Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272255(6) F Earth Consultants Inc. r (�c�x�Y'hnu:il FnKincrrti.c;c ti�lr>�i5rs h P:m imnmr•ncd�i•ne�r� March 26, 1996 E-6754 LF,R6C �i Opus Northwest LLC D200 - 112th Avenue NE, Suite 205 996Bellevue, Washington 98004SION Attention: Harry DeMarre Subject: Springbrook Corporate Center Renton, Washington Reference: Earth Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Study E-6754, April 14, 1995 Dear Harry: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the referenced report with respect to the proposed design changes discussed in your letter dated March 11 , 1996. It is our understanding that the earthwork construction would occur in the late spring or summer. Our comments and recommendations for the suggested slab-on-grade, building footings and paving design changes follow. Slab-on-Grade The proposed change includes deleting the surcharge requirement and providing a twelve inch thick subgrade of cement treated on-site soil (approximately 3 percent Type 1-II cement). In our opinion, this design change is acceptable, provided the fills placed to raise grades are allowed to settle prior to construction of the building. The settlement of the pad should be monitored as discussed in the referenced report. The estimated post-construction settlements discussed: or, page four of ci ne refei ended, rcpoit (2 inches total and 1 .5 inches differentia!, would apply in this case. Building Footings The proposed change consists of overexcavating the footings two feet wide by two feet deep with on-site soil treated with Type 1-II cement at 7 percent. In our opinion, this design change is acceptable provided the width of the overexcavation is a minimum of six inches outside the edges of the foundations. = _ 1 Y Opus Northwest LLC E-6754 March 26, 1996 Page 2 Pavin g The proposed change consists of using on-site soil treated with Type 1-11 cement at 7 percent for an eight inch depth for the pavement subgrade in lieu of the twelve inches of granular structural fill recommended in the referenced report. The pavement section would then consist of 1 .5 inches of asphalt. Based on our experience on similar projects, the cement treatment option would provide similar subgrade support for pavements as the recommended twelve inches of granular fill. The opportunity to be of service to you is appreciated. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Manager of Geotechnical Services KRC%kml GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION FACILITY RAYMOND AVENUE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST 19TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON E-6754 April 14, 1995 PREPARED FOR WINMAR PROPERTIES ouglas Lynne Staff Engineer R. CA,�j�, Kyle R. Camp ell E. Manager of Geotec is I Se 'AL ' ExPr��3 Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643-3780 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsur- technical engineers who then render an opinion about face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as overall subsurface conditions. their likely reaction to subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent proposed construction activity.and appropriate founda- have been lessened considerably in recent years.due in tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ conditions may differ from those inferred to exist. The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how the Geosciences. qualified,and no subsurface exploration program, no The following suggestions and observations are offered matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by to helpearth, rock and time. The actual interface between mate- you reduce the geotechnical-related delays. vials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report cost-overruns and other costly headaches that can indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may occur during a construction project. differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their REPORT [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 dient 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 aeotechnical engineering report whose geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo- which change subsequent to the date of the report may technical consultant to learn if additional tests are affect its recommendations. advisable before construction starts. Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not natural events such as floods. earthquakes or ground- be used: water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions • When the nature of the proposed structure is and, thus. the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical changed. for example, if an office building will be report.The geotechnical engineer should be:kept erected instead of a parking garage. or if a refriger- apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- determine if additional tests are necessary frigerated one: •when the size or configuration of the proposed GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE structure is altered: PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES • when the location or orientation of the proposed AND PERSONS structure is modified: • when there is a change of ownership. or Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet • for application to an adjacent site. the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre- Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade- which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid- quate for a construction contractor, or even some other ered in their report's development have changed. consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, this report was prepared expressly for the dient involved and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" by any other persons for any purpose, or by the client ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES for a different purpose. may result in problems. No indi- vidual other than the client should apply this report for its Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical only at those points where samples are taken, when engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- other than that originally contemplated without first conferring sequent.laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geotechnical engineer. Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineers.Geologists&Environrnental Scientists April 14, 1995 E-6754 Winmar Properties c/o Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. 10801 Main Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Mark Miller Dear Mr. Miller: We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Distribution Facility, Raymond Avenue Southwest and Southwest 19th Street, Renton, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analysis, as well as geotechnically related recommendations for the proposed site development. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our proposal dated February 2, 1995. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the above referenced site, it is our opinion that the proposed additions may be supported by shallow spread footings bearing on a minimum of two feet of structural fill after completion of a surcharge program or a preload program, depending on the magnitude of post-construction settlement that can be tolerated. If you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Manager of Geotechnical Services DSL/KRC/kml ;9754GES.Rpt] 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (206) 643-3780 Seattle (206) 464-1584 FAX(206) 746-0860 Tacoma(206)272-6608 TABLE OF CONTENTS E-6754 PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Subsurface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Laboratory Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Site Preparation and Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Surcharge Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Seismic Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Lateral Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Retaining_Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Slab-on-Grade Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Excavations and Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Site Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Utility Support and Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Pavement Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Additional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 APPENDICES Appendix A Field Exploration Appendix B Laboratory Testing ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Boring Location Plan Plate 3 Settlement Plate Detail Plate 4 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Plate 5 Utility Trench Fill Plate Al Legend Plates A2 through A10 Boring Logs Plate B 1 Grain Size Analysis Plate B2 Atterberg Limit Test Data GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION FACILITY RAYMOND AVENUE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST 19TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON E-6754 INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study for the proposed distribution facility near the intersection of Raymond Avenue Southwest and Southwest 19th Street, 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 provide recommendations for site preparation, as well as present geotechnical information for the proposed site development. Project Description At the time our study was performed, the site, the proposed structure, and exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. Based on information provided by Lance Mueller and Associates, it is proposed to develop the parcel with a concrete tilt-up office/warehouse. We understand that fills up to about two to three feet in depth are anticipated to provide grade for the building slab. Based on our experience with similar structures in the past, we anticipate structural loading to be in the following ranges: • Wall footings - 2 to 3 kips per lineal foot • Maximum column load - 50 to 100 kips • Slab loads - 250 pounds per square foot (psf) If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be notified and allowed to review our recommendations in light of actual design information. In any case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be retained to perform a general review of the final construction design. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Winmar Properties c/o Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. E-6754 April 14, 1995 Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site of the proposed facility is located southwest of the Raymond Avenue and Southwest 19th Street intersection in Renton, Washington (see Plate 1 , Vicinity Map). The rectangular parcel covers about twenty-four acres; however, the proposed development is located in the portion of the site between Spring Brook Creek and the east property line. The development area is bounded by Spring Brook Creek on the south and west, by the Southwest 19th Street right-of-way to the north and by the Raymond Avenue Southwest right-of-way to the east. At present, the site is undeveloped, with grasses covering the existing surface. The site is generally level with elevational changes of about two feet. Subsurface The site was explored by drilling five borings at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Detailed descriptions of the conditions encountered at each location explored are presented on the Boring Logs, Plates A2 through A10. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. Below is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. During our subsurface exploration, a three to six foot thick layer of fill was observed across the site. The fill consisted of sandy lean clay and silty sand (Unified Soil Classification CL and SM). Immediately underlying the fill, our exploration encountered gray silt/lean clay (ML/CL) to depths ranging from fifteen to twenty feet beneath the existing grades. Between depths of about nine and fifteen feet, the silt/lean clay was mixed with peat. In Boring B-3, a distinct layer of peat was observed between ten and one-half (10.5) feet and thirteen and one-half (13.5) feet. The peat layer was also observed in Boring B-4 between eleven and one-half (11 .5) feet and thirteen and one-half (13.5) feet. Moisture contents of the peaty soil ranged from 43.5 to 105.0 percent. Underlying the silt/lean clay, layers of poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM), sandy silt (ML) and silty sand (SM) were observed to the maximum exploration depth of thirty-five (35) feet. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Winmar Properties c/o Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. E-6754 April 14, 1995 Page 3 Groundwater Groundwater was observed in all of the borings except B-5 at depths ranging from four to eight feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater was not encountered until borings were advanced to a depth of about eight feet, at which point the water surface rose to four feet beneath the ground surface. It is important to note that groundwater seepage is not constant; thus, one may expect fluctuations in the volume and location depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, groundwater seepage is greater during the wetter winter months (typically October through May). Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests, such as sieve analysis and Atterberg Limits, and moisture content tests on representative samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual boring log or on a separate data sheet contained in Appendix B. However, 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. The soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of fifteen (15) days following completion of this report, unless we are otherwise directed in writing. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the site can be developed generally as planned provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the final design. In our opinion, total settlement of the existing fill and underlying fluvial soils is anticipated to be on the order of two to five inches from application of new structural fill and building loads. In order to reduce the anticipated post-construction settlements to about one inch, a surcharge program is recommended. Earth Conauttanta, Inc. GEDTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Winmar Properties c/o Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. E-6754 April 14, 1995 Page 4 The recommended surcharge program would involve placement of at least two feet of fill above the finish floor elevation and allowing the induced settlements to stabilize. As an alternative to a surcharge program, a preload program could be used; however, the anticipated post-construction settlements would be in the range of two inches (total settlement) and one to one and one-half inches (differential settlement). A preload program would consist of placing structural fill to the finish floor elevation and allowing the induced settlements to stabilize. We anticipate stabilization of settlement within four to six weeks after placement of the surcharge or preload fill is complete. If the preload option is chosen, the induced settlements must be monitored in accordance with the recommendations concerning settlement monitoring in the Surcharge Program section of this study. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of Winmar Properties and their representatives. No warranty is expressed or implied. It is recommended that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Preparation and Grading The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, organic material and any other deleterious material. The root mat of the existing vegetation can be left in place in fill areas provided a minimum of two feet and one and one-half feet of structural fill underlie foundations and pavements, respectively. The vegetation will have to be cut, with grasses left in place in areas to receive fill. Shrubs will have to be removed from the site. Based on conditions encountered at our exploration locations, which indicated minimal topsoil, we anticipate stripping will be limited to removal of vegetation and one to two inches of soil. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Stripped materials may be used in non-load supporting areas such as landscaping. Following the stripping and clearing procedures, the earthwork operations can commence to provide the design grades. The ground surface where structural fill is to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECL 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 beneath the general structural fill or suitable support for slabs. Earth Consultants, Inc. ' GE®TECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Winmar Properties c/o Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. E-6754 April 14, 1995 Page 5 The soils observed in our borings are moisture sensitive due to their high fines content. As such, in an exposed condition they will become disturbed from normal construction activity especially when in a wet or saturated condition. Once disturbed, in a wet condition, they will be unsuitable for support of foundations or pavements. Therefore, during construction where these soils are exposed and will support new structures, care must be exercised not to disturb their condition. If disturbed conditions develop, the affected soils must be removed and replaced with a structural fill. The depth of removal will be dependent on the level of disturbance developed during construction. Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load-bearing areas. Structural fill under foundations should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum 90 percent of its maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1 557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density, except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. Soils expected to be exposed in the footing and utility excavations are silty sand, lean clay, silt and peat. In our opinion, the inorganic soil is usable as structural fill, provided it is moisture conditioned to at or near optimum moisture content. In order to moisture condition the soil, it may be necessary to either add water or aerate the soil. However, the peat, which may be exposed in deep utility trenches, should be removed and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide adequate support for the utility. Structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular material with a maximum size of three inches and no more than five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. During dry weather, most compactible non-organic soil can be used as structural fill. It is recommended that any structural fill planned for on site use be submitted for approval prior to import. Earth Consuftants. Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Winmar Properties c/o Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. E-6754 April 14, 1995 Page 6 Due to the loose/soft condition and moisture sensitivity of the surface soils at the site, in our opinion, it would be prudent to construct a temporary access road around the building that will be useable by construction equipment during wet weather. The road should be constructed during mass grading operations. The temporary access road should consist of eighteen (18) inches of free-draining granular structural fill underlain by a geotextile fabric suitable for use in stabilization applications. As an alternative, six inches of four-inch to six-inch quarry spalls can be used i lieu of the geotextile fabric. Surcharge Program The surcharge program is designed to pre-consolidate the compressible fills and soil underlying the site, such that the surcharge would apply loads equivalent to, or greater than, anticipated building loads. The surcharge fill is in addition to the fill required to bring the site to grade. The surcharge should extend at least five feet beyond the perimeter of the buildings. If the preload option is used as described in the Genera/section of this study, the preload fill should also extend at least five feet beyond the perimeter of the building. The height of the surcharge should be two feet above finish floor. The side slopes of the fill should not be inclined any steeper than 1 H:1 V. If a wet weather construction schedule is planned, the surcharge fill should meet the requirements of a wet weather fill as discussed in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this study. The surcharge material should have a minimum in-place unit weight of one hundred twenty (120) pcf. Depending on the material used as surcharge, it may be necessary to compact the surcharge. Depending on site grades, it may be necessary to overexcavate soil to provide the required thickness of structural fill below footings and slabs prior to placement of the surcharge. Alternatively, footing overexcavations can be accomplished after removal of the surcharge. - We anticipate the settlement induced by the surcharge should range from two to five inches. A smaller settlement should be interpreted as that the soils have been preconsolidated and soil conditions are better than anticipated. Conversely, a larger settlement could be interpreted that the soil conditions are worse than anticipated, and that additional time and measurements should be taken to obtain satisfactory results. However, the only reasonably accurate means of verifying the settlement magnitude is to perform a monitoring program. Based on the conditions encountered, we anticipate completion of the surcharge program in approximately four to six weeks. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY. Winmar Properties c/o Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. E-6754 April 14, 1995 Page 7 The settlement monitoring program should include setting settlement monitors on the existing site subgrade before any fill is placed, monitoring them through completion of fill placement, continuing until settlements cease or until anticipated future settlements are considered to be less than one inch. More specific details of this program are presented below: • Settlement markers should be placed on the native subgrade of each building pad before any fill is placed. Seven to nine markers should be installed within the 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 not be affected 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. • Once the fill operation is complete, readings are obtained on a periodic basis, typically weekly, until the settlement ceases or the anticipated future settlements are judged by the geotechnical engineer to be less than approximately one inch. • Each set of settlement readings are plotted graphically against time to determine the magnitude and rate of settlement, and are matched against the predicted magnitudes and rates to verify the accuracy of earlier estimates and to make any appropriate modifications. ECI should be retained to acquire the settlement readings. If you prefer to use another organization to collect these readings, measurements should be provided to us as quickly after their acquisition as possible for plotting and interpretation. This will help avoid any misinterpretation or misunderstanding regarding the success of the surcharge program. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Winmar Properties c/o Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. E-6754 April 14, 1995 Page 8 The settlement markers must be kept intact during earthwork operations. In our experience, earthwork equipment (dozers, rollers, trucks, etc.) often demolish markers at a very high rate. This adds to the project costs in that they need to be replaced and it makes the information obtained less reliable. To avoid this scenario, it is suggested that the project specifications include a requirement that the earthwork contractor is required to immediately replace any damaged settlement marker and have the settlement readings reobtained at his own cost. This requirement makes the earthwork contractor more conscious of the importance of the preload program and will aid in maintaining the integrity of the monitoring program. Fill for landscaping purposes should not be placed near the building since additional fill could induce further settlements after the building is constructed. If such fill is planned, the surcharge should be extended to five feet beyond the planned landscape fill, or a lightweight fill, such as "hog fuel" be used. Foundations Based on the encountered subsurface soil conditions, preliminary addition design criteria, and assuming compliance with the preceding Site Preparation and Grading section, the proposed structures may be supported by a minimum of two feet of new structural fill after completion of a surcharge program or a preload program, as described earlier. The foundation may be designed for an allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2500) pounds per square foot (psf). Footings should be at least twelve (12) inches in width and extend to a depth of at least eighteen (18) inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The above allowable soil bearing value is for dead plus live loads and may be increased one-third for combined dead, live, wind, and seismic forces. It is recommended that all footing excavations 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, and/or provide suitable modifications in the design, as required. Without completion of the surcharge or preload programs, we estimate there is the potential for two to five inches of total settlement with two to three inches of differential settlement. Following successful completion of the surcharge program, total settlements are expected to be less than one inch for foundations bearing on structural fill. Differential settlement is anticipated to be about one-half to three-quarters of an inch. Total settlement of about two inches and differential settlement of about one to one and one-half inches should be anticipated if the preload program is used. The majority of the anticipated settlement should occur during construction as the dead loads are applied. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Winmar Properties c/o Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. E-6754 April 14, 1995 Page 9 Seismic Design Considerations The Puget Sound region is classified as Seismic Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal events, ranging in depth from 30 to 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 a site coefficient of 1 .5 should be used for the static force procedure, as outlined in Section 2334 of the 1991 UBC. For the dynamic force procedure outline in Section 2335 of the 1991 UBC, the curve for Soft to Medium Clays and Sands (Soil Type 3) should be used on 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. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures with foundations founded in the liquefying soils. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain to grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid for short periods of time. To have potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium-dense; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. Based on laboratory testing, the majority of the loose/soft soils encountered during our field exploration consist of fine-grained silt and clay, which have a lower susceptibility to liquefaction than sands. Given this information, it is our opinion that the potential for widespread liquefaction over the site during a seismic event is low. Isolated areas may be subject to liquefaction, however, the effect on structures is anticipated to be minimal if the recommendations contained in this report are followed. We estimate liquefaction induced settlement would be in the range of the estimated post construction settlements discussed earlier. Earth Consuttants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Winmar Properties c/o Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. E-6754 April 14, 1995 Page 10 Lateral Resistance An allowable passive pressure value against the sides of foundation slabs or other subsurface foundation elements of three hundred (300) psf per foot of depth may be used for design. In order to fully mobilize the passive pressure, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the adjacent soil or the foundation excavation must be backfilled with structural fill. Friction between the base of foundations and the underlying soil may be assumed to be 40 percent of the dead load. The friction and passive pressure design values include a factor of safety of 1 .5. Retaining Walls Retaining walls and foundation walls that will act as retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the retained soils. Walls that are designed to yield can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The equivalent fluid weight should be increased to fifty (50) pcf for walls that are restrained at the top from free movement. These values are based on horizontal backfill and that surcharges due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads or other surcharge loads will not act on walls. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressures. Calculation of lateral resistance should be done using the passive pressure and coefficient of friction values contained in the previous section. Retaining walls should be backfilled with a free-draining material conforming to the WSDOT specification for gravel backfill for walls (WSDOT 9-03.12(2)). The free-draining material should extend a minimum of eighteen inches behind the wall. The remainder of the backfill should consist of structural fill. A perforated drain pipe should be placed at the base of the wall. Drain pipes located in the free draining backfill soil should be perforated with holes less than 1/2 inch in diameter. The drain pipe should be surrounded by a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot with 3/4 rock or should be wrapped with a filter fabric. Earth Consuhanta, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Winmar Properties c/o Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. E-6754 April 14, 1995 Page 11 Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on a minimum of one foot of structural fill suitable for use during wet weather conditions. Should loose soil be present at the slab subgrade elevation, it should be compacted to the requirements of structural fill. Any disturbed subgrade soil must either be re-compacted 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. The slab should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free-draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane may be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Excavations and Slopes In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and federal safety regulations. As described in the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, soils anticipated to be encountered in excavations (fill, silt and peat) would classify as Type "C." Therefore temporary cuts greater than four feet in height, should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1 H:1 V in the Type "C" soils. If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, or if excavations greater than twenty (20) feet in depth are required, temporary shoring may be necessary. This shoring would help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and would 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 greater than 2H:1 V. If this inclination cannot be maintained, this office should be contacted to review the design and construction criteria. We also recommend that all cut slopes be examined by Earth Consultants, Inc. during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve the stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of drainage. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes. Earth Consuhants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Winmar Properties c/o Mark Moller Consultants, Inc. E-6754 April 14, 1995 Page 12 The above information has been provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the above information be interpreted to mean that this office 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 observed in all of the borings except B-5 at depths ranging from four to eight feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater was not encountered until borings were advanced to a depth of about eight feet, at which point the water surface rose to four feet beneath the ground surface. It is possible that groundwater levels will present construction related problems while excavating for the foundations or utility trenches. Should groundwater seepage be encountered 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 and 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. It is recommended that the appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, be established during grading operations by this office, at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more clearly defined. The site should be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where structures, slabs or driveways 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 should allow for drainage away from the structure 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. Foundation drains should be installed where landscaped areas are immediately adjacent to the building. In our opinion, foundation drains are not necessary in dock- high areas or where pavements extend to the building walls. The drains should be installed at or just below the bottom of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 4. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Winmar Properties c/o Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. E-6754 April 14, 1995 Page 13 Utility Support and Backfill Based on the soil conditions encountered, the majority of soils expected to be exposed by utility excavations should provide adequate support for utilities; however, deeper utility trenches may encounter the peat that is beneath the existing fills. Should the peat, or soft soils, be exposed near pipe grades, the peat or soft soil should be replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide adequate support for the utility. 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. 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, we recommend the subgrade be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading 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 1557-78). Due to surface conditions observed during the subsurface exploration, we recommend pavements be supported by a minimum of one foot of structural fill suitable for use in wet weather. Depending on actual conditions, thicker structural fill or a geotextile, such as Mirafi 600X, may be required to provide adequate support for pavements. 