavation, soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing. We recommend that yielding systems be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for horizontal ground surfaces. This is based on a water level at or below the bottom of the excavation. For nonyielding systems, we recommend that the shoring be designed for a uniform lateral pressure of 25H in pounds per square foot (psf), where H is the depth of the planned excavation in feet below a level ground surface. The above recommended lateral soil pressures do not include the effects of surcharges (e.g., equipment loads, storage loads, traffic loads, or other surface loading). Surcharge effects should be considered as appropriate. Existing structures may be sensitive to vibrations. If shoring is driven or vibrated as part of this project, the effect on nearby facilities should be adequately evaluated. We recommend that the contractor submit their shoring plan to the engineer for review prior to the start of construction. 6.1.5 Backfill We recommend that materials and procedures used for bedding and backfill of the proposed storm sewer improvements be in accordance with applicable provisions of the City of Renton specifications. Backfill material should be placed in 6-inch lifts and mechanically compacted to a firm, nonyielding condition. Within pavement areas, trench backfill in the upper 2 feet below the finished subgrade surface should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry_ density determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557. Other backfill material placed within pavement areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent of ASTM D-1557. We recommend that trench cutoffs be installed, where appropriate, to control the flow of groundwater in trench backfill and pipe bedding. The trench cutoffs should extend from the base of the trench to at least 12 inches above the top of the pipe. We recommend that the cutoffs consist of compacted impervious soil or concrete. The cutoffs should be at least 3 feet in length. Most of the soils encountered in the borings consist of sand or gravel with a fines content (percent of soil by dry weight that passes through the U.S. Standard No.200 sieve) ranging from about 3 to 20 percent. These soils are shown on the boring logs as having USCS soil classification Symbols of SP, SP-SM, GP and GP-GM. We anticipate that the in-situ moisture contents of these soils are generally at or near optimum where they are located above the groundwater table. These soils should be suitable for use as backfill provided that moisture contents are not allowed to increase during construction. Some of this material would be difficult, or impossible, to use as trench backfill during wet weather due to a high fines content. \Udi sea\volI\library\1997\wpdraft'\6017r095.doc Page 7 of 11 Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. k'q KLEINFELDER Deposits of fine-grained silt and silty sand (USCS Group Symbols NIL and SM, respectively) were encountered in some of the borings. These materials will be unsuitable for use as backfill due to a high fines content. Sands and gravels excavated from below the ground water table will also not be suitable for use as backfill due to moisture contents being wetter than the optimum moisture contents for compaction. These unsuitable materials should be segregated from the other excavated soils and replaced with imported backfill. An allowance for the use of imported backfill should be included in the project budget. For placement during periods of wet weather, imported backfill material should consist of sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines (material passing US Standard No. 200 sieve) by weight of the fraction of the soil passing the 3/4-inch sieve. A fines content of up to 10 to 12 percent will be acceptable for the imported fill for placement during periods of dry weather. We recommend that the placement and compaction of trench backfill be observed by a representative of our firm. An adequate number of in-place density tests should be performed in the backfill as it is being placed to determine if the specified compaction is being achieved. 