HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272314 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION FACILITY
AND BRIDGE
RAYMOND AVENUE CENTER
RAYMOND AVENUE SOUTHWEST
AND SOUTHWEST 19TH STREET
RENTON, WASHINGTON
E-6754-4
August 19, 1996
PREPARED FOR
WINMAR COMPANY, INC.
Raymong A. Coglas
Staff Engineer
T �
146°1 A.
Robert S. Levinson,
Principal ti
ex�ass 03/07/cq S-
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201
\ Bellevue, Washington 98005
(206) 643-3780
1,996
rey;`N7-�'I,gNNING
;:; 7yOFR[NTpN
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUT YOUR
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
More construction problems are caused by site subsur- technical engineers who then render an opinion about
face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as overall subsurface conditions, their likely reaction to
subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda-
have been lessened considerably in recent years, due in tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual
large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ conditions may differ from those inferred to exist,
The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how
the Geosciences. qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no
The following suggestions and observations are offered matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by
to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, earth, rock and time.The actual interface between mate-
cost-overruns and other costly headaches that can rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report
indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may
occur during a construction project. differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the
unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden-
tify variances, conduct additional tests which may be
OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS needed, and to recommend solutions to problems
encountered on site.
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur-
face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
set of project-specific factors. These typically include:
the general nature of the structure involved, its size and CAN CHANGE
configuration; the location of the structure on the site
and its orientation; physical concomitants such as Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly-
access roads, parking lots. and underground utilities, changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi-
and the level of additional risk which the client assumed neering report is based on conditions which existed at
by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions
program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose
geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo-
which change subsequent to the date of the report may technical consultant to learn if additional tests are
affect its recommendations. advisable before construction starts.
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and
otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not natural events such as floods, earthquakes or ground-
be used: water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions
•When the nature of the proposed structure is and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical
changed, for example, if an office building will be report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept
erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger- apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to
ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- determine if additional tests are necessary
frigerated one;
•when the size or configuration of the proposed GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE
structure is altered; PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
•when the location or orientation of the proposed AND PERSONS
structure is modified;
•when there is a change of ownership, or Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet
•for application to an adjacent site. the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre-
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade-
which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid- quate for a construction contractor, or even some other
ered in their report's development have changed. consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise,
this report was prepared expressly for the client involved
and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" by any other persons for any purpose, or by the client
ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi-
vidual other than the client should apply this report for its
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical
only at those points where samples are taken, when engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose
they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- other than that originally contemplated without first conferring
sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geotechnical engineer
r
Earth Consultants Inc.
Ge)urhnical Fnghwers.Geologists&F=.m ironnu nrol tici mists
August 19, 1996 E-6754-4
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc.
10801 Main Street, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Attention: Mr. Mark Miller
Dear Mr. Miller:
We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed
Distribution Facility and Bridge, Raymond Avenue Center, Raymond Avenue Southwest and
Southwest 19th Street, Renton, Washington." This report presents the results of our field
exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of
our study was outlined in our June 11, 1996 proposal.
In our opinion, development of the site as planned is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint.
The critical geotechnical issues associated with the proposed development are related to
providing adequate foundation support, and reducing post construction settlements. Loose
silt and silty sand were generally encountered within approximately the upper ten (10) to
fifteen (15) feet at our boring locations. Below these depths, medium dense to dense poorly
graded sand with silt and poorly graded sand were generally encountered. In our opinion, the
proposed warehouse and office building may be supported on conventional spread and
continuous footings bearing on structural fill after a successful preload program. The
proposed bridge abutments may be supported on piles bearing in the medium dense to dense
sands.
We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this initial phase of
project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future phases. Should
you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this report, or if we can be
of further assistance, please call.
Sincerely,
ONSULTANTS, INC.
V
Robert S. Levinson, P.E.
Principal RAC/RSL/kml
1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201,Bellevue,Washington 98005
Bellevue(206)643-3780 Seattle(206)464-1584 FAX(206)74-608-60 Tacoma(206)272-6608
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-6754-4
PAGE
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Protect Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SITECONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Subsurface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Laboratory Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Site Preparation and General Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
PreloadProgram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Warehouse and Office Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Bridge Abutments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Augercast Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Driven Timber Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Seismic Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . 11
Dock-High Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Slab-on-Grade Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Site Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Excavations and Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Utility Support and Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Pavement Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Additional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
APPENDICES
Appendix A Field Exploration
Appendix B Laboratory Test Results
Earth Consultants, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued
E-6754-4
ILLUSTRATIONS
Plate 1 Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Boring and Test Pit Location Plan
Plate 3 Typical Settlement Marker Detail
Plate 4 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
Plate 5 Typical Utility Trench Fill
Plate Al Legend
Plates A2 through Al Boring Logs
Plates A16 through A23 Test Pit Logs
Plates B1 through B3 Grain Size Analyses
Plate B4 Atterberg Limits Test Data
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION FACILITY AND BRIDGE
RAYMOND AVENUE CENTER
RAYMOND AVENUE SOUTHWEST
AND SOUTHWEST 19TH STREET
RENTON, WASHINGTON
E-6754-4
INTRODUCTION
General
This report presents the results of the Geotechnical Engineering Study completed by ECI for
the proposed Distribution Facility and Bridge, Raymond Avenue Center, Raymond Avenue
Southwest and Southwest 19th Street, Renton, Washington. The purpose of this study was
to explore the subsurface conditions at the site, and based on the conditions encountered,
develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. The general
location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1 .
Project Description
At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed building and bridge locations, and
our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring And Test Pit Location
Plan, Plate 2. We understand the proposed warehouse and office building will consist of
concrete tilt-up panels and slab-on-grade floors. At the time this report was written, the finish
floor elevation for the building had not been finalized. However, we anticipate existing site
grades will need to be raised approximately two feet to three feet to achieve building subgrade
elevations.
Based on our understanding of the proposed warehouse and office building, we estimate the
maximum total dead plus live loads for the proposed structure will be as follows:
• Wall Loads - 2 to 3 kips per lineal foot
• Maximum Column Loads - 75 to 125 kips, dead plus live
• Slab Loads - 250 pounds per square foot (psf)
We understand the proposed development of the site will also include construction of a bridge
crossing over Springbrook Creek. Construction of the bridge will provide access to the site
through the Distribution Facility currently under construction on the east side of the creek.
The abutments for the proposed bridge will need to be pile supported.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1 1
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 2
If any of the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review
the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform
a general review of the final design.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The proposed building site is located west of Springbrook Creek, west of the intersection of
Raymond Avenue Southwest and Southwest 19th Street. The proposed bridge crossing
Springbrook Creek will be located immediately east of the proposed building site. The parcel
is bordered by Springbrook Creek on the east, the extension of Southwest 18th Street on the
north, and the extension of Oaksdale Avenue Southwest on the west. The topography in the
vicinity of the building site is relatively flat, with a maximum elevation change across the site
of approximately three feet. The site vegetation consists primarily of grasses, with some
deciduous growth along the banks of Springbrook Creek.
Subsurface
The site was explored by drilling six borings and eight test pits at the approximate locations
shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the Boring Logs, Plates A2 through A15; and Test Pit Logs,
Plates Al through A23, for a more detailed description of the conditions encountered at each
location explored. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A.
The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered.
Loose silt and silty sand was generally encountered to depths of approximately ten (10) to
fifteen (15) feet below the existing surface at our exploratory locations. The majority of the
silt encountered was predominantly sandy. However, some relatively thin layers of elastic and
organic silt were encountered at several of the boring locations. The exception was boring
location B-6, where an approximate five foot layer of elastic silt was encountered.
