The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWP272193 Ortv OF REWON D R E c E I V E D PREPARED FOR ` BRUCE BLUAM AND ASSOCIATES FEB 2 5 1993 BUILDING DIVISION Nabil T. Dbaibo Project Engineer w', �yco GleW Mann, P.E. Vice President C ISTERE�G�� 4IiAL i GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY OM- SDALE AVENUE SOUTHWEST RENTON, WASHINGTON E-4563 September 27, 1989 3 Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643-3780 222 East 26th Street, Suite 103 Tacoma, Washington 98411-9998 (206) 272-6608 i i TABLE OF CONTENTS EA563 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scope of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITECONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Subsurface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Site Preparation and General Earthwork 5 Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Dock-High Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Slab-on-Grade Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Surcharge Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Excavations and Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Rockeries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Site Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 UtilitySupport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Pavement Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Additional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A - Field Exploration Appendix B - Laboratory Testing Appendix C - Rockery Guideline Earth Consultants, Inc. ' TABLE OF CONTENTS (con't) ILLUSTRATIONS Vicinity' Plate 1 Map Plate 2 Test Pit and Boring,Location Plan Plate 3 Legend ' Plates 4 through 6 Boring Logs Plates 7 through 15 Test Pit Logs Plates 16 through 17 Grain Size Analyses ' Plate 18 Atterberg Limits Test Data Plate 19 Retaining Wall Drainage and Backfill Plate 20 Typical Monitoring Plate Detail ' Plate 21 Schematic Structural Fill Plate 22 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Earth Consultants, Inc. Earth Consultants Inc. Gmechnical Engirxers,Gcobgists&Environmental Scientists September 27, 1989 E-4563 Mr. Jim Garrison Bruce Blume and Company 1100 Eastlake, Suite 210 Seattle, Washington 98109 Dear Mr. Garrison: r We are pleased to submit herewith our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Eland Distribution Facility, Oaksdale Avenue Southwest, Renton, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our July 19, 1989 proposal. Our study indicates that the site is underlain by soft compressible material consisting predominantly of clayey silts to a depth of approximately eleven (11) feet. Based-on the encountered conditions, and the results of our analyses, we believe that the proposed structures can be supported on conventional footings provided that a surcharge program is first satisfactorily completed. These recommendations, alongwith other eotechnicall r g y elated aspects of the project, are discussed in more detail in the text of the attached report. We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during g this initial phase of project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future phases as the project comes to fruition. In the meantime, should you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Very truly yours, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Glen Mann, P.E. Vice President I GM/NTD/sar 1805.136th Place N,E.,Suite 101,Bellevue,Washington 98005 222 E.26th Street, Suite 101,Tacoma,Washington 98411.9998 Bellevue(206)643.3780 Seattle(206)464-1584 FAX(206)746-0860 Tacoma(206)272.6608 a r IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsur- technical engineers who then render an opinion about face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as overall subsurface conditions, their likely reaction to subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent proposed construction activity,and appropriate founda- have been lessened considerably in recent years,due in tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer,no matter how the Geosciences. qualified,and no subsurface exploration program, no The following suggestions and observations are offered matter how comprehensive,can reveal what is hidden by to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, earth, rock and time.The actual interface between mate- cost-overruns and other costly headaches that can rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report occur during a construction project. indicates.Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated,but steps can be taken to help minimize their ' A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their REPORT IS BA ED ON A UNIQUE SET geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden- tify variances,conduct additional tests which may be OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS needed,and to recommend solutions to problems ' A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur- encountered on site. face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS set of project-specific factors. These typically include: ' the general nature of the structure involved, its size and CAN CHANGE configuration; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; physical concomitants such as Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly- access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi- ' and the level of additional risk which the client assumed neering report is based on conditions which existed at by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory the time of subsurface exploration,construction decisions program. To help avoid costly problems,consult the should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose ' geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo- which change subsequent to the date of the report may technical consultant to learn if additional tests are affect its recommendations. advisable before construction starts. Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and ' otherwise, your gwJechnical 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 Iry structure is altered; PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES UIL •when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified; AND PERSONS ' •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 clienf. 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 IL sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geotechnical engineer. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY OAKSDALE AVENUE SOUTHWEST RENTON, WASHINGTON E-4563 INTRODUCTION Project Description The subject site is located in Renton and is bounded to the north by Oaksdale Avenue Southwest near the intersection of Monster Road, to the east by an existing cardboard manufacturing plant, and by Union Pacific railroad to the west and south (approximately as indicated on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1). The site is low lying currently about six feet below Oaksdale Avenue Southwest. The general area appears to have been leveled and partially filled in the past. The purpose of this study is to explore the existing subsurface conditions at the site and, on this basis, to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed building locations, and our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. We understand from our discussions ss ons with your architect, Mr. Bob Fadden, that you plan to construct two warehouses, one of approximately two hundred and twenty thousand (220,000) square feet in plan area, and the second approximately forty-eight thousand (48,000) square feet in plan area. The structures are to be concrete tilt-up panel construction and will have a dock-high floor. Although no specific design information is currently available, based on our experience with siixular construction, we have estimated the maximum total dead plus live loads to be as follows: o Wall loads - 3-1/2 kips per lineal foot • Column loads - 150 kips • Slab loads - 300 pounds per square foot (psf) If any of the above design criteria change, we should be con sulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, we recommend that Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) be retained to perform a general review of the final design. Scope of Services We performed this study in general accordance with the scope of services outlined in our July 19, 1989 proposal. On this basis, our report addresses: ' Eland Distribution Facility September 27, 1989 E-4563Page 2 It's • Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions; • Suitability of existing on-site materials for use as fill or re commendations for imported fill materials; ' • Site preparation, grading and earthwork procedures, including details of fill placement and compaction; • Short-term and long-term groundwater management and erosion control measures; ' 1 • Foundation bearing capacity and resistance of lateral loads for conventional foundations; ' • Estimates of potential total and differential settlement ma it rates; gm udes and then i ' • Surcharge fill construction and monitoring program; and ' • Parking area and access roadway design pavement sections. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only for the exclusive ' use of Bruce Blume and Associates and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. SITE CONDITIONS rfa ' At the time of our field exploration, the site was covered by dense long field grass. The site is essentially flat and is relatively low-lying, currently about six feet below the bordering road. No structures are present on site, nor is there any evidence that any have been on the ' property in the past. Wetland areas are apparently present in the central portion of the property. These areas were relatively dry with no evidence of stagnant water, indicating that the underlying material is providing good drainage towards the Green River. We understand ' from our discussions that these areas will be kept in their natural state. , The site was explored by drilling three (3) borings and excavating sixteen (16) test pits at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the Boring logs Plates 4 through Earth Consultants, Inc. 1 ILI Eland Distribution Facility E-4563 September 27, 1989 Page 3 101 6, and the Test Pit logs, Plates 7 through 15, for a more detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration methods and laboratory testing program is included in the appendix of this report. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. All of our exploratory borings and excavations in the building areas encountered a thin surficial layer of loose silty sand topsoil. This layer, typically about six to eight inches thick, contains a variety of small roots and rounded gravel. It is unsuitable for support of foundations, floor slabs or pavements and cannot be used as a structural fill. Further, it should not be mixed with materials that are to be used as a structural fill. Underlying the'surficial topsoil layer, we generally encountered a loose to medium dense silty sand containing some gravel, which becomes silt in some localized areas. Beneath this material we found interlayered soft to stiff silty clay and clayey silt, and loose to dense silty sand and sand. Typically, the density or consistency increased with depth. The* clayey materials are susceptible to compression under load. We also excavated five Test Pits (TP-101 through 105) in the knoll located just to the southeast of the southern building pad. The purpose was to determine the suitability of the in-place materials for use as a structural fill elsewhere on the site. Beneath an approximately six inch thick surficial sod layer, we found medium dense to dense silty sand extending to the depths explored. The lower materials appeared to be a weathered sandstone. While these soils are suitable for support of a conventional warehouse-type structure, they are not suitable for use as a structural fill. In our opinion, the soil contains too large an amount of fines (silt and clay sized particles) and is highly susceptible to degradation when wet. Groundwater F; The groundwater levels observed while drilling and excavating range from approximately ten to eleven feet below the existing surface and are shown on the boring and test pit logs. The groundwater level is not considered static; thus, one may expect fluctuations in the level depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher in the wetter winter months, typically October through May. DISCUSSION USSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our stud it is evident the site requires Y� qui es a substantial amount of fill to raise the site to design subgrade elevation. Since there is no on-site fill source, the fill must by necessity be imported from elsewhere. Placement of this fill, combined with the Earth Consultants, Inc. r t Eland Distribution Facility E-4563 September 27, 1989 Page 4 proposed building loads, is estimated to cause a relatively large amount of settlement in the ' soft compressible