Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
9812
KING COUNTY CONSOLIDATED OFFICE AND REPAIR FACILITY DRAINAGE REPORT for CITY OF RENTON V. HAS& WAS0 -7 y� `SCE C/) co z 29564 /STE, NG���' �ONALE EXPIRES 9/2/9* PREPARED FOR: Arai/Jackson PREPARED BY: RoseWater Engineering, Inc. 1932 First Avenue, Suite 711 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 441-9385 RATE: April, 1993 DESIGNED ENGINEER: Steven D. Haluschak, P.E. RWE JOB NO: 93003 CRY OF RENTON PE C E I V ED ;< < MAY Z 6 1963 BUILDING DIVISION �2 y ; KING COUNTY CONSOLIDATED OFFICE AND REPAIR FACILITY DRAINAGE REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. Project Overview ll. Core and Special Requirements III. On-Site Detention IV. Biofiltration Design Calculations V. Conveyance Systems Analysis and Design VI. Special Reports and Studies VII. Other Permits Vill. Erosion/Sedimentation Control Design LIST OF FIGURES DESCRIPTION 1-1. King County Technical Information Report Worksheet 1-2. Project Location Map III-1. 2-year 24-hour Isopluvial Map III-2. 100-year 24-hour Isopluvial Map III-3. Developed Site Hydrograph D, J, M, 100-year 24-hour 111-4. Developed/Existing Site Hydrology Summary, 100-year III-5. Level Pool Table Summary 93003\RPT RWE 93003 Page I of 2 King County Building and land Development Division TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET PART I PROJECT OWNER AND PART 2 CT LOCATI PROJECT ENGINEER AND DESCRIPTION ProjectOwner King Co Dept of Public Works Project NameConsolidated Office & Repair Address 500 4th Ave. , Rm 900 Seattle 98104 Location Facility Phone 296-6524 Township 23 N Steven Haluschak Range 5 E WM Project En gineer 16 Inc. Section Company RoseWater Engineering, Project Size 1.5 AC Address Phone 1932 lst Ave ��711 Seattle, WA 98101 4 1-9385 Upstream Drainage Basin Size AC PART 3 TYPE OF • OTHER Q Subdivision Q DOF/G HPA Q Shoreline Management Q] Short Subdivision Q COE 404 Q Rockery Q Grading Q DOE Dam Safety Q Structural Vaults QX Commercial [] FEMA Floodplain Other Q Other Q COE Wetlands HPA COMMUNITYPART 5 SITE Community North Renton Drainage Basin Infiltration CHARACTERISTICSPART 6 SITE Q River Q Fioodplain Q Stream Q Wetlands Q Critical Stream Reach Q Seeps/Springs Cl Depressions/Swales Q High Groundwater Table C7 Lake © Groundwater Recharge Steep Slopes CJ Other Lakeside/Erosion Hazard PART 7 SOILS S�l Tay Outwash flat Slopes Erosion Potential _ Erosive Velocities Weat e negligible negligible Glacial Outwash flat negligible negligible Q Additional Sheets Attatched Figure 1. 1 1/90 RWE 93003 Page 2of2 King County Building and Land Development Division TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET DEVELOPMENT • REFERENCE LIMITATIOWSITE CONSTRAINT Ch.4-Downstream Analysis a 0 0 Additional Sheets Attatched PART 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION �1 Sedimentation Facilities Stabilize Exposed Surface Stabilized Construction Entrance lL Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities CJ Perimeter Runoff Control [11 Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris 0 Clearing and Grading Restrictions Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities Cover Practices Flag Limits of NGPES Construction Sequence Other O Other PART 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM [� Grass Lined Channel Tank Infiltration Method of Analysis ® Pipe System ® Vault /oil pollutn= Depression SBUH/SCS �gntrol MH Open Channel O Energy ►ssapator 0 Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigation O Dry Pond = Wetland = Waiver of Eliminated Site Storage Wet Pond = Stream 0 Regional Detention - - -- - BriefDescriptionofSystemOperation Catch basins, an oil pollution control manhole, and pipes for conveyance and infiltration. Facility Related Site Limitations Additional Sheets Attatched Reference Facility Limitation PART 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PART 12 EAqEMENTSITRACTS (May require special structural review) Q Drainage Easement Cast in Place Vault C] Other Access Easement (�] Retaining Wail Native Growth Protection Easement Rockery>4'High Tract Structural on Steep Slope Other 14 SIGNATURE OF ' • • • 1 or a civil engineer under my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attatchments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Figure I-1. 