HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272220(2) 1
i
1
1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED EAST VALLEY 3.1
EAST VALLEY ROAD AND
1 SOUTHWEST 34TH STREET
RENTON, WASHINGTON
1 E-6662
1 December 14, 1994
1
1 PREPARLD FOk
TEUTSCH PARTNERS
1 _
1 Jason Black
Staff Engineer
Ro ert S. Levinson,
1 Principal
1 ¢xames 03/07pb cm cFsna E Dk
E E d
l +:
Earth Ccnsu!tants, Inc. WR 2 4 19`3
1 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201
Bellevue, Washington 98005 guet0�t�G tnvlsror�
1 (206) 643-3180
1
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
help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, earth,rock and time. The actual interface between mate-
to 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 [S BASED ON A UNIQUE SET geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden-
tify variances,conduct additional tests which may be
OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS needed, and to recommend solutions to problems
' A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur-
encountered on site.
face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
set of project-specific factors.These typically include:
the general nature of the structure involved, its size and CAN CHANGE
configuration:the location of the structure on the site
and its orientation:physical concomitants such as Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly-
access roads. parking lots.and underground utilities. changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi-
and the level of additional risk which the client assumed neering report is based on conditions which existed at
by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory the time of subsurface exploration,construction decisions
program. To help avoid costly problems.consult the should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose
geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo-
which change subsequent to the date of the report may technical consultant to learn if additional tests are
affect its recommendations, advisable before construction starts.
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and
otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not natural events such as floods. earthquakes or ground-
be used: water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions
•When the nature of the proposed structure is and,thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical
changed, for example,if an office building will be report.The geotechnical engineer should be kept
' erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger- apprised of any such events,and should be consulted to
ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- determine if additional tests are necessary
frigerated one:
.when the size or configuration of the proposed GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE
' structure is altered: PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
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 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.
Oeorechni�l Engineers.Geok)gisis&Environm wal Scientists
1
' 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
I 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.
I
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 JB/RSLhnJ
1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005
Bellevue (206)6433780 Seattle(206)464-1584 FAX(206) 746-0860 Tacoma(206)272 6608
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-6662
PAGE
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
' Project 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 Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Slab-on-Grade Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seismic Design Considerations , g
Excavations and Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
' Site Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Utili ty 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 Consultants, Inc.
r
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 buildings) 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 Consukanm. Inc.
1
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
I' 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
1 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.
tGroundwater
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 Consultants, Inc.
1
!, 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.
I'
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
�1 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 Comuft n , 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 Consultants, 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.
1 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
t 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.
' Eanh Comuftwts, 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
l� 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 W 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.
' Es h Cwsuksnm, 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.
t 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.
' Ee th Co uft.u, Inc.
1
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:
a 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.
' E" h Consultants, Inc.
r
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.
tA 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
1' 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
t 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.
' Earth Consult ts, 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 .5H: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 2H:IV. 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 Consultants, Inc.
1
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.
1
1
' Ewth Consuhente, Inc.
1
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Teutsch Partners E-6662
' December 14, 1994 Page 12
1
' 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.
1
1
' Earth Consultants, 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
' 0 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 Consultants, Inc.
r
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.
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 orderto obtain
the project objective, with optimum quality control.
I'I
1
1
1
1
1
' Em h Consultants. Inc.
1
-
., GRA ss u�I
I�1 W r .tv' I y 0
ENT:; �* 3 • t 1A 10TN S S RENTON YILLAGE PL 12
PAIiX•��y. I its, �j E � r T .^ p
��dc1^ q�NC R HsT >
> m
< Z
,.. , ER
NORTN
P G IZ
N r w o s
$ ' I SW ST
] 94 - w I S 16TM ST
-
-1• c: y s I pxte y r a 5 tTM sr c.
ISTH
G �3 LongQc es,; 6 • a SW 15� ST ST j aP
L I I " ST
a = Race I f• P S 2UTN
155 H T i ' 91 I SW 21 T T >PL H p
= 15 221
' < Trac I cT
SW 21RD ST -$.__23RD �n ST rJ1
b �� �1L� I RENT N
N7ENNr T�;
Ic BPT:
t sR T j'- ( . y TfARlC"� a y 5.