soils immediately underlying the site. Such settlement is likely to lead to structural damage. To avoid this, we recommend you employ a surcharge fill to pre-induce as much settlement as possible before construction begins. ' While it would be most helpful to surcharge the pavement and parking areas of the site as well as the building pads, this is not normally a standard, or practical, activity. We do, ' however, strongly recommend the site fills be placed and compacted under strict engineering control to verify they are competent. This will help reduce the settlement potential. ' In our opinion, once the site fills are placed and a surcharge fill program has been satisfactorily co?npleted, the proposed buildings can be constructed generally as planned. We recommend they be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on the compacted ' structural fill. Post-construction settlement are expected to be relatively small and within this form of structure's tolerable limits. ' Current development plans call for the protection of an existing "wetland" area located in the generally central part of the site. Since site fills will closely border this wetland area, you must construct competent and stable fill slopes and protect the toes of the slopes from water ' softening. This can be accomplished by appropriate vegetation or a protective surfacing material. ' Because of the relatively soft and compressible soils underlying most of the site, utility installation may pose some minor construction difficulties. We recommend all utilities be provided with flexible connections to allow for settlement related movements. Although groundwater was not encountered at shallow depth, and considering the site grade will be raised by about ten feet, we believe it prudent to include both short and long term ' drainage control measures in design and construction. Such measures should include, but need not be limited to, perimeter footing drains, downspout tightlines, site grading, shallow swales and earthen berms. We explored a portion of the knoll which is located just to the southeast of the site as a potential fill source. Our exploration indicated the materials are very fine grained and tj ' susceptible to severe disturbance when wet. As a result, we do not believe they are suitable as a fill source. However, in the event you plan to construct an additional building in this area, the soils should prove suitable for support of a tilt-up type structure, particularly if built in the drier summer months. The in-place soils will likely require some degree of recompaction prior to such construction, and will need to be protected against the elements. These, and other geotechnically related aspects of the project are discussed in more detail ' in the following sections of this report. LEI Earth Consultants, Inc. LT Eland Distribution Facility September 27, 1989 E-4563 Page 5 Site Preparation and General Earthwork Stripping and Clearing: The building and parking areas should be stripped and cleared all existing vegetation, existing utilities, and any other deleterious material. We estimate that on the average, stripping depth of about six inches will be repaired. Stripped materials should be removed from the site and disposed. They should not be mixed with materials to be used as structural fill. Subgrade Preparation: Following the stripping and excavation operations, structural Hill can be used to bring the building site to the desired subgrade. A typical detail for a structural fill mat is provided on Plate 21. The soil surface where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed should be proofrolled and compacted to a reasonably non-yielding condition. Proofrolling helps to determine the presence and approximate areal extent of any soft or unstable soils. If any soft or unstable areas are encountered, they should be moisture- conditioned as appropriate then recompacted. If after recompaction they remain soft or unstable, they should be overexcavated to a depth that will provide a stable base. T�pical- ly, a depth of two to three feet is adequate for this purpose. The overexcavated unsuitable material should be removed, disposed and replaced with structural fill. These operations should be performed under the continuous observation of ECI's representative. Structural Fill: Structural fill is defined as any fill placed around or beneath buildings, floor slabs pavements, walkways, or any other load-bearing areas. Ideally, but particularly for wet weather construction, structural fill should comprise an organic-free, granular, free-draining material with a maximum particle size of three inches. It should contain less than 5 percent fines (silt and clay-sized particles passing the number 200 mesh sieve). During dry weather, any organic-free, compactible material meeting the above maximum size criterion may be used. Structural fill under footings, floor slabs, and pavements should be placed in thin horizontal lifts. Lifts should not exceed eight inches in loose thickness for heavy compactors, and four inches for hand-held compactors. Each lift should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). Fill under walkways should be laced in similar thin of the upper twelve 12 P horizontal lifts and, with the exception The top twelve (12) inches should beo compacted ed tocted to at least 9t 90 5 percent maximuercent of m density. P density. Any fill or native soils disturbed during construction should either be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with compacted structural fill or crushed rock. To facilitate the compaction process, we recommend that all fills, including the on-site soils if used, be placed at or near their optimum moisture content. If fill soils are on the wet side of optimum they are likely to be difficult to compact. In this case they should then be replaced with a free- draining granular import fill, or should be dried until they can be adequately compacted. Drying can be achieved by aeration or by intermixing lime or cement powder to absorb excess moisture. Earth Consultants, Inc. Eland Distribution Facility September 27, 1989 E4563 Page 6 r As part of our site exploration, we dug four test pits in the lower slopes of a knoll located just to the southeast of the site. These pits were dug in an effort to determine the suitability of the in-place soils as a structural Hill material on the lower lying site. Based on the conditions exposed, we do not believe the material on the knoll are suitable for use as a structural fill. They contain a significant amount of fines (silt and clay sized particles) and are highly susceptible to deterioration when wet. Excavation, movement and replacement and compaction are likely to be difficult, if not impossible. Thus, it is virtually certain that you will need to import materials form an outside source. When you have retained an earthwork con h he intends to impdrt fill materials, you should retain r�us to visit and he has d examine the pit, to aced a pit from c uire representative fill source samples and to perform the appropriate laboratory testing r determine the materials suitability. Providing this is don ar enough in the scheme tof construction, it will be possible to modify fill or compaction recommendations or even to change fill the source, if necessary, before you are committed to performing the earthwork. You should provide a contingency in your budget and schedule to ac service. commodate this critical ' Foundations Based on the encountered site conditions and the preliminary building design criteria, we believe that conventional footings supported on compacted structural fill can be used, provided that a surcharge program to induce settlement is successfully performed. The surcharge program is discussed in more detail in a subsequent paragraph. Once the preload program is successfully completed, the conventional footings can be designed on the basis of the following criteria: • Allowable bearing pressure, including all dead and live loads. = 2,500 psf • Minimum depth of perimeter footing; below adjacent. final exterior grade. = 18 inches • Minimum depth of interior footings; below top of floor slab. = 12 inches ' • Minimum width of wall footings = 18 inches • Minimum lateral dimension of column footings = 24 inches 1 • Estimated total post-construction = settlement 1 inch, or less Earth Consultants, Inc. Rr . , r, Eland Distribution Facility .,, E-4563 September 27, 1111 Page 7 • Estimated post-construction differential = 1/2 inch, or less settlement; across building width A one-third increase in the above allowable bearing pressures can be used when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads can also be resisted by friction between the foundation and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing soil or backfilled frith a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill. We recommend the following parameters be used in design: • Passive pressure = 300 pcf equivalent fluid weight • Coefficient of friction = 0.35 As mentioned earlier, we also explored the lower portion of the knoll located just to the southeast of the site. While the materials are not suitable for use as a structural fill in wet weather, the area is capable of supporting construction of similar nature. In our opinion, a "typical" concrete tilt-up building can be constructed on this area provided care. is exercised during design and construction. Such a building could be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on the carefully recompacted and densified in-place soils. The design parameters outlined above should prove applicable. However, we recommend you retain us to evaluate any design plan before proceeding to allow us to verify that the conditions can support the proposed construction. D_q�-High_Rtf�a NV,Its We understand that dock-high retaining walls may be constructed along portions of the perimeter of the buildings. We recommend they be designed to resist lateral load imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of forty (40) pcf if they are allowed to rotate 0.002 times the height of the wall. If the walls are prevented from rotating, we recommend that they be designed to resist lateral loads of sixty (60) pcf equivalent fluid weight. These values assume that no vehicular, floor or other surcharge loads will act on the wall. If such loads are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressures. We assume that the walls will be backfilled with a suitable free-draining material. Typically, wall backfill should consist of materials similar to structural fill. Wall backfill should have a maximum size of three inches, be organic-free, and have a maximum of three percent fines (materials passing the No. 200 mesh sieve). Twenty-five (25) to seventy (70) percent of the particles should pass the No. 4 mesh sieve. A typical wall backfill detail is provided as Plate 19. Earth Consultants, Inc. Eland Distribution Facility September 27, 1989 E-4563 Page 8 i As an alternative to free-draining wall backfill, you may wish to consider the use of a geotextile drainage product such as "Miradrain . In either case, we recommend the installation of a drain line along the base of g each wall. These drains are discussed in detail in the Site Drainage section of this report. more ;slab-on- �rarlP Floors Slab-on-grade floors can be used with conventional foundations provided that the preload ' " k,Program is satisfactorily completed. The slab should be supported on compacted structural Q a fill• Any fill or native soils disturbed by construction activity should either be reco X or excavated aid replaced,with coma m acted compacted structural fill or crushed rock. P � To allow for mois ture build-up on the subgrade, the slab should be provided with a capillary�� break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free-draining sand gravel. We also plastic me P recommend that a vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil l ILI capillary break beneath the slab to reduce both water mbrane, ore placed over the and the resultant moisture related damage to interior furnishings.or transmission through 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. It will also help prevent cement aste bleeding down into the underlying capillary break through,joints or tears in the vapor b P arrier. An alternative means of slab support, if recompaction efforts are thwarted by poor weather, is the use of a cement-bound granular fill ad P !d- about four and seven percent Portland cement powde would weiincoght,ainto te intermixing between inches of the dock high site fill. The cement-bound fill is then appropriately twelve conditioned and compacted. This will provide an approximate) one f moisture - essentially weak concrete on which to build the slab. It is not unusual to achieve ick ltwen of eight (28) day compressive strengths in excess of twelve hundred 1200 inch with this form of con; ruction. Typically, the cement bound i t , ( ) Pounds per square allowable soil bearing in excess of three thousand (3,000) fill