Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SWP272254(1)
worry OF RENTON E C E I v E® OCTAGI 0 4 1995 DIVISION oivisio TECHNOLOGIES Geotechnical Engineering g g Study Proposed Automobile Dealership South Grady Way Renton, Washington September 7, 1994 i� R Prepared For Mr. Jerry Solomon c/o Drico Construction, Inc. Post Office Box 1430 Mukilteo, Washington 98275 A i y ' M S AGI Project No. 15,839.002 i Z AGI TECHNOLOGIES A Report Prepared For Mr. Jerry Solomon c/o Drico Construction, Inc. Post Office Box 1430 Mukilteo, Washington 98275 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON, WASHINGTON September 7, 1994 D,r- James M. Schmidt, P.E. Senior Engineer AGI Technologies 300 120th Avenue N.E. Building 4 Bellevue, Washington 98005 206/453-8383 AGI Project No. 15,839.002 AGI TECHNOLOGIES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 SURFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 SUBSURFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3 GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 CLEARING AND STRIPPING 7 3.3 EXCAVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4 FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.5 FLOOR SLABS 7 3.6 PAVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.7 SITE DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.8 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.1 Clearing and Stripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.2 General Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.3 Proofrolling and Overexcavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.4 Fill Placement and Compaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3 FOUNDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.5 FLOORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.6 DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.7 UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 -iii- AGI TECHNOLOGIES TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1.2 Standard Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1.3 Reference Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1.4 Geotechnical Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1.5 Geotechnical Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1.6 Construction Site Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2 EARTHWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2.2 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2.3 Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2.4 Seepage Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2.5 Clearing and Stripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2.6 General Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2.7 Structural Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.2.8 Structural Fill Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.2.9 Utility Trench Backfilling and Compaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.3 DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.3.2 Concrete Slab Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.3.3 Pavement Subgrade Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.4 AUGER-CAST PILE FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 FIGURES APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Field Exploration APPENDIX B: Laboratory Testing _iV_ AGI TECHNOLOGIES LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of Geotechnical Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 2 Auger-Cast Pile Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 3 Lateral Loads: 1/4-inch Deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 4 Lateral Loads: 1/2-inch Deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Typical Utility Trench Fill Plate Al Soil Classification/Legend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A Plate A2 Log of Boring 1 (0-40') . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A Plate A3 Log of Boring 1 (40-80') . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A Plate A4 Log of Boring 2 (0-40/) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A Plate A5 Log of Boring 2 (40-80') . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A Plate A6 Log of Boring 2 (80-120') . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A Plate B1 Plasticity Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B Plate B2 Consolidation Test Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B Plates B3 thru B5 UU Triaxial Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B -v- i AGI TECHNOLOGIES 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL This report presents the results of AGI Technologies' (AGI) geotechnical engineering study for the proposed automobile dealership showroom to be located on South Grady Way in Renton, Washington as shown on Figure 1. Our study was performed in accordance with our August 5, 1994 proposal, authorized by Mr. Jerry Solomon on August 9, 1994. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand the proposed dealership will comprise two structures at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. Although still in conceptual design,we understand both buildings will be high- bay,single-story structures of steel frame construction. Structure facades will consist of either stucco or metal. One structure will have a plan dimension of 60 by 100 feet; the second will have a plan dimension of 90 by 135 feet. Column spacing is unknown at this time. Building column loads are still preliminary but based on information provided from Drico Construction, Inc. (Drico). Building loads are expected to vary from about 30 kips (dead and snow loads) to about 76 kips (dead, snow, and live loads). Wall loads are expected to range from 3 to 5 kips per linear foot. Floor loads are expected to range from 250 to 350 pounds per square foot (psf). Cuts and fills will be on the order of 1 to 3 feet for site leveling and drainage. Other civil improvements will include asphaltic concrete parking and drive areas, and sewer, water supply, electrical, and telephone utilities. 1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of our geotechnical engineering study was to provide recommendations for design and construction of the proposed automobile dealership based on review of existing subsurface information, site-specific exploration, and engineering analyses. Specifically, our scope of services included: • Reviewing subsurface information provided by Drico for a 1981 geotechnical investigation performed at the site by others. • Exploring soil and groundwater conditions beneath the proposed structures with two borings designated AGI-1 and AGI-2 at the approximate locations indicated on Figure 2. The borings were advanced to respective depths of 73.5 and 82 feet below ground surface (bgs). • Performing laboratory testing to assess pertinent physical characteristics of the soils encountered. The program consisted of moisture content, Atterberg limit, consolidation, and shear strength tests. 0 �% TECHNOLOGIES • Performing engineering analyses as a basis for recommendations regarding support of the proposed buildings, including: — Suitable foundation support (piles). Our pile recommendations include allowable capacity versus penetration criteria, and estimates of foundation settlement. — Site preparation and grading,including criteria for proofrolling and overexcavation and replacement of unsuitable soil', and evaluation of the suitability of on-site soils for use as Structural Fill. We include gradation criteria for imported Select Fill Material; placement and compaction criteria for imported soils; and preparation of foundation, floor slab, and pavement subgrade soils. — Permanent underslab drainage methods. — The 1991 Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design site factor (S). • Commenting on anticipated construction-related earthwork problems and methods to mitigate such occurrences. • Providing construction recommendations for site preparation and foundation installation in a format that will assist in the development of specifications. • Preparing this report containing our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. ' Suitability as it pertains to the adequacy of the soil to support building and pavement loads, and use as Structural Fill. -2- AGI TECHNOLOGIES 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 SURFACE The project site comprises four parcels (designated Parcels 1 through 4) and is located at the northeast corner of Shattuck Street South and South Grady Way as shown on Figure 2. Each parcel is relatively level and unpaved. Parcel 1 is approximately 5 feet higher in elevation than Parcels 3 and 4. A stand of deciduous trees is located on the boundary between Parcel 1 and Parcels 3 and 4. 