1/90 KING COUNTY CONSOLIDATED OFFICE AND REPAIR FACILITY DRAINAGE REPORT I. PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed project for the Consolidated Office and Repair Facility (CORF) in Renton, WA, located on Figure 1-2. includes the construction of new Buildings D and M, and an addition to the existing Building J. The construction of storm drainage and infiltration facilities are to be completed as part of this project. Existing On-Site Drainage Features The proposed project is located within the existing CORF site. An existing storm drainage infiltration system services the paved, landscaped,and gravel areas of the site. A site-specific soils report has been completed for this proje t on May 6, 1988 by Hong Consulting Engineers, Inc. The infiltration rate used in the design was based on a Glacial outwash soils as determined by the soils report. No off-site flows affect the existing site drainage. Proposed On-site Drainage Features The increase in the amount of developmental area is the result of the roof, asphalt, and new landscaping areas associated with this project. Runoff from roof areas will be collected in closed conduits and conveyed to catch basins prior to infiltration. Runoff from impervious areas subject to vehicular traffic will be conveyed via sheet flow across and along the driveway and then through a piped conveyance system and through an oil pollution control manhole to an infiltration system. 93003\RPT KING COUNTY CONSOLIDATED OFFICE AND REPAIR FACILITY DRAINAGE REPORT � CC NE 4 TH LLif af o � ^OF � Q SI TE NE TON 'QO � 69 VICINITY MAP MAPLE WOOD N TS Figure 1-2. 93003\RPT KING COUNTY CONSOLIDATED OFFICE AND REPAIR FACILITY DRAINAGE REPORT II. CORE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Core Requirements 1-5 in Section 1.2 The Core Requirements 1-5 in Section 1.2 of the King County, Washington, Surface Water Design Manual have each been addressed below. (1) The discharge from the proposed site is by infiltration and is in the natural location. (2) No off-site flow enters the site, and there is to be no off-site flow produced by the site improvements. Therefore, no analysis is required. (3) The infiltration systems have been designed to pass the 100-year storm event. Additional detention facilities are not required. (4) A conveyance system to carry the runoff from the proposed project to the infiltration pipe has been designed for a velocity of less than 3 fps. (5) An Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan includes a plan to install measures to control erosion and sedimentation during construction and to permanently stabilize soil exposed during construction. Special Requirements 1-12 in Section 1.3 (1) There are no critical drainage areas. (2) There is no Existing Master Drainage Plan. (3) There are no conditions requiring a Master Drainage Plan. (4) No Adopted Basin or Community Plans exist. (5) Less than 5000 square feet of new impervious surface subject to vehicular use will be added. (6) An oil pollution control manhole per the City of Renton Standard Drawings has been added for treatment of run-off from the existing driveway area. (7) There are no Closed Depressions at this project site. (8) No Lakes, Wetlands or Closed Depressions for Runoff Control will be used for peak rate runoff control. (9) The Delineation of the 100 year flood plain does not apply. (10) The requirement for Flood Protection Facilities for this project does not apply. (11) A Soils Analysis and Report has been completed by Hong Consulting Engineers, Inc. on May 6, 1988. (12) A Soils Analysis and Report has been completed by Hong Consulting Engineers, Inc. on May 6, 1988. 93003\RPT KING COUNTY CONSOLIDATED OFFICE AND REPAIR FACILITY DRAINAGE REPORT Ill. ON-SITE DETENTION On-site Detention•Design The SBUH/SCS hydrograph method has been used to compute the on-site detention required for the 100- year 24-hour design storm event using an infiltration rate of 1 inch/minute. The observed infiltration rate is 3.7 inches/minute per the soils report. This provides a 3.7 factor of safety. Calculations for sizing the peak rate runoff control facilities and routing tables are included. Also note that, since no off-site flows are produced, this system is designed for the 100-year 24-hour storm. Therefore, the 10-year 24-hour storm calculations are not provided. 