Medium dense to dense poorly graded sand with silt and poorly graded sand was
predominantly encountered at depths of approximately fifteen (15) to fifty (50) feet below the
existing surface. Some interbedded zones of silt, silty sand, and gravel were encountered at
varying depths within these deposits.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 3
Groundwater
At the time of our exploration, the groundwater table was encountered at a depth of
approximately twelve to fifteen feet below the existing surface. The groundwater level is not
static, therefore fluctuations in the level can be expected depending on the season, amount
of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher and
seepage rate is greater in the wetter winter months (typically October through May).
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to verify or modify
the field soil classification and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering
characteristics of the soil encountered. Moisture content tests were performed on all samples.
The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided in Appendix B, or
at the appropriate sample depth on the boring logs. It is important to note that these test
results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical
recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding
our engineering judgement. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by
others.
In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for
this project will be discarded after a period of fifteen days following completion of this report
unless we are otherwise directed in writing.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the proposed development can be
constructed generally as planned provided the recommendations contained in this report are
incorporated into the final design. The critical geotechnical aspects of the planned
development are primarily associated with foundation support and reducing post construction
settlements. We estimate settlements could be on the order of three to four inches. To
reduce post-construction settlements in the proposed warehouse and office building areas,
a preload program should be completed. The preload consists of placing fill to the finished
floor elevation to pre-induce settlement. The purpose of the preload program is to induce the
primary settlement of the underlying compressible soil, and reduce the amount of post-
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 4
construction settlement. We estimate post-construction total and differential settlements,
after completion of the preload program, could be on the order of one inch and three-quarters
of one inch, respectively. If this range of settlement is not acceptable, then a surcharge
program utilizing two feet of surcharge fill can be used. After completion of the preload
program, the proposed structure may then be supported by conventional spread and
continuous footings bearing on at least two feet of structural fill. Slab-on-grade floors may
be supported on at least one foot of structural fill.
The proposed bridge abutments should be supported on piles bearing in the medium dense to
dense sand encountered approximately twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) feet below the existing
surface. Recommendations for foundations, a preload program, and the specifications for
structural fill, are presented in the following sections of this report.
This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner
consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the
profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of
Winmar Company, Inc. and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents for the
information of the contractor.
Site Preparation and General Earthwork
The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all organic matter, and any
other deleterious material. Existing utility pipes to be abandoned should be plugged or
removed so that they do not provide a conduit for water and cause soil saturation and stability
problems. If desired, stripping may be delayed in areas that will not be immediately
developed. This may help reduce disturbance of the underlying subgrade soil. If there are
building areas that will receive at least two feet of structural fill, and pavement areas that will
receive at least one and one-half feet of structural fill, the grass and topsoil need not be
stripped. However, tall grass should be cut, and trees and shrubs should be removed.
Based on the thickness of the root mat and topsoil encountered during our exploration, we
estimate a stripping depth of approximately four inches. Stripping depths, however, may vary
and will depend on conditions encountered during the stripping operation. Stripped materials
should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 5
Once stripping operations in the building areas are complete, the structural and preload fills
may be placed. If desired, overexcavation and placement of the structural fill for the
foundation footings may be performed prior to placement of the building fill. An ECI
representative should observe all footing overexcavations prior to the placement of structural
fill. The ground surface where the preload fill is to be placed should be proofrolled prior to
placing the fill. All proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative
of ECI. Slab-on-grade and pavement subgrade surfaces should also be proofrolled. Any areas
that are found to be yielding or unstable should be repaired either by re-compacting the area,
or overexcavating and replacing with structural fill. The use of a woven geotextile placed on
the overexcavated surface may be useful in bridging over unstable areas. Cement or kiln dust
treatment of unstable soils may also be considered.
Due to the fine-grained nature of the native soil, wet weather conditions may adversely affect
the earthwork phase of construction. Exposed native surfaces will degrade when exposed to
moisture, potentially impacting the workability of the soil, and possibly the mobility of on-site
equipment. Any native soil intended for use as structural fill may need to be moisture
conditioned such that the soil can be compacted to the requirements of structural fill. Cement
treatment and cement kiln dust treatment may also be considered. At the time of our
exploration, the upper silt and sandy silt deposits were generally wet; and above their
optimum moisture contents.
Imported soil intended for use as structural fill during dry weather conditions may consist of
any non-organic compactible soil. Fill intended for use during wet weather should consist of
a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum size of three inches and no more than
five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus-3/4-inch fraction.
Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs,
pavements, or any other load-bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings
should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density. The maximum
dry density should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78
(Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture
content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and
compacted to 90 percent of maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which
should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 6
Preload Program
To help reduce post-construction settlements of the proposed warehouse and office building,
a preload should be placed to the finished floor elevations of the building. We understand
existing grades will need to be raised approximately two to three feet to achieve subgrade
elevation. We estimate primary settlements induced by the preload will range between
approximately one to two inches and should be complete approximately two to three weeks
after the preload is placed. The actual preload time period will be dependent upon the rate
and amount of settlement measured in the field.
The preload should extend at least five feet beyond the perimeter of the building. The side
slopes of the preload fill should not be inclined any steeper than 1 H:1 V. The preload fill
should be placed and compacted in accordance with the requirements of structural fill,
previously discussed in the "Site Preparation and Genera/Earthwork" section of this report.
In order to verify the magnitude of settlement, a monitoring program should be performed.
The monitoring program should include setting settlement markers on the existing site
subgrade before any fill is placed, monitoring them through completion of fill placement, and
continuing until settlements cease or are considered within the buildings tolerable limits. More
specific details of this program are presented below:
• Settlement markers should be placed on the native subgrade of the building pad before
any fill is placed. Six to eight settlement markers may be used for the proposed
building pad. ECI can supply and install these markers. (A typical detail is provided on
Plate 3).
• A baseline reading is obtained on each marker and is referenced to a temporary
benchmark located on a feature that will be unaffected by the fill-induced settlements.
• The preload fill is then placed. Settlement readings are taken at relatively short
intervals during this process, since this phase generates relatively large and rapid
settlements.
• Once the fill operation is complete, readings are obtained on a periodic basis, typically
weekly, until the settlement ceases or is judged by the geotechnical engineer to be
within tolerable limits.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 7
• Each set of settlement readings is plotted graphically against time to determine the
magnitude and rate of settlement, and are matched against the predicted magnitudes
and rates to verify the accuracy of earlier estimates and to make any appropriate
modifications.
ECI should be retained to acquire the settlement readings. If you prefer to use a surveyor to
collect these readings, measurements should be provided to us as quickly after their
acquisition as possible for plotting and interpretation. This will help avoid any
misinterpretation or misunderstanding regarding the success of the preload program.
In order to ensure the accuracy of the settlement readings, the settlement monitors must be
maintained. In our experience, earthwork equipment (dozers and trucks) often demolish
markers at a very high rate. This adds to the project costs in that they need to be replaced
and it makes the information obtained less reliable. To avoid this, the project specifications
should include a requirement that the earthwork contractor is required to immediately replace
any damaged settlement marker and have the settlement readings re-obtained at his own cost.
This requirement makes the earthwork contractor more conscious of the importance of the
monitoring program and will aid in maintaining the integrity of the program.
Foundations
Warehouse and Office Building
Assuming compliance with the recommendations outlined in the "Site Preparation and General
Earthwork," and "Preload Program" sections of this report, the proposed structure may be
supported on a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation bearing on at least two
feet of structural fill. Structural fill used for foundation support should extend outward from
the edges of the footing a distance of at least one half the depth of the structural fill. All
footing excavations and fill surfaces should be observed by a representative of ECI prior to
placement of foundation elements or structural fill.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
r
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 8
Exterior foundations elements should be placed a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches
below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum depth of
twelve (12) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where interior foundation
elements should be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches.