2.2 SUBSURFACE Subsurface conditions were characterized by reviewing a November 4, 1981 geotechnical report prepared by Rittenhouse-Zeman and Associates, Inc. (RZA) for James E. Banker and drilling two additional borings (AGI-1 and -2) on August 11, 1994. RZA drilled two borings, designated B-1 and B-2, to respective depths of about 69 and 78 feet bgs (ground surface elevations were not provided). Approximate RZA boring locations are shown on Figure 2. Subsurface conditions encountered in AGI's borings were similar to those shown on RZA's boring logs. Soil conditions encountered during our investigation and our interpretation of the results of previous explorations by RZA are characterized into two subsurface units, described below: Alluvium : Approximately 71 to 77 feet of Alluvium was encountered beneath the proposed building sites. Alluvium generally comprises very loose to medium dense silty sands and gravels and soft to very stiff silt, clay, and peat. An approximately 5 foot layer of very dense gravel was encountered in AGI-1 at a depth of 52 feet bgs. The RZA borings do not note the presence of this layer. Alluvium is moderate to highly moisture-sensitive with low strength and high compressibility within the upper 40 feet and moderate strength and compressibility within the lower 30 feet. Bedrock : Bedrock, consisting of Siltstone (shale) and Sandstone, was encountered beneath the Alluvium. The Siltstone and Sandstone were both well consolidated, slabby, intensely fractured, friable, and moderately weathered. Bedrock has high strength and low compressibility. AGI and RZA borings terminated in the Bedrock. Table 1 summarizes the descriptions and geotechnical characteristics of the units encountered. More detailed descriptions of subsurface conditions encountered at individual exploration locations are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A, which also includes a description of exploration and sampling procedures. A discussion of laboratory test procedures is presented with laboratory test results in Appendix B. -3- AGI TECHNOLOGIES 2.3 GROUNDWATER Groundwater was encountered at approximately 6 and 10 feet bgs in AGI-1 and AGI-2,respectively. Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate seasonally and should be highest during the normally wetter winter months. -4- r AGI TECHNOLOGIES TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL UNITS Approximate Density/Consistency Depth and Suitability Descriptive to To Soil Suitability P Moist-tire Condition Moisture as an for Name (Feet) Description of Soil Sensitivity On-Site Fill Foundation Support Alluvium 0.0 Gray organic silt,sandy Loose to medium dense and High Unsuitable Unsuitable organic silt, silty sand,clay, soft to very stiff; moist to sandy silt, peaty organic saturated. silt,and gravel. Bedrock 73.0 Gray sandstone and Wet NA NA siltstone. Suitable NA =Not Applicable AGI TECHNOLOGIES 3.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 3.1 GENERAL Based on the results of our data review, site exploration, engineering analyses, and professional judgment,we conclude the proposed automobile dealership is feasible provided the site is carefully prepared and foundation design and construction is accomplished as recommended in this report. Due to the presence of deep, compressible Alluvium encountered in our borings, the site will be more complex and costly to develop than typically required for most sites. We reviewed several foundation alternatives during this study, including shallow spread footings. Our analyses indicate that a spread footing foundation would settle approximately 3 to 5 inches. We evaluated several foundation alternatives, including spread footings after site preparation with a preload, a mat foundation, and a pile foundation. These alternatives are discussed below: • Preload : The purpose of a preload is to induce settlement of compressible soils beneath floor slabs and footings prior to construction of the building. Preloading involves placing a temporary fill (approximately 8 to 10 feet in height) above planned finished floor grade and monitoring settlement. We estimate it will be necessary to leave the preload fill in place for at least 3 years to achieve 50 percent consolidation. Given this time frame, we deemed a preload was not a viable alternative. • Mat Foundation : A mat foundation is a large concrete slab that encompasses the building area. A mat foundation may be used where the base soil has a low bearing capacity such as that encountered at this site. Mat foundations are typically used to spread column loads to a more uniform pressure distribution and to provide the floor slab. We estimate total settlement from a mat foundation would be approximately 1 to 2 inches (about half that of a spread footing). Although the project is still in the conceptual design phase, this estimated settlement will likely be unsuitable for the proposed steel frame structure. Consequently,we deemed a mat foundation was also not a viable alternative. • Piles : The purpose of a pile foundation is to transfer building loads to a bearing layer,which at this site is the Bedrock. We judge that piles are appropriate for providing foundation support for the proposed structures. We evaluated drilled and driven pile alternatives. Drilled pile alternatives include auger-cast piles and caissons. Driven pile alternatives include timber, steel "H" beam, steel pipe, and precast concrete. We judge driven piles would not be appropriate for this site because of the potential for impact to adjacent structures from pile driving,and high installation costs. Consequently,we believe an auger-cast(cast-in-place)pile foundation is appropriate for this site. A structurally supported floor slab is recommended for the proposed structures. Alternatively, a stiffened, slab-on-grade floor may be constructed on at least 2 feet of Structural Fill. It should be recognized that some settlement, potentially resulting in cracking of the floor slab, may occur if a slab-on-grade floor is constructed. -6- AGI TECHNOLOGIES Site grade should be raised as little as possible in order to reduce potential settlement across the site. Differential surface settlement may create depressions and require periodic maintenance to maintain the pavement surface. Lightweight Fill material such as Bank Run Coal Cinders may be used in lieu of Select Fill Material to raise site grade beneath paved areas. These and other geotechnical aspects of the project are discussed below. Design and construction recommendations are provided in Sections 4.0 and 5.0, respectively. 3.2 CLEARING AND STRIPPING Clearing at the site will consist of removing the stand of trees between Parcel 1 and Parcels 3 and 4. Vegetation should be removed from the site and properly disposed of. 3.3 EXCAVATION Excavation will likely include removal of 1 to 3 feet of Alluvium to achieve proposed subgrades for the pile cap and paved areas. Alluvium can be excavated using conventional earthwork equipment. 3.4 FOUNDATIONS An auger-cast (cast-in-place) concrete pile foundation system should provide satisfactory support for the proposed buildings. Piles should bear in the dense Bedrock. Auger-cast piles are constructed by drilling into the bearing layer using a hollow-stem, continuous-flight auger. Once design tip elevation has been reached,grout is pumped through the auger under pressure while the auger is slowly withdrawn. Pile reinforcing is installed after grouting is complete and the auger is fully withdrawn. Given the proposed depths of auger-cast piles, approximately 85 feet, installation will be difficult due to the potential for sloughing or heaving of the hole and the formation of a noncontinuous pile. Consequently,it is essential that an experienced contractor be selected for auger-cast pile installation. Specific design recommendations are presented in Section 4.3.1. In addition, AGI should provide construction monitoring to confirm when Bedrock is encountered, appropriate penetration into this soil unit is obtained, and that the auger-cast piles are constructed in accordance with the construction recommendations presented in Section 5.0 of this report. 3.5 FLOOR SLABS We recommend the building floor slabs be supported by grade beams structurally connected to the piles. The floor slabs should be protected from moisture seepage with a vapor barrier consisting of reinforced plastic sheeting. The vapor barrier can be protected from damage during construction by covering it with an approximately 2-inch thick sand layer. In addition to the vapor barrier, a capillary break consisting of a minimum of 4 inches of free-draining, coarse sand or gravel should be placed between the subgrade and the vapor barrier as discussed in Section 4.5. -7- AGi TECHNOLOGIES Alternatively, slab-on-grade floors may be constructed on at least 2 feet of Structural Fill. The floor slabs should be structurally stiffened to resist differential settlement. It should be recognized that some settlement of a slab-on-grade floors may occur. Differential settlement may result in cracking of the floor slabs. Slab-on-grade floors should be protected from moisture using a Capillary Break and Vapor Barrier as discussed in Section 4.5. 