93003\RPT RoseWater Engineering, Inc. PROJECT "'- PROJEcr a 3oo-� 1932 First Ave., Suite 711 • Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 441-9385 BY DATE CHECKED DATE REV DATE SHEET OF ��F 1 l.U'f✓oA'rl Ctj 94,rV, v5 �o 'O1 y ! /a�/MI�J. IZ F�ir� >C %(,o EG = O OOB 3 404 Fvf2 4-' 'r 4 «lam p ,�,a/Sfz. . AMM PWWW ILL gv. e� qb w �k (Illay DENmai1 1 ' Mt ,• , mOR ��� j, OVA t '! 97rA .. �► Mw OWN VIA,WA I ��► J 4/20/93 RoseWater Engineering, Inc CORF - RWE JOB# 93003 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: D100 NAME: BLDG. D 100 YR - NOT TO VAULTI SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA. . . . . . . : 0.30 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0. 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE. . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION. . . . : 3 .90 inches AREA. . : 0. 03 Acres TIME INTERVAL. . . . : 10. 00 min CN. . . . : 86. 00 TIME OF CONC. . . . . : 1.72 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA. . : 0. 26 Acres CN. . . . . 98 . 00 TcReach - Sheet L: 90. 00 ns: 0. 0110 p2yr: 1.99 s: 0. 0133 TcReach - Channel L: 30. 00 kc:42 . 00 s:0. 0400 PEAK RATE: 0. 34 cfs VOL: 0.09 Ac-ft TIME: 470 min BASIN ID: DV100 NAME: BLDG. D 100 YR - TO VAULT SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA. . . . . . . : 0.54 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0. 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE. . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION. . . . : 3 .90 inches AREA. . : 0. 16 Acres TIME INTERVAL. . . . : 10. 00 min CN. . . . : 86. 00 TIME OF CONC. . . . . : 4 . 11 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA. . : 0. 38 Acres CN. . . . . 98 . 00 TcReach - Sheet L: 45. 00 ns: 0. 0110 p2yr: 1. 99 s: 0 . 0100 TcReach - Shallow L: 280. 00 ks:27. 00 s: 0. 0100 TcReach - Channel L: 28. 00 kc:42 .00 s:0. 0336 TcReach - Channel L: 165. 00 kc:42.00 s: 0. 0051 TcReach - Channel L: 140. 00 kc:42 .00 s:0. 0278 PEAK RATE: 0. 51 cfs VOL: 0. 15 Ac-ft TIME: 470 min BASIN ID: J100 NAME: BLDG J 100 YRI SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA. . . . . . . : 0. 23 Acres BASEFLOW$: 0. 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE. . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION. . . . : 3 .90 inches AREA. . : 0. 00 Acres TIME INTERVAL. . . . : 10. 00 min CN. . . . : 86. 00 TIME OF CONC. . . . . : 0.74 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA. . : 0. 23 Acres CN. . . . . 98. 00 TcReach - Sheet L: 40. 00 ns: 0. 0110 p2yr: 1.99 s: 0. 0200 PEAK RATE: 0.28 cfs VOL: 0. 07 Ac-ft TIME: 470 min 4/20/93 RoseWater Engineering, Inc CORF - RWE JOB# 93003 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: M100 NAME: BLDG. M 100 YR . SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA. . . . . . . : 0. 05 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0. 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE. . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION. . . . : 3 .90 inches AREA. . : 0. 00 Acres TIME INTERVAL. . . . : 10. 00 min CN. . . . : 86. 00 TIME OF CONC. . . . . : 0.59 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA. . : 0. 05 Acres CN. . . . . 98 . 00 TcReach - Sheet L: 30. 00 ns:0. 0110 p2yr: 1.99 s: 0. 0200 PEAK RATE: 0. 06 cfs VOL: 0. 01 Ac-ft TIME: 470 min Hyd No. . 1 Rate: 0. 85 efs Time: 7. 83 hr Vol 0. 24 Ae-ft Int : 10. 00 min r� a 3 a r Hyd No. : 2 Fate: 0 . 28 cfs Time: 7. 83 hr Vol : 0 . 07 Ac-ft Int : 10 . 00 min rot V 3 S g Hyd No. : 3 Rate: 0 . 06 cfs Time: 7. 83 hr Vol 0 0 . 01 Ac-ft Int: 10. 00 min 4/20/93 RoseWater Engineering, Inc CORF - RWE JOB# 93003 HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfs min. cf-AcFt Acres 1 0.851 470 10243 cf 0.83 kn 2 0. 281 470 3034 cf 0.23 N!- '10 3 0. 056 470 599 cf 0. 05 M - ate, 18 0. 056 480 599 cf 0.05 J- bkS 19 0.267 480 3034 cf 0.23 p _cj- 20 0. 750 480 10263 cf 0.83 4/20/93 RoseWater Engineering, Inc CORF - RWE JOB# 93003 --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY MATCH INFLOW -STO- -DIS- -PEAK- STORAGE <--------DESCRIPTION---------> (cfs) (cfs) --id- --id- <-STAGE> id VOL (cf) BLDG D ....................... 0.00 0.85 D1 DD1 321.97 20 42.59 BLDG J ....................... 0.00 0.28 J1 DJ1 325.22 19 6.14 BLDG M ....................... 