With foundation support obtained as described, an allowable soil bearing capacity of two
thousand five hundred (2,500) pounds per square foot (psf) can be used. This value of
allowable soil bearing capacity incorporates a theoretical factor-of-safety in excess of three
against actual shear failure. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum
widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively. With structural loading as
expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated with differential movement
of about three-quarters of one inch. Most of the anticipated settlements should occur during
construction as dead loads are applied.
Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the
supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the
foundation. For the latter, the foundation excavation must be backfilled with structural fill.
For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.40 may be used for foundations elements bearing on
granular structural fill. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance can be computed
using an equivalent fluid pressure of three hundred (300) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). These
lateral resistance values are allowable values, a factor-of-safety of 1 .5 has been included. As
movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive
resistance should be neglected if such movement is not acceptable.
Bridge Abutments
As previously stated, the proposed bridge abutments should be pile supported. Based on the
site conditions encountered during our exploration, we recommend the use of augercast piles
or driven timber piles for support of the abutments. Other deep foundation options can be
considered if specifically requested.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 9
Augercast Piles
As previously stated, the medium dense to dense bearing stratum was encountered
approximately twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) feet below the existing surface at our boring
locations. For preliminary design purposes, an allowable axial capacity of fifty (50) tons may
be assumed for sixteen 0 6) inch diameter augercast piles, embedded at least five feet into
the bearing stratum. For an eighteen (18) inch diameter pile, an allowable axial capacity of
sixty (60) tons may be assumed. These capacities may be increased by one-third for short-
term wind and seismic loading conditions. The pile capacity can be increased by additional
penetration into the bearing stratum, or by increasing the pile diameter. We can address these
design considerations if required. For resistance to uplift, capacities of ten (10) and twelve
(12) tons may be assumed for sixteen (16) and eighteen (18) inch diameter piles, respectively.
These values do not include the weight of the pile.
Augercast piles should be installed with continuous-flight, hollow stem auger equipment. We
estimate that total settlement of single piles will be on the order of about one inch. Most of
this settlement should occur during the construction phase as the dead loads are applied. The
remaining post-construction settlements would be developed as the live loads are applied.
Lateral pile capacity is generally governed by deflections at the top of the pile which is
dependent on pile stiffness with respect to the surrounding soil conditions in the upper portion
of the pile, the length of the pile, and the degree of fixity at the top of the pile. For a
deflection of one-quarter inch at the pile cap, allowable lateral load capacities of three (3) tons
and four (4.0) tons may be assumed for sixteen (16) and eighteen (18) inch diameter piles,
respectively. This assumes a thirty (30) foot pile embedded at least five feet into the bearing
stratum. The passive resistance of soil against the bridge abutments can also be used to
resist lateral forces. For structural fill placed around the abutments, an allowable value of
three hundred fifty (350) pcf may be used. ECI should be allowed to review final foundation
plans to confirm the assumed lateral capacity.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 10
As it is not possible to observe the completed pile below the ground, judgement and
experience must be used as the basis for determining the acceptability of a pile. Therefore,
we recommend that all piles be installed under the full-time observation of a representative
of ECI. This will allow us to fully evaluate the contractor's operation, collect and interpret the
installation data, and verify bearing stratum elevations. Furthermore, we will be able to assess
the implications of variations from normal procedures with respect to the design criteria. The
equipment and procedures of the contractor should be reviewed by ECI before the start of
construction.
Driven Timber Piles
For driven timber piles the allowable capacity will be governed primarily by the driving
resistance associated with the applied energy of the pile driving hammer. Allowable capacities
may be estimated based on wave equation analysis or conventional pile driving formulas. Pile
lengths can be estimated based on a static analysis that incorporates the soil properties of the
bearing strata. A pile load test may also be performed for purposes of establishing ultimate
pile load capacities and pile lengths.
Driven timber piles should consist of treated Class B timber piles. The piles should be driven
into the medium dense to dense sand bearing strata encountered approximately
twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) below the existing surface at our boring locations. The piles
should conform to the specifications outlined in the Uniform Building Code Standard 25-12
for friction and end bearing piles. Timber piles should have a minimum tip diameter of eight
inches and a maximum taper of one inch in ten feet.
For design, a maximum axial design capacity of twenty-five (25) tons may be used. This axial
capacity is based on a refusal criteria of twenty-five (25) blows per foot using a pile driving
hammer with a rated energy of fifteen thousand 0 5,000) foot pounds. An uplift capacity of
six (6) tons may be used for a single pile penetrating a minimum length of five feet into the
bearing strata. No reduction in pile capacity is necessary if the piles are installed with a
minimum center to center spacing of three pile diameters.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 11
Total settlement of single piles is estimated to be on the order of one-half inch. Most of this
settlement should occur during the construction phase of the project as the dead loads are
applied. The remaining settlements would develop after construction as the live loads are
applied. A lateral pile capacity of 3 tons may be used for driven timber piles, assuming fixed
head conditions. These values are based on a deflection of one quarter inch at the pile cap.
As previously stated, passive resistance derived from structural fill around the bridge
abutments may be used in estimating lateral load resistance.
As previously stated, the above allowable axial capacity is based on a refusal criteria of
twenty-five (25) blows per foot using a pile driving hammer with a rated energy of fifteen
thousand (15,000) foot pounds. If requested, allowable axial capacities can be evaluated for
pile driving hammers with different rated energy. During installation, the piles should be
marked in one foot increments, with the lengths painted on every five feet to facilitate the
recording of blow counts during the driving process. The tips and butts of all piles should be
banded to reduce the potential for pile damage during driving. A minimum of two bands is
suggested for each location.
In order to obtain a better estimate of the required pile lengths and driving characteristics, test
piles may be driven prior to ordering the production piles. The piles and hammer used should
be the same as the type to be used for the installation of the production piles. Installation of
both the test piles and production piles should be observed by a representative from our office
on a full time basis.
Seismic Design Considerations
The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The
largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal events, ranging in depth
from fifty (50) to seventy (70) kilometers. Such deep events have exhibited no surface
faulting.
The UBC Earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force
procedure for design base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is
our opinion that a site coefficient of SZ = 1 .2 should be used for the static force procedure
as outlined in Section 1628 of the 1994 UBC. For the dynamic force procedure outlined in
Section 1929 of the 1994 UBC, the curve for deep cohesionless or stiff clay soils (Soil Type
2) should be used for Figure 16-3, Normalized Response Spectra Shapes.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 12
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time
during an earthquake. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential
settlement for structures with foundations founded in the liquefying soils. Groundshaking of
sufficient duration results in the loss of grain-to-grain contact and rapid increase in pore water
pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid for short periods of time.
To have potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution
of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium-dense; it must be
below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of
groundshaking.
It is our opinion the potential for widespread liquefaction over the site during a seismic event
is low. Isolated areas may be subject to liquefaction; however, the effect on the planned
development is anticipated to be minimal provided the recommendations contained in this
report are followed.
Dock-High Retaining Walls
Dock-high retaining walls will be constructed along portions of the perimeter of the building.
They should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with
a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pcf if they are allowed to rotate 0.002 times the height of the
wall. If walls are prevented from rotating, we recommend that they be designed to resist
lateral loads of fifty (50) pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill and that
surcharges due to hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads or other surcharge loads will
not act on the wall. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above
design lateral pressure.
Slab-on-Grade Floors
Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on at least one foot of structural fill. Any loose or
disturbed subgrade soil must either be recompacted or replaced with structural fill. Slab-on-
grade floors should be designed by the structural engineer based on the anticipated loading
and the subgrade support characteristics. For slabs supported on at least one foot of
structural fill, a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction of three hundred (300) pounds per cubic
inch (pci) may be used for design.