6.2 Design Considerations 6.2.1 Pipe and.Manhole Support We anticipate that the storm system improvements will be constructed using conventional pipe trenching techniques. We anticipate that the subgrade soils at pipe and manhole inverts will generally be suitable for support of these facilities However the subgrade soils may be susceptible to disturbance as a result of construction activities. To address this concern, we recommend that a zone of select material be placed on the base of the excavations for manholes, and other critical structures, to provide a stable "working pad" for these structures. Further, we recommend that all slough and disturbed subgrade soils be removed from the base of the manhole excavations before placing the "working pad" and that the manhole excavations be made with a smooth-bucket backhoe (e.g., without teeth) to facilitate the removal of slough. We recommend that the "working pad" material consist of 3- to 6-inch sized quarry spalls or recycled concrete, or an equivalent material approved by the engineer. We recommend that the "working pad" have a minimum thickness of 18 inches beneath manhole structures. The working pad material should be densely compacted into the subgrade soils with the backhoe bucket or compactor during placement. All slough and disturbed subgrade soils should be removed from the base of the pipe trench before placing the pipe bedding material. The post-construction settlement of pipeline segments or manholes constructed using conventional trenching techniques is not expected to exceed 1/2 inch, provided that the subgrade is prepared as described above. \\kIi sea\volIgibrary\1997,wpdraR\6017r095.doc Page R of 11 Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. kn KLEINFELDER 6.2.2 Hydrostatic Uplift Some of the manholes will be subject to hydrostatic uplift due to a relatively shallow groundwater table. Please refer to the logs of the borings for information on site groundwater levels. Resistance to uplift can be developed by the dead weight of the structure and friction along the sides of structure. Friction resistance can be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.35 applied to the lateral soil pressures. This coefficient of friction value includes a factor of safety of about 1.5. We recommend that lateral soil pressures for uplift resistance be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf below the groundwater table, and 30 pcf below the groundwater table. 6.2.3 Pavement Sections We anticipate that it will be most cost effective to restore the pavement in construction areas by repairing the disturbed areas rather than by repaving the entire street. We recommend that the subgrade in areas to be paved be probed or proofrolled with heavy rubber-tired construction equipment prior to paving. Any unsuitable areas should be recompacted, if practical, or removed and replaced with structural fill. We recommend that the probing or proofrolling of subgrade areas be observed by a representative of our firm to identify areas needing remedial work and to assess the adequacy of subgrade conditions. Provided that trench backfill and pavement subgrade areas have been prepared as recommended, we recommend that pavement sections be designed using a CBR value of 15. We can review the pavement designs prepared by the City of Renton, if desired. 7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 7.1 Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation Some of the design details for the project were not available at the time of preparation of this report. We strongly recommend that our firm be given the opportunity to review the geotechnical aspects of the project plans and specifications as the design is being developed to confirm the applicability of our recommendations, or to make the appropriate modifications. It is possible that this review might indicate the need for supplemental field explorations and engineering analysis, depending on the issues involved. 