0.00 0.06 M1 DM1 329.50 18 0.24 KING COUNTY CONSOLIDATED OFFICE AND REPAIR FACILITY DRAINAGE REPORT IV. 810FILTRATION DESIGN CALCULATIONS Biofiltration design is not required for this project, per discussions with the City of Renton. V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The site conveyance system has been sized based on flow rates from a 100-year, 24-hour storm using the SBUH/SCS method. VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Reference reports used are: Surface Water Design Manual King County, Washington Waterworks, Software for Hydrology Engenious Systems, Inc. Seattle, Washington Soils Information: A Soils Analysis and Report was completed by Hong Consulting Engineers, Inc. on May 6, 1988. VII. OTHER PERMITS To our knowledge, no additional permits are required for the construction of the drainage system. VIII. TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN Temporary erosion control facilities will be designed to minimize the impacts of construction related erosion. The specific features include filter fabric fencing and gravel and wire mesh filters for catch basins. 93003\RPT HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. • Geotechnical Engineering • (Material Testing • Construction Quality Control Inspection • GEOTECHNICAL SOIL INVESTIGATION KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CONSOLIDATED OFFICE AND REPAIR FACILITY PHASE I PROJECTS Renton, Washington Our Project Number 8846 May 6, 1988 Prepared For Arai/Jackson Architects 1535 11th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98122 Attention: Mr. Greg Saito, Project Manager 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL As requested, a soil and foundation engineering study was conducted on the site of the proposed additions to the King County Department of Public Works Consolidated Office and Repair Facility. Figure 1, the Project Location Map, shows the project site. Figures 2, 3 and 4 present the Site Plan Map, the Main Complex Site Plan, and the Parks Department Yard Site Plan, respectively. We understand that the facility will be expanded in phases. The current phase consists of expansions to the main complex (see Figure 3). These expansions include the construction of Building D, an increase in floor space for Building J, and a ministorage building. We assume that these additions will be designed as slab-on-grade structures without basements, similar to the present buildings on the site. Future plans include the construction of new parking areas in the Parks Department Yard area, and a new, large office complex in the presently undeveloped southeast portion of the property. The investigation activities undertaken as part of this study in regards to the southeast portion of the property are of a reconnaissance nature only. A complete geotech- nical investigation of the subsoils should be undertaken as part of the final design effort during that phase of site expansion. The services of Hong Consulting Engineers, Inc., were retained to conduct geotechnical in- vestigations which will be germane to the current and to future site development plans. 1.2 PURPOSE CITY 0rkFINTON The purpose of the geotechnical investigation is to: MAY 'L 6 1993 a) determine the subsurface soil conditions of the building site b) analyze the foundation support for the proposed buildings L.�3�ilLC�ING I IVIS90N 1 P.O. Box 596 Lynnwood, Woshin ton 98046 • 206 743-4774 o yg c) determine the seepage conditions of the site d) determine the infiltration rates of two locations under consideration for dry well instal- lation. Pavement design recommendations and retaining wall recommendations for basement foun- dation walls are not part of this study. Some of the locations of the exploration activities are shown on Figure 2, the Master Site Plan Map. Other locations are presented on Figures 3 and 4. 2.0 AUTHORIZATION Authorization to proceed with this study was received April 7, 1988, in a contract signed with Mr. Steven Arai, Partner, of Arai/Jackson Architects & Planners. Amendments to the scope of the project, including the authorization for the infiltration tests, were contained in a letter dated April 12, 1988, signed by Mr. Steven Arai. 3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The project site is located on top of the bluffs north of the Cedar River valley, in an area generally known as the Renton Highlands. The majority of the site is relatively level, with a gentle slope to the south. The southernmost portion of the property encompasses the slopes of the Cedar River Valley, and it falls away steeply to the south. Areas surrounding the property have been mined for sand and gravel. A large borrow pit, approximately 50 feet deep, occupies the area immediately north of the