Earth Consukants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 13
The slab should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free-draining sand or gravel.
In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane
may be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane
for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete.
Site Drainage
The site must be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water must not be
allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs or pavements are to be constructed.
During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to
reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for
drainage away from the building foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of
three percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the buildings, except in paved
areas, which can be sloped at a gradient of one percent.
Perimeter footing drains should be installed around portions of the proposed warehouse not
supported on dock high fill and having tile or carpet finishes that can be damaged by water
infiltration. The footing drain should be installed at or just below the invert of the footing,
with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 4. Under no
circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system.
All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. Cleanouts should be installed
at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout
tightline systems.
Excavations and Slopes
The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances
should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for
construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied
and should not be inferred.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 14
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and
Federal safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from our field exploration, the
existing fill and upper deposits of native soil would be classified as Type C by OSHA. As
such, temporary cuts greater than four feet in height should be sloped at an inclination no
steeper than 1 .5H:1 V. An ECI representative should observe all excavations to verify the
OSHA soil type classification. If slopes cannot be constructed in accordance with the OSHA
regulations, temporary shoring may be necessary.
All permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1 V. All cut slopes
should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated.
Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability,
including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case,
water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes.
All permanently-exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation
to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil.
Utility Support and Backfill
Based on the soil conditions encountered, native soils should provide adequate support for
utilities. Depending on groundwater levels at the time of construction, moderate to heavy
seepage may be encountered in the deeper utility trenches, therefore, some dewatering may
be required. If unsuitable soil conditions are encountered in the utility trenches, remedial
measures may be necessary in order to provide adequate support for utilities. This can be
accomplished by overexcavating the unsuitable soil and replacing it with a rock ballast and
pipe bedding material such pea gravel.
Utility trench backfill is a major concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility
alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line be
adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure
support is provided around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed and hand
tamped to about twelve (12) inches above the crown of the pipe before any heavy
compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be
placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve inches. A typical trench backfill
section and compaction requirements for load supporting and non-load supporting areas is
presented on Plate 5.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 15
Pavement Areas
The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade.
To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should be treated and
prepared as described in the "Site Preparation and General Earthwork"section of this report.
This means at least the top twelve (12) inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95
percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557-78). It is possible that some localized
areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Therefore, a greater
thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas.
Cement or kiln dust treatment may also be considered for stabilizing unstable areas.
The following pavement section for lightly-loaded areas can be used:
• Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB)
material, or
• Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material.
Heavier truck-traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement
life and site traffic. As a general rule, the following sections can be considered for truck-
trafficked areas:
• Three inches of AC over six inches of CRB, or
• Three inches of AC over four inches of ATB.
These pavement thicknesses may be modified based on anticipated traffic loads and
frequency.
Asphalt concrete (AC), asphalt treated base (ATB), and crushed rock base (CRB) materials
should conform to WSDOT specifications. All rock base should be compacted to at least 95
percent of the ASTM D-1557-78 laboratory test standard.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc. E-6754-4
August 19, 1996 Page 16
LIMITATIONS
Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective
laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us by you, and
our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are
professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily
exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in
this area. No warranty is expressed or implied.
The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the
exploratory borings. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings may vary from those
encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not
become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to
reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior
to proceeding with the construction.
Additional Services
We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and
specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been
properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications.
We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction.
This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations
and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated
prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for.the performance of the
foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and
specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
V r•
ST SYI��
a HS
S 2 ND
1
8` ncrw d 5vQ 210 q y �� ` '++ f `_ � �'^'�x.n--• � ..
N
++ w SUN ti S o aTH
CSh, CT v o FRF° ?� S�TM g
By I iF lE7EEXTDN S STH ST ..r'P
N .Y
s 6TH'5i
rti yu
� .. S H Si t 67
:S „
SN 7TH R •o z S _
PARR
> N D 3 RIOT Cjt� SIN
> '�;f7
W j SIA N CENTER1 = �ARXryl
9 ST
l��ti �jN` S R ON VILLAGE PL F
`S
12TN ST HOUOAY � rm*T F
I 1r FR + N
� SA `
20 tiW
\\ tx
2 .uru $ ` 15TH C ,
5W�_ 16TH I Si SW ( �. N ST a G Si
c 400 6TH STa 8 S 16TH ST 16TH
�4 C s" SE
2n
Q
17M G J v,.6� CT S 18TH K P ST >r -`SE
n lcP 4
v
! i M SW 197H ST ^n`A r N n £ ST Ie a 4CF
7l!
f G S 19TH ST S _TALBOT-N 6� `ist�Y
'pi I C f" SY Z 21ST - ` 21ST12
s aC
FSE e N x E NO PLC ul SE 21ST
� I Stir 23RD ST S 23RD 6 ST 9 s --
ITE 3 - - ,:�� •HIS
! I J ❑C 15, n'yt�l 3 S 62ND< <' '
! !!� CT --�—
3 s s " 5 ti Q" ! SE 1 4TH Sl
SIr 27TH +" s* < S '27TH Sf
�t N I0900 w 11100
ST � S P9 � N CT �.c I S 23TH—St:< y v1 o SE 16
S v 2sTH fs S 2gt < < �.
�.e' �� " E 166TH• SE 29TH ST `I
r 29TH ST 5 s S $ n W ST o SE 167TH ST >
3 - 30 < V L TH CT A
N c S _ 7 E
SE 31ST 5T Cr < <�^2� w
SV 331D ST — n $ SE 169TH L SE 169-
SE— 1701 ST 170TH < S'
SW , ]
TH $ 34TH ST ST S < SE( l 17��D --Sf SE 72Ho ST•
>
o aS N N zz ti3
rZ-. 57 W SE_377AD ST
—54 S-r I J 3 ST 3 ST S �'' E 774TH S
7H Z97 H IFi—��o�� 6 S SE 175TH
— Stir 394H ST
12
Reference:
King County / Map 656
By Thomas Brothers Maps
Dated 1997
Vicinity Map
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
Ge•aechnical Fngie rs.Gmlogists&En,wxi n ml SeknINS Renton, Washington
Proj. No. 6754-4 Drwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate 1
Storm Water
Detention Pond
S.W. 18th STREET
B-3
TP-7 TP-8 •
� t
TP-6 TP-5 `rt
B-4 -o- -o- -•-
' B-51 -
P-3 TP-4 Not-To-Scale
I
-o- -o-
I I
B-2 1
TP-1 TP-2
I I
B-1 •- i
_� i LEGEND
i
-� B-1 -:- Approximate Location of
ECI Boring, Proj. No.
E-6754-4, July 1996
TP-1 -o- Approximate Location of
ECI Test Pit, Proj. No.
i E-6754-4, July 1996
Proposed Building
Building Under
Construction
�c9FF�
NOTE:
The proposed building geometry is based on
a Site Plan provided by the client at time
of site exploration.
Boring and Test Pit Location Plan
I Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
Geaechn"I Fngirwers.GetilogLsts&FmVironnx tal Scientists
Renton, Washington
ate
Proj. No. 6754-4 Drwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 —[PI 2
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
Surcharge r> ur c ar e o Preload
Surcharge 9
r Preload
o
Fi
ll
Fi
ll
11:::-1 r 1>.: I I>I<>: ::>:<:><;: t I
STANDARD NOTES
1) Base consists of 3/4 inch thick, 2 foot by 2 foot plywood with center drilled
5/8 inch diameter hole.
2) Bedding material, if required, should consist of Traction Sand.
3) Marker rod is 1/2 inch diameter steel rod threaded at both ends.
4) Marker rod is attached to base by nut and washer on each side of base.
