Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272220(1) ' L GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED EAST VALLEY 34 EAST VALLEY ROAD AND SOUTHWEST 34TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON E-6662 December 14, 1994 PREPARED FOR TEUTSCH PARTNERS Jason Black Staff Engineer s lz N d Ro ert S. Levinson, P Principal EXPIRES(`13/07M(o Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 crn`. ";E,,or, (206) 643-3780 R E C E I V E D 1 MN 0 5 Z 3 JUILPW D VIS 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 vials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report occur during a construction project. indicates.Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING impact. For this reason. most experienced owners retain their REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET geotechnical consultants through the construction stage. to iden- tify variances, conduct additional tests which may be OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS needed,and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur- face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS set of project-specific factors. These typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size and CAN CHANGE configuration: the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; physical concomitants such as Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly- access roads. parking lots, and underground utilities, changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi- and the level of additional risk which the client assumed neering report is based on conditions which existed at by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory the time of subsurface exploration,construction decisions program. To help avoid costly problems,consult the should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo- which change subsequent to the date of the report may technical consultant to learn if additional tests are affect its recommendations. advisable before construction starts. Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and otherwise. your geotechnical engineering report should not natural events such as floods.earthquakes or ground- be used: water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions •When the nature of the proposed structure is and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical changed. for example, if an office building will be report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept erected instead of a parking garage. or if a refriger- apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- determine if additional tests are necessary frigerated one: •when the size or configuration of the proposed GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE structure is altered: PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES •when the location or orientation of the proposed AND PERSONS structure is modified: •when there is a change of ownership.or Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet •for application to an adjacent site. the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre- Geolechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for probiems 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 dient involved and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" by any other persons for any purpose,or by the client ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi- vidual other than the client should apply this report for its Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical only at those points where samples are taken, when engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- other than that originally contemplated without first conferring sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geotechnical engineer Earth Consultants Inc. G Iltll nicI Engineers.GroloKisis&Envlronmrnial Scurnrisi5 December 14, 1994 E-6662 Teutsch Partners 2001 Western Avenue, Suite 330 Seattle, Washington 98112 Attention: John Walker Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed East Valley 34, East Valley Road and Southwest 34th Street, Renton, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our proposal dated September 9, 1994. In general, our study indicates that the site is underlain by loose to medium dense alluvial soils. The alluvial soils consist of silty sand and silt. A compressible layer of organic soil was also encountered five to eight and one-half feet below the existing ground surface. Based on the encountered conditions, and the results of our analyses, it is our opinion that the site can be developed generally as planned. The proposed building(s) can be supported by conventional spread footings bearing on at least two feet of structural fill provided that a successful preload program has been completed. Slab-on-grade floors may be supported directly on the proposed dock-high fill. We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service to you during this initial phase of project development, and we look forward to working with you in future phases. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Respectfully submitted, EA 'ONSULTANTS, INC. ob S. Levinson, P.E. Principal J61RSLlkM 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (206)643 3780 Seattle(206)4641584 FAX (206) 746 0860 Tacoma(206) 272 6608 TABLE OF CONTENTS E-6662 PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 General . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proiect Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Subsurface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Laboratory Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Site Preparation and General Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Preload Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Dock-High Retaininq Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Slab-on-Grade Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Seismic Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Excavations and Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Site Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Utility Support and Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Pavement Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Additional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 APPENDICES Appendix A Field Exploration Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Boring Location Plan Plate 3 Settlement Monitor Detail Plate 4 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Plate 5 Utility Trench Backfill Plate Al Legend Plates A2 through A7 Boring Logs Plate B1 Grain Size Analyses Plate B2 Atterberg Limits Test Data Earth Coneultwts, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED EAST VALLEY 34 EAST VALLEY ROAD AND SOUTHWEST 34TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON E-6662 INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) for the proposed dock-high building(s) to be located at East Valley Road and Southwest 34th Street in Renton, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1 . The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and based on the conditions encountered to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. Project Description At the time our study was performed, the site, building locations, and our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. We understand that there are currently two options for site development. Option "A" proposes a 143,000 square foot dock-high warehouse building. Option "B" proposes two dock-high warehouse buildings. The southern building (Building 'A') is to contain 60,770 square feet and the northern building (Building 'B') is contain 45,400 square feet. In either option, three and one-half to four feet of fill will be required to achieve dock-high building grades. We anticipate that the building(s) will be of concrete tilt-up panel construction. Structural loading is anticipated to fall within the following ranges, including maximum dead plus live loads: • Wall loads 3 to 4 kips per linear foot • Column loads 75 to 125 kips • Slab loads 250 pounds per square foot (psf) If any of the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Teutsch Partners E-6662 December 14, 1994 Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of East Valley Road and Southwest 34th Street in Renton, Washington (see Plate 1 , Vicinity Map). At the time of our exploration, the site was bordered by warehouse buildings to the north and west, Southwest 34th Street to the south, and East Valley Road to the east. The site is approximately rectangular in shape and vegetated with grasses. The topography of the site is generally flat. The mean elevation of the site is approximately Elevation 15.0. Subsurface The site was explored by drilling two borings at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the Boring Logs, Plates A2 through A7, for a more detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. Our borings encountered five to six feet of fill consisting of poorly graded sand with silt and gravel (Unified Classification SP-SM). At approximately five feet below the existing ground surface, Boring B-1 encountered two feet of organic silt (OH) overlying one and one-half feet of peat (PT). At approximately six feet below the existing ground surface, Boring B-2 encountered one foot of organic silt overlying six inches of peat. The peats had a moisture content in the range of 155.8 to 207.4 percent. The organic soils were found to overlie silty sand (SM) with occasional layers of silt and clay (ML and CL) to the maximum depth explored of forty-one and one-half (41 .5) feet. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered approximately five feet below the existing ground surface in both borings. Groundwater conditions are not static; thus, one may expect fluctuations in the water level and magnitude of seepage depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher and the seepage rate is greater in the wetter winter months (typically October through May). Earth Consukwta, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Teutsch Partners E-6662 December 14, 1994 Page 3 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soil encountered. Visual field classifications were supplemented by grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits tests on representative soil samples. Moisture content tests were performed on all samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual boring logs or on a separate data sheet contained in Appendix B. It is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgement. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of fifteen days following completion of this report, unless we are otherwise directed in writing. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the proposed buildings for Option "A" or Option "B" may be supported by conventional spread footings bearing on at least two feet of structural fill provided that a successful preload program has been completed. We anticipate that overexcavations may not be necessary at perimeter footing locations, if at least two feet of competent existing fill exists below the footings. The floor slab can be supported directly on the dock-high fill. Structural fills in the building areas should be placed as early in the construction schedule as possible to induce anticipated settlements prior to building construction. The preload should be brought to finished floor elevation to compensate for anticipated settlements. Settlement markers must be placed prior to fill placement to allow for monitoring of settlements during fill placement and during the pre-loading period. We estimate that settlements should be realized approximately four to six weeks after placement of the fills. Earth Consukmts, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Teutsch Partners E-6662 December 14, 1994 Page 4 The purpose of the preload program is to reduce the amount of estimated post-construction settlement from the weight of the fills and static building loads. Settlements on the order of two to four inches due to the weight of the fills and buildings loads are anticipated. Buildings constructed after the primary settlements induced by the preload fills have stabilized may experience total post-construction settlements of one to one and one-half inches. Differential settlements may be in the range of one inch; if this amount of settlement cannot be tolerated, a two foot high surcharge fill should be used. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of the Teutsch Partners and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Preparation and General Earthwork Construction areas should be stripped and cleared of all organic matter and any other deleterious material. Stripped organic materials should not be mixed with any soils to be used as structural fill. Following the clearing procedures the earthwork operations can commence to provide the design grades. Surfaces where fill, foundations or pavements are to be placed should be firm and stable, or compacted to a competent non-yielding condition. These areas should be observed by a representative of ECI to ensure adequate bearing conditions are available. Soil in any loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still excessively yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base. It is our current understanding that there are no abandoned utilities on-site; however, if utility pipes are encountered during construction, they should be plugged or removed so that they do not provide a conduit for water and cause soil saturation and stability problems. Earth Canaultanta, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Teutsch Partners E-6662 December 14, 1994 Page 5 Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under buildings, slabs, pavements, or any other load-bearing areas. Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve 0 2) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D- 1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under slabs-on-grade, pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density except for the top twelve 02) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. Structural fill to be placed in wet weather should consist of granular material with a maximum size of three inches and no more than five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the 3/4-inch fraction. During dry weather, most compactible non-organic soil can be used as structural fill. It is recommended that a sample of any structural fill planned for on site use be submitted to us for approval prior to import. Laboratory tests of the existing fill soils indicate moisture contents in the range of seven to nine percent. In our opinion most of these soils should be useable as structural fill provided that the moisture content does not increase from present levels. Preload Program We estimate that settlements induced by the dock-high fill and building loads will be on the order of two to four inches. As indicated earlier in this report, it is our opinion that this settlement cannot be tolerated; therefore, we recommend the building area be subjected to a preload program. The purpose of the preload program is to reduce the amount of estimated post-construction settlement from the weight of the fills and the static building loads. The dock-high fill should be brought to finished floor elevation to compensate for the expected settlement. Settlements should be realized approximately four to six weeks after placement of the fills. If settlements are less than expected, minor grading to remove the excess will be required. Conversely, if settlements are larger than expected, additional fill can be added at that time. Also, if settlements are larger than expected, soil conditions may be worse than anticipated, and additional measures may be required. Earth Coneuft.m Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Teutsch Partners E-6662 December 14, 1994 Page 6 The preload fill should extend a minimum of five feet beyond the building footprint. The preload fill should be extended a minimum of twenty (20) feet outside the building footprint in areas where additions may be planned. This extended preload would be necessary to reduce the possibility of settlement of the then-existing buildings from future buildings or surcharge loads. The side slopes of the fill should not be inclined any steeper than 1 :1 (Horizontal:Vertical). Fill for landscaping purposes should not be placed near the buildings. Additional fill could induce further settlements after the buildings are constructed. If such fill is planned, the preload should be extended to five feet beyond the planned landscape fill, or a lightweight fill, such as "hog fuel" should be used. As mentioned earlier,after preloading, post-construction differential settlements are estimated to be approximately one inch. If these building settlements are not acceptable, additional fill should be placed on the preload fill as a surcharge to induce this settlement prior to construction. Specific recommendations for a surcharge program will be provided upon request. As the purpose of the preload program is