3.6 PAVEMENTS Pavement sections should be placed on at least 1 foot of Structural Fill (Bank Run Coal Cinders may be used in lieu of Select Fill Material) underlain by a geotextile fabric, such as a Mirafi 500X. The fabric will provide additional reinforcement and will serve as a separation barrier, eliminating contamination of the fill from the native silty soil. Before placing the geotextile, Structural Fill, and pavement section, the subgrade should be proofrolled and unstable areas treated as discussed in Section 4.2.3. Paved surfaces should be sloped to direct surface water runoff away from buildings. Under loads applied by the pavement,differential settlement up to 1-1/2 inches should be expected. Settlement will cause deflections in the pavement and, with time, would cause pavement damage. Consequently, a more intensive maintenance schedule will likely be required. 3.7 SITE DRAINAGE Because the majority of the surficial site soils are moisture-sensitive and relatively impermeable,both short- and long-term drainage control measures should be included in project design and construction. Over the short term, we believe site and construction drainage can be reasonably well controlled by careful excavation practices. Typically, these include, but are not limited to, shallow upgrade perimeter ditches or low earthen berms,and temporary sumps in excavations to collect seepage and prevent water from damaging exposed subgrades. Drains should be included at the bottom of all temporary slopes to collect surface water flow from the slope and prevent it from flowing onto exposed building subgrades. All collected water should be directed under control to a positive and permanent discharge system, such as a storm sewer. Over the long term,more permanent measures such as installation of footing and wall drains should be included. All permanent drains should be directed to a positive and permanent discharge point well away from the structure. Roof downspouts should not be connected to footing and wall drains, but should be tightlined separately to discharge. This will avoid the potential for roof debris to be washed into footing and wall drains and possibly block them. Cleanouts should be provided for both footing and wall drains and the downspout tightlines. Specific site drainage details are provided in Sections 4.6 and 5.3. -8- AGI TECHNOLOGIES 3.8 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES This report has been prepared exclusively for Mr.Jerry Solomon and his design consultants for this project only. The analyses,conclusions,and recommendations in this report are based on conditions encountered at the time of our field investigation, design information provided by Drico Construction, Inc., and our experience and engineering judgment. AGI cannot be responsible for the interpretation by others of the data contained herein. Our services have been performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. We must presume subsurface conditions encountered are representative of the entire proposed building areas. However,you should be aware that subsurface conditions may vary and unexpected conditions can and often do occur. If differing conditions are exposed during construction, or the design is modified (e.g., an increase in column design loads), we should be requested to reevaluate our recommendations and provide a written confirmation or modification, as necessary. We cannot be responsible for the applicability of our recommendations if not afforded this opportunity. To allow for these eventualities, we recommend a contingency be provided in both your construction budget and schedule. AGI should be retained to review project plans and specifications to verify that the intent of our recommendations has been properly interpreted and included, and to verify foundation support. To provide a measure of continuity, we should be retained to provide construction monitoring services during the geotechnical phases of project construction. This will allow us to verify subsurface conditions are as anticipated, and, as your representative, to observe and test the contractor's work. -9- AGI TECHNOLOGIES 4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL The following sections present our design recommendations for use by you and your other consultants on this project. For satisfactory and successful construction of this project, these recommendations must be applied in their entirety and in conjunction with the Construction Recommendations provided in Section 5.0 of this report. 4.2 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK Site preparation and earthwork will likely include clearing and stripping, general excavation, proofrolling and overexcavation,and backfill placement and compaction. These items are discussed in further detail below. 4.2.1 Clearing and Stripping Clearing and stripping may include removing the stand of deciduous trees between Parcel 1 and Parcels 3 and 4, and removing the gravel surface covering the site. 4.2.2 General Excavation General excavation will comprise Alluvium beneath pile caps and parking and drive areas. Excavation beneath parking and drive areas should be should be excavated to at least 1 foot below planned pavement subgrade. Excavated Alluvium is not suitable for use as On-site Fill Material. 4.2.3 Proofrolling and Overexcavation After general site excavation has been completed to planned pavement subgrade, exposed soils should be either proofrolled or probed to identify soft or unstable areas. Soft soils encountered during proofrolling or probing should be overexcavated. Overexcavation depth should be limited to 2 feet below the general excavation. 4.2.4 Fill Placement and Compaction Upon completion of stripping, general excavating, proofrolling, and overexcavation, and before placing Structural Fill (possibly Bank Run Coal Cinders in paved areas), a geotextile fabric (such as Mirafi 500X)should be placed. Structural Fill should be placed on top of the geotextile as described in Section 5.0 to achieve design elevations. Alluvium is unsuitable for use as On-Site Fill Material. Soil materials used to establish grade beneath paved parking and drive areas should consist of Structural Fill. Structural Fill is Select Fill Material, as defined in Section 5.2.2, compacted to 95 Percent Compaction. -10- AGI TECHNOLOGIES 4.3 FOUNDATION Pile foundations should be designed using the following criteria. • Pile Types and Diameters - 16-, 18-, or 24-inch diameter auger-cast • Bearing Layer - Bedrock • Safety Factors The allowable downward pile capacities include a safety factor of about 3.0 for end bearing and 1.5 for side friction, with an overall safety factor of at least 2.0. The allowable uplift capacities include a safety factor of about 2.0. • Auger-cast Pile Design Criteria Table 2. Auger-Cast Pile Design Criteria Recommended Allowable Allowable> Penetration Diameter Downward Capacity Uplift Capacity into Bearing Layer (inches),.:,,, (kips): (kips) (feet) 16 45 15 5 or refusal' is 55 20 5 or refusal 24 100 30 5 or refusal 'Refusal is acceptable if it occurs in the bedrock and is monitored by an AGI engineer. Pile lengths will vary due to the variable depth to supporting Bedrock. Based on our site exploration, depth to top of the bearing layer will likely vary between approximately 70 and 75 feet below existing ground surface. Allowable pile capacities are for the total of all dead and live loads and may be increased by one- third for temporary short-term wind and seismic loads. Axial pile capacities are based on soil strength and approximate structural capacity. The structural engineer should verify allowable loads based on actual loading conditions. Certain King County regulations limit the allowable total length of an auger-cast pile (measured from bottom of pile cap) to 30D (where D = pile diameter). -11- AGI If CI MOLOGES • Pile Groups — Pile Group Efficiency: 0.8 — Minimum Center-to-Center Pile Spacing: 3 pile diameters • Lateral Loads The following lateral load characteristics were evaluated assuming a fixed slope (no rotation) condition at the top of a single pile. Allowable lateral loads include a safety factor of at least 1.5 and a pile modulus of 3,800,000 pounds per square inch. Table 3. Lateral Loads: 1/4-inch Deflection Allowable Approximate Lateral Load for Estimated Point of Fixity Pile Diameter 1/4-inch Deflection Maximum Moment Below Pile Cap (inches) (kips), (kip-feet) (feet) 16sdf 4 14 14 18 4 16 15 24 6 31 20 Table 4. Lateral Loads: 1/2-inch Deflection Allowable Approximate Lateral Load for Estimated Point of Fixity Pile Diameter 1/2-inch Deflection Maximum Moment Below Pile Cap (inches) (kips) (kip-feed (feet) 16 6 23 15 18 7 30 16 24 11 60 21 If additional lateral load resistance is needed, a proportion of available passive resistance between the pile cap and adjacent soil can be utilized. We recommend an equivalent fluid density of 200 and 300 pcf be used to estimate allowable passive pressure resistance in conjunction with lateral pile deflections of 1/4 inch and 1/2 inch, respectively. Lateral pile capacity and passive soil resistance at intermediate lateral deflections may be estimated by linear interpolation. -12- ti AGI TECHNOLOGIES • Settlement (based on pile tips 85 feet bgs and maximum column loads of 70 kips) — Estimated total settlement of a single pile : 1/8 inch or less — Estimated differential settlement between individual piles : 1/16 inch or less — Time Rate : Approximately 90 percent during construction 4.4 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA In accordance with Section 2333 of the 1991 Uniform Building Code, the following seismic design criteria should be used : - Site Conditions : Soft site containing more than 40 feet of soft clay - Site Coefficient : S = 2.0 4.5 FLOORS • Structurally supported on piles. • Capillary Break : Minimum of 4 inches of free-draining sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines (silt and clay-sized particles) based on the fraction passing the 3/4-inch mesh sieve. • Vapor Barrier : In areas where moisture would be detrimental to equipment, floor coverings or furnishings inside the building, a vapor barrier should be placed beneath the concrete floor slab. Reinforced plastic sheeting is satisfactory for this purpose. • Protection Measures : A layer of sand, approximately 2 inches thick, may be placed over the vapor barrier to protect it from damage, to act as an aid in curing of the concrete slab, and also to help prevent cement paste from bleeding down into the underlying capillary break. 