main complex. The main portion of the complex (see Figure 3) consists of two main office buildings, sur- rounded by parking areas, and four large shop structures. The north half of the complex is landscaped, with areas of lawn interspersed with parking lots and office buildings. The south half of the complex is covered with bare compacted gravel around the shop struc- tures. The Park Department yard consists of two buildings in the northwest corner of the site. The remainder of the area is bare ground, covered mostly with gravel fill. Areas of asphalt i and soil also occur. I The southeastern portion of the property is undeveloped and overgrown with brushy growth. Some areas are in use currently: an asphalt strip is used testing road painters, and King County tests prospective county backhoe operators in the area. The east boundary of the site is cleared for high tension power lines and a major gas pipeline. A broken fence bisects the area in the approximate location of the proposed buildings. An access road, which is blocked off at its upper end, traverses the area below the fence. Other evidence of previous disturbance of the site are abundant. L3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.2.1 General Geology of the Area Surficial mapping by Mullineaux (Mullineaux, D.R., 1965, Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington: U.S.G.S. Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-405) indi- cates that the project site is underlain glaciofluvial outwash deposits. Later work by Thor- I - 2 t , sen (Thorsen, R.M., 1981, Isostatic Effects of the Last Glaciation in the Puget Lowland, Washington: U.S.G.S Open-File Report 81-370) describes the outwash deposit as the Renton Delta. The delta sediments were deposited in glacial Lake Russell by the Cedar River. It is believed by Thorsen that the delta was built against the retreating ice front (p. 44). Oc- casional finer grained beds or layers may therefore be expected, within a thick general deposit of sand and gravel. 3 2.2 Soil Exploration Program Twelve test pits were excavated, utilizing a tire mounted Case extend-a-hoe backhoe. The test pit locations are shown on Figures 2, 3 and 4. The soils uncovered by the excavations were logged by a geologist of Hong Consulting Engineers, Inc. The detailed soil logs for the test pits are presented in Figures 5 through 16. Representative samples of the soils _encountered in the test pits were collected and transported to the laboratory for further testing. Infiltration tests were conducted in TP-11 and TP-12, at the request of the client. A com- plete explanation of the test methods and the test results are presented in Section 3.4. 3.2.3.1 The Main Complex Area The main complex area was filled prior to the construction of the present buildings. In the landscaped portions, the surface is underlain by a thin layer of imported sod and topsoil, up to a foot deep. Fill, consisting of sand and gravel, probably borrowed from on site, has been placed over the area. The fill varies from 1.5 feet thick, in TP-2, to 3.5 feet thick in TP-6. Below the landscaped sections, the fill is medium dense to dense. In the shop portions of the main complex, the fill is very densely compacted, to bear the weight of heavy equipment. No records were discovered of the origin or placement of this, or any of the fill found in other portions of the site. The material appears to be equivalent to pit run sand and gravel, and we assume that it was derived from on site. A thin, discontinuous "burned zone" layer underlies the fill in TP-1, TP-3, TP-6, and TP-7. The "burned zone" contains dark gray charcoal, as though the site was burned over to clear it, prior to filling. The burned zone consists of stringers at the top of a thicker unit consist- ing of brown sand and gravel, with a trace of silt developed through soil processes. The burned zone is at most a few inches thick. The brown sand can be as much as one foot thick. Dense, red brown weathered glacial outwash is found beneath the fill, burned zones and/or brown sand in TP-1, TP-6, TP-7 and TP-12. The grain composition varies from sand and gravel to sandy gravel. Cobbles are usually common. The weathered zone grades downward into brown gray to gray unweathered material of similar composition. 