5) Protective sleeve surrounding marker rod should consist of 2 inch diameter
plastic tubing. Sleeve is NOT attached to rod or base.
6) Additional sections of steel rod can be connected with threaded couplings.
7) Additional sections of plastic sleeve can be connected with press-fit plastic
couplings.
8) Steel marker rod should extend at least 6 inches above top of plastic
sleeve.
9) Marker should extend at least 2 feet above top of fill surface.
TYPICAL SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
QmwchNcal EngWwem Gm"Osts S Ent lrcwvn lnl Sc ntbts
Renton, Washington
Proj. No. 6754-4 Drwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate 3
0
•
O
Slope To Drain o •
o'•°o
6 inch min. °°
b .•. • .O • I. • 1 • O' O' o O
,o', a = ' •• '°• 18 inch min.
e• _ O
4 inch min.
Diameter % '••_e o o °'o a°. °
Perforated Pipe _ '• '' -•' _ •°
o ° °
Wrapped in Drainage
Fabric °
2 inch min.
2 inch min. / 4 inch max. 12 inch
min.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
LEGEND
Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material.
Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the
WSDOT Specifications.
O Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or
slots facing down;tight jointed;with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible
corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing
lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent.
TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
ct"cchn cW Fsaux�ers.amaoeius s Emironawnsal sarniws
Renton, Washington
Proj. No. 6754-4 Drwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate 4
Non-Load Supporting Floor Slab or
Areas Roadway Areas
0 0
° Varies
0
� o°o p' 0 0
85
95
1 Foot Minimum
Backfill
90
80 Varies
PIPE a o 0
•oQ0.0.0
D•D.�:.oe o�a.°de0
OOQ. 4 b!o .e•
' ° •p.••.° e•. d o Q•••0••:• Varies
Bedding e'o•o° .•��° %°o°.°;d
e°�• oe0. 0• ••.R e0• �•o•• •QO• QoeQ•o
��0�'.�.e•O Oo —n o a aoo..Q°°O
•OQ: o O.O Qo 'U_••°O .Ooa••'O• •0.0 o
LEGEND:
Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab
0;
° o Base Material or Base Rock
Backfill; Compacted On-Site Soil or Imported Select Fill
Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General
Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text.
Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Density as
95 Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor),
Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Report Text.
Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and
°a0 ooap Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers
Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected.
TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL
II' Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
1 CA"rchn"l Fngtrwr..CR•nloKias&Ft vimnnwnial x_v"LNs Renton, Washington
Proj. No. 6754-4 Drwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate 5
DISTRIBUTION
E-6754-4
8 Copies Winmar Company, Inc.
c/o Mark Miller Consulting, Inc.
10801 Main Street, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Attention: Mr. Mark Miller
Earth Consuttants, Inc.
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
E-6754-4
Our field exploration was performed on July 30 and 31, 1996. Subsurface conditions at the
site were explored by drilling six borings and excavating eight test pits. The maximum depths
explored at our boring and test pit locations were fifty (50) feet and fourteen (14) feet,
respectively. The borings were drilled using a truck-mounted drill rig. Continuous-flight,
hollow-stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes during sampling.
Approximate boring and test pit locations were determined from existing landmarks presented
on available plans. The locations of the borings and test pits should be considered accurate
only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on
the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2.
The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineer from our office, who
classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each boring, obtained representative
samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features.
All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System
which is presented on Plate 1 , Legend. Logs of the borings and test pits are presented in the
Appendix on Plates A2 through A23. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field
logs and the results of the laboratory tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the
logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions
may be more gradual.
In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in
general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1586. The split spoon samples were
driven with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches. The
number of blows required to drive the last twelve (12) inches of penetration are called the "N-
value". This value helps to characterize the site soils and is used in our engineering analyses.
Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory
testing.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL SYMBOL
Gravel � GW Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand
Q A a gW Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
And Clean Gravels e 4o V
Gravelly (little or no fines) M M GP Poorly-Graded Gravels,Gravel-
Coarse Soils ' ' gp Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
Grained
Soils More Than GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand-
50% Coarse Gravels With gM Silt Mixtures
Fraction Fines(appreciable
Retained On amount of fines) GC Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand-
No.4 Sieve gC Clay Mixtures
Sand •o owe I o SW Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly
And Clean Sand o o p SW Sands, Little Or No Fines
Sandy (little or no fines) .�.; ;;: ::�;.:;
�::;.......: Sp Poorly Graded Sands, Gravelly
More Than Soils S Sands, Little Or No Fines
50% Material :;z;:<> >%<': :<< p
Larger Than More Than
No.200 Sieve 50% Coarse SM SRl Silty Sands. Sand- Silt Mixtures
Size Fraction Sands With
Fines(appreciable
Passing No.4 amount of fines) SC
Sieve SC Clayey Sands, Sand Clay Mixtures
ML Inorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock Flour,Silty-
rpl Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/Slight Plasticity
Fine Silts I Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity,
Grained And Liquid limit CL
Less Than 50 � CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean
Soils Clays
Organic Silts And Organic
OL OI Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity
MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire
More Than mh Sand Or Silty Soils
50% Material Silts Liquid Limit C Inorgarwc Clays Of High
Smaller T4-an And Greater Than 50
No.200 Sieve Clays II Ch Plasticity, Fat Clays
Size
j OH Organic Clays Of Medium To High
Oh Plasticity, Organic Silts
Z_T�pt
Peat, Humus, Swamp SoilsHighly Organic Soils With High Organic Contents
Topsoil 'y y y 14 Humus And Duff Layer ,
Fill Highly Variable Constituents
The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature
of the material presented in the attached logs.
DUAL SYMBOLS are used to Indicate borderline soil classification.
C TORVANE READING,tsf I 2'O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf
W MOISTURE, %dry weight 24' I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
P SAMPLER PUSHED
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED WATER OBSERVATION WELL
pcf DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft.
LL LIQUID LIMIT, % a DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION
I SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/DATE
4 /I Earth Consultants Inc.
LEGEND
I�I� Val II 11 / (..,i,i lniir.,ll:,ibiiuvrti.lw.�,kil:'�.+1�1L 1�,�•inhuiwiil,J�Niilul�
PrOj. NO.6754-4 Date 8/9/96 Plate Al
Boring Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 1 2
Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.:
6754-4 RAC 7 30 96 7 30 96 B-1
Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated Drilling HSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
f Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
17' ❑ Monitorin
U
o t • N o Surface Conditions:
W Blows a E 4. }LL E N E
�96) Ft. a 0° a ?
O 0 0 N
ML Sod &Topsoil to 4": grass field -tall grass /thistle)
rown sandy SILT, loose, moist to wet, some mottling
1
2
19.2 8 3
4 -some interbedded silty sand
5
16.4 6
6
7
27.4 5 $ -becomes slightly more silty,wet
9
10 -becomes dark brown to black, increasing sand content, some
33.3 4 seepage
11
12
_ -groundwater table encountered at 12.5'
13
30.1 9
14
15 SP Gray poorly graded fine to medium SAND, medium dense,water
26,7 15 0 0 bearing,wood fragments encountered
e 17
18
19
CO Boring Log
IT Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
l C40�Er4vecm Ceoio�fiEmAravrerg'SoffomRenton,Washington
Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A2
m
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Boring Log
Project Name: Shed of
Raymond Avenue Center 2 2
Job No. Logged by: s Date: Completion m Boring No:
6 5 k RAC 7 3 96 7 3 96 B-1
Drilling Contactor: mmm Method: km/q Method:
Associated Drilling HSA . SP
Ground+AmBenkm Hole Completion:
±17' El Mo itoring Well ❑ B«omer Abandoned,sealed with bnn»
No. � 0Z f eQ
Bows E E \ )
( }% R O , 0
Z g / Poo�graded gntmedGmSAND, med%mden$ Ka«bering
\ 2
\ 22
� .