7.2 Project Bid Documents During the bidding process any questions regarding this report shall be directed to the City. The geotechnical consultant will not respond to any questions from bidders, but will direct them to the City. It has been our experience during the bidding process that contractors often contact us to discuss the geotechnical aspects of the project. Informal contacts between Kleinfelder and an individual contractor could result in incorrect or incomplete information being provided to the contractor. °kli_sea\volI\library\1997,wpdrafl\60l7r095.doc Page 9 of I 1 Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. k" KLEINFELDER Therefore, we recommend a pre-bid meeting be held to answer any questions about the report prior to submittal of bids. If this is not possible, questions or clarifications regarding this report should be directed to the project Owner or his designated representative. After consultation with Kleinfelder, the project Owner (or his representative) should provide clarifications or additional information to all contractors bidding the job. 7.3 Construction Observation and Testing The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be made during construction to verify compliance with these recommendations. These tests and observations should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: 1. Observations and testing during site preparation and earthwork. 2. Observation and testing of construction materials. 3. Consultation as may be required during construction. 8.0 LIMITATIONS The recommendations contained in this report are based on the field explorations and our understanding of the proposed project. The investigation was performed using a mutually agreed upon scope of work. It is our opinion that the study was a cost-effective method to explore the subject site and evaluate some of the potential geotechnical concerns. The soils data used in the preparation of this report were obtained from the test borings completed at the site. It is possible that variations in soils exist between the locations explored. The nature and extent of soil variations may not be evident until construction occurs. If any soil conditions are encountered at the site which are different from those described in this report, our firm should be immediately notified so that we may make any necessary revisions to our recommendations. In addition, if the scope of the proposed project, pipeline grades, or other aspects of the project change from the descriptions given in this report, our firm should be notified. Our scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. This report has been prepared for use in design and construction of the subject project in accordance with the generally accepted standards of practice at the time the report was written. No warranty, express or implied, is made. Akli sea\volIAibrary\I997\wpdraft\6017r095.doe Page 10 of I I Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. k'q KLEINFELDER This report may be used only by the Client and for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both on- and off-site), or other factors including advances in man's understanding of applied science may change over time and could materially affect our findings. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after 12 months from its issue. Kleinfelder should be notified if the project is delayed by more than 12 months from the date of this report so that a review of site conditions can be made, and recommendations revised if appropriate. It is the CLIENT'S responsibility to see that all parties to the project including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the Contractor's option and risk. Any party other than the Client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use by executing the "Application for Authorization to Use" which follows this document as an appendix. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party. \\kli sea\vol I library\I 997\wpdraft\6017rO9 5.doc Page l l of l 1 Date Printed: 10/10/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. r t, 1 APPENDIX A 6l ���� ? - e •9 � `� n. i I; •s3; - --- III P�; •� , ' ,w BDY .• _ - ----•-- r lb er Planf , _ ' �O /1r.r�l s�y+ �. • — .�'. OWN ' r SITE t S - I Athletic ' 2 ,• 1' 1' '"' 7 .b ---=_ ■ r E.eld n Greenwo�Ce% 1 •- ; fi - --- 406 1 01rve, cemi '' •, l�• ,•, Park \ \ jw�Av r gN - 321. riv =tiro APPROXIMATE SCALE Reference: USGS 7.5'Topographic Map, Issaquah and 0 1000 2000 — — Renton Quadrangles Washington, 1949 and 1950, Photo Revised 1973 1 inch=2000 feet Site Plan PLATE K L E I N F E L D E R City of Renton NE 5th St Storm System Improvements 1 PROJECT NO. 60-1674-01 September, 1997 Renton WA FILE NO. 167401.PPT ' .f!