will Provide an option further, we will be available to provide more specific design You pursue this ettlemen 1 Based on the nature of the materials underlying the site, the need to lace a amount of structural fill to achieve design site P substantial construction, the buildings are likely to undergo a relatively large amountof sven the ettlement.ment.osed of is settlement is of sufficient magnitude to cause structural damage. This The surcharge program should be designed to pre-consolidate the compressible soils foun d in the upper eleven (11) feet of the site, such that the surcharge would ap 1 loads re than those possible under normal fill and building loads. Resulting settlements from the surcharge program should be about the same magnitude as the estimated settlements. A Earth Consultants, Inc. It Eland Distribution Facility September 27, 1989 E-4563 Page 9 smaller settlement than estimated could be interpreted that the clayey silt have been pre- consolidated and soil conditions are better than anticipated. Conversely, a larger settlement than that estimated could be interpreted that the soil conditions are worse than anticipated, and additional measures should be taken to obtain satisfactory results. Surcharge Program We estimate the settlement under the combined building and fill load to be on the order of six (6) to seven (7) inches. Differential settlement could be about half this magnitude across the building width. To avoid this, we recommend you perform a preload surcharge program to pre-induce as much settlement as possible before construction begins. Current plans call for up to about ten feet of fill, generating a load on the order of twelve hundred (1,200) psf on the original site subgrade. This fill load will cause a certain degree of settlement to occur before any building is constructed. In addition, there will be the proposed floor slab load, presently estimated at about three hundred (300) psf. Although settlements under this load are substantially smaller than those generated by the fill, they are still of sufficient magnitude to cause slab damage. The damage is typically in the form of slab cracking, warping or separation. To prevent settlement under the slab load, the surcharge fill should be of a weight that is at least equal to, but preferably greater than, the slab load. In this case, a minimum surcharge thickness of two and one-half feet will approximately equal the maximum proposed floor load. To further decrease the potential for post-surcharge and construction settlement, an additional six inches to one foot of surcharge can be added. One means of reducing the cost of a surcharge program is to use a "rolling surcharge". This can be achieved on two separate ways. Either the surcharge fill material is to be used as a structural fill elsewhere on the site after the surcharge program is completed, or the surcharge fill can be used first on one building pad, then on the next. This approach requires less surcharge material than that required to settle both building pads at the same lime. ` Surcharge material should conform to the requirements of structural fill, described earlier in this text, if the material is to be used as a fill elsewhere on the site. Regardless, the fill should have a minimum unit weight of one hundred and twenty (120) pcf. The surcharge should extend for a distance of at least ten (10) feet beyond the building perimeter. From this point, the surcharge fill should be sloped at an inclination of 1H:1V, or flatter, down to the site grade. Based on the conditions observed in the field, and the results of our selective ests and our engineering analyses, we estimate the settlements induced by the combinedtsl eland surcharge fills will take between about ten (10) and twelve (12) weeks to com lete. However, the only reasonable accurate means of verifying e the time p surcharge monitoring program. This program will include setting settlement perform markers on the existing site subgrade before any fill is placed, then monitoring them through Earth Consultants, Inc. � 1 Eland Distribution Facility E-4563 September 27, 1989 Page 10 completion of fill placement, then on until settlements cease or are considered within the building's tolerable limits. More specific details of this program are presented below: • Settlement markers should be placed on the native subgrade of each building pad before any fill is placed. We recommend six markers within the larger building footprint and four in the smaller. ECI can supply and install these markers. (A typical detail is provided on Plate 20.) • A baseline reading is obtained on each marker and is referenced to a temporary benchmark located on a feature that will be unaffected by the fill-induced settlements. N • The structural and surcharge fills are then placed. Settlement readings are taken at relatively short intervals during this process, since this phase generates a relatively large amount of rapid settlement. ki • Once the fill operation is completed, readings are obtained on a periodic basis, typically on a weekly to bi-weekly basis, until the settlement ceases or is judged by k! the geotechnical engineer to be within the structure's tolerable limits. • Each set of settlement readings are plotted graphically against time to determine the magnitude and rate of activity, and are matched against the predicted magnitudes and rates. This allows us to verify the accuracy of earlier estimates and to make any WT appropriate modifications. We recommend ECI be retained to acquire the settlement readings. If you prefer to use another entity to collect these readings, we recommend you provide the data to us as quickly after their acquisition as possible for plotting and interpretation. This will help avoid any misinterpretation or misunderstanding about the success of the surcharge program. You should also understand that completion of primary settlements under the surcharge program does not complete total settlement. The clayey soils underlying this site are also likely to undergo long-term secondary settlement. This form of settlement continues over a much longer period, perhaps several years. This form of settlement occurs as air and water is slowly squeezed out of the soil by the fill and building load. The greater the weight of the surcharge fill, the less impact this is likely to have on the structure. Secondary settlements can be as much as about fifty percent of the primary settlement. Your structural engineer must consider this in his design. One last concern in the settlement monitoring program concerns the maintenance of g settlement markers. Given that there will be a significant earthwork operation on this site to construct the site and surcharge fills, there will be a lot of earthwork traffic. This traffic can be a significant threat to the integrity of the settlement markers. In our experience, earthwork equipment (dozers and trucks) often demolish markers at a very high rate. This adds to the project costs in that they need to be replaced and makes the information Earth Consultants, Inc. Eland Distribution Facility September 27, 1989 E-456 . Page 11 obtained less reliable. To avoid this scenario, we recommend your project specifications 3z 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 This has, in the past, helped maintain the integrity of the monitoring program and has made the earthwork contractor more conscious of the client's needs. Excavations and Slopes While no major excavations or slope construction efforts are anticipated in construction, you should be aware that in no case should excavation slopes, including utility trenches, be greater than the limits specified in local, state and federal safety regulations. Temporary greater than foi r feet in depth should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than H: V. If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, or if excavations greater than mom four feet in depth are required, temporary shoring may be necessary. This shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workmen in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide geotechnical shoring design criteria, if requested. Since it is apparent pp that fill slopes will be constructed and extend out to the edges of the wetlands, we recommend the toes of these slopes be protected. A vegetative cover, or material, should be sufficient for this purpose. placement of a graded rock filter All temporary slopes should be protected against the elements. Installation of a shallow swale or low earthen berm along the crest of each slope should be adequate to collect and redirect water to a positive and permenant discharge. The slope face should be covered with a pegged or sandbagged in-place impervious sheeting. Over the long term, the slopes should be p seeded as quickly after construction as possible with a suitable rapid growth and deep rooted vegetation. Your landscape architect can provide a suitable seed mix. The seed should be maintained in-place with a sprayed mulch, with the possible addition of a pegged in-place jute matting or geotechnical fabric. This will help keep the seed and mulch on the slope surface until the root mat has an opportunity to germinate and take hold. Rockeries If you elect to use a rocker y to protect the perimeter of the site, you should understand that a rockery is not a retaining wall in the sense one would consider a reinforced concrete retaining wall. A rockery is primarily to protect the exposed soil surface against erosion and weather damage. However, if a rockery is properly constructed, by virtue of its mass it'will provide some degree of retention. The larger the rocks used, the more mass and, therefore, the greater the retaining ability. Rockery construction is, to a large extent, an art not entirely controllable by engineering methods. Because of this, it is imperative that your rockeries be constructed by an Earth Consultants, Inc. [- r Eland Distribution Facility E-4 563 September 27, 1989 Page 12 experienced contractor with the equipment and capability to construct rockeries of a similar t nature to those you require built. To help you in this respect, we have provided a current copy of the Associated Rockery Contractors (ARC) Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines as Appendix C. We recommend that your contractor closely adhere to the recommendations contained in that document. In the event that a rockery exceeds the maximum height acceptable to the City or County, or if the rockery is to be constructed against a new fill, we will be available to provide the necessary engineering and monitoring services. Site Drainage We do not expect the site groundwater levels will any resentor construc - P major tion related problems. However, the site should be graded such that surface water is directed off the building site. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be roller-sealed at night to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the building foundations. We suggest that the ground be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the buildings except in areas that are to be paved. If seepage is encountered in foundation excavations during construction, we recommend that you slope the bottom of the excavation to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Although the groundwater level was recorded several feet below the existing site grade, and considering the site grade in the building pad areas will be raised several feet, we still firmly believe drainage control measures installed at the time of construction are the most economical insurance against long term, water or seepage related problems. Because of this, we recommend you install footing dra.im, around the building perimeter. These drains should ,consist of a four-inch minimum diameter, perforated or slotted, rigid drain pipe laid at, or just below, the invert of the footing with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. The drain line should be bedded on, surrounded by, and covered with a free-draining washed rock or other free-draining granular material. rOnce the drains are installed, with the exception of the upper twelve (12) inches, the excavation can be backfilled with a granular fill material. The surficial twelve (12) inches of fill should consist of compacted and relatively impermeable soil. It can be separated from the underlying more granular drainage material by a layer of building paper or visqueen. The surface should be sloped to drain away from the building wall. Alternatively, the surface can be sealed with asphalt or concrete paving. A typical detail is provided on Plate 22. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. We recommend you iEarth Consultants, Inc. Eland Distribution Facility E-4563 September 27, 1989 Page 13 install sufficient cleanouts at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. We recommend the appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, be established during grading operations by ECI's representative, at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more clearly defined. Based on the general grain size, we have estimated a coefficient of permeability (K) for the materials overlying the relatively impermeable clayey soils. The K value is likely to be on the order of 2.4x10" inches per hour. For the underlying clayey materials, we estimate the K value to be more on the order of 1.2x10'3 inches per hour. Utility Support Utility lines installed in fills or native soils should use either APWA Specifications 61-2.02 and 61-2.03, or the specific manufacturers' recommendations, for both rigid and flexible pipe bedding. Utility trench backfill is a major concern in preventing settlement activity along utility alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line be adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to make sure support is provided around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed and hand tamped to about twelve (12) inches above the crown of the pipe before any heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve (12) inches. Trench fill, where not supporting a structure, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D-1557-78 (Modified 'Proctor). The upper twelve (12) inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density. If utility trench excavations encounter soft and easily compressible soils at invert elevations that cannot be remedied by placement of the bedding material, it may be necessary to perform some overexcavation and .replacement of unsuitable materials. Typically, an overexcavation depth of about two feet is sufficient to provide a 'bridge" across soft and compressible soils. The overexcavation backfill should be crushed rock or clean compact structural fill. In addition, to help accommodate any post-construction settlement, we recommend all underground utility lines include flexible joints. The trench width in soft soils should be at least three pipe diameters. This will allow for placement of sufficient bedding and/or fill material to laterally support the pipe. Depending on the actual nature of the in-place soils, it might also be prudent to wrap the bedding material in a geotechnical fabric. This determination should be made at the time of construction. However, you should include a contingency in your budget and schedule to accommodate this possibility. We also recommend you consult us once the final utility layout has been determined to reevaluate the above recommendations. At that time it might prove possible to more accurately determine the specific nature of utility trench treatment. Earth Consultants, Inc. Eland Distribution Facility E-4563 September 27, 1989 Page 14 Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is strictly related to the condition of the underlying 1 subgrade. If this is inadequate, no matter what pavement section is constructed, settlement or movement of the subgrade will be reflected up through the paving. In order to avoid this situation, we recommend the subgrade be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparation section of this report. This means at least the top twelve (12) inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D- 1557-78). It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. If so, the unsuitable materials may require overexcavation and replacement with a compacted structural fill or a crushed rock. Depending on the nature of the prepared subgrade at the time of construction, it may also be necessary to use a geotextile fabric to separate pavement materials from the underlying subgrade and to help strengthen the pavement section. A Mirafi 500X, or approved equivalent, should be suitable for this purpose. As mentioned earlier, because of the amounts of fill to be placed over this site and the settlement susceptibility of the underlying native soils, long-term settlements in both building and pavement areas should be expected. The building area settlements can be controlled to some degree by the use of a surcharge fill program. While it is not normally an economically feasible step to surcharge the parking and roadway areas, we recommend you give this some consideration. The greater the loads applied to the pavement area fill before construction, the lower the risk of settlement damage to the pavements over time. This option might be achievable if a rolling surcharge program is used. On the assumption that it will not be economically feasible to surcharge the pavement areas, we urge you to make sure that the fill in these areas is placed and compacted under our full-time observation and of suitable material. On this basis, we have provided you with two 1 alternative pavement sections for the lightly trafficked access and parking areas, and for the .more heavily trafficked truck access and loading areas. In the more lightly-loaded areas we recommend the following: • Two inches of Asphalt Concrete AC over four inches - ( ) s of Crushed Rock Base (CRB) material, or 0 Two inches of AC over three inches of Asphalt Treated Base ATB P ( } material. For the heavier truck-traffic areas, we have made some assumptions about site us a e pavement life and site traffic. We assumed the pavement life to be ten (10) years, that Itruck traffic would be essentially confined to one lane in each direction, and that traffic could double within the pavement life. We estimate the pavement subgrade would have an equivalent "R-Value" of about sixty (60). On the basis of these estimated criteria, we used Earth Consultants, Inc. Eland Distribution Facility E-4563 September 27, 1989 Page 15 the State of Washington Flexible Pavement Design Method to determine a suitable pavement design section. As a result of this analysis, we recommend the following: • Three inches of AC over six inches of CRB, or • Three inches of AC over four and one-half inches of ATB. If the above design assumptions appear incorrect to you, or if you have more detailed and accurate traffic criteria, please provide the information to us so that we can re-analyze these heavier pavement sections. If we are not provided further data, we will assume these data in our analysis `to be correct. Because of the general nature of the site soils and the time of construction, we recommend you select the ATB pavement section. This will not only provide you with a competent 'blacktop" surface that will help protect the site from construction activity, but will also provide a clean, dry and competent surface on which to store and protect construction materials. It has also been our experience that in spite of its slightly higher initial cost, this form of surfacing requires considerably less maintenance either during or after a winter construction period. LI14?ITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing, engineering analyses, the design information provided us, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. -The recorrimendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings and test pats. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings and test pits may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications. This will allow us to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design plans and in the construction specifications. X aim Earth Consultants, Inc. 1 rs_i SI1.ASTW0�61AtEl J• � 1 I� �I YL AINS "; `' OS < LEO T �11112TH ST 1 2T ,. ` y J ��1 I i l' 113TH> o n > ST I ` Q�� o S 114~Tn ST a SP fi 'S AV N < O Ir S IISTIlm ST •Mi Sj 4UGS h S 9 j UDUST o > > ~ O 0. 3 O �J \` airs t'1 f LJ ST < < (B$ 115iH 'A a > µ f U7 ; S1167H ST .._n_.. S a m Q > S ' 117TH $T 9 c11ftH�r S C.. S IIgrH T , o : _� eL__ i _ �. \ k,j 12 NS—A+A I,'^ > - Sllli m e S v1 T =S IIEITH PL p utH�r / AV < a P��y...... n to.o< •;\ �,�� S NIBTN$ S.119TH 57 A Q y >SS JUNifER T S. 120 TH y n..�. S�' < TM A $ �22ND F U)«a F T Sp1,I,1 ST I0aI11 3lNDSTS4 s a < q�S12S/DK4 Y"♦SP`� Gs _$ 12 x AY: N to ,now ia � =r aO ST ^�J;:::o SK Y �$ 124 H AST 5 I S _ to S 124i 1 P S a �,•• ul,. � ( I a $1xTHST �C•.a."�''h 3 Q Ls. > 57 LAN tAkuNcraw n'`��> '•� _ _'' y F t *r 1 , 29rh 1 PL >: a S IWITW I •� 1791H>ST > > 1'!1 •9 .{�.'. St"fl. 'C _'.' •� ST < S< 129TH ST < I ; !i t�Fy• X .;'ti ; ,;fie i -� 551301N `OAST s13DiH 4 z o 7 �•(��3,r i' ,� y qC`p I31Si x S LANGSTDN RD 'V°z ALT H9 d rims Cl itli% No fTS I 133AD T S N. tN f '7.! Svl s S 135rH ,L• � C/,' 4r.::,1. � J {y 'I S 137 1 ��, �:i j� V �' S I Q 9 G..,. 'c,l; Oaf ..= f 1:!TH ST O F ` 1,, s Pa4TN s'9`' b , Q;O{L/'�C�+ 1 I B`14m ar N>,n M.iL r N! T -s �;� . F' RIVER ,�''• 1"°T" , EARL ST NtT JRNS r < F sy l j ue y;_ ,:5'Ig3Rp.:; ^�r h.\, PJCT;.'''SITE ... .'r 1 1 h 144 ST �'< 5 43ttD pL; 5 143e fAi1fA¢TON:i.'' 1 4601►'YfOUR5E I 1_ SI4EIHST N�I �i ;� l� ;� ; �viH' Reference King County / Map 34 BY Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 1988 Earth Consultants Inc. Vicinity Mop Eland Distribution Facility King County,Washington Pro]. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Date Sept. 189 Checked ND Date 9/22/89 Plate I F17S /0/-105 LOCATED EASr OF snvr AREA. SEE TP-5 rEsr Fvr LOGS FCV? FMrHER DM J � f vi - -�Idg. B TP- 16 B-1 \ 10 12 w 1 TP-11 Appnamrlte scale a o 50 100 200ft. I� \ OFMAMS \ TP-12 a t U) TP-3 LEGEND Bldg. A `� —� ' B-I AR=ximote Lt,=icn of 10 �-- �- t ECI Boring, Prof. No. 2 ) E-4563, Sept. 1989 -7� IN Applo&rde Location of TP 10 WETLANDS / ECI Te tii Pt, Propt. l.N. TP-2 B`2 ^j TP-Q Approximate Location of ECI Test Pit, P►oj. No. E 4563, Sept. 1989 7P-13 ) j used Building TP-1 TP-9 / 1 Existing Building / ---- �B-3 Reference Job No. 89246.01 Schenotic G1odnq 8 Utlity Pion BY Bich, Roed 8 Hikriigs, Int. Dated 8/24/89 Boring and Test Pit Locotion Plan Earth Consultants inc. Eland Distribution t=ocility 1v.M�1i�.w MIF.�fmY.m�lYlY Y.Y�r King County, .Washington Prol No. 4563 D-- GLS oats Sept'69 Ch*cked NO Date 9/22/89 Plate 2 - i MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL SYMBOL Gravel �0 GW Well-Graded Gravels,Gravel-Sand And Clean Gravels °'°'O °' °°'° 9W Mixtures,Little Or No Fines Gravelly (little or no fines) Coarse Soils . ♦ , GP Poorly-Graded Gravels,Gravel- Grained gp Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Soils More Than _I 50% Coarse Gravels With I. Ol GM gm Silt Mixtures Silty Gravels,Gravel Sand- Fraction Fines(appreciable No. 4 Sieve Retained a amount of fines) GC Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand- gC Clay Mixtures Sand e; °°°°e°°° SW Well-Graded Sands, GravbIly And Clean Sand o°,o °O,°° SW Sands, Little Or No Fines More Than Sandy (little or no fines) Soils SP Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly 50% Material Sp Sands, Little Or No Fines Larger Than No.200 Sieve More Than 50% Coarse N11 SM SiltSize Sands With Sm Y Sands, Sand-Silt Mixtures Fraction Passing No.4 Fmes(appreciable Sieve amount of fines) SC Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures SC ML Inorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock FIOLr,Silty mi Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/Slight Plasticity Fine Silts Liquid Limit Inorganic Clay s Of Low To Medium Plasticity, Grained And Leas Than 50 CL g y Soils Clays CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean I l l l l l l l l OL Organic Silts And Organic OI Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity More Than MH Inorganic Silts,Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fine 50% Material Silts Mh Sand Or Silty Soils Smaller Than Liquid Limit No. And (�H Inorganic Clays O1 High Size200 Sieve Clays Greater Than 50 Ch Plasticity, Fat Clays Size Y, Y Organic Clays Of Medium To High Oh Plasticity, Organic Silts Highly Organic Soils r �" PT Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils A. Pt With High Organic Contents Topsoil Humus And Duff Layer Fill Highly Variable Constituents The Discussion In The Text Of This Report Is Necessary For A Proper Understanding Of The Nature Of The Material Presented In The Attached .Logs Notes ` Dual symbols are used to indicate borderline soil Classification.Upper C85C letter symbols designate sample classifications based upon lab— oratory testing; lower case letter symbols designate classifications not verified by laboratory testing. I 2-O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C TORVANE READING, tsf SHELSY TUBE SAMP RING LER ER OR yu PENETROMETER READING,tsf P SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight -* SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED pcf DRY DENSITY,pounds per cubic ft. Q WATER LEVEL (DATE) LL LIQUID LIMIT,percent WATER OBSERVATION WELL PI PLASTIC INDEX 0m, Earth LEGEND Consultants Inc. eotechnical Encineering and Geology Proj. No. 4563 Date Sept'89 Plate 3 Pbf. BORING NO. Logged By ND Date 8-22-89 Bev. Graph us Soil Description Depth (N) W CS (ft) Sample Blows (%) Ft. Gray Silty SAND with gravel, moist, medium dense T sm Gray SILT and fine sand, moist, loose 7 28.3 cl-ml Gray-bluish Silty CLAY, moist, medium stiff 5 45.7 10 sm Dark gray-black Silty SAND, wet, S2 dense 20 31 15 25 29.9 20 23 33 25 .