4.6 DRAINAGE • Surface Runoff: Interceptor ditches or trenches or low earthen berms should be installed along the upgrade perimeters of the site to prevent surface water runoff from precipitation or other sources from flowing over the face of excavated slopes or onto graded areas. • Downspout or Roof Drains : Discharge in tightline to positive,permanent drain system separate from the footing drains. • Footing Drains : These drains should be installed after construction of the building footings and immediately before backfilling against building stem walls. -13- L-IGI TECHNOLOGIES 4.7 UTILITIES Utility line excavations,particularly beneath paved or floor slab areas,should be properly backfilled with Structural Fill to the specified degree of compaction, or better. Figure 3 shows our recommended design. -14- AGI TECHNOLOGIES 5.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 GENERAL 5.1.1 Description This section presents our recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of construction. Specifically, we cover earthwork, drainage, and pile installation. Our design criteria are based on these construction recommendations; therefore, these recommendations should be incorporated into the project specifications in their entirety. 5.1.2 Standard Specifications Where possible, we refer to the 1992 Edition of the State of Washington Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. 5.1.3 Reference Standards Reference Standards are referred to by agency or association initials and are from the latest editions of the following : ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials 5.1.4 Geotechnical Engineer We recommend you retain AGI as the geotechnical engineer during construction to observe and test the geotechnical aspects of the contractor's work. This will allow us to compare the actual conditions encountered with those expected by this investigation and to modify our recommendations, if necessary. We will be present at the site on a full-time basis to check that the contractor's work conforms with the geotechnical aspects of the plans and specifications. Our daily field reports and final report form an important record of construction. Observation and testing by the geotechnical engineer, however, should not in any way release the contractor from the responsibility of performing the work in such a manner as to provide a satisfactory job that meets requirements of the project plans and specifications, or from meeting contractual obligations to the owner. 5.1.5 Geotechnical Report This report has been prepared for design purposes for Mr.Jerry Solomon and his design consultants for this project only. The entire report should be provided to contractors for their bidding or estimating, but not as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. We cannot be responsible for the interpretation by others of the information contained in this report. -15- AGI TECHNOLOGIES 5.1.6 Construction Site Safety The scope of our services did not include construction safety practices and this report is not intended to direct construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described, and then only for consideration in design,not for construction guidance. The contractor should be made responsible for construction site safety and compliance with local, state, and federal requirements. 5.2 EARTHWORK 5.2.1 General Earthwork consists of clearing and stripping, excavating, placing and compacting fill, utility trench backfilling, structural excavating and backfilling, and all subsidiary work necessary to complete the grading of the developed areas to conform with the lines, grades, and slopes shown on the plans. Terms used in this section are defined as follows : • Percent Compaction is the required in-place dry density of the material, expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the same material as determined in the laboratory by ASTM Test Method D1557-78 (Modified Proctor). • Optimum Moisture Content is the moisture content (percent by dry weight) corresponding to the maximum dry density of the same material as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557- 78. • Moisture-Sensitive Soil is on-site soil containing more than 5 percent fines (silt- or clay-sized particles) based on the fraction passing the 3/4-inch sieve. • Structural Fill is fill material placed and compacted in areas that underlie structures or pavements. It should consist of either On-Site Fill Material or Select Fill Material compacted to the Percent Compaction specified in Section 4.2. 5.2.2 Materials • On-Site Fill Material is the soil obtained at the project site during excavation(following clearing and stripping) that is free of organic contaminants, perishable material, and rocks or lumps greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension. Alluvium is unsuitable for use as On-Site Fill Material. • Select Fill Material is imported soil consisting of clean,free-draining sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines (silt- and clay-sized particles) based on the fraction passing the 3/4- inch sieve. • Bank Run Coal Cinder Fill can be used as an alternative Select Fill Material comprising lightweight bank run coal cinders. This lightweight material should have an average in-place density of between 85 and 95 pcf. -16- AGI TECHNOLOGIES 5.2.3 Quality Control The contractor should be made responsible for quality control of the earthwork. As the geotechnical engineer provided by the owner, we will observe and test the contractor's work for conformance with the geotechnical aspects of the plans and specifications. The contractor should be required to provide us with every reasonable facility for checking the workmanship for conformance. We will prepare a daily record of our observations and tests,which will be made available to the contractor and to the owner. You may wish to consider making the contractor responsible for retesting work if it fails to meet the requirements of the plans and specifications, and for the associated costs of such retesting. The contractor should submit samples of each of the required earthwork materials to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation and approval prior to use. The samples should be submitted at least 4 days prior to their use and sufficiently in advance of the work to allow the contractor to identify alternative sources if the material proves unsatisfactory. 5.2.4 Seepage Control Runoff or groundwater seepage that would interfere with the contractor's work should be controlled during construction. Control may consist of temporary drainage ditches or subsurface drains. Installation of such measures should be the contractor's responsibility. 5.2.5 Clearing and Stripping Building areas of the site should initially be cleared and stripped of all organic material and debris. These materials should not be reused as On-Site Fill Material; they should be removed from the site and disposed of off-site. 5.2.6 General Excavation General excavation consists of removing unsuitable on-site soils to sufficient depth to achieve design grades. The contractor should be responsible for excavating and disposing of or reusing excavated material. Estimated depths of excavation range from approximately 2 to 3 feet, depending on the specific location. In general, the on-site soils can be excavated using standard earthmoving equipment. If earthwork operations are performed during periods of wet weather, these soils may deteriorate during the excavation process. Foundation-bearing soils may also become disturbed, requiring repair. After design grade is reached, exposed soils should be proofrolled and/or hand probed to identify soft or unstable areas requiring additional excavation and replacement with Structural Fill. Proofrolling should be accomplished with a heavy,rubber-tired vehicle such as a loaded dump truck or a steel drum vibratory roller. Hand probing should be performed by our field engineering technician with a 1/2-inch-diameter steel bar. These procedures help delineate soft or weak soils. Soft soils encountered during proofrolling and hand probing should be excavated and replaced with Structural Fill. All final surfaces exposed by the complete excavation should be finished true to line and grade and present a smooth, firm surface. -17- AGI TECHNOLOGIES After a rainfall, construction equipment travel on the exposed site subgrade should be minimized until the soils have been allowed to dry sufficiently. Otherwise, traffic activity on the wetted subgrade will degrade the exposed materials and result in additional excavation of the disturbed materials. 