+ w j$ 44 I •`i _ .... {. zj i ..,nth.Pl' LEGEND �� .. r .xr ro- v .. z:a�'"'-�•.,8th$t , 0�1 °� # rYs- lacrll 6 ..- �� ,?t s'� � -� � ..,1� s B- 1 Boring Number and Location n I ... r y'�` ."�••-. .a+=t � \ � [..._.. ,`\,.,�'�. St �'[issi PrOleCt Limits B-5 i �. K �Yt-'NE •�F IYti. i .ti Y 1 q 1]L- i NE-.7tht t ,-r_ It t 't y�...'z" `.�. - t `' vx ': -�EFL`�,..�r ��/,�Q\�r F t t t'- .�✓',..� f_. - tea+ � �/ "�`' L._._t'1E 6th.,P_l s �:_.c• z � - - t a �•,�/, NE_61h.. -:f .'IB 4 Izsx-sl't i. 1 k `,riQo+,.•per +_. x.6 w - "_" Ul un -- .;� B 3 y Lj I l tl Y ds ' { - ..--•— �Pfi,� ` ! J IY.-s ,9 x' f f - �� _ o� z Y. .;fix `•Ya I uzx e. ' Z f�Q"I aS fecndule'. ENE 4th Lt � m � O 400 800 .i p; 4th St (}�� T III Y- � IYx-J N 4th t.`. y 4S r�z-a PLATE SITE PLAN K L E I N F E L D E R City of Renton NE 5th St Storm System Improvements 2 Reference:City of Renton,Surface Water Drainage System dated 09/23/96 PROJECT NO.60-1674-01 Renton,WA M-7 V r.� V �J `•"h4•+ +' \ ..rid../•..�.../ ,r` F+-•t •.ww! ,• .. � )... ... � ,� Yam,/,,r. /' ,i5 : ... .. �wv CD CA • I r r . .. ' .... ... :1 1 , Aberd�en Ave'NE t� + 7Y �Q `c✓t ' Jju� �3 t 1 t=..)f �t j t ILI �3Qa`, .•.j�...w.i.,. w..,•:,,�� .F'r "'•i ,�•�, .i.. ;,t, s. `~" ... `"f�,r r` �„... ..•'e.,"r., ..+•• �,;i ,.« I i" `" 1 ";• ' jJ'• •�` £+. . j fIY�... f'1. ..... 1. 10/'1.` `\ •� a \ N .' • 333 ca. , ,.44 ! ` // y) ,,'tom•.-,,.+ Camas Ave »NE Y.r. f...,r,. .,.P.1..Av.e..«.NEw .- ' WindsorI Pl. KE/ f f +;y, ( t .N J• wl..nvw,..w....rn..,...•rwv.,v.,w.tw...y...... tz ' \ i ..,.. I i` •t J '1.4 u,�; f �' 1 .h.—r:'::.v'::i dmo`d ......... ' i f (....h�w�E, ....:... ? i i ..S..n.u.«r..•..w.w,.. •.......•w,w.ev..vn....,,,.. •h..•,•...w .. ...w••..•.+•.,•e.r.,,,www•,..♦ sy wgwnnv.w.. ,.,•. v'. .i f / ' .Jt:. f�j�.. ...3 .......... ] �..� �....... ..:.,.:.,,,,�'J..S.`•..........:....,•..,w.., .'........ 1 �. q j P � !F N in y, y •1•.,:r1 1 1. •A'�`,. — IV N; I y ` \�� .,,\ �'.` „fit it r d 1 .. J .91 r� 1 a, t to ton 'Ave N�+..+ ......... .M,w ............•........:_,.. g. .. µ g:.........•":.Y.,:. k.., Hnr..rm toa,.Ave...NE... �,./.i....l •. .,. r" r .. ..� .... t ! �. ..,.,,. ; CD PAP (� ....... •tr •• `.M ; i jj...... .....I`t......i..... U Y IY ..... ......( .. .�. "A n ......,`., ; .. •i.......i ... �....... ... .... -Z'. F7z •... r .. i I ...........,..,� x' '. ..r.N I...:..• wIndex�AYe NEB rZ>l.. } t «..,j .., s Z Indexw Pl.,....w... r.... /+ y .nk.......... � .� ram; „ : ,' aQ !.. �..•...., ... .........j iu k ��' S 4: t` `+. ! ^y N t t Nei t a kNx rm P . �a s • 1a x '.i; Z ��` F.tierso ; .•; •�, ...............,..�... f erSon'�A .....N.E. .. . i.. .....1�.e '71 N ,;! f ` ..1?.&•�Ave Ava...N ,,..' rri aKlrkland.,l�X,� p . w rm Ktrkland..M-O r :-. ..... �. M. ....................xww w .: » .r "...........,... 4\,. \ ,i', . i... . ......... - i 1 Kl - `''.,.\�^^,x,rw L�nnw000 � y r > 4 ao.-4 a O 1 o a fn �� � e ' (TQ C D r— C) L41 CD Nrn SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL WELL-GRADED GRAVEL,FINE TO COARSE COARSE GRAVEL CLEAN GW GRAVEL GRAINED GRAVEL SOILS More Than 50016 GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL of Coarse Fraction SILTY GRAVEL Retained on GRAVEL GM No.4 Sieve WITH FINES More Than 50% GC CLAYEY GRAVEL Retained on No.200 Sieve SAND CLEAN SW WELL-GRADED SAND,FINE TO COARSE SAND SAND SP POORLY-GRADED SAND More Than 5001* of Coarse Fraction SM SIITY SAND Passes SAND No.4 Sieve WITH FINES SC CLAYEY SAND SILT AND CLAY ML. Suz FINE INORGANIC GRAINED CL CLAY SOILS Liquid Limit Less Than 50 ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT,ORGANIC CLAY More Than 50% SILT AND CLAY MH SIIT OF HIGH PLASTICITY,ELASTIC SILT Passes INORGANIC No.200 Sieve CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAY Liquid Limit 50 or More ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY,ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT PARTICLE SIZE LMITFS GRAVEL SAND BOULDERS COBBLES SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 12" 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 0.002 mm DESCRIPTIVE TERMS USED WITH SOILS CONSISTENCY&APPARENT DENSITY MOISTURE CONTENT SILTS AND CLAYS SANDS&GRAVELS Strongest Hard Very Dense Wettest i Wet Very Stiff Dense Very Moist Stiff Medium Dense Moist Medium Stiff Loose Slightly Moist Weakest Soft Very Loose Driest Dry Very Soft NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry - Absence of moisture,dusty,dry to touch in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on Moist - Damp,but no visible water ASTM D2487-90. 