3.2.3.2 The Parks Department Yard The Parks Department Yard is also underlain by brown fill, of gravelly sand to sandy gravel composition, densified by vehicular traffic. The fill is 2.0 and 2.5 feet deep in TP-4 and TP-5, respectively. The fill is underlain by medium dense to dense, brown to brown gray glacial outwash. The grain size is sandy gravel. 3 3.2.3.3 The Southeast Portion of the Site Fill was found in TP-8 and TP-10. The thickness of the fill was insignificant in TP-8, only 0.5 foot deep. However, the fill was found to be 2.5 feet deep in TP-10. Weathered outwash was found in all test pits in this area. The soil consists of medium dense, red brown silty fine sand in TP-9 and TP-10, and sand and gravel in TP-8. Cedar wood debris was observed at the top of the weathered zone in TP-8 and TP-10. The weathered zone is 2.0 feet thick in TP-8 to 3.5 feet thick in TP-10. Dense brown gray sand and gravel are found at depth in all the test pits. 3.2.4 Groundwater Conditions The test pits encountered no seepage or other signs of groundwater. Water is present some 30 to 40 feet below surface level, in the bottom of the gravel pit to the north of the main complex. However, this is not necessarily indicative of the level of the water table. Other factors, such as when a hole bottom is disturbed and siltation effectively blocks drainage, may determine the occurrence of ponding in gravel terrain. 3.3 LABORATORY TESTS Moisture tests were run on the representative soil samples, in accordance with ASTM D 2216. The results of these tests are shown on the appropriate soil logs. Grain size analyses were accomplished on soil samples from the two infiltration test pits, on the basis of ASTM D 422. The results of theses tests are found in Figures 17 and 18. 3.4 INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS As indicated above, infiltration tests were conducted in TP-11 and TP-12. The test pits were first dug to an average depth of 5 feet. Water was introduced into the test pits by means of the front loader bucket of the backhoe tractor. The infiltration rates thus re- corded which are presented in Table 1, were much lower than expected. We felt that this was due to the initial test being conducted within the zone of weathered outwash, which contains a significant amount of silt. After consideration of the initial results, it was { decided to deepen the pits and conduct a second test. TABLE 1 �.. Results of Infiltration Tests for Dry Well Design Test Depth Material Infiltration Pit of Test Rate r TP-11 5' Weathered outwash/outwash 5.00 min/inch TP-12 5' Weathered outwash/outwash 6.88 min/inch TP-12 8' Glacial outwash 0.27 min/inch TP-12 V Glacial outwash 0.26 min/inch �- The pits were duly reopened on 4/25/88, and dug to a depth of 8 feet. On this occasion water was introduced to the pit bottom by means of a garden hose attached to a domestic tap. Care was taken not to unduly disturb the soils lining the pits. The soils were allowed to saturate for at least one hour prior to commencing the infiltration test. In both of these second tests, the infiltration rates were much higher those of the initial tests. f_ 4 r 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 BUILDING AREAS 4.1.1 Site Preparations The construction site should be stripped of all topsoil and rooted soils. The soils so removed may be stockpiled for later use in re-landscaping the site. 4.1.2 Construction Excavation Requirements The native soils on the site are densely consolidated; however, below the fill and weathered zones the soil particles are not bonded together by fines. Extensive raveling was observed in several of the test pits below approximately the 4 foot depth. Vibratory compaction of the soils at the bottom of the trenches, as recommended below, may cause sloughing in the up- per layers as well. Safe construction under these conditions require relatively wider trenches. Shallow construction trenches should be made with walls sloped approximately 1H:1V. Construction excavations in excess of 6 feet deep should be shored for the protec- tion of the workmen, or the walls of the excavation should be sloped back at about a 1H:1V grade. The actual grade of the cut slopes should be determined based on on-site conditions by the contractor. Also, shoring design and installation should be the responsibility of the contractor. 