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. We recommend the following pavement section for lightly loaded areas: • Two inches of Asphalt Concrete (AC) over four inches of Crushed Rock Base (CRB) material, or • Two inches of AC over three inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) material. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Winmar Properties c/o Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. E-6754 April 14, 1995 Page 14 Heavier truck-traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement life and site traffic. As a general rule, you may consider for truck-trafficked areas the following sections: • Three inches of AC over six inches of CRB, or • Three inches of AC over four 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. It should be noted that parking stall pavement sections 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 by you, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the 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 re-evaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. 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 and implemented in the approved construction plans and specifications. In addition, it is suggested that this office be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction to observe compliance with the design concepts and project specifications, and to facilitate 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 Soils Engineer during construction in order to obtain the project objective, with optimum quality control. Earth Consultants, Inc. ■ = S F7L10fNj:;'. "t1 3 s o 10TM SS N(`( 5 RENTON VILLI ` ''! FF+,�a a�1'CT ER c R t2T►{PAA > pN NOR rN O� o > < I 14tt+ a " _ jImo/ 3 isi3 rl�• °� 0 h ,... u ' 23 , . z u =r< o I m1z O A N i sr I SW wi- ai 18TH — T �. y >' :84 < w _ V I 17-4�_uw-- U J ; S�f TUKMLA O. 0 2 SIT FR ■CN aw ao s d L029Q ea : ¢ I N c S lc L m N uI r I SW 19TH ST w�1 S I h -+ =of Race l l mr .f. TUKPKYW'Y tsaJH sT� I . h Sw z1�T T ~�< EVAN 3 LACK < Trdc I, i }{ oA UT ENE AKERI VO < ? Qy x c=pU' ,D�/ R •''1���TT.h�((��'� _ I• <i;.'l�f SW 23RD ST -S_ 2ti3 RPO I mZ S BN a ° NTENN/A1 cc PARK:,, RENT N m } I � STRANDER I �c BLVD SW Z74 ST TR CE K OR Z INDUJ N O I I S 2T(N S < 'J I SW nTH$T i 26 I PO < I J 9ly I go ` i CHR/ST- Q 5f W � 5T fNSEY ti SW 31ST > I L i GRF PKfLT 2 > I ST RO I C RP RATE OR JI a < I LL-i I 3 I CORD RATE -I i I 34TH ST I •n 1 0 MINKLER B I I I I !67 < - S 11; U;wz _ —+uWlo&� � Lam' c3 W s E9GOVCY ICE I I ~"SIN 38TH ST i — J S YTFR I ; 5��• r._ _ 0 3: I ; a 27?N ST.S U SW 5 a 39TH ST SAXO� DR N I O I w T U1 I SW 41 T ST I S '77TH S7 ^TRILAND DR I + > '� VALLEY /r1 EDIC4L / O Q 0P 1 I Q Q I I 3 CENTc O S >> 180TN -- I T' - f� �:. SW n I I - ,�-j mjg`�G RD ST SEGALE PARK 3 S 181ST ST 180TH ST ��.. bR tT a j 1Ni �I¢ R/t�FRS;hE Sa 162ND � •<l I� _' z.,� - SPR%NGBROOK —I— "'PL GREENBELT -. I L 0 31 Reference: King County / Map 41 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 1990 Ea th Consultants Inc. Vicinity Map Raymond Avenue Center C�"Cr-b=W Engtricc*s C-DIO is 6 Envtrorrneriml scX.,rtsts Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6754 Drwn. GLS Date Apr. '95 Checked DSL Date 4/7/95 Plate 1 LEGEND B-1 -�- Approximate Location of ECI Boring, Proj. No. E-6754, April 1995 Proposed Building G� O O -:- �Q� ' B-2 Q• B-1 CDQ -�- B-5 -: B-3 B-4 , 84th AVENUE S. F- w w F- Reference: U) Cl) Site Plan ,t Job No. 94-071 / Sheet No. Al 0) y Lance Mueller R Associates Approximate Scale r Dated 3/21/95 0 50 100 Boring Location Plan 200ft Furth COi]SUltalltS Inc. Raymond Avenue Center Renton, Washington Proj No. 6754 Drwn. GLS Date Apr. '95 Checked DSL Date 4/7/95 Plate 2 SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING ,.;..: ' Surchar e r Prelo ad dSurcharge or Preload Fi ll Fit I _... _ . III-1��= ��I: III=.111 111 STANDARD NOTES 1) Base consists of 3/4 inch thick, 2 foot by 2 foot plywood with center drilled 5/8 inch diameter hole. 2) Bedding material, ff required, should consist of Traction Sand. 3) Marker rod is 1/2 inch diameter steel rod threaded at both ends. 4) Marker rod is attached to base by nut and washer on each side of base. 5) Protective sleeve surrounding marker rod should consist of 2 inch diameter plastic tubing. Sleeve is NOT attached to rod or base. 6) Additional sections of steel rod can be connected with threaded couplings. 7) Additional sections of plastic sleeve can be connected with press-fit plastic couplings. 8) Steel marker rod should extend at least 6 inches above top of plastic sleeve. 9) Marker should extend at least 2 feet above top of fill surface. TYPICAL SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center Cl-"CC"KnJ Fn ``o°osm'Fn"roY c""SCI­645 Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6754 Drwn. GLS Date Apr. '95 Checked DSL Date 4/7/95 Plate 3 O • O �— Slope To Drain , 6 inch min. ° o ° 18 inch min. 4 inch min. Diameter Perforated Pipe Wrapped in Drainage - - _ e°°° °' - Fabric T 2 inch min. 2 inch min. / 4 inch max. 12 inch —� min. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING LEGEND Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the ° WSDOT Specifications. ODrain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed;with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. Earth Consultants Inc. TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL Raymond Avenue Center CX-UWC i CW Engr�c*5,GoDio(t1515&EnVtro"v Iai SCYnibis Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6754 Drwn. GLS Date Apr. '95 Checked DSL Date 4/7/95 Plate 4 Non-Load Supporting Floor Slab or Areas Roadway Areas 'az' r °• ° ° Varies .0 u 0 0 95 1 Foot Minimum Backfill 80 90 Varies PIPE o o 0 0o p0. '.Q•/ °. 0�0.��oQ�{o .OOQ°.• o• .S. o o Bedding °•;.o°.�o: ,.. °o..�,o•.Q••."0•0:• o:d.:.6o'o°OoQo :°o'�eo.o•°oo:. Varies •°ap:o:o'::°''Q •o,o.o o.'.?CO•.�.o..o.a•'0.•0.- •"OoO. o• • R•o0 �.o•• u%o-� 0•0��.. o �oo0pvp o O�'.00oO��•� o Q:.aQa�pO o �•. uo°..0 °°O °•p Q•o •Q xj%�%d•�'o 09 0° r LEGEND: ON Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab -1 Base Material or Base Rock Backfill; Compacted On-Site Soil or Imported Select Fill Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text. 95 Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Density as Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor), Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Report Text. Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and °'a0%oo;p Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected. TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL I Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center C'.ra'�e•ttnk'al hsQf-x-r.5,(•bus 6 h'nvirmmrrinl ti`1rniK�5 Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6754 Drwn. GLS Date Apr. '95 Checked DSL Date 4/7/95 Plate 5 APPENDIX A E-6754 FIELD EXPLORATION Our field exploration was performed on March 27, 1995. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling five borings to a maximum depth of thirty-five (35) feet below existing grade. The borings were drilled by Boretec, Inc. using a trailer mounted drill rig. Continuous-flight, hollow-stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes during sampling. Approximate boring locations were determined by pacing from the approximate property corners. 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 an engineer from our firm who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each boring, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate Al , Legend. Logs of the borings are presented in the Appendix on Plates A2 through A10. 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. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1586. The split spoon samples were driven with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to drive the last twelve (12) inches of penetration are called the "N-value". This value helps to characterize the site soils and is used in our engineering analyses. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Earth Consukants, Inc. MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL SYMBOL Gravel C:1 o GW Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand And Clean Gravels gW Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Gravelly (little or no fines) rM M M Poorly-Graded Gravels,Gravel- Coarse Soils t Grained ( GP 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 fines 1 GC Clayey Gravels, Gravel-Sand- No. 4 Sieve gC Clay Mixtures Sand SW Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly And Clean Sand o ° ° o c SW Sands, Little Cr_No Fines Sandy (little or no fines) p � , 4..: More Than Soils o ^sQ SP Poorly Graded Sands, Gravelly 50% Material Sands, Little Or No Fines Larger Than More Than [ No. 200 Sieve 50% Coarse SM Silty Sands Sand- Silt Mixtures Size Fraction Sands With SfTI Fines(appreciable Passing No.4 amount of fines) Sieve SC SC Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures ML Inorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock Flour,Silty- rni Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/Slight Plasticity Fine Silts Grained And Liquid Limit CL Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, Soils Clays Less Than 50 CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean I I I I I I OL Organic Silts And Organic I I I I I OI Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity I More Than MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire 50% Material mh Sand Or Silty Soils Silts Smaller Than And Liquid Limit CLI Inorganic Clays Of Hign No.20C Sieve Clays Greater Than 50 Ch Plasticity. Fat Clays Size j OH Organic Clays Of Medium To High oh Plasticity, Organic Silts Highly Organic Soils Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils �, ��i, ��r, ��i ptI With High Organic Contents Topsoil 'y y y Humus And Duff Layer Fill Highly Variable Constituents The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. DUAL SYMBOLS are used to Indicate borderilne soil classification, C TORVANE READING,tsf I r O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf W MOISTURE, %dry weight 24' I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED ; WATER OBSERVATION WELL pcf DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT. % Q DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION I SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/DATE Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND I r` �ti% `\1 �j \�1� (iaHiatuuc.il l�i�jY�.n.Gu%ul{Wsil�i�iruviY�ii.J kwiiLv� 'I' Proj. No. 6754 Date Apr. '95 Plate Al Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Raymond Avenue Center 1 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: 73�/,2! pletion Date: Boring No.: 6754 DSL 3 27 95 7 95 13-1 Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Boretec HSA SPT Ground Surface Devation: Hole Completion: ElMonitoing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite No. U o r o Surface Conditions: Grass W Blows Q. a+= a t� n (%) L cn o 4- cn j cn CL FiL1:Gray sandy lean CLAY,medium stiff,wet 1 2 20.1 11 3 4 _ 5 22.0 19 6 ML Gray SILT with sand,medium dense,wet 7 34.1 7 8 -decrease in sand content,becomes loose 9 10 35.8 7 11 -mixed with peat,becomes very soft 12 88.6 1 13 14 -becomes soft 15 -decrease in peat content 47.6 5 16 -1'sand lens 17 18 per, 19 Boring Log v I Fwlh Consuh-ants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center u7ecyen.w Renton, Washington -� Proj.No. 6754 Dwn. GLS Date Apr. '95 Checked DSL Date 4/13/95 Plate A2 m Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Raymond Avenue Center 2 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: T7Completion Date: Boring No.: 6754 DSL 3 27 95 3 27 95 8-1 Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Boretec HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Mo itoing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite U _ W No. L o N p Surface Conditions: Grass %) Blows E 0 E U .13 E Ft. � c- o to = rn f>: SP-SM Grades to black poorly graded Tine to medium SAND with sift,medium dense,water 30.9 13 VIT bearing 21 ` > 22 23 24 d 25 44.5 g 26 ML Gray sandy SILT,loose,saturated 27 28 29 -4'of heave 30 =1: SM Black silty fine to medium SAND,water bearing 28.3 3 _ I -N Value low due to heave _ £ 31 ''ii l Iz.i 32 33 i 34 -3'of heave(NO SAMPLE ATTEMPT) 35 Boring terminated at 35.0 feet below existing grade.Groundwater encountered at 4 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. u7 a v Boring Log v I Ezulh Consu -ants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center � oeo�+a��ax i Bsrao.Qmrel 9acaara cc Renton, Washington m Proj. No. 6754 Dwn. GLS Date Apr. '95 Checked DSL Date 4/13/95 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 Raymond Avenue Center 1 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6754 DSL 3 27 95 3 27 95 B-2 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Boretec HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ❑ MWO itoing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite No ' o r p Surface Conditions: W Blows a a+- a U N Ft. � cn o cn �cn SM FILL Dark gray silty fine to medium SAND,medium dense,wet 1 2 27.1 16 3 4 5 18.0 14 6 ML Gray SILT,medium dense,wet 7 26.2 14 8 9 -mixed with peat,becomes very soft 10 43.5 1 11 12 81.9 2 13 14 qu=.75tsf 15 54.1 3 _T ;'z. 16 SM Gray silty fine to medium SAND,medium dense,water bearing z 17 2 18 per, v Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center co g'�"°�` Renton, Washington -J Proj. No. 6754 Dwn. GLS Date Apr. '95 1 Checked DSL Date 4/13/95 Plate A4 a� Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. .Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Raymond Avenue Center 2 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6754 DSL 3 27 95 3 27 95 B-2 Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Boretec HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite W = o } o Surface Conditions: .13 N Blows Q. E LL E U) E DFt- L to O U) V) SM Black silty fine to medium SAND,medium dense,water bearing 29.4 16 21 22 23 24 25 31.1 13 26 27 28 29 -5'of heave (NO SAMPLE ATTEMPT) 30 Boring terminated at 30.0 feet below existing grade.Groundwater encountered at 4 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. o, v -1 Boring Log v I Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center LO l� ` oopftc-cw .GDODO `a Sam*" Renton, Washington is Proj.No. 6754 Dwn. GLS Date Apr. '95 Checked DSL Date 4/13/95 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. Goring ,Log Project Name: Sheet of Raymond Avenue-Center 1 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6754 DSL 3 27 95 3 27 95 B-3 Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Boretec HSA SPT Ground Surface Oevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Mo itaing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite No. .0 o t (n p Surface Conditions: Grass W Blows a a+: a- U (%) Ft. cn o LL rn � SM RLL•Gray silty fine SAND with gravel,loose to medium dense,wet 1 2 25.0 12 3 CL (6-of TOPSOIL) Gray lean CLAY with sand,medium stiff,wet 4 — -rootlets to 4' 5 37.2 5 6 7 41.3 4 8 9 10 105.0 2 — — PT PEAT,soft,saturated 1 „ 1 11 12 79.6 1 t3 -becomes very soft 14 ML Gray SILT,very soft,saturated 15 SM Dark gray silty fine SAND,loose,water bearing 41.6 5 1 17 z 18 Ln 01 19 Boring Log Ewlh Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center � oeoba�w gai��o,o�o�r a ebwvv+ayd e� Renton,Washington m Proj. No. 6754 Dwn. GLS Date Apr. '95 Checked DSL Date 4/13/95 Plate A6 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of Information presented on this log. Boring,Log Project Name: Sheet of Raymond Avenue Center 2 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6754 DSL 3 27 95 3 27 95 13-3 Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Boretec HSA SPT Ground Surface Bevation: Hole Completion: ❑ mo itoing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite U _ W No. L o + N o Surface Conditions: Grass Blows a E CL+' E N E %� L N 3LL N £ SM Dark gray silty fine SAND,medium dense,water bearing 28.3 16 j I 21 22 2: 23 £ .1' i 24 25 31.2 g 22 26 i£ T 27 H =f 28 :i 29 30 27.1 32 .j H* 31 £'£ll :;:: Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existing grade.Groundwater encountered at 4 feet during drilling.Boring backfilled with cuttings. Ln o, Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center Renton, Washington m Proj.No. 6754 Dwn. GLS Date Apr. '95 Checked DSL Date 4/13/95 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. Soring.Log Project Name: Sheet of Raymond Avenue Center 1 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6754 DSL 3 27 95 3 27 95 B-4 Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Boretec HSA SPT Ground Surface Oevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Mo itoing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite Lo + a N o Surface Conditions:W No Blows a E + (n E E % Ft. o� cn o cn ML RU-Gray sandy SILT,medium dense,wet 1 2 17.1 22 3 4 - CL Gray lean CLAY with peat,medium stiff,wet 26.6 7 5 6 7 28.0 10 8 9 q u=.5tsf 10 47.1 6 11 `' .. PT PEAT,very soft,saturated 12 72.7 2 13 14 ML Gray SILT,soft,saturated 15 29.7 16 16 SM Dark gray silty fine SAND,medium dense,water bearing 17 18 0101 19 Boring Log .� Exarth Consuh-mts Inc. Raymond Avenue Center W a'°�"� CW408%&RaVbO=VC°'Co Renton,Washington 21 Proj.No. 6754 Dwn. GLS. Date Apr. '95 Checked DSL Date 4/13/95 Plate A8 a� 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. Bering Log Project Name: Sheet of Ra and Avenue Center 72 2 Job No. logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6754 DSL 3 27 95 3 27 95 B-4 Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Boretec HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite No U L (no Surface Conditions: W Blows a.0 a+- a v -0 N Ft. to p LL cn Z cn SP-SM Grades to gray poorly graded medium to coarse SAND with silt,medium dense, $ 17 y water bearing z`f 21 -46'of heave 22 23 Boring terminated at 23.0 feet below existing grade.Groundwater encountered at 4 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. Ln a c-� Boring Log v Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center Ln oDOftCT "9eonoort a erntxm,mrw adatkm lit Renton, Washington -J Proj.No. 6754 Dwn. GLS Date Apr. '95 Checked DSL Data 4/13/95 Plate A9 cc Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring,Log Project Name: Sheet of Raymond Avenue.Center 1 1 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6754 DSL 3 27 95 3 27 95 B-rj Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Boretec HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Mo i'toing Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite U _ W No L O } (n Surface Conditions: Gras BIOWS 0_fa E d i- E to E SM FILL:-Gray silty SAND,loose to medium dense,wet 1 2 22.9 15 3 CL Gray lean CLAY,medium stiff,wet 4 5 23.7 g 6 Boring terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. Baring backfilled with cuttings. Ln o. Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Raymond Avenue Center oeaem�car c waocr»a auveocovow soar. Renton, Washington m Proj. No. 6754 Dwn. GLS Date Apr. '95 Checked DSL Date 4/13/95 Plate Al Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. • •• • • • . r-411 -■■-: �: -�-E�: :::tea.-::: ::::::-- am In am In M11 In IS ��___.__■� :�__ _._■� In OMEN �■■__■■■_.._.. ._■__�i■■■.■■■.�►=�i __■�_.....___■■■.■ __■■�_■■�_■__ ■___■■■__■■■■■��i■ i■■■■■�■■■■■■■���_� .�.■_.._.._.._...■._ C._.■....■.....■.■...■_■...■.�..■■..■■_ __■.■_.. ■�■__■._._■■.._�_■■■_.___■�_ __ _■■..__•■__■■__..... ■■■■■� ■■■■i___■■■__■■■■■_■■ .■_■_■i■__._.�_.■._.■_■■■■......_■■■�■ . �■■.■■■a MASON!■■■■■■__� ■_.■■�__■■_■�■■�■_■■���■■■■■I■■■��■■ �■_■■__..■■.._■■■ IS man■_. C:.■_■_■___■■..�■.■._■■�_■■■..._M1a __■■_■_■■__.■._■__■■■ _ �C�■_■■■ �■.�■� __■ �_■..■..__■■■■■ . _■.■■■r■ _ .■ ■____■■.■■■■..■■■_ �■■■SEEM _■_�■ • ____ __■_ ■�____■_■�.■ __�■■■■■__�� M1 am 0 am 0 am M all am _■■__■.■■_ . _■ ■._____■■.i■■■■i■�.i■■__■■■■�■•■■■■__am MEN ■■�■� am am M1 am am IS Mo a In no In ....._ ... .■ ..�.._ ■gyp.._........_ .._............_.._■.. . IS ___•_•� _■ .IS a __�......__� IS a am al ..�. ... .EI:��. .. ...■ .C.I ��:ft �� ■� �..........■.■.. • • • LA . i • �® • . m� • 25.0 100 1. 80 x 60 -T w 0 z H OH U H 40 `—A-Line a n. 20 CL-ML 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 • B-2 15 Gray SILT ML 47 32 15 54.1 • B-4 7.5 Gray lean CLAY CL 40 24 16 28.9 Atterberg Limits Test Data Earth Cornsultmts Inc. Raymond Avenue Center Renton, Washington � \ Gcotcdnlol EngtrioaS GeobgSa 6 FsN(orciwiml SCScnfSts Proj. No.6754 Date Apr. '95 Plate B2 DISTRIBUTION E-6754 4 Copies Winmar Properties c/o Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. 10801 Main Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Mark Miller 1 Copy Lance Mueller and Associates 130 Lakeside Avenue, Suite F Seattle, Washington 98122 Attention: Mr. Bob Fadden Earth Consultants, Inc.