� s liTN•sra f •i mTN
' �L♦ W 1 Sw M ST mid g 1 C
•�f*iF� rn I I I S 2TW K S SN 'ct+a:
s SE
£T LF 2 I ��p I itr 3. ti ♦� S PL 169
qT =_ LJI R�. SW 29TH T { s r1fM <y pN m
30TH C
31ST
1 CNR/sr- L2L11 I ST 0 CT
ENSBV - 1ZI SW 31ST 1
i GREENR£Lr Sl 33R0 I $ 515
rc l a I ST ` 1 I LL- "
1 3 I I TH > 1:.i S 167 < S 172NO ST
ITE Lbc ION >_ S — I _
- - - - 1
< mod.31'N ST.S I74TN ST I E ne
03: � S
Crag i I W SW a 6 H$T I T is I N I Q
t )R Gl rn H I < W 41 T ST I w VALLEY S \y St Q P i
12TTH ST ,40'
� E07CAi 115SN o P u
_ > > I CENTER 5 m�
0�I I A = I 1 I ST 1 ii
r= �i' SW I - RD . ST f �QP 0
s ' ISIST ST 180I H
S 112" ri;rF z/
£ 545TH
SPAlNGR�� 1 —�,� -I O
I GRE36LT) I 31
� 4 I m
Ay
' Q Reference:
King County / Map 41
' By Thomas Brothers Maps
Dated 1990
' Vicinity Map
Earth Consultants Inc. East Valley 94
Q•a1eYJnld FngYaiS,Ctoblµsn fi FnWunrnM$cirniLas
Renton, Washington
' Proj. No. 6662 Drwn. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked JB Date 12/6/94 Plate 1
1 i
1
Ell
'- Approximate Scale
0 100 200 400ft.
C3
oil]
y'
co LLJ
'J J
' ! Q Q LEGEND
O
a uj LL! B-1 Approximate Location of
r ECI Boring, Proj. No,
r z E-6662, Nov. 1994
.
' Zj
$ Proposed Building
-�- m _�-
B-1 B-1
S.W. 34th STREET S.W. 34th STREET
PRELIM. SITE PLAN PRELIM. SITE PLAN
i OPTION "A" OPTION "B"
Boring Location Plan
Earth Consultants Inc. East Valley 34
Renton, Washington
Prol No. 6662 Drwn. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked JB Date 1216/94 Plate 2
1
' SCHEMATIC ONLY- NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
1
1
Q f
� k
' Surcharge or Preload Surcharge or Preload
Fill r y
Fill
mvv
RE
1
1 �
1 f Y ¢ 1 d A
ti� 1 11� d
N
1 fi
Ill-p1 III -� Ih— Ill 111=���
III — UI_
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
FnBtr�ccvbglweFnvlrc vnc.nv scxmivs Renton, Washington
' Pro). No. 6662 Drwn. GLs Date Dec'94 Checked JB Date 12/6/94 Plate 3
1
Slope To Drain
° •o
' o .
° •o
°eo
6 inch min.
0.
18 Inch min.
inch min. •.:� . •;e >: • ::o.;; , ° .
Diameter
Perforated Pip
e��
Wrapped in Drainage
Fabric
2 inch min.
2 inch min. / 4 inch max. 12 inch
min.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
tLEGEND
Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material.
' Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9.03.1(2) of the
O WSDOT Specifications.
t O Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or
slots facing down;tight jointed;with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible
corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing
' lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent.
Earth Consultants Inc. TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
East Valley 34
C!°°chYol FTBlrrers,(ifUb(Asls i Firv4avnenJal5cl.nlbI5
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
i
Varies
00 00
' SS r.csw
�95
'- 1 Foot Minimum
' Backfill k
' 80 90
Varies
K
PIPE
Bedding o00:�. ',. e p°�;d .:..
Varies
?:0. 00'4°Q. oo�. o•o o.°..
' LEGEND:
Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab
° ° • 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
Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers
Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected.
' TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL
Earth Consultants Inc. East Valley 34
GnlninYal FiyQnYf,S,feob(�bF 6 tfNRF°1M1°y Sfkfl�hta
Renton, Washington
' Proj. No. 6662 Drwn. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked .ln Date 12/6/94 Plate 5
m m m m m m m m m m w m m m m m m m m
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
t 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 All, 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 Consultants. Inc.
MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
Gravel Well-Graded Gravels,
g Gravel-Sand
Clean Gravels
And Qe Qe Q o GW W Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
Gravelly (little or no fines) 41111,
Coarse Soils , GP Poorly-Graded Gravels,Gravel-
Grained gp Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
' Soils More Than
50% Coarse GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand-
Gravels With gm Silt Mixtures
Fraction Fines(appreciable
Retained On amount of lines) GC Clayey Gravels.Gravel-Sand-
No.4 Sieve
gC Clay Mixtures
Sand , o a^ SW Well-Graded Santls, Gravllly
And Clean Sand o e e' o c SW Sands, Little Or No Fines
Sandy (little or no fines)
More Than Soils ea:i f i�W:lw SP Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly
50% Material 6F ah SID Sands, Little Or No Fines
Larger Than More Than
No.200 Sieve 50% Coarse �' SM Silty Sands, Sand- Silt Mixtures
Size Fraction Sands With Sm
Passing No.4 Fines(appreciable
amount of fines)
Sieve Sc Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures
MILInorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock Flour,Silty-
ml 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 1 Clays, Sandy Clays. Silty Cla s, Lean Soils Clays � y
l i l l l OL Organic Silts And Organic
I I I I I OI Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity
MH Inorganic Silts,Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire
((((rI More Than -S Material Sins mh Sand Or Silty Soils
l�
Smaller
ller Than Liquid Limit
200 Sieve And Greater Than 50 CH Inorganic Clays High
Size Clays Ch Plasticity, Fat Clays
OH Organic Clays Of Medium To High
Oh Plasticity, Organic Silts
Highly Organic Soib PT With High
us,Or Swamp Soils
ftl�■- r, ,, r, r Pt With High Organic Contents
lT Topsoil 'y y'� Humus And Duff Layer
(' Fill Hly,hly Variable Constituents
I
' 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 roil classification.
C TORVANE READING,tiff I 2'O.D.SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
clu PENETROMETER READING,tsf
' W MOISTURE,%dry weight II 24'I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
P SAMPLER PUSHED
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED t WATER OBSERVATION WELL
pcf DRY DENSITY,lbs.per cubic fL
' LL LIQUID LIMIT,% 4 DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION
2 SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/DATE
Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND
, � (kv„aI�,MWI],yYx.,s,fia�I,ylatyarv,Wunx�Y:Y StLanW>
' Proj. No.6662 Date Dec'94 Plate ai
Boring Log
Project Name: Sheet of
East Vall 34 1 3
Job No. Logged by. Start Date: Completion Date: Boring 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:
t 15.2' ❑ Monitoin Well ElPiezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
_
No. '-u a L 01 v1 o Surface Conditions: 2"Grass
W Blows b E Q. E N E
SP-SM RLL,Gray poorly graded medium SAND with sift and gravel,medium dense,moist
I 1
2
8.7 13 3
4
5 ' OH Dark brown organic SILT,medium stiff,wet
72.2 7
LL=81 PL=58 /// 8
PI=23
7 PT Dark brown fiberous PEAT,soft,wet
L� 207.4 3 u L[ 8
92.0 9 ML Gray SILT,loose,wet
(� contains approximately 10%fiberous organics
10 SM Gray silty fine to medium SAND,medium dense,water bearing
` 30.8 11 '.
12
I 13
14
i ,5
34.8 18 contains silt and organic layers
I i6
17
I ,8
a
a 19
a
IN
Boring Log
Earth Consultatits Inc. East Valley 34
0e0recrma,0,mac abnprrae Sdend .
Renton, Washington
m Proj.No. 6662 Own. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked JB 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 necessarlly 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 Valle 34 2 3
Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring 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' ❑ Monitoinq Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
W No. L o + rn a Surface Conditions: 2' Grass
(%) Blows It E Q. E N E
R. Ce N to 7 N
28.9 17
21
22
23
24
' 25 -becomes dense
24.8 37
26
27
28
29
30
50.0 5 37 CL Gray lean CLAY,medium stiff,wet
32 -trace of shells
.