3. Description of soil density or consistency are based on Wet - Visible free water or saturated,usually soil is interpretation of blow count data,visual appearance of obtained from below water table soils,and/or test data. k'qKLEINFELDER KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND TERMS Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. LEGEND2.PRE PLATE 3 SYMBOLS SAMPLE TYPE LABORATORY TESTS AL Atterberg limits BULK/BAG SAMPLE CP Compaction CS Consolidation DS Direct shear GS Grain-size analysis 8 MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER %F Percent fines (2-1/2 inch outside diameter) HA Hydrometer analysis SK Permeability SM Moisture content STANDARD PENETRATION MD Moisture and density SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER SP Swelling pressure (2 inch outside diameter) PP Pocket penetrometer TV Torvane TX Triaxial compression ' SHELBY TUBE UC Unconfined compression (3 inch outside diameter) CA Chemical analysis ( ) SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED Note: Blow count is the number of blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches, or other indicated distance, using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. "P" indicates sample pushed with weight of hammer or against weight of drill rig. GENERAL NOTES 1. The reader must refer to the discussion presented in the report text, the Key to Soil Classification and Terms, and the exploration logs for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 2. Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual. 3. No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil conditions between individual sample locations. 4. Boring logs represent general soil conditions observed at the point of exploration on the date indicated. BORING LOG LEGEND k4KLEfNFELDER Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc. KA LOG_LEGEND PLATE 4 Surface Conditions: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Date Drilled: 7/15/97 Logged By. KLB Groundwater: Groundwater observed at 14.5 ft.during drilling: Piezometer installed Approx.Surface Elev.(ft): 285 to 17.5 ft. No groundwater measured in piezometer on 913/97. Total Depth: 19 Laboratory Field DESCRIPTION = a $ H o m 'o C LL a E $y »c Z0 pp i 0 O L p 0 U) 1 �U od Ri J C9 0 3"asphalt concrete pavement GP GM 0 Brown sandy gravel with silt(medium dense,moist)FILL a SP Brown fine to medium sand with occasional gravel(medium dense,moist) GS 4 14 5 5 SM 2 63 Becomes very dense with gravel 10 10 SM 10 50/5 15 Becomes wet 15 GP Gray sandy gravel with occasional cobbles and a trace of sift(very dense,wet) o ° 50/5 O D o ° 20 20 25 25 LOG OF BORING B-1 �� City of Renton KLEINFELDER Northeast 5th Street Storm System Improvements -F c tvri w°'r°a"• L°°-°F-B°x�'o 6017 ot�ro� Project# 60-1674-01 PLATE 5 NOTE: See Plates 3 and 4 for Explanation of Symbols Surface Conditions: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Date Drilled: 7/15/97 Logged By: KLB Groundwater: Groundwater observed at 13.5 ft.during drilling. Piezometer installed Approx.Surface Elev.(ft): 281 to 17.5 ft. Groundwater measured at 17.4 ft.in piezometer on 9/3/97. Total Depth: 19 Laboratory Field DESCRIPTION F- O� C O C 41 L 7 d d L]W U p� L . p OD C y E '� o o fn J F- U D a m J (7 SP SM 3"asphalt concrete pavement Brown fine sand with silt(very loose to loose,moist)FILL GS 13 7 5 SP Brown fine to medium sand with a trace of silt(medium dense,moist) 5 SM 5 25 10 10 SM Brown silty fine to medium sand(dense to very dense,moist to wet) S M 14 33 15 15 64 20 20 25 25 LOG OF BORING B-2 City of Renton Jk4 KLEINFELDER Northeast Sth Street Storm System Improvements Cop-yr*1 YJeidcia'.br- [.oa_oF_BORNO6o17Moi9.GPJ Project# 60-1674-01 PLATE 6 NOTE: See Plates 3 and 4 for Explanation of Symbols Surface Conditions: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Date Drilled: 7/15/97 Logged By: KLB Groundwater: Groundwater observed at 23.5 ft.during drilling. Piezometer installed Approx.Surface Elev.