5.2.7 Structural Excavation The work addressed in this section covers excavation and backfill for structural elements such as the proposed parking and drive areas. The contractor should inform the geotechnical engineer after paved area excavations have been completed and before placement of the geotextile. We will then observe pavement subgrade and provide written confirmation that the subgrade is firm and suitable for Structural Fill placement. During wet weather, in areas where the exposed subgrade consists of moisture-sensitive soils, the contractor should take measures to protect excavations once they have been approved by the geotechnical engineer. During dry weather, the contractor should take measures to protect the pavement subgrade soils from drying out. These measures may include watering the subgrade as necessary. If the subgrade soils dry out and become loose,they should be moisture conditioned and recompacted to the Percent Compaction specified. After placing foundation concrete, backfilling with Structural Fill should be performed. 5.2.8 Structural Fill Construction This section covers placement and compaction of earth materials to create Structural Fill. Select Fill Material should be moisture conditioned to within 3 percent of Optimum Moisture Content, placed in level lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and compacted to the specified percent compaction to produce a firm and unyielding surface. If field density tests indicate the required Percent Compaction has not been obtained or the surface is pumping and weaving under construction traffic, the fill material should be reconditioned as necessary and recompacted to the required Percent Compaction before placing any additional material. Fill slopes should be compacted by slope rolling and trimming,or should be overfilled and trimmed back to plan grade to expose a firm, smooth surface free of loose material. 5.2.9 Utility Trench Back-filling and Compaction This section covers backfilling of all utility trenches. The contractor should be responsible for the safety of personnel working in utility trenches. We recommend all utility trenches, but particularly those greater than 4 feet in depth, be supported in accordance with state and federal safety regula- tions. -18- AGI TECHNOLOGIES Utility trench backfill should consist of Structural Fill constructed as recommended in Section 5.2.8. Within the upper 2 feet below subgrade in pavement areas, utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95 Percent Compaction. Below 2 feet in pavement areas, it should be compacted to at least 90 Percent Compaction. Particular care should be taken to make sure bedding or fill material is properly compacted in place to provide adequate support to the pipe. Jetting or flooding is not a substitute for mechanical compaction and should not be allowed. 5.3 DRAINAGE 5.3.1 General This section covers the placement of aggregate drainage materials and drain lines in the areas and to the lines and grades shown on the plans. The materials that should be used are as follows • Capillary Break should consist of a minimum of 4 inches of free-draining sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines (silt-and clay-sized particles)based on the fraction passing the 3/4-inch sieve. • Free-draining Granular Material should consist of clean, free-draining gravel or crushed rock meeting the requirements of Section 9-03.12 (2), "Gravel Backfill for Walls," in the Standard Specifications. • Drain Pipe should be a smooth-walled, rigid PVC or other rigid pipe conforming to the minimum sizes and dimensions shown on the plans. Corrugated plastic pipe should not be used because it has a tendency to crush and become blocked, and is often laid without a gradient. • Vapor Barrier should consist of an impermeable membrane of reinforced plastic or equivalent material. 5.3.2 Concrete Slab Drainage After structural and utility trench backfills are satisfactorily compacted and subgrade preparation is completed, the Capillary Break should be placed in a manner to prevent segregation and should be compacted with appropriate vibratory equipment to provide a tight particle interlock. Any free water that has collected in the Capillary Break should be drained or removed by pumping before concrete is placed. The contractor should exercise care during installation of the Vapor Barrier to provide at least 12 inches of overlap between individual sheets. Care should also be exercised during construction to prevent puncturing or tearing the membrane. If such punctures or tears occur, the contractor should cover the affected area with an additional section of Vapor Barrier. -19- AGI TECHNOLOGIES 5.3.3 Pavement Subgrade Drainage The contractor should be responsible for maintaining the pavement area subgrade prior to placing the crushed rock or asphalt-treated base material such that surface water does not stand or the subgrade become degraded. 5.4 AUGER-CAST PILE FOUNDATIONS General : This section covers the furnishing and installation of a pile foundation system,consisting of auger-cast concrete piles at the locations and to the elevations shown on the plans or described in the specifications. Terms used in this section are defined as follows • Auger-Cast Piles should be a minimum of 16 inches in diameter. They are cast-in-place concrete or grout piles installed using a continuous-flight hollow-stem auger and a two-stroke grout pump. Concrete grout is pumped under pressure through the auger stem as the auger is slowly withdrawn at a constant steady rate from the hole. • Concrete or Grout should be ordinary or rapid-hardening portland cement concrete having a minimum compressive strength at 28 days of 4,000 psi. The use of concretes other than these should comply with relevant standards and be to the approval of the engineer. • Grout Mix should be made with clean water free of acids or other impurities,should be readily pumpable, and cement content should be not less than 0.5 of the total aggregate weight per unit volume unless otherwise approved. • Reinforcing for all auger-cast piles should be a reinforcing cage of rebar or equivalent structural steel placed in the pile hole. This reinforcing cage must be hand placed immediately after auger removal and grout placement. After a given hole is augered to its design depth, the auger should be withdrawn at a slow uniform rate as the grout is pumped in place. The grout pressure should be sufficient to prevent sloughing or heaving of the hole and the formation of a noncontinuous pile. Piles that encounter refusal before reaching design tip elevation should be abandoned and a new pile drilled. Piles should be drilled by the contractor as accurately as possible in the correct location. The final position of the pile head should not deviate more than 6 inches from the location indicated on the plans and should not deviate from the vertical by more than 1/4 inch per 5 feet length. The structural engineer may require a stricter alignment specification. It should be noted that drilling into the Bedrock will be difficult. The contractor should be made aware of the bedrock subsurface conditions. Immediately after a concrete or grout pile is cast,the reinforcing cage must be suspended in the top of the pile. Reinforcing steel should extend far enough above the concrete or grout to ensure a sound connection can be made between it and the structural element it supports. -20- AGI TECHNOLOGIES If auger-cast piles require cut-off, the concrete or grout must be allowed to sufficiently cure before it is cut. Contractor's Responsibility : All piling should be furnished and installed by a contractor experienced in similar work and qualified to install piles in accordance with the plans and specifications. The contractor should be responsible for providing all necessary labor, supervision, materials, tools and equipment to locate, install, and cutoff or buildup piles in accordance with the plans and specifications. The contractor should also be responsible for using all available data, including but not limited to, the project geotechnical report and the plans and