-becomes sandy and dense 28 24.7 30 11T3 sm Dark gray-black silty SAND and sand 12 29.7 with shells, wet, medium dense Elevation interpolated between contour 35 T lines of Bush, Roed & Hitchings Schematic Grading and Utility Plan, job #89246.01, dated 8-24-89 14 �3.7. Boring terminated at 39 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 12 feet during drilling. Sbwlla.condn*n,"PO"ntxas.m cul observations at the Un's and l0=*n 01 this"PlWal0rY 110141,"10difod by engineering tests.analysis.and pd"ffwM.They are not naces"roy reprosentatroe of Ww tiornot and witt000ts. ca pt for or 0 �by oths lntOmwd*n Presti on nno&=@ r*&PW%"rTy the Use 1114 rprota s d ' 1I �� IEallh Consultants inc. BORING LOG hJWM ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON - 1 _ _--7 Proj. No. Sept'rwn. GLS ept'89 Checked ND Date- 9-21-89 Plate 4 BORING NO. = Logged By_= _ Date 8-22-89 Elev. 12± Graph US CS Soil Description Depth (N7 W ( � Sample Blows o sm Gray-light brown silty SAND with gravel, moist, medium dense Gray silty CLAY, moist, stiff 12 1.3 5 cl-m Gray silty CLAY, moist, soft 4 8.5 N-traces of peat 10 Q Dark sm gray-black b;f g y- lack silty SAND and sand, wet, loose I 11 1.4 15 � # 7 43.4 20 33 cl Gray CLAY, wet, firm - stiff # ####ff Dark gray-black silty SAND, wet, >3 23 1.5 . . dense is 25 sm Dark gray-black silty SAND and sand r with shells wet medium dense 27 125 Boring terminated at 29 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 11 feet during drilling. Subsurface t>nditione da ICtad ra r lr+o9ernenf.T P P asartt our aIrm of of tl tM time and location a fhb exploratory hole.rnodifiad by enpineenng bats,a They are not nets log. y bprasantatne a txhe timai and bcations.W9 canna aCCept responsibility for the we or irearpratatipn others is,grid tnlorrnatrp,l preterued on the log. BORING LOG ff II Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY KING COUNTY, WASHING TON Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checketa ND Date 9-21-89 Plate 5 Dogged By ND BORING NO. r• Date_ 8-22-89 peV. 15± Graph CS Soil Description Depth (N) W Iftl Sample Blows (%) FL ..ff:: sm Gray-light brown silty SAND, moist, ' loose _ medium dense; with some roots 7 14 5 ml Gray-light brown fine SAND and silt, moist, loose 5 31. ' HIM 1 10 Xz ml Gray and brown SILT and fine sand, wet, medium stiff 8 35. 15 sm Dark gray-black silty SAND and sand, wet, loose 6 31. 20 1-C2 Gray SILT/CLAY, wet, soft to .medium stiff l sm Dark gray-black silty SAND, wet, 29 27• dense 25 is 29 24. ' Boring terminated. at 30 feet below existing k ' Groundwater encountered at 11.5 feet during, drilling. SNdWin.m.They.n not necessarily aasamau� other urn*$and and b .VWt*n d this UAW"Mon,ba dH/ed by anpinaWaaq Msu..n yyW and ntonnation pr*"r"o on ttwtt bfl. tooati0rts.YVa cannot acgPt naponaiD4rty for the taa or irMarpratattori pl'othen of ti BORING LOG Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Proj. No, 4563 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked ND Date 9-21-89MOMOWMINNEMMMM Plate 6 r,;' i TEST PIT NO. Logged By ND Date 8-15-89 Elev. 15.5± Depth (ft.) USCS Soil Description 1%) 0 fldI sm-ml Gray silty SAND and silt, moist, medium dense { 30.5 5 -increasing moisture 20.2 j 10 Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 Subsurface they ons Wp qtd rtpnsent our obfe valipre al thetYrne and IOCaIiOn Ot this axpbratory hob.modllrtd by tnoin"mg 1"u.analyse.and juopemtni.They art no¢r»cessANY Mrs"ntatna of other Woos and locations.We cannot accept responsibUgy for the use or irwryr.tation by s4. Of inlrxmation presented on this 4. Logged By ND TEST PIT NO. Date 8-15-89 Elev. 15.S 0 sm Gray silty SAND, moist, medium dense elf 18.4 5 r, r�.. ml SILT and fine sand with clay, wet, medium dense 35.2 10 sm Gray silty SAND, moist, medium dense Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 . ` Earth Consultants Inc. TEST PIT LOGS / crorrchr �tJ,u�xrn c, roasr,a , >r,Y,x,,,a scks,r ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Proj. No, 4563 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked ND Date 9-21-89 Plate 7 TEST PIT NO. Logged By ND f ' Date 8-15-89 Elev. 14± Depth W (ft) USCS Soil Description (%) 0 c ; sm Gray silty SAND, moist, medium dense fj 5 ' cl-ml Gray silty SAND with clay, moist, medium dense 29.2 ml Gray silty SAND with fine clay, moist, medial dense 10 31.3 tTest pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 Subsurface conditions depicted repm"rp our ob"N&tbnt to the lima and focuion of this.xploratory hole.modifiod by enolnearinq taps,analysis.and judpernont.They are not nacessaruy repre"niv re of other bma and locations.we cannot&we t rss fmormation preserved on this IN, P ponslbuity for the use or uaeTntation by r%hers of Logged By ND TEST PIT NO. Date 8-15-89 Elev. 14± 0 •: sm Gray-light brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense to dense 5 , ml-cl Dark gray silty SAND with clay, moist, medium dense 28.4 1 10 -increasing clay content 36.9 ' Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 TEST PIT LOGS Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY ' I �ffwTMc 0iogws Emiruw rnwSok„um KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Prof. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked ND Date 9-21-89 Plate 8 T1 TEST PIT NO. Logged By ND a Depth Date 8-15-89 17+ Elev. � (h) USCS Si Description o 0 (/) # :E sm Gray-light brown silty SAND, dry - moist, medium dense -some clay and decomposed organic debris 5 #: .. cl-ml Dark gray silty SAND, moist to wet, medium dense Ez"', I cl Dark gray-bluish CLAY with some fine sand/silt, moist, soft to medium stiff 35.5 10 38.1 Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade. No groundwater, seepage encountered during excavation. 15 Subsurlaos condniOns dapi,^W nprasarn our ooaarvw*ns ai tha time and location of this.zplorWory hots.modlfiad by anpinaannp casts,anahyais,and ludpaman!They are not nacassardy rapr.santattva of ott»r tWw and locions at .VW Can=aca t ras fntormaiion prasanted on this lop. 0 ponarbilrty for tha U"or 4uarprataWn by o"n;of Logged By ND TEST PIT NO. I Date 8-15-89 11± 0 Elev. :R, sm Gray silty SAND, dry - moist, medium dense. ff[I I cl-ml Silty CLAY, moist, 5 soft with some red stain and organic debris 45.8 cl Bluish CLAY, moist, medium stiff 10 384 6 sm IBlack silty SAND, moist, medium dense 27.1 Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 10 feet during excavation. 15 TEST PIT LOGS Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY (�e"rt+*WllrWwx 'S CdVAQgms&EnvbunffmWscwmaft KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON IMMOMME __ F Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked ND Date 9-21-89 Plate 9 ■ TEST PIT NO. Logged By ND Date 8-15-89 Bev. 13± Depth (fit) USCS Soil Description (oW) 0 : {; ; ��{ sm Gray silty SAND, dry - moist, medium dense Ell cl Gray CLAY, moist, medium stiff with red/brown stain and decomposed roots 5 29.5 10 34 Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 a J u sudac*gOrnOn.conditions Th*Y Will t nece d r*Pfarky r* r our auavations at tha dnN and lomion of thls atploruory hole.Mod""by anginaarinp tasu,analysts•and UtdformatWn praser"�on this�rUy npneentative a aMr tunes and boatbnt.We Cannot aCapt nspon"ity for Ute M"or tr■erptatatton by otMn of Logged By ND TEST PIT NO. _ Date 8-15-89 Elev. 14.2± 0 # { sm Gray silty SAND, dry, medium dense Cl-ml CLAY with fine silt, wet, soft to medium stiff -with red stain and small roots 38.4 5 39 10 Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 TEST P(T LOGS i Earth COI'1swtants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY cr«Kt.rcai FsgWW"S- —409il'"a Flwhonwv"sderrnWs KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Lproj. No. 4563 1 DZn. GLS Sept'89 Checked ND Date 9-21-89 1 Plate 1'0 TEST PIT NO. Logged By ND ri Date 8-15-89 Elev. 12.5± Depth (ft.) USCS Soil Description (ow) 0 sm Gray silty SAND, dry, medium dense cl-ml Gray CLAY with some silt, moist, medium stiff 43.8 5 cl Bluish CLAY, wet, soft to medium stiff rx 36.2 10 Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the tint.and location of this expfora hOfe,modified by enp Weer rp teats,anatys s,and judgert»nt.TMy aro not neassarify representative of dher times and tocationt.We cannot accept responsibUily for 1M use a iruerpro informat tation by others ofion presented on this fop. Logged By ND TEST PIT _JD Date 8-15-89 Elev. 11.5± 0 sm Gray silty SAND, dry - moist, medium dense. Iff cl-ml Gray CLAY/SILT, moist, medium stiff with red stain 5 38.5 -traces of peat at 9' 10 54.3 Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 TEST PIT LOGS 'I Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY +' �w• G't°"�„`F"�°`°"r'""`8i�``"""" KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4563 1 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked ND Date 9-21-89 Plate 11 j TEST PIT NO. Logged By�� - Date 8-15-89 Elev. 16.5± Depth (ft) USCS Soil Description (%) 0 I . m Sm Light brown silty SAND with gravel, dry , dense 18.1 iz1 sm Gray silty SAND, moist - dry, dense 5 17.5 }}J: f: sm Gray silty SAND with CLAY and peat, moist - wet medium stiff 24.2 10 ' Test pit terminated at 11 feet below exis ting grade. ` No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. ' 15 Subsurface conditions depiCted represent our observations at the time and location Of this exploratory hole,modifod by engineering tests,analysis,and judgement.They are not necessar4y reprasentatlw of other times and locations.w*Cannot accept responsib4ity br the sae or Interprets bon by others of brrnauon presentetl on this in, Logged By ND TEST PIT NO. 1 D� 8-15-89 16.5± 1 Elev. 0 sm Light brown silty SAND with gravel, dry, dense 6.7 sm-Pt Gray dark silty SAND with peat and boulders, moist, dense 19.5 Test pit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade. 10 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 TEST PIT LOGS Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY I Geokxtwucat E�Rrvrry.Q%A0 dvs a scwrums KING COUNTY, WASHINGOTN assesses Proj. No. 45631 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checker! ND Date 9-21-89 Plate 12 i TEST PIT NO.. 101 Logged By SD Date 9-13-69 Bev. 40± Depth W (ft) USCS Soil Description M (6" of SOD) SM Tan to brown silt SAND with angular Y g gravel and r • � ---- -rock, moist,medium dense 14 White silty SAND, little angular gravel, moist X,: dense 5 Sedimentary structure (oxidized) visible in soil/rock • SM thin bands of ochre oxidation 10 (weathered sandstone 1Test pit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade. 10 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 Subsurtacs conditions depicted represent our obsewelcm at the time and location of this exploratory hole•modified by engineering tests,analysis,and judgement They are not necessarily repress r tairve or other times and bcations.We cannot accept responsibUity W the use or iraerpretation by others of information preserved on this ft. . Logged By_SQTEST PIT NO. i j Date 9-13-89 Bev. 50± 0 (6" of SOD) ! SM Tan to brown silt '• Y SAND some gravel, moist,medium dense 14 Gray to brown silty SAND, some gravel, partially cemented , medium 5 :� # � dense :�,#• sm Grayish white silty SAND, moist, dense (weathered sandstone) fn'! Test pit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade. 10 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 TEST PIT LOGS Earth Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY Grc"'(�rjwrrr4m.Ge ra KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked SD Date 9-21-89 Plate 13 TEST PIT NO. 103 Logged By SD 4. Date 9-13-89 Elev. 35+ Depth W (ft) USCS Soil Description M 0 (6" of SOD) silt sm Tan to brown y SAND some gravel, moist, I: medium dense to dense Brownish white silty SAND, moist, dense 5 � • 14 0 .:1 SM Grades to white silty SAND, moist, dense ; with ochre staining .11,M (weathered sandstone) NTest pit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade. 10 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 Subsurtace conditions dep Lied represent our observations at the time and location of taw expiorstory hde,modified by engineering torts,analysis.and judgement They are not necessarily representative ot other tamp and locations.We cannot accept responsWity for the use or intorpretat"by others of inwmation pre"moo on this log. Logged By SD TEST PIT NO. 104 Date 9-13-89 GeV. 25± 0 Tan to brown silty SAND with gravel, moist, , ,. medium dense (topsoil) Light brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense } • sm Grades to an orange silty SAND moist, medium 5 z:; .. dense to dense, ochre (oxidation) staining r r (weathered sandstone) Test pit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade. 10 No groundwater seepage ecnountered during excavation. 15 1, TEST PIT LOGS Earth i Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY ca.,r�l .e.aaEl.lrpmetMa SckT,nlus KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked SD 7 Date 9-21-89 Plate 14 TEST PIT N O. Logged By�� . Date9-13-89 Depth Elev. 2 0± W (Ol USCS Soil Description M) f 6" j:# f ( silty SkND moist dense ;I :� _ sm_ Tan silt___ , , tii :# sm White silty SAND, moist, dense ss White SA2IDSTONE, slightly weathered, very hard 5 Test pit terminated at 3.