4.1.3 Foundation Design Parameters It recommended that all buildings be supported on shallow spread footing foundations. The fill and weathered native materials should be overexcavated from beneath the foundation locations to expose dense, gray native glacial outwash sand and gravel. The foundations should be poured directly on the dense, gray native glacial outwash sand and gravel. No fill, organic bearing topsoil or weathered materials should be allowed to remain beneath the ( footings. The foundations soils are dense, but they are easily disrupted. Special care should be taken during the excavation of the foundation trenches to avoid disturbing or loosening the bear- ing surface. After the excavations are complete, the bearing surface should be wetted and proof-rolled with a vibratory roller, to densify the soils which may have become loosened. l The following are the design parameters: a) We recommend an allowable net bearing capacity of 5000 psf for the native, dense, gray outwash. The structural engineer may add an additional 1/3 of the bearing capacity to the net bearing, to accommodate temporary loading conditions, such as earthquakes and wind conditions. l b) Minimum footing widths of 1.5 and 2.0 feet are recommended for the strip and square i footings, respectively. The footings should be placed at least 2 feet below the final design grade. c) Footing excavations should be finished in a neat condition. The native outwash soils of- ten ravel easily; loose slough material should not be allowed to accumulate on the bearing surface. The bearing surfaces should be tested and verified by a geotechnical engineer. 5 I f 4.1.4 Floor Support Considerations Due to the general quality of the fill materials used on this site, we are disinclined to recommend that the owner remove the fill from within the building footprint. We feel the floor slabs may be poured directly on the existing fill sand and gravel, after stripping and removal of the topsoil. We recommend that, at the time of initiation of earthwork, we be called upon to conduct a review of the fill soils within the construction site. Also, the foun- dation and other excavations should be monitored during construction, to be certain no sub- stantial organic soils are unexpectedly present beneath the floor slab areas. If such organic soils are found, the fill materials and organic soil should be overexcavated and removed. This removal will occasion further expenses, and we recommend that a con- tingency fund be set aside to cover this possibility. After overexcavation, the native, weathered soils should be proof-rolled to give a dense construction surface. A structural fill should be constructed from clean, on-site materials, as indicated Section 4.6. Six inches of freely draining gravel or sand and gravel with less than 2% fines should be placed under the slabs. In building which require dry floor conditions at all time, a sheet of Visqueen should be placed over the gravel layer. The thickness of the concrete slabs should be determined on the basis of the axle loads of the anticipated vehicles, the flexural strength of the concrete, and a modulus of subgrade reaction. Assuming that the subgrade soils are well compacted, we recommend that a modulus of subgrade of 100 pounds per cubic inch be used to design slab structures which are expected to support heavy vehicles. 4.2 UTILITY CONSTRUCTION PARAMETERS Utilities may be supported on the native soils. Care should be taken not to disturb the utility foundation soils. Soils at the bottom of the trenches should be compacted as indi- cated in Section 4.6. If cobbles or boulders are encountered at the grade level of the utility, the coarse material should be overexcavated, and the cavity filled with compacted sand and gravel. At least 6 inches of minus 1.5 inch bedding material should be placed beneath all utility pipes. Utility trenches should be backfilled with 1.5 inch minus sand and gravel, im- ported or borrowed from on site, and compacted as indicated in Section 4.6. 4.3 SETTLEMENT EVALUATION Where the organic materials have been properly removed, and the foundations have been constructed in accordance with the design parameters presented above, the buildings will exhibit tolerable settlement under all live and dead load conditions. 