specifications. The contractor should be responsible for drilling and installing cast-in-place piles of the size and to the elevations shown on the project plans. Quality Control and Installation Monitoring: The contractor's work should be performed under the full-time observation of the geotechnical engineer,who will be present during the drilling opera- tions to observe the work and correlate drilling behavior with subsurface data. The geotechnical engineer should at all times have access to the work, and the contractor should furnish the geotechnical engineer with every reasonable facility for checking the workmanship for conformance with the geotechnical aspects of the plans and specifications. The contractor should be responsible for marking the leads in 1-foot increments, beginning at the top of the leads, and should use enlarged numerals to indicate the depth of penetration at 5-foot intervals. The markings should be such that they are not obliterated or made unreadable during drilling. The geotechnical engineer should keep a complete written record of each pile drilled, noting the date, time, type, location, diameter,verticality, and drilling rate. The record should also reflect any work stoppages during drilling, and details of the ancillary equipment being used. The contractor should also record hole volumes, grout pump pressures, number of pump strokes, and concrete volumes pumped. Copies of these records should be provided to you, the contractor, and the architect for review. The contractor should be responsible for notifying the geotechnical engineer at least 48 hours in advance of starting or restarting any pile drilling work, and should not proceed with the work unless the geotechnical engineer is present on site. Submittals: The contractor should submit the following information before beginning work on the site : • Before any concrete is placed in auger-cast piles, the contractor should furnish for approval a concrete mix design for each type of concrete to be used and a curve indicating flow rate per stroke for the grout pump. • List of equipment intended to be utilized in augering, noting size and lead lengths. -21- AGI TECHNOLOGIES Augering Equipment : Augering equipment should have a motor of sufficient size and energy to auger through anticipated subsurface strata. • Leads : During augering operations, the hollow-stem auger should be held firmly in proper alignment by fixed driving leads. The leads and auger must be long enough to auger the pile hole in one continuous motion to the design tip elevation. • Grout Pump : The grout pump.should be of sufficient size to continuously pump grout at sufficient pressure and volume to prevent the hole from sloughing or heaving as the auger is withdrawn. Pile Installation : • Grout Placement : After a given hole is augered to its design depth, the auger should be withdrawn at a slow uniform rate as the grout is pumped in place. The grout pressure should be sufficient to prevent sloughing or heaving of the hole and the formation of a non- continuous pile. • Obstructions : Piles that encounter refusal before reaching design tip elevation should be abandoned and a new pile drilled. • Tolerances : Piles should be drilled by the contractor as accurately as possible in the correct location. The final position of the pile head should not deviate more than 6 inches from the location indicated on the plans and should not deviate from the vertical by more than 1/4 inch per 5 feet of length. • Reinforcement: Immediately after a concrete or grout pile is cast, the reinforcing cage must be suspended in the top of the pile. Reinforcing steel should extend far enough above the concrete or grout to ensure a sound connection can be made between the pile and the structural element it supports. • Cut-Off : If auger-cast piles require cut-off, the concrete or grout must be allowed to sufficiently cure before it is cut. Correction of Defective Work : The geotechnical engineer should evaluate the auger-cast piles to check that sufficient grout was placed at a uniform rate to create a continuous pile. Piles that fail to meet the requirements of the plans and specifications, or for any other justifiable reason are unacceptable, should be considered defective and rejected. The contractor should submit plans for correcting any defective work to the architect, owner, and engineer for review and approval prior to commencing the corrective work. Additional piles should be drilled by the contractor to replace defective piles. All design, construction, and inspection costs associated with pile replacement or changes in the foundation elements by reason of improper or defective pile installation should be at the contractor's expense. Rejected piles should remain in the ground and should be cut off at least 2 feet below the planned cut-off elevation. The contractor should backfill any resulting hole with Select Fill Material or crushed rock before proceeding with any other work. -22- r AGI TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTION 3 Copies Mr. Jerry Solomon c/o Drico Construction, Inc. Post Office Box 1430 Mukilteo, Washington 98275 Attention: Mr. Galen Dreis Quality Assurance/Technical Review by: Vincent Lascko, P.E. Principal Engineer .o oe��FC S U8TE a�� JMS/VPL/jlh AL ENv EMpEs 81181 -23- � 1 a ::., / \ 0 / \ o ♦ \\ % ♦ \ ® Parcel Line ARCO Site I r I I 1000 J I / Proposed Banker's Auto Rebuild i Building Parcel 1 I ♦ �i� i 100 00\ i i i Parcel 2 � I AGI-2 I B-1 �ya`I Proposed AGI-1 d� Building Parcel 3 LEGEND / AGI-2 0 AGI Boring number and o Parcel 4 approximate location to 1 B-2® Boring number and m approximate location, m by location U 1 7 _ Referenoe: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, [no. drawing number 5131 entitled 'Preliminary Site Plan,' dated 6/20/94. AGI field measurments taken 8/94. i (v' N' O 30 60 S-al.In F••t Site Plan FIGURE Existing Sidewalk AGI Solomon/Proposed Automobile Dealership TECHNOLOGIES Renton, Washington 2 n PROJECT NO. DRAWN DATE APPROVED REVISED DATE Site2.dwg 15,839.002 JFL `9 Aug. 94 - N ll T<� D A ! fOUe /eler $T• �� a .. eoAr,RAAv BEACHI I j �a . A K.IaSafr >y > L.Afc w c uye1 iIi I'I II KENNYDA... 1 y" 3 O T i< IwY RAIN T rUTAN WA2QT AVN ..4-...•:. '-. N IOiN ST :,..•aar,,p a vt I ,n l yl 0 SGp O�� yl ' � \ t►7ss ST '� sr o a I`>a > s Q Lake to :ITN PL URr a 5 a 3! .I I z Q P y I , y TSTII- ST NE :rTM GRr T g�9�,99,P ' N DSTNS -- R ` L -R rA R I s S'f1 f N N i ... -' 'LE ST <I<I �NI S�ti 9L 51 a I Ida shin g ton r !! urN STgI = aTX si N,CTOP �x I RVA I°ioi I<I Ti ui H S1:S•>i [� !�F R+ r I I ME IOTN STI S RUGGL T i 9t. .. 7 - f > S MlNT,CE ST �, S < Sus PRENTICE > '�.y �RS,s t ,r» -/j , ' N CRESTON ST .r.� m. I —a ---------------- _ N aI <I al,1 q:I T ul�is� I � I•. aGe�—,JO 0`�i�S, dOAr UUNCN Z - HAZEL' al$TAUFAAC S: r : J'a L sc14�'YJIz 1 r'�v Z MrSSi ,_>W. • efACN v a" " r< FOUNTAIN$Til MOW;ri42E\.�< s °.T•'Ij l+l. 1{4P Y � + oL pN p YC�I ^.jam '��• r' ?fi ! S R3UNTAIN ST. �, 1. Q a`I �i A..S 1•h O �ST �1{.\QP Q�j 9 r 511, —. T y o 157 �♦ O n n L �`> WIC $ 14T» c [J—�~y}(l ' .SOS an 1.VN ST AVON it S7 I 0 r M - N o O _SIIISTNN ST S i115r» IsT 1 A ass '< 315 I Il5r» 3 ST� _ s nsTN n... A��$t■'�/�{.(1 ' s I„sr» !ti •...a aoAr uuNr� ^ rs OOflnr 1 ;a.lcC �7ST 9 Isiam sr 1 S" S� 1��— "' S efL^o" 6r'.a ziii 3T�s/rs�I trT .P" 1z _..r_Y s L w t- r-aIS ler»PLr '�4V =n `•�� � al a 1--— — _ 5 119,»ey( ,refs.Ilvr»srl i m `"I S V -Y`s+,'a�•^. Ntia-,pP.'e f'.a�I S Tn.l t<O\Ii. _iI>-sIZCTN aMSr 3�IT ti` ^mtK:>'`T'< iVNTi—�I''<" j, u'"—-� s I v->r-$•T-�_`=�,I,_S v_T :1. I.: N YQQ N lj 8 REN 0 S .2O'1 U�. j0 IZ _ 2, T nI v'K. < STM>Ic 2 \4 1>1 S 22N0 's15T ND 'zz,,ATl 7,10,81 a 23 D$_ s1 24i" Sr Svsl <os5 \ I •zarN �-5—^ P, eL,ri c_Y ■ :. .�I .�2."ow '>< g�l T +1 ell s 12ar» ST sr» e» 1 N t» 's T 'C <' sI:.ST»fi \ t- 1.'°�' �I .�..�•r M Si 9/(� •• 10 sou'+.I \ - ,> sI, m �'t s•=ejry o �Ie�\TM�" <u4 (�\ \ T � ❑I'."'>' M'' =I' I i l I �i DIY Ni <,52 I �o I ((Jj "'' 21A `s�'�s11�.. r ,, ;.ntvr»>,r •L^ ', I s II a^ I> > zl �zS,. •OT4�''�. S<'Yr. T <) -•,� Mt z RL7%. � /S L' < LL Q <YARION W ST V1 � �?7 y as O_-}•V _ST -3 s tr Oaf�M T.� _ANGSTON i0 a.'P SP i >uYu \^+ i y,TtrR , • iL7 MS +II 2U n � I< Y U s '�• t AIRPORT- WY_ y t `f1__- ISIST TT i :m+O fT`� :zv0 rs—c. ■ i\ 1S2wD '. �=�°1'sTllry s n � 1 ILL/ oft 'sr \ ':YyrER'' 4 .•+ KING SrAi ■2NDI S :v r» sT JR---WY �� F`!"> >r= ass r. !1•''�I�.i ! RAAIc" IFM �,°� ...yy _.. v may/ P ;J Ny • (� \\\\ THII _ S I ><� < .. ••11 \ FIST > <-: , r.?r s �,->.�•: 9yRIVE. �,.:sl EARLI T©fNas" >� S I q tl 9 i N u1 'N $lajAo$7•., S.ITN rIT I \ sT a3Ro pl , a T EARUNG70N k. i i s ?'� _ ■ I a� s» rr,l ! f S Rr� 7TN 3 o ST i z i i I 5 - $x ',}-L% •T 'ARK w nib] sls s - s IIAN sr- S y.\> fT 1pByr o i ' ,a tOTN ST^w.( S RENTON VILLAGE > EI ,aer„ S to ii PARK a 1507'1 ST: I ST G ,dG .. .uR s �' i D ` 9� I �2,''S'IT TMfan ,TM <us.. 'tr i y I rssrsr . I , y. Qv PoP .