\ $ 23
a
66/
» -no sample recovery
23
��f
\ »
��>
\ 27
k$ a
. 29
a 6 f /
$
.
Boring terminated G 31.5 feet below existing and e. Groundwater
table encountered at12 5 feet during drilling.koring backfilled with
cuttings and b%onie.
LO
�
x
�
x_
Boring Log
J Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
Ce�MIOXeM GCOWghft&DWk=r=M SOffib" Renton,Washington
LO "t
Pr E No. 6 544 Dwm GL Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8%%6 Plate A
Subsurface conditions& dk represent our observations at the time and location of this m:R hole modified�engineering tests,
_a�,»dj judgment. �e men_a�n¥@R_n we do ertime&»dl�6nsw cannot accept responsibility for the ue or
+a rtab»�others dinformation presented on this log.
Boring Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 1 2
Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.:
6754-4 RAC 7 30 96 7 30 96 B-2
Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated Drilling HSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
f 19' ❑ mo itoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
o f a N o Surface Conditions:
/W NO.Blows a E a LL i- E N E
N N N
ML (Sod &Topsoil to 4": grass field -tall grass)
Brown sandy SILT, loose, moist to wet
1
2
19.3 7 3 -some mottling
4
5
19.0 6
6
7
14.1 6 8 -slight increase in sand content, moist
9
---..._._..-----------------.._.... _...._._._.......-------
10 SM Grades to gray silty fine to medium SAND, loose,wet
24.2 5 11
12
-groundwater table encountered at 12.5'
26.6 12 13
14
15 -some elastic silt and wood fragments
26.4 14
16
17
18
19
\
P
Boring Log
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
i "tGeoed"al 4xm C4010� &S ^`°`vr"A' Renton, Washington
m Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8�9�96 Plate A4
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Boring Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 2 2
Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.:
6754-4 RAC 7 30 96 7 30 96 B-2
Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated DrillingHSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
t 19' ❑ monitoringWell ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
O —No. O L — , 0
W Blows O. E a } E V7 E
N Ft. 0 a a �` r > >
� U) Vl U)
P-S Grades to predominantly poorly graded fine to medium SAND with
27.s 1s a; '; silt, medium dense,water bearing
to:«P .:::-. 21
e` 22
°
23
?!is
24
25 -possible gravels encountered, some interbedded elastic silt,
becomes medium dense to dense
44.1 36
27
0
a: 28
30
12.4 33 31
Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater
table encountered at 12.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with
cuttings and bentonite.
LO
a
a
Boring Log
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
Renton, Washington
m
Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A5
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
Interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Boring Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 1 2
,lob No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.:
6754-4 RAC 7 30 96 7 30 96 B-3
Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated Drilling HSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
f 18' ❑ Mo itoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
U
No _ o L o N o Surface Conditions:
W Blows L a U
N Ft. M a a a i
SM (Sod &Topsoil to 4": grass field -tall grass)
Brown to gray silty fine to medium SAND, loose, moist
1
2
9.7 7 3
4
5 -slight increase in sand content
1o.s s
6
7
36.6 6 8 some interbedded sandy silt,wet to saturated
9
-- ------ --------------- --..__.__... ....__._.................. ....--
SP Grades to black poorly graded fine to medium SAND, medium dense,
10
wet
26.5 10
�; 11
12
Q _ -groundwater table encountered at 12.5'
0'.a;q<:> 13
28.7 12 >;
Rg 14
-some interbedded elastic silt
o
35.3 11 c�@"
p, a 16
O
17
o<
18
p:o v
19
0 0
\ :::.QljG2:p:
Boring Log
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
LO ceae Erg p-&CMC 0boSkS&BMAor+rmAWs Renton,Washington
LO
m Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A6
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Boring Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 1 2
Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.:
6754-4 1 RAC 7 30 96 7 30 96 B-3
Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated Drilling HSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
f 18' El Mo itoring Well ElPiezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
No, u o L s N o Surface Conditions:
W Blows a E a t E N E
N Ft. L ] 4 D ?
0 N N N
SM (Sod &Topsoil to 4", grass field -tall grass)
Brown to gray silty fine to medium SAND, loose, moist
1
2
9.7 7 3
4
5 -slight increase in sand content
10.6 6
s
7
-some interbedded sandy silt,wet to saturated
3s.s s 8
9
SP Grades to black poorly graded fine to medium SAND, medium dense,
Q 10 wet
26.5 10
,o
12
-groundwater table encountered at 12.5'
13
28.7 12
° 14
15 -some interbedded elastic silt
35.3 11
16
O:is
17
O O O
18
•0 0..
c a° 19
Boring Log
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
in '"'cW Er40rstm` 'ft` ""`W Sckndsm
m Renton,Washington
A Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC I Date 8/9/96 Plate A6
to
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Boring Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 2 2
Job No. Logged by: Start�//9�6
Completion Date: Boring No.:
6754-4 RAC 7 7 30 96 B-3
Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated Drilling HSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
f 18' ❑ Mo itoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
u — • —
NO. — O L — 0 0
W Blows a M a t d U
N Ft. • i • a i a
� Vl � Vl N
27.3 20 Grades to black poorly graded fine to medium SAND, medium dense,
° a 21 wet
'o!:>•:>
-some wood fragments
p .O
0
O.:.
23
24
'ov25 -some interbedded sandy silt
28.5 29
26
27
28
SM Grades to silty fine to coarse SAND with gravel, dense,wet
30
8.8 46 31
Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater
table encountered at 12.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with
cuttings and bentonite.
o
a
Boring Log
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
Renton,Washington
m
Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A7
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
Interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Boring Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 1 2
Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.:
6754-4 RAC 7 30 96 7 30 96 B-4
Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated DrillingHSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
f 20' ❑ MonitoringWell ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
No. U o L N o Surface Conditions:
W Blows a E a } E N E
%j Ft L ? r 0 ?
,V N N N
SM I;Sod &Topsoil to 4': grass field -tall grass)
Brown silty fine SAND, loose, moist to wet
1
2
�,0 7 3 -some mottling
4
5
16.7 7
6
7 ._.. ..---— - ...-......
P-S Grades to gray poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt, loose to
medium dense, moist
>d >'' 8
5.1 10
9
10 -becomes loose
15.0 7 0 '
11
12
_ -groundwater table encountered at 12.5'
13
41.1 4
v 14
a
15
28.6
16
sci; J
.. 17
kxx
ai ?I : 18
a e . 19
o,
CO
Boring Log
17
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
Ln M �"olo� ` 'soff— Renton, Washington
to
Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A8
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Boring Log
-7
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 2 2
Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.:
6754-4 RAC 7 30 96 7 30 96 B-4
Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated DrillingHSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
f 20' ❑ MonitoringWell ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
W No. — O t — N O
Blow 3 a E a +' E N E
Ft. L 7 a° L A D 3
,V N N N
24.1 22 Grades to gray poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt, loose to
21 medium dense, moist
° a
22
g!a 23
24
25
24.0 24
26
`a 28
c: 29
30
25.7 21 ° o
31
Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater
table encountered at 12.5 feet during drilling. Boring back-filled with
cuttings and bentonite.
a
o
Boring Log
Q ` Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
L 1 co°'�'�' `�o� erm'°`W=tw Renton,Washington
CD
—T—
m
Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A9
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Boring Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 1 3
Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.:
6754-4 1 RAC 7 31 96 7 31 96 B-5
Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated Drilling HSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
f 18' ElMonitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
_
No, U_ o L ! N o Surface Conditions:
W Blows a E a. +' E N E
LL
R. L
SM (Sod &Topsoil to 4": grass field -tall grass)
Brown silty fine to medium SAND, loose, moist to wet
1
2
26.9 8 3
4
—.. ------ —............._.. -
5 ML Grades to SILT, loose,wet, some mottling
37.2 6
6
7 --
SM Grades to predominantly silty fine SAND, some interbedded sandy
silt
31.4 5 8
9
--- ---- - ---...................-- - ....... __ ._. ..._......