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 10 15 Subsurtace conditions depicted represent our ob"wcions st the rims end location Of this exploratory We.modltwd by engineering tests,analysis,and Judgement.They are not necessarily representatne of other times and W-at*ts.M+e Cannot acwpt tesponsibllay lot the use or"Srprecation by otners of inlormatlon presenad on Vus log. `•r 6 r Earth Consultants inc. TEST PIT LOGS CANW&WW'N � �, *V `En�� ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON [:Pr7jN0- 4563 Drwn. GLS Sept'89 Checked SD Date 9-21-89 Plate 15 N APPENDIX B E-4563 LABORATORY TESTING General We conducted laboratory tests on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the material's general physical properties and engineering characteristics. A brief description of each of the tests performed for this study is provided below. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual boring log or on a separate data sheet contained in this Appendix. However, it is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. All of our recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgement. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of thirty (30) days following completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. Soil Classification As mentioned earlier, all soil samples are visually examined in the field by our representative at the time they are obtained. They are subsequently packaged and returned to our Bellevue office where they are independently reexamined by one of our engineers and the original description is verified or modified, as necessary. With the help of information obtained from classification tests, the samples are described in general accordance with the Unified Classification System, ASTM Test Method D-2487-83. The resulting descriptions are provided at the appropriate sample location on the individual boring or test pit log and are qualitative only. The attached Legend, Plate 3, provides pictorial symbols that match the written descriptions. Moisture Content Moisture content tests were performed on the samples obtain from the borings and test pits. The purpose of these tests is to approximately ascertain the in-place moisture content of the soil sample tested. The moisture content is determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D-2216-80. The information obtained assists us by providing qualitative information regarding soil strength and compressibility. The results of these tests are presented at the appropriate sample depth on the boring and test pit logs. Earth Consultants, Inc. r Particle Size Analysis Detailed grain size analyses were conducted on several of the shallow soil samples to determine the size distribution of the sampled soil. The test is performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D422-63. The information gained from this analysis allows us to provide a detailed description and classification of the in-place materials. The results are presented on Plates 16 and 17, and classification symbols are provides; as part of the appropriate individual sample descriptions on the boring logs. Atterberg Limits Because of the large amounts of fines in some of the sampled soils from the field, we deemed it necessary to perform several Atterberg Limit tests on the finer materials to determine the soils plasticity characteristics and as an aid in accurate classification of the soils. These tests include the liquid and plastic limits which were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Methods D423-66(72) and D424-59(71), respectively. The Plastic Index, the difference between the liquid and plastic limits, is then determined. The results of the liquid limit provide a measure of the tested soils shear strength and is analogous to the direct shear test. When coupled with the plastic index, the results help us to classify the in-place soils on the basis of these soil characteristics. The result of these tests are presented on the Plate 18, Atterberg Limits Test Data. r r Earth Consultants, Inc. HYDROMETERSIEVE ANALYSIS ANALYSIS offUmeffiff•• •ti . • • . dp MIME UNIMINNEW MINE MIME 01111110INE man ��1•��■tea ��■��■�■� ■��.■■■ �� INIMMINIME • migi■■H■■1.1■1■ Izu .III/■/■I■��■ ..11■■1/■{�■��■�/■II■■.��.■■■■�� 21-3 , •. • • ® ® DESCRIPTION mm • ♦ • 20 ■ Sandy 6 • 19.5 SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS • • •a• • " ttiiti � •.� �,r��•�,�ti■t■■■tt�.■iiti■■■■n■■■■■ i t■■■■■■■i ' _� ■■tttit■��■i't.i'�� o� � •.i■ti■t■tt■■■.■.■■tip■■■■C.Ct■is -,..: z ■■t■ti■tat■i■i■i� a �� i.. ■ti■■tt■t�.■a■�tii■■■■■.�■■�■■t■t� t�■■■�ii■ • ■■■ii ■=u��i��t�■tttt■�.■.it■■i■i■■■■=iit■i� �� ., t■■i■■it■tt.ttl■i �1■■i.■�■tttt.■. 11■■ fit■■■■■■■■■■■.■ii■■.�■■■■ ii■iii , �, � a■�.■i■.t�■■t■ti■■■■ iittitttt■� ■� �ii■ � r�.■i■■t■�itti�■so �+i■ttttt■■.■.�.■�■■■■■■■�t■�■■ttt� �■��■i■i■�■ i■i��■■■t�i■■.��. �i■tom.■.i■i■ttt■�■■■�ii■■�ii t■■■t�■■t■i■■.t�■ i■■■t�i out■i�■■■•i■`- i■■■■■■i.■.■.■■�t■■t■i■■■ .�■■■■t■■■■� , • ■�■ii■i■�■ I ■.��■■■�■�i■t■■�■i �■■t�.■i�■■■■�■■■■■.i■i■�■ �t■�t■ttt■ti■ NIM1 ■0 ■ fit. tt■■■■■ ■■t■�'i■t■■��■■■■■it■t■t■� ■t�ii�i. i■�■ i■■�■ :�C■■■■. C■�i■�■t■itit■i■■■■.■.�■i■�■ �i•■■■t1•■■■■i � �i�:C��CC: .�::CCC�:�:�C CC�tiCii■i ittii iti■i t.■■i■.�■t■■■.■. �t■ti■ti ■�.■i■�■■��■■■■Ci■■C■■■■■i• ' �iiii■iC C�� ■■�■1�II.i■ ■_�.■.ii�■■■■■.ii� �C�CCCC :` C:CC��:::��CC�� itt.■■■■i �ttt■ice■■t■tit.■■it.■tl�ll �.■.t.tt1�■■■■■iWINERtt' M"' L"CC=CC C�CC�.�� ::CCCC:C::CCCCC ttt■t■■■i ■i■i■ .■ � t■tt■■■■t. ■t.■i■ ■■r�ii■t■■�■ttti■■■ ■.■i■tt► mom ■■■■it■■■■a■■■i■■■■. ■tt■i■i�tt.ti■■� �ii■ii.�i■■■ii■iii.... �.�.�■i■■C ti t■■i....s■iiti.tt■�. �ti ■t.■�■ a■■■it.■■.i■ttt■.i■■i� ■■ ;*z a ■■tt.tt.■■t■�■t■■ i■■■ti■■■■■� ' �■■iiii■C =i■ii iirtii■■.t�■i i■ti�i ■ttttn■■ti■■■t■■ti■■t �t.■■a ■t■ii■■■■t■ti■■i■ ,�■�■■■ii�■ini■■■■■ ��■ii.■ ■t■■■i �■t�ti■■■ �iii■tt■t�t.t■ii■i■ti. r�■ist■.t■i.t■■■ri�itti■■■■■i .' tttttltCiii■ t•t.�■tt1•■t■�iti■tt.■ \%■i■.t■.�■■■■■it■�tt1• •• t■■■tit■it■■t.■ EMO tii ■t�itiiti■ti■tl�•'■■.tl•i�t■■■ it.ttit■1• ■■ttti■ii■i�■ .a�■■■iC■.�ii■.■■.a�■�,..aaa..C.. iii■iii ■■■■■ittii■i■�■ �ii■■t�■■■tt. tiiti■i■■■ttt■■■■■.■■ti■■■�■t ■■ i■■■■i�i� , ��t■.ti■i ■■■t■■i■tti■■■■.�.■i■.■■t■■ti.■■■■■■it■ti■■■■ a■t�■■tt■i ■■i■1■■t■ �ittii�■_■tt■t1■.■t.iti■>r■tt1•■■■t■iti�■■■■�iititttti t�■■ii■■.tt■■i ■r■■■■ii� ■■iitii■i■ti■■i■■i■■i�■■.■iit■■■■i■.■itt� tt1•■it■tt.tt■■i t.■ti■■� ttttii■tit.ti■■i■ttt■t■..■i■.t■.�t■■■ it.t■it■■t1• t■t■t■■tt.�■ttlti■i��t.ti■■� ��ii■�■ti=ii.■.■ate■■■■ i■.■i■� . • ' t1-i tttltt■■i it■�t.�■■t�t.t■it.ti■■. tit■■i■.■i�t■■■ it1■t■■■■■■ti .' ■t■t■■■iiii■ii=iiti■■�■�iiii.�.t't1..ii�...■ .Ctttlt■■■i t■tt■ittitltt.t■■■ii i�tii� t�itiiti.i■t■ttti.■.t.tt.�■... i �■■t■■i tt�it■.i...■.i �iC.■�=�itt��i.■� .■t�...iiii....■`■iitit■■■i • tii■i�■iti■� Ci..■C.■ttt...��iCi�.tti..■.iii■....■Ciiti■t�■ • �i■��■ii i■■■�i■t■■■i.�ii�i■i■■■■�.■■ii■i■�i■■■■=i�■tittttti �t■■�■ii�iiiii �it�i�i ii■ml i i�■i��iC;tiC■�iiiCCC�iiii■CCC� 0 En .. • • ® •• mm .. DESCRIPTION • TP-101 Brown silty SAND with gravel TP-101� White silty SAND • TP-1021 Light tan silty SAND TP-103 Cream color silty SAND 100 so x 60 w Z H U \ N 40 XvA-Lin'e a w' C 20 0z CL-ML 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID UM!T Boring/ Depth rus S L.L. P.L. p 1 Natural Key Soil Classification Test Pit (ft) Content • B-2 17.5 Sandy SILT ML 25 22 3 • TP-2 6.5 SILT ML 27 27 0 ' ■ TP-3 6.5 Lean CLAY, silt CL-ML 25 21 4 O TP-4 10 SILT ML 30 29 1 Atterberg Limits Test Data Earth ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY " III Consultants Inc. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Giotechnicai Engineering and GeoioeY Proj. No. 4563 Date Sept'89 Plate 18 r ► SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING D r�� r . • — IL j7 1 ft. min. °'° ' 1ft.min. Compacted Subgrade l LEGEND Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. Free draining, organic free granular material with a maximum •' •° size of 3 inches, containing no more than 5• '•�•" 9 percent fines [silt and clay size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve]. Impermeable visqueen barrier or other impermeable material approved by geotechnical engineer. Uk Weephole and drainage pocket as described below. O Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with i perforations or slot: facing down; tight jointed; with a Positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic Pipe. Drain line should be bedded on. and surrounded with free draining 1 inch minus rock or pea gravel, as desired. The drainrock may be encapsulated with a geo- technical drainage fabric at the engineers discretion. NOTES: ` • For free standing walls, weepholes may be used. Surround weep 1K - holes with no less than 18 inches of 1 inch minus rock. i l� Earth RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY Consulting rnments Uienel•is L° KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON milli Proj.No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Date Sept'89 Checked SD Dated 9-21-89 Plate 19 SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING jam..$%::::i.itr.''.•'i':'::}:i ii:i;i::Y{:::;:;::::F: ;:i;;{:%$:ii::iii':>%i;:r:�i:tiivy:!:$:::•i i':?:iY:iii: :r 4'r'•rrrri::%:i:::vjr:r:v:i::i::r:t::ii��::i::'v: 1.. ::}''i'.•:'`'.•'j$:'Siiiv::::i�?itr is�:'J:,: }i:?:• 1 �— .rrr:•i:•:{t•riririii::t•rr:4r't{.r:•rr'•�n:-0r'iii?ii:: ..::::•.�::::::::it4:vr:�•:rr:•:+rr:tq:v:i::�f.•:::.:^.?:v:•r ` ::}\>:ij jiii ii}ti?vji?iii i.^•.::��Y:•r}:r}�i::>:ii<:;�i:• I NOTES: • Base consists of 3/4 - inch thick, 2 foot by 2 foot plywood with center drilled 5/8 - inch diameter hole. • Bedding material, if required, should consist of Traction Sand. • Marker rod is 1/2- inch diameter steel rod threaded at both ends. • Marker rod is attached to base by nut and washer on each side of base. • Protective sleeve surrounding marker rod should consist of 2- inch diameter plastic tubing. Sleeve is not attached to rod or base. • Additional sections of steel rod can be connected with threaded couplings. • Additional sections of plastic sleeve can be connected with press - fit plastic couplings. • Steel marker rod should extend at least 6 inches above top of plastic sleeve. • Marker should extend at least 2 feet above top of fill surface. Earth TYPICAL SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY Consulting Engineers,Geologists KING COUNTY v Environmental scientists , WASHINGTON Proj.No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Date Sept'89 Checked SD Dated 9-21-89 Plate 20 i SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING FLOOR SLAB III=III= �; 1►1�)I) '' '''� ' ' ' ''=�. •e o•.' I11=III 1 III - I11 �Il_III-11t- I))_.L,I-1-..'_ i11 7 : I�► )i�= _Ill-n`I_III .=ril- nll II_)I'I=111 vl— 11I I,�_)ry '- 111�ItI =i11 - ill= �It)NATIVE SOIL III�►I tll LEGEND Free draining, organic free, granular material with a maximum size of 3 inches, containing no more than 5 percent fines Isilt and clay size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve) or other material approved by geotechnical engineer. Capillary break consisting of not less than 4 inches of free draining sand or gravel, typically overlain with a visqueen vapor barrier. `o Footing drain surrounded with washed rock. �o bti NOTES: • Structural fill should extend a lateral distance beyond the footing perimeter equal to or greater than the depth of fill, D : feet. a Depth of structural fill beneath capillary break and slab, H : feet. • :structural fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 10 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the site preparation and earth work section of this report. No -additional lift should be placed until compaction Is achieved. • Excavated cut slopes should be at a stable angle, and should meet all local, state and national safety requirements. • Excavation subgrade should be recompacted before placing any structural fill. Geotechnical fabric may be required if subgrade is soft or unstable at geotechnical engineers discretion. I! i. Earth SCHEMATIC STRUCTURAL FILL Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY Consulting nment l S en tilts KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON �!Environmental to{�nti�tt Proj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Date Sept'89 Checked SD Dated 9-21-89 Plate 21 SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING e ' o SLOPE TO DRAIN o 1 + 1 6 inch min a x L= >.f • • =° i R. j � 'r1 F l�. r ~ + ' i d t rl • o e•O � ,, �' .� • ..• •• • •• •O.i•�r'•,'t�,• ° :•moo 18 inch min. 4 inch min. ,t diameter ---- a o. o•° •° ��e o � • .•', •. .i,• ••'I O 'O O• O •O • p O % • T 2 inch min./ 4 inch max. 12 inch 2 inch min. min. i g LEGEND Y Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability Y material. Gravel backfill for walls; WDOT Standard Specifications, € Section 9-03. 