I� 33
SM Gray silly fine to medium SAND,loose,water bearing
35
25.8 5
36
contains fragments of wood and shells
1 37
t 38
a
U 39
v
ru
Boring Log
m Earth Consultants Inc. East Valley 34
' Qeoreea�neaaceonpwas�w.mee�eamar
cc Renton,Washington
m Proj.No. 6662 Dan. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked JB I 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.:
6662 JB 11 30 94 11 30 94 B-1
Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method:
Associated Drilling HSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hale Completion:
' f 152' ❑ Monitoing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
W No. L o - w to Surface Conditions: 2'Grass
0.
Blows 0.E a+ E N E
' j96j Ft. r? rn p fn
25.6 8
' 41
Boring terminated at 41.5 feet below existing grade.Groundwater encountered at 5.0
feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite.
1
II
r1
1
1
v
a
a
ti Boring Log
ru Earth Consultants Inc. East Valley 34
' to
to Renton, Washington
m
Proj.No, 6662 own. GLS Date Dec. 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 By 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' ❑ Moviltoing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
W No. L o } w to o Surface Conditions: 2'Sod, Grass
Blows O.E a t E U E
Ft. 0) o LL N 7 N
SP-SM FILL:Gray poorly graded medium SAND with silt and gravel,medium dense,moist
2
7.0 25 3
4
S _
I 95.9 g
5 OH Dark brown organic SILT,medium stiff,wet
-pushed shelby tube at 7.0 feet
WD=77.4pcf =1 u 7 PT Dark brown fiberous PEAT,soft,wet
DD=30.3pcf 155.8 MIL Gray SILT,loose,wet
(� WD=95.2pd 3 -contains approximately 10%fiberous organics
(1 DD=39.5pcf 115.4
9 --!TM 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
' 18
v
o\ 19
to
E, N
Boring Log
fu Co
Earth Corisuhmts Inc. East Valley 34
' omreedrya.gw�a o:aomm a mwomenw9eeup
00 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 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 t y p Surface Conditions: 2'Sod, Grass
Blows a1.E d t Q.
E
N Ft. tL cn 0 � is m :3 to
38.0 7 21 ML Gray SILT,loose,wet
1 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
i.
55.8 2
31
1
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
a
a 39
VI
' N
Boring Log
CU Earth Consultants Inc. East valley 34
' oeareurd eea aau�pr a emvam mr eaaa.er
rfoo Renton,Washington
J Prof.No. 6662 own. GLS Date DeC. '94 Chec ed J8 Date 12/6/94 Plate A6 m
1 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 a ey 34 3 3
Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No;Method:
6662 JB 11 30 94 11 30 94 B-2
Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling
Associated Drilling HSA SPT
Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion:
1 t 14.8' ❑ Monitoinq Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite
W No. rat m to o Surface Conditions: 2'Sod, Grass
Blows N ELL E Nto _E
�- �' L to O (0 to
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 bentontte.
' P
Cu
Boring Log
Ou Earth consultants mc. East Valley 34
' osaeaeriya,yneaa tSonPwamwunwriecrerw
tfoo Renton,Washington
m Prol.No. 6662 own. GLS Date Dec. '94 Checked JB 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.
� m m m m S � m m � m m � m m � m m m 1
t
' APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
E-6662
1
' Earth Co ukanm, Inc.