10 P-S Grades to poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt, loose,wet,
some interbedded silty sand
31.7 7 r s
e>:* 12
-groundwater table encountered at 12.5'
o 13
2s.s 16 «>* -becomes medium dense,water bearing
a 14
28.2 25
16
as 17
18
fO ° 19
o•
Boring Log
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
m
`401ee ErgOveMCco'°�` Vr&F" Renton,Washington
m
Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A10
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
Interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Boring Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 2 3
Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.:
6754-4 RAC 7 31 96 7 31 96 B-rJ
Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated DrillingHSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
f 18' ❑ MonitoringWell ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
U
w NO. _ O t — N O
Blows a E G 4: E N E
� N 1 N N
25.3 15 c Grades to poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt, loose,wet,
o :;;A 21 some interbedded silty sand
22
oi-
0 23
a:
24
o:
25 -becomes dense
28.1 40
26
o °r 27
P 2s
o: 29
30
16.6 34 °.
31
33
34
SM Grades to silty fine to coarse SAND with gravel, dense,wet
35
13.4 30
36
37
38
m 39
c
c
Boring Log
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
LO ,. Enorcm o ,Wscbmulaft
Renton,Washington
m
Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate Al
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of Information presented on this log.
Boring Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 3 3
Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.:
6754-4 RAC 7 31 96 7 31 96 B-5
Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated DrillingHSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
f 18' ❑ Monitorin Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
0
NO. 0 C — '4 0
W Blows a E a } E N E
Ft. aCD0 rn 0
17.3 52 Grades to silty fine to coarse SAND with gravel, dense, wet
41 -becomes very dense
42
43
44
45 SP-SNI Grades to gray poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and
gravel,very dense,water bearing
17.9 70 46
47
48
a 49
50
19.9 34
51
Boring terminated at 51.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater
table encountered at 12.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with
cuttings and bentonite.
LO
a
CO
Boring Log
IT
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
in `�`°"`a"I lit error moec'o� EmAomer w Renton,Washington
m
m
Prof.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate Al2
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Boring Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 1 3
Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.:
6754-4 RAC 7 31 96 7 31 96 B-6
Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated DrillingHSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
t 21' ❑ MonitoringWell ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
No. o o c a N o Surface Conditions:
W Blows a E a + E N E
�96) Ft. a e a a
� N � N N
SM ((Fill Stockpiles-Berm)
�111_ Brown silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, loose, moist,fill
1 stockpile
2
3 SM Approximate existing native ground surface
Brown silty fine SAND, loose, moist to wet, some interbedded sandy
4 silt
5
16.2 17
6
7 _ _... —- _......
. ------.._._. ._._..........
_.._... --------......
ML Grades to gray SILT, loose, wet, mottled
41.4 4 s
-T
9
10 -becomes very loose, some interbedded wood fragments
45.7 2
11
12
52.6 2 13
14
15 -some interbedded elastic silt and wood fragments
62.0 3
16
17
93.0 3 18
tD 19
a
o,
Boring Log
IT
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
ce0edil"alavem ceoiD� awbavwr" SOMA"
Renton, Washington
m Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A13
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Boring Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 2 3
Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.:
6754-4 RAC 7'31 96 7 31 96 B-6
Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated Drilling HSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
f 21' ❑ Mo itoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
u — •No. O t — N 0
W Blows a 0 a } E N E
Pt. • ? • d � ]
O N N N
-JSP-SN Black poorly graded fine SAND with silt, medium dense,wet
31.8 11 D
21
D 22
o a'
D 23
aS
0
24
D
o •
25 = -groundwater table encountered at 25'
32.6 24 D '' -some Interbedded silt
° • 26
D
27
P 28
O
D 29
0
30 -considerable interbedded silt and silty sand
27.8 26 '
31
v
° • 32
D
33
34
--- poorly --- - --- - --- _.._ _.. ..__ ..... -
' P-G Grades to graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, dense,water
bearing
7.7 43
1� 3s
•.I 37
• 38
m 39
CO Boring Log
Q ( Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
1 Oeo1ed"" Er4lr� `PnVU"VrrrAW Renton,Washington
to
m
Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A14
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Boring Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 3 3
Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.:
6754-4 1 RAC 7 31 96 7 31 Z96 B-6
Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated Drilling HSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
f 21' ❑ monitoring well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
u
No. a t — N a
W Dows a E �' + E N E
Ft. M
%j • A 7 ]
� V7 � rn fn
9.7 41 110 Grades to poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, dense,water
•• 41 bearing
•
•• 42
•
43
•
44
•• P-S Decreasing gravel content, grades to predominantly poorly graded
45
fine to coarse SAND, dense, water bearing
17.4
46 e,. 46
e> s s 47
ci 48
;<>tr 49
50 -becomes very dense
20.8 71
51
Boring terminated at 51.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater
table encountered at 25.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with
cuttings and bentonite.
a
Boring Log
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
�I ,� .�s
r, Renton,Washington
-J Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A15
m
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
Interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Test Pit Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 1 1
Job No. J Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.:
6754-4 DSL 7 30 96 TP-1
Excavation Contactor. Ground Surface Elevation:
Fiveball Const. t 20'
Notes:
U
= N o Surface Conditions: Depth Of Topsoil 2-3 : grass
W C o 0
MIL Brown sandy SILT, loose, moist
21.6 1
2
3
4
5
21.6 6 -grades to predominantly silt with sand
8
9 -fines content decreases
17.8 10
11
12 -minor caving due to seepage
-lenses of gray silt
42.0 13
14 Test pit terminated at 14.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table
encountered at 12.5 feet during excavation.
o
a
CO
Test Pit Log
Ln Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
C&040 'ErtOrCCM •ErNUOYMU1 SdCrAJ9MRenton,Washington
F Pro].No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A16
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
Interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Test Pit Log
Project Name: eet of
Sh
Raymond Avenue Center 1 1
Job No. Logged by: ___FDate: Test Pit No.:
6754-4 DSL 7 30 96 TP-2
Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation:
Fiveball Const. t 18'
Notes:
U
_ o L ! N o Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil Sod 2-3": grass
W r } a
ML Brown sandy SILT, loose, moist
19.4 1
2
3
4
....—_
5 .......