12121 , or Fine Aggregate for Portlind 4 Cement Concrete ; Section 9-03.1121. ODrain 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 fi pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. — — — Impermeable visqeen barrier or other impermeable material approved by Geotechnical Engineer. Earth TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL J Consultants Inc. ELAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY t Consulting Engineers.GeoloScientists KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 6 4 Environm•ntsl Scl•ntists IPToj. No. 4563 Drwn. GLS Date Se t'89 Checked SD 9-21-89 22 ` P d Dated Plate rem. w ARC, ogeaociated c,4et� G'oatcacPare ,. P.O. Box 1794 Woodinville. Washington 98072 (206) 481-3456 or (206) 481-7222 ASSOCIATED ROCKERY CONTRACTORS STANDARD ROCKERY CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES 1.01 Introduction: 1.01.1 Historical Racks'round: These standard rockery construction guidelines have been developed in an effort L to provide a more stringent degree of control on rockery materials and construction methodology in the Pacific Northwest. They have been assembled from numerous other standards presently in use in the area, from expertise provided by local geotechnical engineers, and from the wide experience of the members of the Association of Rockery Contractors (ARC). 1.01? Goal: The primary goals of this document are to standardize the methods of construction for rockery rockerys over four feet in height, and to provide a warranty for the materials used in construction and the workmanship employed in construction. This standard has also been developed in a manner that makes it, to the best of ARC's knowledge, more stringent than the other standards presently in use by local municipalities. t2.01Materials: 2.01.1 Rock ualit)- All rock shall be sound, weathering resistant, angular ledge rock. The longest dimension of any individual rock should not exceed three times its, shortest dimension. Acceptability of rock will be determined by laboratory tests as hereinafter specified, geologic examination and historical'usage records. All rock delivered to and incorporated in the project shall meet the following minimum specifications: a Absorption Not more than 2.0%u for igneous and nietamorphic rock types. Not more than 3.017o for sedinnentan, rock types. b. Accelerated Expansion (15 days) (CRD-C-148) *1, *2 Not more than 15% breakdown e. Soundness (,MfgSO4 at 5 cycles) Not greater tlnaar 5% loss (CRD-C137) d. Unconfined Compressive Stre,igilr Intact sireng0i of 15,000 psi, or greater for igneous and ASTM D 2938-79 (reapproved 1979) metamorphic rocks, and 8000 psi orgreater forsedinienta?y rock. 77ie test sample will be prepared and tested in accordance with Corps of Engineers Testing procedure CRD-C- 14$ "Method of Testing Stone for Expansive Breakdown on Soaking in Ethylene Glycol." Test requirements of not more than 15 percent breakdown will be computed by dividing [lie number of individual pieces of initial soitple suffering breakdown (that is, separating into two or more pieces) by the total number of initial pieces in the sample. *2. Accelerated expansion tests should also include analyses of the fractures and veins found in the rock. Aunty problems associated with rockers,failures are related to tlne rock fractures and veins found within the rock and not tint rock itself. 4/4/89 Page 1 1 0 � 3.01.2 Frec►uenev of Testin:r: Quarry sources for rockery rock shall begin a testing program when either becoming a supplier or when a new area of the source pit is opened. The tests described in Section 2.01.1 shall be performed for every four thousand (4000) tons for the first twelve thousand (12000) tons of material blasted and removed to establish that specific rock source. The tests shall then be performed once a year or at an apparent PParent change in material. If problems with a specific area in a pit or with a particular material are encountered, the initial testing cycle shall be restarted. 2.013 Rock Densih: Recognizing that numerous sources of rock exist, and that the nature of rock will vary not only between sources but also within each source, the density of the rock shall be greater than one hundred fifty- five (155) pcf. Typically,, rocks used for rockery construction shall be sized approximately as follows: Rock Size hock Weight I Small to large 50-200 pounds one man Small to large 200-700 pounds two man 1 Small to large 700-2000 pounds three man Small to large 2000-4000 pounds four man Five Man 4000-6000 pounds Six Man 6000-WW pounds Two and one-man rock, and sometimes smaller, are often used to fill surface gaps along the top of the completed rockery to create an aesthetically pleasing surface. This is an acceptable practice provided none of the events described in Section 3.01.5 occur, and that the owner prevents people from climbing or walking on the completed rockery. In rockeries over eight feet in height, it should not be possible to move the large sized rocks (four to six-man size) E with a prybar. If these rocks can be moved, the rockery should not be considered capable of restraining any significant lateral load. However, it is both practical and even desirable that smaller rocks, particularly those used for "chinking" purposes, can be moved with a prybar to achieve the "best fit". 2.01.4 Submittals: The rock source shall present current geologic and test data for the testing for the minimum guidelines described in Section 2.01.1 on request by either the rockery contractor, the client, or the applicable municipality. 3.01 RrrRcn, Constriction: 3.01.1General: Rockery construction is a craft and depends largely on the skill and experience of the builder. A rockery is a protective system which helps to retard the weathering and erosion process on an exposed cut or fill soil face. While by its nature (the mass, size and shape of the rocks) it will provide some degree of reten- tion, it is not a designed or engineered system in the sense a reinforced concrete retaining rockery would be considered designed or engineered. The degree of retention achieved is dependant on the size of rock used; that is, the mass or weight, and the height of the rockery being constructed. The larger the rock, the more competent the rockery. To accomplish this, all rockeries in excess of four feet in height should be built on a "mass" basis. To provide a competent and adequate rockery structure, all rockeries constructed in front of either cuts or fills in excess of eight feet in height should be bid and constructed in accordance with these standard guidelines and the geotechnical engineers supplemental recommendations. Both the standard guidelines and the supplemental geotechnical recommendations should be provided to prospective bidders before bidding and the start of construction. 4/4/89 Page 2 _ r The same geotechnical engineer should be retained to monitor rockery construction and to verify, in writing, that the rockery was constructed in general accordance with this ARC standard and with his supplemental recommenda- tions, in a professional manner and of competent and suitable materials. 3.01 2 Geotechnical En+ineer: The geotechnical engineer retained to provide necessary supplemental rockery construction guidelines shall be a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional chil engineer in the State of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge, including experience with fill construction and stability and rockery construction. The geotechnical engineer should be hired either by the rockery contractor or the client. 3.013 ResponsibilitN- The ultimate responsibility for rockery construction should remain with the rockery builder. However, rockeries protecting moderate to thick fills, with steep sloping surfaces above or below them, with multiple steps, with foundation or other loads affecting them, protecting sandy or gravelly soils subject to ravelling, with seepage or wet conditions, or that are more than eight feet in height, all represent special conditions and require consultation and/or advice from qualified experts. t3.01.4 Workmanship: All workmanship is guaranteed by the rockery contractor and all materials are guaranteed by supplying quarry for a period of six years from the date of completion of erection, providing no modification or changes to the conditions existing at the time of completion are made. 3.01.5 Changes to Finished Product: Such changes include, but are not necessarily limited to, excavation of ditches or trenches within a distance of less than 1.5 times the rockery height measured from the toe of the . rockery, removal of any material from the subgrade in front of the rockery, excavation and/or removal of material from any location behind the rockery within a distance at least equal to the rockery's height, the addition of any surcharge or other loads within a similar distance of the top of the rockery, or surface or subsurface water forced, directed, or otherwise caused to flow behind the rockery in any quantity. ' 3.01.6 Slopes: Slopes above rockeries should be kept as flat as possible, but should not exceed 2:1 (Horizon- tal:Vertical) unless the rockery is designed specifically to provide some restraint to the load imposed by the slope. Any slope existing above a completed rockery should be provided with a vegetative cover by the owner to help 1 reduce the potential for surface water flow induced erosion. It should consist of a deep rooted, rapid growth vegetative mat and typically will be placed by hydroseeding and covered with a mulch.. It is often useful to overlay the seed and mulch with either pegged in-place jute matting, or some other form of approved geotechnical fabric, to help maintain the seed in-place until the root mat has an opportunity to germinate and take hold. 3.01.7 Monitorin; All rockeries constructed against cuts or fills in excess of eight feet in height shall be periodically monitored during construction by the geotechnical engineer to verify the nature and quality of the materials being used are appropriate, that the construction procedures are appropriate, and that the rockery is being constructed in a generally professional manner and in accordance with this ARC standards and any supplemental recommendations. On completion of the rockery, the geotechnical engineer shall submit to the client, the rockery contractor, and to the appropriate municipality, copies of his rockery examination reports along with a final report summarizing rockery construction. 3.01.8 Fill Compaction: Where rockeries are constructed in front of a fill, it is imperative that the owner ensure the fill be placed and compacted in a manner that will provide a competent fill mass. To achieve this goal, all fills should consist of relatively clean, organic and debris free, granular materials with a maximum size of four inches. Ideally, but particularly if placement and compaction is to take place during the wet season, they should contain no more than five percent fines (silt and clay size particles passing the number 200 mesh sieve). All fills should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding ten inches in loose thickness. Each lift should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor), before any additional fill is placed and compacted. In-place density tests should be performed at random locations within each lift of the fill to verify this degree of compaction is being achieved. 4/4/89 Page 3 INA 'ate 3.01.9 Fill Construction and Reinforcement: There are two methods of constructing a fill against Which to build a rockery. The first, which typically applies to rockeries of less than eight feet in height, is to overbuild and then cut back the fill. The second, which applies to all rockeries in excess of eight feet in height, is to construct the fill using a geogrid or geotechnical fabric reinforcement. Overbuilding the fill allows for satisfactory compaction of the fill mass out beyond the location of the fill face to be protected. Overbuilding also allows the earthwork contractor to use larger and more effective compaction equipment in his compactive efforts, thereby typically achieving a more competent fill mass. Cutting back into the well compacted fill also typically results in construction of a competent near vertical fill face against which to build the rockery. For the higher rockeries the use of a geogrid or geotechnical fabric to help reinforce the fill results in construction of a more stable fill face against which to construct the rockery. This form of construction leads to a longer lasting and more stable rockery and helps reduce the risk of significant long term maintenance. This latter form of construction requires a design by the geotechnical engineer for each specific case. The vertical spacing of the reinforcement, the specific type of reinforcement, and the distance to which it must extend back: into the fill, and the ar4ount of lapping must be determined on a rockery-by-rockery basis. 