. • .
err
■■■■■i■■�a■■■.ti■i i■i►,7 t.■■■a1•■■tt■■�■■.■■�■■i.■■■■■■■.■i��■■■■■■■■■■■■i■.t■i■■■■■i
■■■�■■�t■■■.■i■ii.i■.r•�■■■�■■■■■.�.�■.■i.■i■t■■■■i..i■.■■■■fit■■■■i■.■■i■■■■■i
■■■■■ita.t■■�■i■ii■attt■�'■t■�t.tr�ta'■■i■ta1■■i.■�■.t�ta�ua■■��■��
■■■■■it��t■.■■■■ii■�i■■■■���■���EM�■�■�i■i■.■■.■■■■■it■■■■i■.■■i■■■■ti
t■■t■i■■�i■■.�■i■■■�■.�t.■■�vl�■■■■.■.■■.EM7 ■ENNEN! ■■ ■■■t■i
■��i■■.■i■ice■�■■■■i■. ■\��■■i■.!7■�■�■■����■■■■■i■■■■i■�a7_aft■■■.■i■i■■■�■■t■■■■■a1■■a7♦■��7■■it■■[1■■i■a'.■�■ita�■ttta�t■■■■i�t�a� ,
��■■■■■■ ■ii■■■■. ■. ■�►��■..■■�■�.■��■■■�■■■■■i■.CO�
�■■■■i■■■ati■t■i■■■■.■�t■■■■■■■■■■a1■.■\ ■..1■�■�.■i��t■■■■i■■■■■i■.t■■■�
�����■■■i■.���■■■■■■■■��\��■■■�■�.■i■.■■■■■■■tit■■■■i■■1C■■■■■i alt�ta.�ta.ti■ice■.a7•■■t■t/tta�■a7♦t.■\\■.■■f■■t■■■■■■■i.■i■.■i■■■■■it■■■■■■■.■■i■�
, t■■■■■■■■�i■■.■i■■■i■.t■■�■.t■■■■■■■■t■■■■i■■■►7.■■ti■■■■■■■■.■i■.■■.■■a�t■■■■i■.■tita� ,
ta�t■it■a7♦tt■■ii■ta■a7tta7■.t■■�■a�■.■■■C��tf■■to7■■�.■a7t.a�t�.aa■■t■a�tta7ta�
■■■■■i■�■■ta7•ti■■■■■■ita1�■.■ ■■■■■.■.a7•ta1f1■■i■t■�.■m■.■■.tt■■■a11■■■■■mt■ia�
., a7ttt!■■it■ta�t�■ii■.t.a��■■tam■a�talt■it.awl■a�■■a7•.■it.ta�■■■■M■ ■■aa■a7EMt■■a1•= .,
ttt�■■�■■tt.■i■ii■it■fit.■■■■ti■■■fit.■■�■.■11■�■■■■■■i■■��■■.■■■■■i■■■■■�■.■■itUMMIN
t■■■■■■■■it■■■.tiMEN
■■■■■�t■i■■■■ ■■■■■■■. ■.■17■i■■ .■■■■.■t.■■■■t■■■■■■■■■t.■■i■t■■■■■
■��■■■■.■i■i�■ ■.��■■■■■■■■ ■. ■..!■■i■■■■■■i.■�■.■■.■■■�■■■■■i■.■t■■■■■■�
■■�■■�■■■■.■i■a7�■�■.ta�tal■■■■■■■■t■■■■t.■■i■.i\■■i■■■■■■■■i■a7■.�■■a�■■■■■�■.■■i�
_ • , ■■■■■■■■■ii■■.■i■i■■■ ■.t■i■■ ■■■■■.■.■■it■i1.1■i■■■t■■■■.■i■.■�tta�■■■■■a71t.t!■■■■■i ,a�ta7t■t■.■i■t■t■■�■.■■ital tta�■■■�t.t■ital■.IAai■■■a�.■■■■a7ta7•alta!■■■■■t■ta7ta�■�ttt■■■■t■.i■■.■i■i�■ ■.■■it■t■■■■■■■■�■.■■�■■■■■IIt■■■■■■■■i.■fit■■t.t■■■■■■■■■■■i■.■■i■■■■■i
IMMEMEMME���■i■■■i■■■■ice�■��■■�■.■■■:1�■i■■■■■■■■■■i■■■■.�■■■■■i■.��■■■■■■■■t■■■■■■i■i■i■■■i■.■■■■ ■■ ■■■■■.■.■■■■■■t■■:7�■■■■t■■■.■■■■.��■■■■■i■■1�■■■■� ,■■■■■i■■�i■■.■ ■i■■■.■. ■.■■■■■■■■■■ ■.■■��t■■a17■■■■■■■■.■i■.t■.■a�■a■■■mt.ta =