to induce settlement, it is necessary to monitor the magnitude and rate of induced settlement. The settlement monitoring program includes installing settlement monitors on the existing site subgrade before any fill is placed, monitoring them through completion of fill placement, and continuing the monitoring until settlements cease or the remaining anticipated settlements are considered within the tolerable limits of the buildings. More specific details of this program are presented below: • Settlement markers should be placed on the native subgrade of each building pad before fill is placed. If Option "A" is pursued, at least eight settlement markers should be installed within the building footprint. If Option "B" is pursued, at least five settlement markers should be installed within each building footprint. ECI can supply and install these markers. (A typical detail is provided on Plate 3). • A baseline reading is obtained on each marker and is referenced to a temporary benchmark located on a feature that will be unaffected by the fill-induced settlements. • The fills are then placed. Settlement readings are taken at relatively short intervals during this process, since this phase generates relatively large and rapid settlement. Earth CcnsuRen[e. Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Teutsch Partners E-6662 December 14, 1994 Page 7 • Once the fill operation is complete, readings are obtained on a periodic basis, typically weekly, until the settlement ceases or the remaining anticipated settlements are judged by the geotechnical engineer to be within the tolerable limits of the structures. • Each set of settlement readings are plotted graphically against time to determine the magnitude and rate of settlement, and are matched against the predicted magnitudes and rates to verify the accuracy of earlier estimates and to make any appropriate modifications. ECI should be retained to acquire the settlement readings. If the settlement readings are obtained by another organization, the measurements should be provided to us as quickly after their acquisition as possible for plotting and interpretation. This will help avoid any misinterpretation or misunderstanding regarding the success of the preload program. Foundations Based on the results of our study, preliminary design criteria, and assuming compliance with the preceding Site Preparation and Grading section, it is our opinion that the proposed buildings for Option "A" or Option "B" may be supported by conventional spread footings bearing on at least two feet of structural fill provided that a successful preload program has been completed. We anticipate that overexcavations may not be necessary at perimeter footing locations, if at least two feet of existing competent granular fill exists below the perimeter footings. Depending upon the condition of the foundation soils, recompaction or overexcavation may be required. Structural fill, if placed under footings, should extend outward from the edge of the footings a minimum distance equal to one half the depth of the structural fill. Foundations may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of three thousand (3,000) pounds per square foot (psf). Loading of this magnitude would have a theoretical factor of safety in excess of three against an actual shear (bearing capacity) failure. A one-third increase in the above allowable soil-bearing values can be used when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Teutsch Partners E-6662 December 14, 1994 Page 8 Exterior foundation elements should be placed a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the supporting native or compacted fill subgrade and by passive earth pressure on the buried portions of the foundations. The foundations must be poured "neat" against the adjacent soil or the foundation excavation must be backfilled with structural fill. The following passive pressure and friction values include a factor of safety of 1 .5: • Passive pressure = 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight • Coefficient of friction = 0.40 Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify that exposed soil conditions are as anticipated in this report. Dock-High Retaining Walls Dock-high retaining walls will be constructed along portions of the perimeter of the building. They should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pcf if they are allowed to rotate 0.002 times the height of the wall. If walls art prevented from rotating, we recommend that they be designed to resist lateral loads of fifty (50) pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill and that surcharges due to hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads or other surcharge loads will not act on the wall. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressure. Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on the dock-high structural fill. Any disturbed subgrade soil must either be recompacted to a non-yielding condition or replaced with structural fill. Slab-on-grade floors should be designed by the structural engineer based on the anticipated loading and the subgrade support characteristics. A modulus of vertical subgrade reaction of three hundred (300) pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for design. Earth Con..Itanta. Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Teutsch Partners E-6662 December 14, 1994 Page 9 The floor slab should be structurally separated from columns or walls so that possible future differential settlement will not be reflected in the form of warped or cracked floor slabs. A capillary break, if used, should consist of a minimum of four inches of free-draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand should be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Seismic Design Considerations The Puget Lowland is classified as a Seismic Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The largest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread and have been subcrustal events, ranging in depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles. Such deep events have exhibited no surface faulting. The UBC Earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force procedure for design base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion that site coefficient of S = 1 .5 should be used for the static force procedure as outlined in Section 2334 of the 1991 UBC. For the dynamic force procedure outlined in section 2335 of the 1991 UBC, the curve for Medium Stiff Clays and Sands (Soil Type 3) should be used for Figure 23-3, Normalized Response Spectra Shapes. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain to grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium dense; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total settlement and/or differential settlement for structures founded in the liquefying soils. It is our opinion the potential for widespread liquefaction over the site during a seismic event is low to moderate. Isolated areas may be subject to liquefaction; however, the effect on the planned buildings are anticipated to be minimal provided the recommendations contained in this report are followed. We estimate liquefaction induced settlement would be in the range of the post-construction settlements discussed earlier. E.nh Ccnnukente. Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Teutsch Partners E-6662 December 14, 1994 Page 10 Excavations and Slopes Excavation slopes should, in no case, be greater than the limits specified in local, state and federal safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from our field exploration and laboratory testing, the site soils expected to be encountered in excavations would be classified as Type C by OSHA, and as such, temporary cuts greater than four feet in height should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1 .51-1:1 V. If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, 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 shoring design criteria, if requested. All permanent slopes should be inclined no steeper than 21-1:1 V. If this inclination cannot be maintained, this office should be contacted to review the design and construction criteria. We also recommend that all cut slopes be examined by Earth Consultants, Inc. during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve the stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of drainage. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes. The above information has been provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. Site Drainage Groundwater was encountered in our borings approximately five feet below the existing ground surface. It does not appear that groundwater levels will present construction related problems during foundation excavations. However, if groundwater seepage is encountered in foundation excavations during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive an permanent discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches. Earth Cunsuhants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Teutsch Partners E-6662 December 14, 1994 Page 11 The construction area should be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water must not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of three percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the structures in landscape areas. The gradient can be reduced to two percent in paved areas. Footing drains should be installed around the building perimeter where the slab is at or below outside grade. Footing drains are not required for the dock-high portion of the building. The drains should be installed just below the invert of the footings, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 4. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. Sufficient cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Utility Support and Backfill The site soils should provide adequate support for utilities located above the groundwater table. As previously discussed, groundwater water was encountered in our borings five feet below the existing site grades. The soils below the groundwater table may not provide suitable utility support due to the loose or organic condition of the soil and the effect of the groundwater de-stabilizing the trench bottom as the trench is excavated. If utilities are located below the groundwater table, remedial measures such as dewatering, using steel sheets to create a groundwater barrier, and or placement of quarry spalls may be necessary. Earth Consuft.te, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Teutsch Partners E-6662 December 14, 1994 Page 12 Utility trench backfill is a major concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line be adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed and hand tamped to about twelve (12) inches above the crown of the pipe before any heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve (12) inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction requirements for load supporting and non-load supporting areas is presented on Plate 5. As indicated earlier, existing fill soils expected to be encountered in relatively shallow utility excavations should be useable for structural fill in their present condition. Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparation section of this report. This means at least the top twelve (12) inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557-78). It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. The following pavement sections are recommended for lightly-loaded areas, such as parking and driveway areas: • Two inches of Asphalt Concrete (AC) over four inches of Crushed Rock Base (CRB) material, or • Two inches of AC over three inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) material. Earth Cunsu@ants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Teutsch Partners E-6662 December 14, 1994 Page 13 Heavier truck-traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement life and site traffic. Specific truck traffic volumes were not provided. A specific pavement section can be provided based on actual traffic volumes. However, for heavy traffic areas, as a general rule, the following pavement sections may be considered: • Three inches of AC over six inches of CRB, or • Three inches of AC over four and one-half inches of ATB. Asphalt Concrete (AC), Asphalt Treated Base (ATB), and Crushed Rock Base (CRB) materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. All rock base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557-78 laboratory test standard. A class "B" mix is suggested for Asphalt Concrete. It should be noted that the pavement sections for lightly loaded areas assume no truck traffic. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Earth Caneultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Teutsch Partners E-6662 December 14, 1994 Page 14 Additional Services This office will be available to provide consultation services relating to review of the final design and specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted an implemented in the approved construction plans and specifications. t ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts,specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. It should be noted that it is generally in the best interests of the owner/client to maintain the same Geotechnical Engineer during construction in order to obtain the project objective, with optimum quality control. �E i 4 r Earth Consultants, Inc. GRPDv' W �y p < S ss lie. Gq u a s e'R 5 RENTDN VILLAGE PL PARK I �11 oa � g ~ ^ T G n r w Srz K. i o 15TH 4. $ ' I SW veil <: 16TH _ T w u r: at ST p, C i 6 E S 16TH ST t ta r u <: z w <~— m < < m a d 18TH ' AO r r: L a Lae$ Q P q ' 9W 19tH ST 1111 < ..........'.. 1 ST Race .I P S LOTH ' G - P1, SJ SW 219T ST <N ~ NPL O S8 H ST v I�. Track m is D r a13 h SW 23RD ST _�__z3R9 •^ ST N W fn �z j� -- T -• , Q,S TAZ80r, V1 I F �AAX i =A,� NTERRIA <, RO�t j RENT N o� a H S t PARK � r S� I ¢ i 5 ZSTH$To E 'Fi 36TH 6T II SW MY ST �m� b T a 1� O I $tI1N`� of g H < G 9<u a: SE I F SF 2 1 > �Y ♦= PL m 1661 SW 9TH ST It J' ♦ s,yM IS 5 33TH b PJ 90 j •,� sy� A 30TH CT > I 91ST CHNSr- 2 2"j �� W 3O,H ST < Ci ENSEN V SI 33RD SW 315T 515 , GRFFNBFLT W > PK 2 > j ST < I I a I I 3 134TH 167 < 1 S 172N0 ST ITE_LO_CA IONS w 3" _ 36jH ST o; I Q _ 37TH 51 S 121 TN ST sE 1741 yly i 'a> J > / 5 `rM i I a SW ¢< TITH ST T JR m I O W A15r T VALLEYS tT]TH ST O ¢ x > > > I CENTER 5lo9TN LP o Q vd 1 I 1 H a x ■� 179Tm ST r- p r m Q Rp I x n '- I I f m�9R' 1 I r r-i� SW n - qp � ST s y 191sr ST 180TH ylI " ST S 45TH _ — 1 5 SPRiNG8A04— I GREENBELT 31 m j I '< Reference: King County/ Map 41 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 1990 Earth Consultants Inc. Vicinity Map CNtrtSlnkaI FJIOh M.CCOIOmAS6 FlINrtrnrfXal$ci ILl East Valley 34 Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6662 1 Drwn. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked JS Date 12/6/94 plate i B-2 m ' B-2 ! _ , Approximate Scale 8 0 100 200 400ft. = m � _ z C7 C7 = 2 -, w J J J N J LEGEND Q Q o > > B-1 4- Approximate Location of a W a i W ECI Boring, Proj. No. E-6662, Nov. 1994 z j $ Proposed Building 4- 00 4- B-1 ' B-1 S.W. 34th STREET S.W. 34th STREET PRELIM. SITE PLAN PRELIM. SITE PLAN OPTION "A" OPTION "B" Boring Location Plan Earth Consultants Inc. East Valley 34 `""K"nk-d� ,` ."F Yi"" 'a'u" Renton, Washington Prol No. 6662 Drwn. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked JB Date 12/6/94 Plate 2 SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING 00 rka Schor Preload gSurchar a or Preload Fill Fill a��s$F kN I I�. Ill clll= III_ III=.II1=111= STANDARD NOTES 1) Base consists of 3/4 inch thick, 2 foot by 2 foot plywood with center drilled 5/8 inch diameter hole. 2) Bedding material, if required, should consist of Traction Sand. 3) Marker rod is 1/2 inch diameter steel rod threaded at both ends. 4) Marker rod is attached to base by nut and washer on each side of base. 5) Protective sleeve surrounding marker rod should consist of 2 inch diameter plastic tubing. Sleeve Is NOT attached to rod or base. 6) Additional sections of steel rod can be connected with threaded couplings. 7) Additional sections of plastic sleeve can be connected with press-fit plastic couplings. 8) Steel marker rod should extend at least 6 Inches above top of plastic sleeve. 9) Marker should extend at least 2 feet above top of fill surface. 1 TYPICAL SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL Earth Consultants Inc. East Valley 34 Renton, Washington Pro). No. 6662 Drwn. GLS Date Dec'94 Checked ,7p; Date 12/6/94 Plate 3 . c �= Slope To Drain 00 6 inch min. ° 1 ea. :e: ;o'. a,. �•.°• 18 inch min. 4 inch min. Diameter '_: .= .o ° ° ° ° ° • ° Perforated Pipe !. :; •�: °°`o' , ' Wrapped in Drainage o, ' •�o o: ° � o :° a °°ee Fabric .•a• ° e °' '' ° 2 inch min. 2 inch min. / 4 inch max. 12 inch min. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING LEGEND Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the WSDOT Specifications. 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 pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. 