3.01.10 Rockery Revwai- The first step in rockery construction, after general site clearing and/or general excavation, is to construct a keyway in which to build the rockery. The keyway shall comprise a shallow trench of between twelve (12) and eighteen (18) inches in depth, extending for the full length of the rockery, and inclined back slightly towards the face being protected. It is typically dug as wide as the rockery (including the width of the rock filter layer). If the condition of the protected face is of concern, the keyway should be constructed in sections of manageable length, that is of a length that can be constructed in one shift or one days work The competency of the keyway subgrade to support the rockery shall be verified by probing with a small diameter steel rod. The rod shall leave a diameter of between three-eights and one-half inch, and shall be pushed into the subgrade in a smooth unaided manner under the body weight of the prober only. .F Penetration of up to six inches, with some difficulty, shall indicate a "competent" keyway subgrade unless other factors in the geotechnical engineer's opinion shall indicate otherwise. Penetration in excess of six inches, or of that depth with ease, shall indicate a "soft" subgrade and one that could require treatment. Soft areas of the 71 subgrade can be "firmed up" by tamping a layer of coarse quarry spalls into the subgrade. V r► - 3.01.11 I.e�tiva and Rockers Draina_e: On completion of keyK'ay excavation, a shallow ditch or trench, approxi- mately twelve (12) inches wide and deep, should be dug along the rear edge of the keyway. A minimum four- inch diameter perforated or slotted ADS drain pipe, or equivalent approved by an engineer, should be placed in this shallow trench e ch and should be bedded on and surrounded by afree-draining crushed rock. Burial of the dram pipe in.thi shallow trench provides protection to the pipe and helps prevent it from being inadvertently crushed by pieces of the rockery rock. This drain pipe should be installed with sufficient gradient to initiate flow, and should be connected to a positive and permanent discharge. Positive and permanent drainage should be considered to mean an existing, or to be installed, storm drain system, a swale, ditch or other form of surface water flow collection system, a detention or retention pond, or other stable native site feature or previously installed collection system. 3.01.12 Rocken, Thickness: The individual rockery thickness, including the rock filter layer, should be at least 40 percent of the rockery height. Unless otherwise specified in writing by the rockery "designer" the individual rocks should be arranged in a single course which, when measured to include the filter layer, is equal.to the required rockery thickness. 4/4/89 Page 4 3.01.13 Rock Selection: The contractor should have sufficient space available-,so that he can select from among a number of stockpiled rocks for each space in the rockery to be filled. Rocks which have shapes which do not match the spaces offered by the previous course of rock should be placed elsewhere to obtain a better fit. Rock should be of a generally cubical, tabular or semi-rectangular shape. Any rocks of basically rounded or tetrahedral form should be rejected or used for filling large void spaces. Smaller rocks (one to two-man size, or smaller) are often used to create an aesthetically pleasing "top edge" to a rockery. This is acceptable provided none of the events described in Section 3.01.5 occur, and that people are prevented from climbingwalking or � on the finished rockery. This is the owner's responsibility. 3.01.14 Rock Placement: The first course of rock should be placed on firm umielding soil. There should be full contact between the rock and soil, which may require shaping of the ground surface or slamming or dropping the rocks into place so that the soil foundation conforms to the rock: face bearing on it. As an alternative, it is satisfactory to place and tamp crushed rock into the subgrade. to tighten it up. The bottom of the first course of rock should be a minimum of twelve (12) inches below the lowest adjacent site grade. As the rockery is constructed, the rocks should be placed so that there are no continuous joint planes in either the vertical or late al direction. Each rock should bear on at least two rocks below it. Rocks should be placed so that there is Me bearing between flat rock faces rather than on joints. Joints between courses should slope doAmward towards the material being protected (away from the face of the rockery). 3.01.15 Face Inclination: The face of the rockery should be inclined at a gradient of about 1:6 (Horizontal:- Vertical) back, towards the face being protected. The inclination should not constructed flatter than 1H:4V. 3.01.16 Voids: Because of the nature f h o the product used to construct a rockery, it is virtually impossible to avoid creating void spaces between individual rocks. However, it should be recognized that voids do not necessarily constitute a problem in rockery construction. Where voids of greater than six inches in dimension exist in the face of a rockery they should be visually examined to determine if contact between the rocks exists within the thickness of the. rockery. If contact does exist, no further action is required. However, if there is no rock contact within the rockery thickness the void should be "chinked" %%zth a smaller piece of rock:. If a void of greater than six inches exists in the rear face of the rock-en, it should be "chinked" with a smaller rock. t ' 3.01.17 Filter Laver. In order to provide some degree of drainage control behind the rockery, and as a means of helping to prevent loss of soil through the face of the rockery, a drainage filter shall be installed laver between the rear face of the rockery and the soil face being protected. This filter layer should be at least twelve (12) inches thick; and for rockerys in excess of eight feet in height, it should be at least eighteen (18) inches thick. It should be composed of four inch minus crushed rock, or other material approved by the geotechnical engineer. If one of the rockery rocks emends back: to the exposed soil face, it is not necessary that the filter rock: layer extend between it and the soil face. In the event seepage is encountered emanating from a protected face, we recommend the use of a well-graded filter laver. We do not recommend the use of a geotechnical fabric for other than coverage of relatively small and isolated seepage areas because it has been the industn/s experience that the filter fabric tends to clog rapidly. This quickly leads to a buildup of hydrostatic pressure which can subsequently cause failure and collapse of the rockery and is to be avoided. This clogging is apparently due to the virtual impossibility of achieving full contact between the soil face, fabric filter and rocklter material. If full surface contact cannot be achieved, there is often a tendency for the soil materials to flush from the protected face into the "pockets" in the fabric which leads to the aforementioned clogging. 9 ' 4/4/S9 Page 5 s .. . . 4— NINE= ........................ ' Z on /, °••• `• <:?'?:isi:•;' a :ar : ripwr;w�,;i ':w�w: i• i::5i::i:i:::::: :�;:vi::%:�:-?:{i:;: I-:SCti4:'v^:J:•rir':i:? Z I eye • B LR LEGEND Crushed rock filter material ranging between 4 and 11/2 inches in size and free of organics, with less than 5 percent fines (silt and clay size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve). Compacted structural fill consisting of free-draining, organic-free material with a maximum size of 4 inches. Should contain no more than 5 percent fines (described above), compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D-1557-78 maximum density. Tensar SS-1 geogrid, Mirafi, or equivalent reinforcement approved by geotechnical engineer. OPerforated or slotted drain pipe with 4 inch minimum diameter bedded on and surrounded by crushed rock filter material, described above. © Designates size of rock required, i.e. 4 man. ' NOTES ' • All fill should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 10 inches in loose thickness. Each layer should be compacted to no less.than 95 percent of maximium dry density, as determined by ASTM D-1557.78 (Modified Proctor). • With exception of upper layer, geofabric reinforcement should be wrapped around exposed fill face and lapped back beneath overiying fill layer a distance of at least ' 2 feet. • Thickness of crushed filter rock layer, B, should be no less than 18 inches. • Depth of burial of basal layer of rock, D, should be no less than 18 inches. • Length of reinforcing geofabric, LA, shall be feet. • Geofabric reinforcement layer spacing Z, and Z, shall be and feet, respectively. i ' • Height of rockery, H, should not exceed feet. I TYPICAL DETAIL FILL CONSTRUCTION ROCKERY MORE THAN 8 FT. HEIGHT Proj. No.: I Drwn. Date Checked Dated Plate LEE I ��y) >;� >y)� > >> > >�1�>),♦> > >�, > > Y > Y r )) �„ > r. ✓ ) ` 1 > > > > D B LR LD ' LEGEND Crushed rock filter material ranging between 4 and 11/2 inches in size and free of organics,with less than 5 percent fines(silt and clay size particles passing the No.200 mesh sieve). ® Compacted structural fill overbuild. 1777771 Compacted structural fill consisting of free-draining,organic-free material with a LMmaximum size of 4 inches. Should contain no more than 5 percent fines(described above),compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D-1557-78 maximum density. OPerforated or slotted drain pipe with 4 inch minimum diameter bedded on and surrounded by crushed rock filter material,described above. ® Designates size of rock required,i.e.4 man. NOTES • All fill should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 10 inches in loose thickness. Each layer should be compacted to no less than 95 percent of maximum dry density,as determined by ASTM D-1557-78(Modified Proctor). r • Thickness of crushed filter rock layer, B,should be no less than 18 inches. • Depth of burial of basal layer of rock, D,should be no less than 18 inches. • Height of rockery, H,should not exceed feet. TYPICAL DETAIL FILL CONSTRJCTION ROCKERY 8 FT. AND LESS IN HEIGHT. Proj. No. Drwn. Date Checked Dated TPlate ,cal t � I�` ♦• •�•.i �I� /'jam , * � /•` • r I ice' 1 " S 3 St t:av .+_•. : T.e• Fig. A. ROCKERY SECTION Fig. B. ROCKERY ELEVATION ti 1 SCHEMATIC ONLY — NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING 1 NOTES: ' Rockery construction is a craft and depends largely on the The long dimension of the rocks should extend back skill and experience of the builder. towards the cut or fill fence to provide maximum stability. A rockery is a protective system which helps retard the Rocks should be placed to avoid continuous joint planes in weathering and erosion process on an exposed soil face. vertical or lateral directions. Each rock should bear on two While by Its nature(mass,size and shape of the rocks tt ) or more rocks below K,with good flat-to-flai contact will provide some degree of retention, it is not a designed or engineered system in the sense a reinforced concrete All rockeries over 4 feet in height should be constructed on 1 retaining wall would be considered designed or engineered. basis of wall mass,not square footage of face. The degree of retention achieved is dependent on the size Approximate of the rock used;that is,the mass or weight, and the height Size Weight-Ibs. APProximate of the wall being constructed.The larger the rock,the more Diameter competent the rockery should be. 1 Man 50.200 12-18' Rockeries should be considered maintenance hems that 2 Man 200-700 16-28• will require periodic inspection and repair.They should be 3 Man 700-2000 26-36' located so that they can be reached by a contractor if 4 Man 2000.400o 3&481 repairs become necessary. 5 Man 4000-6000 4.&54' 1 Maximum inclination of the slopes above and behind 6 Man 6000-8000 54.50• rockeries should be 2:1 (Horizontal.-Vertical). Reference: Local quarry weight study using average weights ' Minimum thickness of rock filter layer B-12 inches. of no less than six rocks of each man size conducted in Minimum embedment D w 12 inches undisturbed native soil January, 1988. ' or comport€d fill places ir'a or::ance with reperi recornme-,datio;s, ME Drainage materials to consist of clean Maximum rockery height H feet. `,:.. angular well-graded quarry spans,with 4-inch Rockeries greater than 8 feet in height to be installed maximum size, or other material approved by under periodic or full time observation of the geotechnical the geotechnical engineer. engineer. <>< �>:' <>::»':>::>:: r Surface seal; may consist of impervious soil Unless otherwise specified in writing b the rocker :;>...........,.,,�..,..,` g granular material. P or a fine tree draining r "designer," all rocks placed in the lower two-thirds of the 111-11{_ Undisturbed firm Native Soil. wall should be 5 to 6 man rock,4000 Ibs. or larper. Rocks =►tl piaced above this level should gradually decrease in Drain pipe;flinch minimum diameter, size with increasing wail height using 3 to 5 man rock, Perforated or slotted rigid plastic ADS pipe 700 to 6000 lbs. O laid with a positive gradient to discharge under control well away from the wall. Y DETAI 1 TYPICAL ROCKERL N . ATIVE CUT, ANY HEIGHT OVER]F7. 1 Pro]. No. rwn. D Date checked Date Rlm