(ft): 280 to 24.0 ft. Groundwater measured at 24.5 ft.in piezometer on 9/3/97. Total Depth: 25 Laboratory Field DESCRIPTION 0 0 ) ` 10 7 N U d a E $N y o �V ;; Y o n tj Cn �N V d m � 0 tj Sp 3"asphalt Concrete Pavement Brown fine to medium sand with a trace of silt(very loose,moist)FILL SM 7 4 5 SP Brown fine to medium sand with a trace of silt(dense,moist) 5 GS 4 34 10 10 SP-SM Gray fine to medium sand with sift,occasional gravel and cobbles(very dense,moist) SM 8 50/4 15 15 Becomes with gravel and cobbles SM 5 50/5.5 20 20 GP Gray fine gravel with sand,a trace of silt and occasional cobbles(very dense,moist to wet) o D SM 7 50/6 0 o D 00 25 ° 25 LOG OF BORING B-3 k4KLEfNFELDER City of Renton Northeast Sth Street Storm System Improvements -T C°P�""YJedc1dff,Inc. LOO-OF-BORING 601A101y/GP; Project# 60-1674-01 PLATE 7 NOTE: See Plates 3 and 4 for Explanation of Symbols Surface Conditions: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Date Drilled: 7/15/97 Logged By. KLB Groundwater: No groundwater observed during drilling.Piezometer installed to 14.0 Approx.Surface Elev.(ft): 258 ft.Groundwater measured at 8.0 ft.in piezometer on 9/N97. Total Depth: 15 Laboratory Field DESCRIPTION � a � H o a 01 15a�i UCL a n E $ n ML 3"asphalt concrete pavement Gray brown sandy silt with occasional gravel(hard,moist to wet) i -X ! SM 13 45 5 5 I I SM Gray brown to wet silty fine to medium sand with occasional gravel and cobbles(very dense,moist) SM 13 50/6 10 10 77, SM 8 50/6 15 15 20 20 25 25 LOG OF BORING B-4 City of Renton k4 KLEINFELDER Northeast Sth Street Storm System Improvements cupyrigtc 1997 Mcideldc,kx. Loc_oF_soap'°f017Moi�GP7 Project# 60-1674-01 PLATE 8 NOTE: See Plates 3 and 4 for Explanation of Symbols Surface Conditions: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Date Drilled: 7/15/97 Logged By: KLB Groundwater: Groundwater observed at 12 ft.during drilling. Piezometer installed to Approx.Surface Elev.(ft): 249 15.0 ft.Groundwater measured at 5.2 ft.in piezometer on 9/3197. Total Depth: 15 Laboratory Field DESCRIPTION E F- o d o o _ CD °' U L N a _ Gn/ App 3 a w 'o p Z.0 p L O al 12"asphalt concrete pavement with a 1"thick zone of base course in the middle SM Brown silty fine sand(medium dense,moist)FILL SM Dark gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional gravel and cobbles(medium dense, GS 15 29 moist to wet) 5 5 SM 14 25 Becomes silty fine sand with occcasional gravel and cobbles 10 10 SP-SM Brown fine sand with silt and occasional gravel(medium dense,wet) 26 J. 15 15 20 20 25 25 LOG OF BORING B-5 k%J KLEINFELDER City of Renton Northeast Sth Street Storm System Improvements CopyrWt 1997 Klcidcldv,ko LOG_OF BORING 6017W177/GPJ Project# 60-1674-01 PLATE 9 NOTE: See Plates 3 and 4 for Explanation of Symbols Surface Conditions: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Date Drilled: 7/15197 Logged By: KLB Groundwater: Groundwater observed at 13.5 ft.during drilling.Piezometer installed Approx.Surface Elev.(ft): 211 to 18.0 ft. Groundwater measured at 11.8 ft.in piezometer on 9/3/97. Total Depth: 20 Laboratory Field DESCRIPTION a o w c 'o w L y 7 N 0 LL U d a E o cn " H �U oa m � 0 0 3"asphalt concrete pavement SM Dark brown sifty fine sand(very loose,moist FILL SM Dark brown silty fine to medium sand with roots and occasional gravel(very loose, moist)FILL SM 19 4 ML Gray sandy sift with occasional gravel(hard,moist) 5 5 (\ S M 15 49 10 10 I SM Brown silly fine to medium sand with occasional gravel(dense,wet) 39 15 15 ML Brown sift with occasional sand(very stiff,wet)) \X SM 28 31 20 20 25 25 LOG OF BORING B-6 City of Renton k4KLEINFELDER Northeast 5th Street Storm System Improvements coQN4ft 1997 K1cidtid.,ki. LOG_OF_BORING 60I7MO17. GG9J Project# 60-1674-01 PLATE 10 NOTE: See Plates 3 and 4 for Explanation of Symbols 1 1 SIMON ME ®� mom 0,61 =�Io MINIMM Emil IMMEME , MEN it it 1 � _ � 1 • • 1 1 1 • •_ ��elm 92_�_� ��_ 9 mil!