�� I ,sw ` <I I ,a» o �"'� , ` I z SiteSVV _ ~ St6TN STTN l +siN sr $ 4000 K 9 OR a.r ' Scale in Feet Reference: Map from Thomas Bros. Map Co., pages 34 and 41. AGI Vicinity Map PLATE Solomon/Proposed Automobile Dealership TECHNOLOGIES Renton, Washington PROJECT NO. DRAWN DATE APPROVED REVISED DATE 15,839.002 JFL 29 Aug. 94 L SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Non-Roadway Floor Slab or Areas I Roadway Areas /ii\/T o .i•Q o .i o 95 Varies :.4:�. . :A•` 2 Feet Backflll A:;d •A:;Q :Q;� .A.:Q Varies Pipe °000:°°o0:a o:a 00°o°op 0 o o apo p apa p °00p °°04;00 °°O:a°°O:o°°p 0 Bedding boo° °�o ° .0. 0 000 0 00° Varies 00°0°° °o°° Oo.o ° o'°o o°oo.o°oo.°°po o OCo00O p00O Q00Op OOp 00°000°0 po° Oo°00 o° o° o° • o° • o o° • o° o° o, o °°°0,°°°°0;00°0 ° ;° �,0000,°op00.10000.°00°� pp0O°pp0°0000000°000^0�0O°0° - LEGEND Rom go Asphalt/Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab 2 Base Material/Capillary Break Backfill with Structural Fill Bedding material; material type depends on type of pipe and laying conditions. Bedding should conform to the manufacturer's recommendations for the type of pipe selected. 80 Minimum percentage of maximum laboratory dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor). AGI Typical Utility Trench Fill FIGURE Solomon/Proposed Automobile Dealership TECHNOLOGIES Renton, Washington 3 PROJECT NO. DRAWN DATE APPROVED REVISED DATE 15,839.002 JFL 29 Aug.94 Imo. 4 AGI TECHNOLOGIES APPENDIX A Field Exploration AGI TECHNOLOGIES APPENDIX A Field Exploration We explored subsurface conditions at the site on August 11, 1994, by drilling two borings to a maximum depth of 82 feet below the existing site grade at the approximate locations indicated on Figure 2. The borings were drilled using a truck-mounted, Mobile B-61 hollow-stem auger drill. For this project,to obtain better quality soil samples for laboratory testing purposes,we used a split- barrel sampler with a larger diameter than the standard SPT split spoon. For engineering analyses, it is necessary to correct the number of blows per foot obtained with the modified sampler to obtain an equivalent "N-value." The number of blows per foot actually recorded with the modified assembly,however, are the values shown at the appropriate sample depth on the boring logs. Their locations are indicated on the initial boring logs by the symbol for an "undisturbed sample",which is shown in the sample designation box on Plate Al. The boring locations were measured in the field by taping from existing building corners and curb lines. Boring elevations were determined by measuring from a temporary benchmark located on the sidewalk at the southwest corner of Parcel 2 (assumed Elevation 100.00). The locations and elevations should only be considered accurate to the degree implied by the method used. The borings were monitored by our geologist,who laid out specific boring locations, examined and classified the materials encountered, obtained representative soil samples, and recorded pertinent information, including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater occurrence. Groundwater levels, where recorded, are those existing at the time drilling was completed. Representative soil samples were obtained and were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, presented with a key to the boring logs on Plate Al. All samples were sealed to limit moisture loss, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The boring logs, modified to reflect the results of laboratory examination and testing, are presented on Plates A2 through A6. The stratification lines, shown on the individual logs,represent the approximate boundaries between soil types;actual transitions may be either more gradual or more severe. The conditions depicted are for the date and location indicated only, and it should not necessarily be expected that they are representative of conditions at other locations and times. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures GRAVELS Clean gravels with J Un little or no fines Poorly graded O o More than half GP :.::�.: y 9 gravels, gravel-sand mixtures coarse fraction U) GM `'�• Silty Gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt p z is larger than Gravels with mixtures Z t No. 4 sieve size over 12%fines GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded Q a� gravel-sand-clay mixtures (� N SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands W SANDS Clean sands with (n c little or no fines SP _ Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands More than half r coarse fraction � • a� SM = 4 Silty sand, poorly graded sand-silt mixtures (� o is larger than Sands with 2 No. 4 sieve size over 12%fines Sc Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay mixtures V) ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or —� T" SILTS AND CLAYS --- clayey fine sands, or clayey silts with slight plasticity 0 O E > Liquid limit less than 50 CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, U) I gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays W ,,.., o OL Organic clays and organic silty clays of low plasticity Z CD N Xro Z MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomacious fine (� 4:- � SILTS AND CLAYS == sandy or silty soils, elastic silts W o :S Liquid limit greater than 50 CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays LL OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils SAMPLE CONTACT BETWEEN UNITS PHYSICAL PROPERTY TESTS ■ "Undisturbed" Well Defined Change Il Bulk/Grab Gradational Change Consol - Consolidation m Not Recovered - — — — Obscure Change LL - Liquid Limit g PL - Plastic Limit El Recovered, Not Retained End of Exploration Gs - Specific Gravity BLOWS PER FOOT SA - Size Analysis Hammer is 140 pounds with 30-inch drop, unless otherwise noted TxS - Triaxial Shear S - SPT Sampler (2.0-Inch O.D.) Per m - Permeability - erme Permeability ability T - Thin Wall Sampler(2.8-Inch Sample) Po - Porosity SVH - li Barrel Sampler(2.4-Inch Sample) MD - Moisture/Density DS - Direct Shear DESCRIPTION VS - Vane Shear Considerably less than optimum for compaction Comp - Compaction Near optimum moisture content Wet - Over optimum moisture content UU - Unconsolidated, Undrained Saturated - Below water table, in capillary zone, or in perched groundwater CD - Consolidated, D aineded AGI Soil Classification/Legend PLATE Solomon/Proposed Automobile Dealership TECHNOLOGIES Renton, Washington Al PROJECT NO. DRAWN DATE APPROVED REVISED 15,839.002 JFL 29 Aug.94 V/ DArE Equipment Mobile B-61 Z a m o (D m m a m a m o o z m o S m E Land Surface 102 feet * Date 8/11/94 � o o m U_ o co Elevation 0 - GRAY BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) medium stiff, wet; with some gravel. 6 — 5 — Becomes saturated. MD 39.6 80 3 GRAY ORGANIC SILT (OL) soft, saturated; with a trace of peaty organic material. 10 — MD 46.3 72 2 15 Consol 61.8 63 2 20 —— = Becomes medium stiff with interbedded gray brown 5 organic silt (OH) and wood debris. 25 —— GRAY SANDY ORGANIC SILT (OL) medium stiff, saturated. MD 29.3 93 7 30 UU 54.5 66 3 -- 35 GRAY BLACK ORGANIC SILT (OH) stiff, wet; with * Based on temporary benchmark located on the some peat and trace of fine sand. sidewalk adjacent to the southwest corner of Parcel 2 13 (assumed datum 100 feet). `~ 40 AGI Log of Boring 1 (0-40') PLATE Solomon/Proposed Automobile Dealership �� TECHNOLOGIES Renton, Washington PROJECT NO. DRAWN DATE APPR VED REVISED DATE 839992B.cdr 15,839.002 JFL 29 Aug. 94 V t Equipment Mobile B-61 n `m cc .0 N o o m o o a) E Land Surface 102 feet Date 8/11/94 M o o o m LL o cn Elevation 40 GRAY SILTY SAND (SM) medium dense, saturated; fine to medium grained sand, interbedded with silt 24 45 T• MD 22.7 102 28 v' ;T GRAY SILTY SAND (SM) medium dense, saturated; 50 fine to coarse grained sand with a trace of gravel. MD 7.4 139 62/6" :o GRAY GRAVEL (GP-GM) very dense, saturated; with -0 some silt and sand. Rj 55 _ BROWN SANDY ORGANIC SILT (OL) medium stiff, saturated. 7 60 - BLUE GRAY CLAY (CL) stiff, wet; with some silt. 13 65 38 BLUE GRAY CLAY (CL) stiff, wet; silt becomes sandy. 70 100/5" GRAY SANDSTONE, well consolidated, slabby, intensely fractured, low hardness, friable, 75 moderately weathered. Groundwater encountered at 6 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and drill cuttings on 8/11/94. 80 AGI Solo Log of Boring 1 (40-80') PLATE mon/Proposed Automobile Dealership A3 TECHNOLOGIES Renton, Washington PROJECT NO. DRAWN DATE APPRO D REVISED DATE 839992B.cdr 15,839.002 JFL 29 Aug. 94 Equipment Mobile B-61 z occ a m P CD a o c 3 s a E Land Surface 95 feet Date 8/11/94 ca M o o o m Ii o Un Elevation 0 BROWN SANDY GRAVEL (GP) dense, dry. DARK BROWN BLACK WOOD DEBRIS (PT) loose, moist; with some gravel and sand. 9 — GRAY SANDY SILT (ML) soft, saturated; with some 5 — interbedded peaty organic silt and sand. 2 — 10 I = Becomes saturated at 10 feet. 2 = 15 _ -- BROWN GRAY ORGANIC SILT (OL) soft; with some sand. UU 59.5 64 2 20 -- GRAY ORGANIC SILT (OL) medium stiff, saturated; with some interbedded peaty organic silt. 4 25 LIGHT GRAY SILT (ML) soft, saturated; with some sand, and interbedded peaty organic silt. MD 77.4 54 3 — 30 — GRAY BROWN PEATY ORGANIC SILT (OH) soft, 3 saturated. 