._
SM Grades to predominantly silty fine to medium SAND
129 s
7
8
9
17.4 10
11
-becomes wet to saturated
34.6 12 -wood debris
13 Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
CO
V Test Pit Log
In Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
r ceordr*al BNOMIC x ceoko�i E miravrertW SdMAM
Renton,Washington
J
a Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 i Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A17
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
Interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Test Pit Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 1 1
-----7 --
Job No, togged by: Date: Test Pit No.:
6754 4 DSL 7 30 96 TP-3
Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation:
Fiveball Const. t 20'
Notes:
° o r ° N o Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil 8r Sod 2-3": grass
w t n ' a U
N L e �
a ° a a S 3
N Vl N
ML Brown sandy SILT, loose, moist
16.1 1
2
3
4
5
6 -decreasing fines content
7
11.8 8
9
10 --
SP-SNI Grades to dark gray poorly graded fine SAND with silt, medium dense,
moist
14.7 , 12 -lenses of sand silt
13 Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
a
M
Test Pit Log
in Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
cO� Goo1o�iawUa yens' Renton,Washington
J
ra- Proj. No. 6754 4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate Al
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Test Pit Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 1 1
Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.:
6754-4 DSL 7 30 96 TP-4
Excavation Contactor. Ground Surface Elevation:
Fiveball Const. t 18'
Notes:
U
o r w o Surface Conditions: Depth Of Topsoil &Sod 2-3": grass
W La } a c) .13
N ILI 0 a � a
M N Vf N
ML Brown sandy SILT, loose, moist to wet
26.7 1
2
3
4
5
-decrease in fines content
17.9 fi
8
s -wood debris
SP-SN Dark gray poorly graded fine SAND with silt, loose to medium dense,
24.9 v 10 wet
12 -moderate caving
13 Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
a
o
m
Test Pit Log
N Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
I �010�' CO'O�'�•@"^1OfY1 �' Renton,Washington
J
IL Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A19
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Test Pit Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 1 1
Job No. Logged by: TDate: Test Pit No.:
6754-4 DSL 7 30 96 TP-5
Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation:
Fiveball Const. t 18'
Notes:
o r ! y o Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil &Sod 2-3": grass
W a .0 a + a U a
(%) � a o° u > ;
0 N Vl Vl
MIL Brown sandy SILT, loose, moist
20.1 1
2
3
4
5
22.5 6
7
8
s SM Grades to silty fine to medium SAND, loose to medium dense, wet
27.8 10 -caving due to groundwater
11 �
12
13 Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table
encountered at 11.0 feet during excavation.
m
c
c
m
IT Test Pit Log
IT
Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
Renton, Washington
J
Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A20
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Test Pit Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 1 1
Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.:
6754-4 1 DSL 7 30 96 TP-6
Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation:
Fiveball Const. t 20'
Notes:
U _
o r ! N o Surface Conditions: Depth Of TOpS011 2-3 : grass
w t o a U n
M N Vl 0
SM B rown silty fine SAND, loose to medium dense, moist
11.3 1
2
3 -fines content decreases
4
5
21.7 6
7 P-S Grades to gray poorly graded fine SAND with silt, interbedded with silty
i
o fine sand, medum dense, moist
a
o<
o -
9
>o
12.6 10
-minor caving
JI 11
12 Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
a
m
Test Pit Log
Inlit Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
r, w '• '�'�'°" Renton, Washington
J
a Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A21
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.we cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
Test Pit Log
Project Name: Sheet of
Raymond Avenue Center 1 1
Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.:
6754-4 1 DSL 7 30 96 TP-7
Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation:
Fiveball Const. t 20'
Notes:
U
— o r ! y Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil &Sod 2�": grass
W L n � ' o
a c� 0
M " i ° u_ i
L
ML Brown sandy SILT, loose, moist
21.2 1
2
3
4
5
8.3 6
7
8 -fines content decreases
17.8 9
10 P-S Grades to dark gray poorly graded fine SAND with silt, medium dense,
moist
e;<! -lenses of gray sandy silt
12
13.1
13 Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
o
o
m
Test Pit Log
N Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center
°eO1a�ErWrs"M Ge°'°� &smi`°""ertw Suendem Renton, Washington
J
a Proj.No. 6754-4 Dwn, GLS Date Aug. '96 Checked RAC Date 8/9/96 Plate A22
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,
analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or
interpretation by others of information presented on this log.
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS
E-6754-4
Earth Consultants, Inc.
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
1 a SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH U.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM
_z N Nv v cNQ O tp tD
p cD It C14O O O SOON
O
O O O O
�
to u� 0)O O
p 100
J
u 10
90
I — — —
m
go 20
m
m
5 C7 30 ri7
m 70 (�
m
Z
----4 ,
40 �
� -n s o n
z 0
9 m D
m 50
;n 50 N
CD :U
40 60 W
Q m_
rn
30 _— 70 m
G)
C)
:T 20 — 80 —{
m
0
tD —
Cl 10 90
100
(D C 0 O O O 00 O O O O O tb tD V m N co tD V m N co to c� m N W W
O O O 00 tD V m N r O O O O O O O O O O O
Eo _D m N GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS •
�
p, Z COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE FINES
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND
0D E C N
W (D M
kD U)
r r- Z Boring or DEPTH DESCRIPTION Moisture LL PL
kD rn � D KEY Test Pit No. (ft.) USCS Content (%)
( � -rC
o cn
.o m 0 B-1 20 SP Gray Poorly Graded SAND 28.2
n
d
CD B-2 10 SM Gray Silty SAND 24.2
ai
~ ._.,....... B-3 5 SM Brown Silty SAND 10.6
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHE5 I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH U.S.STANDARD I GRAIN SIZE IN MM
0 _
O 0 (D d m N 0 0 O O O
z Nv vmN m 0 (D O O o 00 00 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 O °
m N c� �n c� N M d to co N— N
p 100
,gyp \� 90 10
I
20
p 80
0 m m
C� 70
n 30 m
qQ m m
a O -.. ElEz
-n 6o 40 n
m D
50 50
N
co m
m r-* -C — x
40 60 W
" m
k G . = - 70
a 30 +HJ-Hm
G�
T 20 _ 80 .�
CD
m
n 10 — 90
n
100
°O O O O O O O O O ( m N 00 (D m N 00 m N 00 (D O C) N
�y D
� O O v "� N O
N GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS O O O O O
0 R COBBLES COARSE FINEFINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
CD _ SAND FINES
c N
m
w (D Moisture
U1 � D Boring or DEPTH o LL PL
N m D KEY Test Pit No. (ft.) USCS DESCRIPTION Content (/o)
n
(t (D to
�
( ( B-4 10 SP-SM Gray Poorly Graded SAND w/Silt 15.0
m n
CID _ B-5 5 ML Brown SILT 37.2
N
D B-5 15 SP-SM Poorly Graded SAND w/Silt 28.2
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHESNUMBER OF MESH PER INCH U.S.STANDARD GRAIN IZE IN MM
O N v O W O O. N
� O 0
- N MptoM 0O O O 0
c0 t co N -z M N O O
0 O 0
p 100
J 10
r 90
I
A
C17
IIO 20
p � �
�. m D
"+ m
30
^ m 70 c�
crn a -I m
Z
40
-n s o n
Z
fT1 —=A D
50 _ 50
U Uj — _ — — m
p -- — --- ---- - - — --
y v) 40 - —Tr 60 W
G cc
m_
n G-
rn 30 — 70
G)
CD
20 80
C —
7 _
CD 90
10
nWA4�y 100
w o aa
O O O 00 tD V M N O CO tD V M N M N O O O O O O O 0 0 O O
rt o D N GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS o 0 0 0 0 0
0 O0 f1 Z COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE FINES
CD L COBBLES GRAVEL SAND
co C N
a m m
to �5
N m Z Boring or DEPTH DESCRIPTION Moisture
� KEY Test Pit No. (ft.) USCS Content W LL PL
uQ n D
rr m -<
o �j cn
n (n TP-5 10 SM Gray Silty SAND 27.8
w
CD p ___ B-5 17.6 SP-S Gray Poorly Graded SAND w/Silt 17.6
w 7.7
�.......... B-6 7.7 GP-G Gray Poorly Graded GRAVEL w/Silt & Sand
100
80
x 60
w
0
z
40Z"—A-Line
J
o_
C
20
A 0
•
CL-ML OL
0 20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Natural
Key Boring/ Depth Soil Classification USCS L.L. P.L. I. Water
Test Pit (ft.) Content
• B-2 25 Gray Elastic SILT MH 60 48 12 44.1
B-6 17.5 Gray Elastic SILT MH 100 43 57 93.0
Atterberg Limits Test Data
Raymond Avenue Center
Earth Consultants Inc. Renton, Washington
Ceofec n"Ensi�rs. &Envl��tal Sde ftSts
Proj. Nob754-4 Date 8/9/96 Plate B4