1,, 1 TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL Earth I ConsultmtS Inc. East Valley 34 Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6662 Drwn. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked JB Date 12/6/94 Plate 4 Non-Load Supporting- Floor Slab or Areas Roadway Areas Y5 o ee o g5 a e Varies 85 95 1 Foot Minimum Backfill 80 90 Varies 00 PIPE o e o O '.e' 4e. b• 0 0 0 O'..0 O Oa• Bedding .'6 0 e e o,..;d�::• Varies 'o.0;°p o�.�u �op•,, c' u . °•oQ pOo��Da,: . o ..:o8.•e0• °•'//yy����°pee Q'� LEGEND: Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab O . ° • o = °° • Base Material or Base Rock Backfill; Compacted On-Site Soil or Imported Select Fill Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text. 95 Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Density as Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor), Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Report Text. Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and °a0 o8p Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected. TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL Earth 1 Consultants Inc. East Valley 34 ce.eertnk-d EnrMw'f.s.ceoloptsisbt"'".,"""'"�'.r"'"`" Renton, Washington Plate 5 Proj. No. 6662 Drwn. cr.s Date Dec. '94 Checked .is Date 12/6/94 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION E-6662 Our field exploration was performed on November 30, 1994. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling two borings, each to a depth of forty-one and one-half (41 .5) feet below the existing grade. The borings were advanced with a truck mounted, hollow stem auger drill rig. Approximate boring locations were determined by taping from existing site landmarks. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geotechnical engineer from our firm who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each boring, obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1586. The split spoon samples were driven with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to drive the last twelve (12) inches of penetration are called the "N- value". This value helps to characterize the site soils and is used in our engineering analyses. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate Al, Legend. The Boring Logs are presented on Plates A2 through A7. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Earth Consuhanta, Inc. MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Gravel u � GW Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand And Clean Gravels ko Q 0 Q 9W Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Gravelly (little or no fines) 4)♦ 41► Coarse Soils GP Poorly-Graded Gravels.Gravel- Grained x ( gp Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Soils More Than GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand- 50% Coarse Gravels With gm Silt Mixtures Fraction Fines (appreciable Retained On amount of fines) GC Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand- No. 4 Sieve gC Clay Mixtures Sand e^ SW Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly And Clean Sand 0 0 0^ 0 0 SW Sands, Little Or No Fines Sand (little or no fines) .. More Than y .': ':5::.:::A'>:<6 'n: Soils a?a+: SP Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly :¢.::i..'k':. .O. :; 50% Material Sp Sands, Little Or No Fines Larger Than More Than 200 Sieve Size 50% Coarse SM Silty Sands Sand-Silt Mixtures Size Fraction Sands With Sm Fines(appreciable Passing No.4 amount of fines) Sieve V SC SC Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures ML Inorganic Silts 3 Very Fine Sands,Rock F106r,Silty- m) Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/Slight Plasticity Fine Silts Liquid Limit CL Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, Grained And Less Than 50 CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays. Lean Soils Clays I I I I I OIL Organic Silts And organic I I I I I OI Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity More Than MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire mil Sand Or Silty Soils 50% Material Silts Smaller Than And Liquid Limit CH Inorganic Clays Of High No.200 Sieve Clays Greater Than 50 Ch Plasticity, Fat Clays Size I OH Oh MediumOrganic Clays Of Plast c ty, Organic Sil To High azz `- pT Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils Highly Organic Soils r �(r, Itr It Pt With High Organic Contents Topsoil 'y y y y y Humus And Duff Layer Filllam Hlyhly Variable Constituents The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. DUAL SYMBOLS are used to Indicate borderline soil clasaificatlon. C TORVANE READING,tsf I 2'O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf W MOISTURE, %dry weight 24'I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED ' SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED i WATER OBSERVATION WELL poi DRY DENSITY,lbs. per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT,% s DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION 2 SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/DATE Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND Illj QiWaluuWlBiaLxmA.(inauy4alx 619n9nxmxnf.Y yiunW5 Proj. No.6662 Date Dec'94 Plate Al Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of East Valley 34 1 3 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6662 JB 11 30 94 11 30 94 13-1 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: f 15.2' ❑ Monitoing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite yy No. r o t w (ao Surface Conditions: 2"Grass (%) BIOwe ,y E LL E N E Ft. to m (n SP-SM FILL:Gray poorly graded medium SAND with silt and gravel,medium dense,moist i 2 8.7 13 3 4 6 — OH Dark brown organic SILT,medium stiff,wet 72.2 7 LL=81 PL=58 // 6 PI=23 — — 7 PT Dark brown fiberous PEAT,soft,wet 207.4 3 u u 8 92.0 ML Gray SILT,loose,wet 9 -contains approximately 10%fiberous organics 10 SM Gray silty fine to medium SAND,medium dense,water bearing 30.8 11 11 12 13 14 15 34.8 16 contains silt and organic layers 16 17 18 V a 19 0 \ N Boring Log ru ExartY] Consultants inic. East Valley 34 Renton,Washington m Prol.No. 6662 Dwn. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked JB I Date 12/8/94 Plate A2 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of East Valley 34 2 3 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Baring No.: 6662 JB 11 30 94 11 30 94 B-1 Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: f 15.2' ❑ Monitoing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite W No. 2: o t rA p Surface Conditions: 2' Grass (%) Blows ro E ELL E N E Ft. r? cn 0 to = rn 28.9 17 21 22 23 24 25 becomes dense 24.8 37 26 27 < t 28 29 30 50.0 5 31 CL Gray lean CLAY,medium stiff,wet -trace of shells 32 . 33 34 SM Gray silty fine to medium SAND,loose,water bearing 35 25.8 5 36 contains fragments of wood and shells 37 38 a .� a 39 v N ~ Boring Log Cu Eailh Co11SUltmtS ffic. East Valley 34 to °°a°�r 8° °°'4"°a."`a" Renton, Washington m Proj.No. 6662 Dan. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked JB Date 12/8/94 Plate A3 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log, Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of East Valley 34 3 3 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6W2 JB 11 30 94 11 30 94 B-1 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: f 15.2' ❑ Monitoing Well ❑ Plezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite W No. L O + w to o Surface Conditions: 2"Grass (%) Blows A E y u. E N E Ft. (_ N O frle7 N 25.6 8 41 -t Boring terminated at 41.5 feet below existing grade.Groundwater encountered at 5.0 feet during drilling.Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. 01 v v .a Cu Cu Boring Log tv Earth Consultants Inc. East Valley 34 cwea."mm"°°`a°�°°°"`e„",c."'e�sae"i°" Renton, Washington m Pro].No, 6662 Dwn. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked JB Date 12/8/94 Plate A4 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of East Valley 34 1 3 Job No. Logged by. Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6662 JB 11 30 94 11 30 94 B-2 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: f 14.8' ❑ Monitoin Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite W No 2 Q } W N o Surface Conditions: 2"Sod, Grass Blows CL E Q.} E N E f%) �, LCO NOLLN :3 3) SP-SM FILL:Gray poorly graded medium SAND with silt and gravel,medium dense,moist 1 2 7.0 25 3 4 5 _ 95.9 8 t3 OH Dark brown organic SILT,medium stiff,wet I -pushed shelby tube at 7.0 feet WD=77.4p0f — — 7 PT Dark brown fiberous PEAT,soft,wet DD=30.3pcf 155.8 MIL Gray SILT,loose,wet t WD=85.2pcf 8 contains approximately 10%fiberous organics DD=39.5pcf 115.4 9 SM Gray silty fine SAND,loose,water bearing 10 50.2 5 11 12 13 14 15 26.3 32 -becomes dense 16 -sand becomes medium,contains silt lenses 17 i 18 a P 19 t\n N Boring Log N Earth COnsultmtS Inc. East Valley 34 m a�ermcrs,yo-was.wdopaaaemwmnweadw Renton,Washington m ProJ. No. 6662 own. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked JB Date 12/8/94 Plate A5 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of East Valley 34 2 3 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6662 JB 17 30 94 11 30 94 B-2 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: We Completion: f 14.8' ❑ Monitoing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonits W No. U O } m N p Surface Conditions: 2-Sod, Grass N Blows 0 E v LL E N E R. 7 N O N N 38.0 7 21 ML Gray SILT,loose,wet 22 23 24 SM Gray silty fine to medium SAND,medium dense,water bearing 25 32.5 22 26 27 28 29 30 CL Gray lean CLAY,very soft,wet 55.8 2 31 LL=49 PL=27 PI=22 32 33 34 SM Gray silty medium SAND,very loose,water bearing 35 28.4 3 36 contains fragments of shells 37 38 J a 39 N N Boring Log ru Earth Consultants Inc. East Valley 34 to to CoiOa."avn°Oiowzor"a�'"'�'�'�' Renton,Washington m m Proj.No. 6662 Dwn. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked JB Date 12/8/94 Plate A6 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of East Valley 34 3 3 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6662 JB 11 30 94 11 30 94 B-2 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: f 14.8' ❑ Monitoing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite W No. L o } W (n O Surface Conditions: 2" Sod, Grass (%) Blows g E E LL E En E Ft. L fA to = fA 32.0 3 41 Boring terminated at 41.5 feet below existing grade.Groundwater encountered at 5.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. i v a Ln rn ti N .' Boring Log CU ro Earth Consultants Inc. East Valley 34 Renton, Washington m Proj.No. 6662 Own. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked JB I Date 12/8/94 Plate A7 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS : t E-6662 Earth Consultants, Inc. ��i���i��ii�����i�i���C:�ao��������■���� SIEVE ANALYSIS mom m��� DESCRIPTION mm poorly graded SAND with silt 100 80 w 60 0 z � ®H H 40 `rA-Line cn a. a C � 20 CL-ML {��,,1 0 20 40 J 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Natural Key Boring/ Depth Soil Classification USCS L.L. P.L. Pl. wow Test Pit (ft) Content B-1 5 Dark brown, organic SILT OH 81 58 23 72.2 A B-2 30 Gray, lean CLAY CL 49 27 22 55.8 Atterberg Limits Test Data East Valley 34 Earth Consultants Inc. Menton, Washington Gegednbl Figleccrs.CmbgLGs 6 FnNrtnrncnRl Scbllsls Proj. No. 6662 Date Dec'94 Plate �'% � h DISTRIBUTION E-6662 4 Copies Teutsch Partners 2001 Western Avenue, Suite 330 Seattle, Washington 98112 Attention: John Walker E�h co..ult.t., 1 <.