•_ .9__9�_�_ . _ ____._M9�.=•= a:E�199o®�9�. 9999��9��9 ���9999 �_�—•—= 9999999��9 9�— 99 9��_ 9999999-�9 9 �199 ��9-��■ �i - 9®��e®9®� ISIS a Small 1 MOMS NONE NIONNIMMIMMINE OEM M mom lll=mm MESA tZMENIMENEMM NO NINE -----.-- .._.�=._.C_■ C MINN limmiCa. no 0 ' -- .■._ _ INS MINN. _.._C. I�_� HIS mom mm UNIFIED SOILS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM C-) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND FINES z C> U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES MICRONS r 21 2" IL 1'. -L 4 8 10 16 20 30 50 80 200 50 20 10 5 r- 100 C I 7N rri z 90 rri 80 rrl 60 50 z 40 C) m 30 1. U) 20 CD c: 10 V) 0 0 z 50000 10000 5000 1000 500 100 50 20 10 5 1 MICRONS 3 2 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 0.0001 0.00005 INCHES !EQUIVALENT GRAIN DIAMETER SYMBOL BORING NO. SAMPLE pEpTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION MOISTURE CONTENT B - 5 3 sm 15 1 • WIN MEN MEN MEN NOOMEN INEENESERM-4 sol OEM I _ 11� . MENOMONEE� NONE .E �0 . a:a—NNIMM. MENEM SEEN — INNE ME NO WIN MEN ONE mommm OEM • :=.:EN MEN NEE_— �� $ all , i„ I 140 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION; Composite Sample- Brown gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel 135 � TEST SYMBOL TEST METHOD ASTM D-1557 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (PCF) 133 130 OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT (°{e) 8 UNIFIED SOIL S M CLASSIFICATION 0 NATURAL WATER 9 0 I CONTENT (%) LL LIQUID LIMIT Im 125 PLASTIC LIMIT D SPECIFIC GRAVfTY U X W a z � I 0 a i ZERO AIR VOIOS CURVES f- I = I 115 W 2.75 3 I 2.70 I 2.65 Z � I cr 1 C—X p I10 I I I I I 105 1000 4 8 12 16 20 24 WATER CONTENT — PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT PLATE k" KLE1 N FELDER COMPACTION TEST RESULTS 16 P R 0 1 E C T N 0 . 60-1674-01 Sept. 5, 1997 M -6 OVEN DRY MOISTURE TEST ASTM D-?2216 PROJECT Gr�� o� rf3t''-� F':,OJECT NCB 7�-r O/ SAMPLE I' FO. LAP NO. TESTED B,Y ! '' 717,0/47 DATE REC I EVER REVIEWED F" VE q30 5 Specimen tkiab nr Dish Number c:- Xt. Dish & Net Soil q4� 4'?, D Wt. Dish L Dry Soil +�,/ ? r �(` f4' t 2 Wt. of Dish Wt. of Water . Wt. of Dry Soil PereanC Moisture , a Spaci-ma= ?tumbar Dish —bar Wt. Dish 6 Vat Soil 2 !9 2 '� -� ?�S '4-�-D Wt_ Dish & Dry Soil ut_ of DishG. , Sat_ of Water 7 23 1 2 7 2 Sat. of Dry Soil Percent 24oisture e� (e, n y Z Specimen timber — ' G P - � - 13 -`-1 -2 Dinh Number Z 9' Wt_ Dish & Wet Soil Z—� r �,C( !1,z j 27.1 Sat_ Dish & Dry Soil ► 2--7 Sat_ of Dish Z , r 7 t j 1� !� ! 3 Wt_ of uatar = �' r`, g , (� Z-/ , 3 •�, Wt_ of Dry Soil Percent Moisture OVEN DRY MOISTURE TEST ASTM D-2216 PROJECT G��/ 07` ��'u 'o�, FnDJECT N�!. (yO -/� 75'`--d/ S-AMF•LE I"FO. L B NO. TESTED 5Y 4t/S4- [SATE DATE FECIEVED REVIEWED BY Specimen Number _!� 5 -75 S- Dish Number Xt. Dish & Net Soil 30 7+ Nt. Dish Q Dry Soil Z-7 1 2 / 91 7 , Wt. of Dish Wt. of Slater . / Ll, � Q ;;' S7t. of Dry Soi1 �^�� +t2 1132 % 20 Percant Moisture g, 9 / , .Z �'� / 9 rj Speciman ?zunber Dish Su_-.bar A Wt. Dish b Wac Soil -3 3 2-- jlt_ Diah & Dry Soil 44-7 uc. of Dish /Cry �g', �4 7s $� Wt_ of Wacer d 3 W:t Nt. of Dry Soil 2- 1 39�1, W,2 P, 5,2- P e rc en t 140 l s to r e �+ • �,S / ,2 , 70 �t�� ��'� Spacimen umber -L/ $ - Dinh I1icbar 1 Wt_ Dish & Uat Soil ?j ��i ?/ Wt. Dish & Dry Soil � ! + Sat_ of Dish Sit_ of Wacar (o () 7 �- y �C_ of Dry Soil Percent Y,oiscura 27. SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE ASTM C-136 PROJECT r / 'f'f �J' PROTECT NO. SAMPLE INFO. — 1 LAB NO. TESTED BY t- DATE DATE RECEIVED REVIEWED BY MOISTURE CONTENT Total Wet Weight Plus Tare Dish No. Wet Weight Sample and Dish Tare �,2 � G (IDry Weight Sample and Dish 2 Total Wet Weight Weight of Water Wet Weight Minus No. 4 Weight of Dish �•�� Dry Weight Minus No. 4 Dry Weight of Sample Water Content, % Dry Weight 3 . Total Dry Weight Dry Weight of Sub-Sample U.S. WEIGHT RETAINED PERCENT STANDARD ACCUMULATIVE RETAINED PERCENT PERCENT SIEVE GROSS TARE NET ACCUMULATIVE PASSING OF TOTAL 7 G 'Z 17 Sr � zz,R2 it� � f' � �°•' Z r a 0 !.J(� 71), $ Sc�. /,,7 29.s� .; 87. ' 1 z ,( . 