35 GRAY ORGANIC SILT (OL) medium stiff, saturated; with a trace of very fine sand and decayed organics. MD 30.8 90 3 40 AGI Log of Boring 2 (0-40') PATE Solomon/Proposed Automobile Dealership �� TECHNOLOGIES Renton, Washington PROJEOT NO. DRAWN DATE APPROVED REVISED DATE 8399928.cdr 15,839.002 JFL 29 Aug. 94 a a• o - Equipment Mobile B-61 n m o m m m cC Y c 2- n m m o o m CL o o a) Land Surface 92 feet Date 8/11/94 20 0 0 m LL ocf) Elevation 40 —' GRAY ORGANIC SILT(ML) stiff, saturated; with trace fine sand interbedded with sand. MD 28.9 91 12 — 45 GRAY ORGANIC SILT (OL) medium stiff, saturated; UU 110.3 39 5 interbedded with organic silt. 50 MD 31.9 90 6 55 BLUE GRAY CLAY (CL) very stiff, wet; interbedded MD 30.3 93 14 with silt. 60 9 65 GRAY SANDY SILT (ML) stiff, saturated; with some 12 = gravel. 70 — 18 -— 75 76/6" _ GRAY SILTSTONE well consolidated, slabby, intensely e : fractured, low hardness, friable, moderately so ' weathered. ' • - AGI Solomon/Proposed of Boring 2 (40-80') PLATE Automobile Dealership TE A5 CHNOLOGIES Renton, Washington PROJECT NO. DRAWN DATE APPROVED REVISED DATE 839992B.cdr 15,839.002 JFL 29 Aug. 94 VPL- z o a a Equipment Mobile B-61 m c T a m ti o o z m o o E Land Surface 92 feet Date 8/11/94 1i L) cc m u o rn Elevation 80 100/2" Boring backfilled with bentonite chips and drill cuttings on 8/12/94. Groundwater encountered at 10 feet. 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 AGI Log of Boring 2 (80-1 20') PATE Solomon/Proposed Automobile Dealership A6 TECHNOLOGIES Renton, Washington PROJECT NO. DRAWN DATE APPROVED REVISED DATE 839992B.cdr 15,839.002 JFL 29 Aug. 94 CL- L �, �y f AGI TECHNOLOGIES APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing AGI TECHNOLOGIES APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing A. GENERAL We conducted laboratory tests on several representative soil samples to better determine the soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the material's general physical properties and engineering characteristics. A brief description of the tests performed for this study is provided below. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided at the appropriate sample depth on the individual boring logs. However, it is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent in-situ soil conditions. All of our recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgment. AGI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In general accordance with our General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of 30 days following completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. B. SOIL CLASSIFICATION As mentioned earlier, all soil samples were visually examined in the field by our representative at the time they were obtained. They were subsequently packaged and returned to our laboratory, reexamined, and the original description checked and verified or modified. With the help of information obtained from the other classification tests,described below,the samples were described in general accordance with the Unified Classification System, ASTM Test Method D-2487-83. The resulting descriptions are provided at the appropriate sample locations on the individual boring logs and are qualitative only. Plate Al in Appendix A provides pictorial symbols that match the written descriptions. C. MOISTURE AND DENSITY Moisture content and dry density tests were performed on several samples obtained from the borings. The purpose of these tests is to approximately ascertain the in-place moisture content and the associated dry unit weight (dry density) of the soil sample tested. The moisture content was determined in general accordance with the ASTM Test Method D-2216-80 and the dry unit weight was computed on the basis of this result and the volume of the sample container. The information obtained assists us by providing qualitative information regarding soil strength and compressibility. The results of these tests are presented at the appropriate sample depths on the boring logs. D. ATTERBERG LIMITS Because of the large amounts of fines in the sampled soils from the field, we deemed it necessary to perform several Atterberg Limit tests on the finer materials to determine the soils' plasticity characteristics and as an aid in accurate classification of the soils. These tests included liquid and r AGI TECHNOLOGIES plastic limits, which were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Methods D-423-66(72) and D- 424-59(71), respectively. The Plastic Index, the difference between the liquid and plastic limits, is then determined. The results of the liquid limit provide a measure of the tested soils'shear strength and is analogous to the direct shear test. When coupled with the plastic index, the results help us to classify the in-place soils on the basis of these soil characteristics. The results of these tests are presented on Plate B1. E. ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TEST To determine the approximate compressibility of the soft soils underlying the site, we performed one-dimensional consolidation tests on relatively undisturbed samples. These tests, which were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D-2435-80, were conducted on fully saturated samples. The results obtained provide an indication of the degree of plastic deformation of the soil with time and aid in making an approximation of the magnitude and rate of settlement of the compressible soils under the design loads with time. The results are presented on Plate B2. F. TRIAXIAL TEST We performed a series of three triaxial tests, in accordance with ASTM Test Method D-2850-82, on relatively undisturbed soil samples from the field. This test determines the unconsolidated, undrained compressive strength of a cylindrical sample used in the stress/strain controlled application of an axial load while the sample is subjected to a confining pressure. Data obtained from the test is used for determining strength properties and stress-strain relationships for the tested soils. The results are presented on Plates B3 through B5. • PRESSURE (psf x 1000) Reference ASTMD11435 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 2 4 10 20 40 100 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 _O E- 1.1 Q O 1.0 0.90 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 2 4 10 20 40 100 VOID RATIO — PRESSURE CURVE Type of Specimen D&M Condition Before Test After Test Diameter(in.) 2.410 Height(in.) 0.736 Water Content wo 61.8% w f 38.9 Overburden Press., Po 1,800 psf Void Ratio eo 1.6732 of 1.0474 Preconsol.Press., Pc 1,800 psf Saturation So 99.7% Sf 100.0% Compression Index, Cc 0.38 Dry Density yd 63.0 pcf d LL PL y 82.3 pcf PI Gs 2.7 Classification Organic Silt (OL) Source 61 @ 17.5 ft. AGI Consolidation Test Report PLATE Solomon/Proposed Automobile Dealership TECHNOLOGIES Renton, Washington B2 PROJECT NO. DRAWN DATE AP ¢1(ED REVISED DATE 15.839.002 JFL 29 Aug.94 l-- 4 3.5 3 0 0 2.5 x Q 2 qD 1.5 65 0 1 i>s a� 0.5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Axial Strain (%) PRE—TEST PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Diameter(in.) 240 Height(n.) 4.87 Water Content(%) 54.5 Void Ratio 1.54 Saturation(%) 0.95 Dry Density(pcf) 66 POST—TEST CONDITIONS Major Principle Stress(psf x i 000) 5.17 Minor Principle Stress(psf x l000) 3.50 Strain Rate(%/min) 0.3 Axial Strain at Failure(%) 15.0 Time to Failure(min.) 49.3 Specific Gravity 2.7 Sample Source: Bi @ 32.5 ft Classification: (CL) AGI UU Triaxial Test PLATE Solomon/Proposed Automobile Dealership TECHNOLOGIES Renton, Washington B3 PROJECT NO. DRAWN DATE APTOVED REVISED DATE 15,839.002 JFL 29 Aug.94 J L, V 4 3.5 3 0 0 2.5 x 2 c U) °D 1.5 0 1 a� 0.5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Axial Strain (90) PRE—TEST PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Diameter(n.) 2.40 Height(n.) 4.95 Water Content(%) 59.5 Void Ratio 1.61 Saturation(%) 0.39 Dry Density(pcf) 64 POST—TEST CONDITIONS Major Principle Stress(psf x 1 oo0) 2.60 Minor Principle Stress(psf x 10o0) 2.00 Strain Rate(%/min) 0.2 Axial Strain at Failure(%) 15.0 Time to Failure(min.) 70.1 Specific Gravity 2.7 Sample Source: B2 Q 17.5 ft Classification: (OL) AGI UU Triaxial Test PLATE Solomon/Proposed Automobile Dealership TECHNOLOGIES Renton, Washington B4 PROJECT NO. DRAWN DATE APP VED REVISED DATE 15,839.002 JFL 29 Aug.94 4 3.5 3 0 0 2.5 x 0 2 rn Cn P 1.5 0 1 iu aD 0.5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Axial Strain (%) PRE—TEST PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Diameter(in.) 2.41 Height(in.) 5.04 Water Content(%) 110.3 Void Ratio 2.35 Saturation(%) 0.99 Dry Density(pcf) 39 POST—TEST CONDITIONS Major Principle Stress(psf x 10oo) 7.20 Minor Principle Stress(psf x 1000) 04.80Strain Rate(%/min)Axial Strain at Failure(%)Time to Failure(min.)Specfic Gravity Sample Source: B2 @ 48.0 ft Classification: (oL) AGI UU Triaxial Test PATE Solomon/Proposed Automobile Dealership TECHNOLOGIES Renton, Washington B5 PROJECT NO. DRAWN DATE APP VED REVISED DATE 15,839.002 JFL 29 Aug.94