■■■ateta.ial■i■ii■t■■■/■■i■■■a1tt■.■■■■■.■.t■�■■ti■\�■■■■■■ii■ ■.■■.■t■■■i■■■■■■■■.■■i■t■■■i
■tt■■■■�■■■■.■i■ii■.■■�i■■■■■■■■■ ■.■■.■.■■■■�Y.■■■t■■i.■��■�■■■■�■■■■■it■■■■■�ta1■■i■■�■■ta.ti■i■■■MM■■MINEEM ■■i■.t■t■■■■■■■■■.■.■■■■t.■i■\\�■■■■t■■■i■�t.■�■�■■■■■it■�■a�
• ■■■��_t■■■.�_■■■i■■■■■■■i■■■t■■■■■■_■._■._■MIA■■■t■■■■.■�■.�_■�■■■■■it■■■i ■�
' ■■■■ai■aM■■■■.a!■ii■.■■t■■■t■■■■■■■■■■■■■.t.t■�■.■i■■■\l�■■■■■■■.■�■■.=100 ■■w �■■t■it■■■■i '
MEN
■■t■■i■ ■■■■.ENI■ii■ ■.■■it■■■t■■i■■■■■.■.■■i■.■i■■iEs7.v.■�■.��■■■■■ii�■■■■■i :.
t■■■■■■■■i■■ ■i■■■i■�■t/■■■■��■■■■■.�t■�i■i■■i<:�a■�■.■■■■t■■■it■■■■�i■■it■■■a�
WOMEN ■■.■i■ii■�■■■■■it■■■■■■■.■■■■■.t■■■i■■■i■■t■■■►�.■�t.■■■■■■■ti■■■■■���■�
WOMEN! ■■.■i■■■i■�■■■■i■■t■■■■■■■■�■■■tit■■■■■■i■■t��.■�■.■i t■■■■i■■■■■i■.■■i■■■t■■■
t■■■■OMi■■.ti■ii■i■.■ M■■■■■i■ta1•■.■■�m■i■■■■■��.■�■.�■■�■■■■■�■■�t■■■■i
�■ ■■■■.■i■ii■ ■.MEN
■.■■■■■■.■�i■��■i■■i■�71■■�■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■�■.■■i■� ..
' ■■aft■.■■■■.■i■■■i■ ■.■it.■■■■■■.■t■■■.t■■■i■.■i■ti■t�.■�t■t�■■■■■i■aa■■�■■t■■i■■a�
■■t■■�■■.■■■■.■i■ii■.i■�■■■■■■■i■�■■■■i■.■i■�■■■■■■i■■�i■■■■■■■■i■■■■ ■■■■i■t■■■i
�■■�a■ta.ti■ii■.■■t■i■.■■■a7•■■t■■.■.■■i■■■i■■i■t■■■■■■.■i■.■■i■■■■■■■■■■■■i■.■■i■■■■■i LAO
■■��■■�■■�■■■lid■1..�■.ill■■■�■�■■■�■■■■■�■■11■■1■■li■■■■■�■■11■■�■.■■.■�■■■■■i■■■■i■■■■■i ..
®��® ND mm
1
' 100
so
x 60
in
z
t }
U
i- 40 `,-Line
0-
20
CL-ML6"1�,1
0 20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Natural
Key Boring/ Depth Soil Classification USCS L.L. P.L. P. I. Water
Test Pit (ft.) Content
1 0
B-1 5 Dark brown, organic SILT OH 81 58 23 72.2
B-2 30 Gray, lean CLAY CL 49 27 22 55.8
' Atterberg Limits Test Dato
' Earth Consultants Inc. East Valley 34
Renton, Washington
GmWnl®I Fi.gk�s Gmbgkt5 s Fnwavvrtd StleMlYs
Proj. No. 6662 Date Dec'94 Plate B2
1
' DISTRIBUTION
' E-6662
4 Copies Teutsch Partners
2001 Western Avenue, Suite 330
' Seattle, Washington 98112
Attention: John Walker
1
t
' Earth Canaultanta, Inc.
� m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m r m 1