2S 9z.72- 7 q c. y. r Z '- , 7(o L G Ep0017.DOUXLS • 2l3O13 � N131 � �� SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE ASTM C-136 PROJECT ! PROJECT NO. /G O SAMPLE INFO. B " 2 rJ — LAB NO. TESTED BYS DATE DATE RECEIVED REVIEWED BY MOISTURE CONTENT Total Wet Weight Plus Tare Dish No. Tare Wet Weight Sample and Dish 3 S"1 . 0 9 Total Wet Weight Dry Weight Sample and Dish 3 ! Lj Weight of Water t /b4 • � Wet Weight Minus No. 4 Weight of Dish - y Dry Weight Minus No. 4 Dry Weight of Sample Water Content, % Dry Weight • Total Dry Weight Dry Weight of Sub-Sample U.S. WEIGHT RETAINED PERCENT STANDARD ACCUMULATIVE RETAINED PERCENT PERCENT SIEVE GROSS TARE NET ACCUMULATIVE PASSING OF TOTAL r zy. N'2 I , z$ �i1K.7 i, zs . 77 i -7- GE00017.DOC/XLS b3a131N13IN �M SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE ASTM C-136 PROJECT PROJECT NO. SAMPLE INFO. �� c —2— LAB NO. TESTED BY 1,1,1 DATE DATE RECEIVED REVIEWED BY MOISTURE CONTENT Total Wet Weight Plus Tare Dish No. Tare Wet Weight Sample and Dish 14� / &4 Total Wet Weight Dry Weight Sample and Dish y©C) " Weight of Water ' Wet Weight Minus No. 4 Weight of Dish Dry Weight Minus No. 4 Dry Weight of Sample Water Content, % Dry Weight /t - 2 Total Dry Weight Dry Weight of Sub-Sample U.S. WEIGHT RETAINED PERCENT STANDARD ACCUMULATIVE RETAINED PERCENT PERCENT SIEVE GROSS TARE NET ACCUMULATIVE PASSING OF TOTAL 7 Z C� �G�- 3 �' 2f' . /''�l ► ..f 3 st,z 3�. � log. `t z 7, 1 7 7-7, U cl=? 73.57 7.`fit ty '6 t�'$ �oD 37. 2S 2 ?G� ��.ss 9 7, i S, _ya GE00017.DOGXI.S M3 (1133N131A hn SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE ASTM C-136 , PROJECT PROJECT NO. �' SAMPLE INFO. LAB NO. TESTED BY r A DATE DATE RECEIVED REVIEWED BY MOISTURE CONTENT F-� Total Wet Weight Plus Tare Dish No. Tare Wet Weight Sample and Dish Total Wet Weight Dry Weight Sample and Dish -5 Weight of Water Wet Weight Minus No. 4 Weight of Dish D Weight of Sample 225,_ 76 Dry Weight Minus No. 4 D'_ g Water Content, % Dry Weight 7 Total Dry Weight Dry Weight of Sub-Sample U.S. WEIGHT RETAINED PERCENT STANDARD ACCUMULATIVE RETAINED PERCENT PERCENT SIEVE GROSS TARE NET ACCUMULATWE PASSING OF TOTAL 3 ell 10.06 53.0 Z 7, 7 7G 7 y, 2� �Z , 7u ,.•� . 1 � n.,'6 �H. z�". 3 7 ► , 7 S.D g2.X7 3 7,9 (D U 4 g. ZU >> 7.7.1? iro.Pt �.Z 1 . Sf 12,O 1 11, 3b.� 9, O ✓� d 5.71 I&I.n 10. 7 z9, Z if 1 z- z9, Z GE00017.DOGXLS • 2l3413 � N131 � �� SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE ASTM C-136 ;rg PROJECTP�^ ' ROJECT NO. �f` Gfio ✓. SAMPLE INFO. - r `�p LAB NO. TESTED BY 12�� DATE DATE RECEIVED REVIEWED BY MOISTURE CONTENT Total Wet Weight Plus Tare Dish No. c _ Tare Wet Weight Sample and Dish 3 Total Wet Weight Dry Weight Sample and Dish Weight of Water Wet Weight Minus No. 4 Weight of Dish D Weight of Sample `f 3 Dry Weight Minus No. 4 Dry g Water Content, % Dry Weight Total Dry Weight Dry Weight of Sub-Sample U.S. WEIGHT RETAINED PERCENT STANDARD ACCUMULATIVE RETAINED PERCENT PERCENT SIEVE GROSS TARE NET ACCUMULATIVE PASSING OF TOTAL 3 70, 20 32 . " rg g'G 4/r, 1H 7. 3 �. , . i 33 . 4S7 3 tom , �LD Z� 314 E v z_ .t4 7 GE00017.DOCJXLS 2130133N131 )i 64 APPENDIX B kn KLEINFELDER APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO USE REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION NE 5th STREET AND EDMONDS AVENUE NE STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON KLEINFELDER PROJECT NUMBER 60-1674-01 DATED October 13, 1997 TO: Kleinfelder, Inc. 3380 146th Place SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98007 FROM: Applicant hereby applies for permission to: [State here the use(s) contemplated] for the purpose(s) of: [State here why you wish to do what is contemplated as set forth above] Applicant understands and agrees that Kleinfelder, Inc. is the copyright owner of the above identified report and that unauthorized use or copying of the above identified report is strictly prohibited without the express written permission of Kleinfelder, Inc. and Kleinfelder's client. Applicant understands that Kleinfelder, Inc. and/or Kleinfelder's client, may withhold such permission at its sole discretion, or grant such permission upon such terms and conditions as it deems acceptable. Dated: _ Applicant by its I:\I997\wpdraR\6017r095.doc Page 1 of 1 Date Printed: 10/13/97 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder,Inc.