4.4 BORROW SOURCE FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS The on-site soils are suitable for use as structural fill material. j 4.5 DRY WELL PARAMETERS 1 Our infiltration tests indicate that the well should be placed below the weathered zone, as fines contained in the weathered zone inhibit infiltration. We recommend that the well be sunk to at least 8 feet, and that a percolation rate of between 2.5 and 5 minutes per inch be used in the design of the wells. This value is 1/10 to 1/20 the measured infiltration rate. Experience has shown that dry well systems may clog with fines over time. A design safety factor of 10% or less should ensure the long term viability of the dry well system. I lr 6 i In a facility such as this, where heavy machinery is maintained and stored, spillage of petroleum products and other potentially hazardous materials is possible. We recommend that the dry well systems be designed against any potential access of such substances, as this might lead to undesirable contamination of the groundwater. Alternatively, some other system of stormwater handling might be considered. 4.6 COMPACTION STANDARDS The bearing surfaces of the dense, native outwash sand and gravel should be proof-rolled to assure a uniform dry density of 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density, ASTM D 1557. Surfaces of existing fill, which are deemed suitable for bearing floor slabs after in- spection of the construction trenches in the vicinity, should also be proof-rolled to a uniform dry density of 95%. Any new fill supporting floor structures should be compacted in layers not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thicknesses, to a uniform dry density of 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). It should be tested for compaction as construction progresses. All utility bedding material should be compacted to 90% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. Utility trench backfill should be compacted to 90% of the Modified ASTtit Proctor maximum dry density to within 2 feet of the soil surface. The uppermost 2 feet should be compacted to 95%. The procedure to achieve the proper density of a compacted fill is dependent on the size and type of compacting equipment, the number of passes, thickness of the layer to be com- pacted, and some soil properties. When the size of the excavation restricts the use of heavy equipment, smaller equipment can be used, but the soil must be placed in thin enough layers to achieve the required compaction. Generally, under compacted soils are the result of poor workmanship or of soils being com- pacted at an improper moisture content. Soils with a high degree of silt or clay may easily become too wet, or coarse grain soils become too dry for maximum compaction. Silty or clayey soils with a water content higher than the optimum must be dried as necessary. Sprinkling is sometimes required to wet a course grained soil to its optimum water content before compacting. 6.0 CLOSURE This soil investigation program was designed and conducted in accordance with generally accepted engineering standards. Experience has shown that programs planned and executed by these standards reveal with reasonable regularity soils that are representative of subsur- face conditions throughout a site. The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are made based on the assump- tion that the soil conditions encountered in test excavations are representative of actual conditions throughout the subject site. However, experience has also proven that subsoils can vary quite radically over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between test excavations, and not be detected by a geological study. If, during construction, subsurface conditions are encountered which are different from those predicted by the results of this investigation, this office should be notified so that we can review these variances and reconsider our recommendations wherever necessary. Such unexpected conditions frequently require an additional capital expenditure in order to attain a properly constructed project. Therefore, some contingency funds should be made available to cover these potential extra costs. 7 I i f This report is prepared for the exclusive use of the owner's design engineers and the ar- chitect for specific application on this project in accordance with generally accepted soils and foundation engineering practice. No warranty, expressed or implied, Is made. In addi- tion, geotechnical supervision is recommended during the construction phases to ensure that a safe, high quality construction is attained. Should any questions arise, please contact this office at your convenience. Sincerely, do UP %a� P ��''w yy0 Stephen H. Evans, Sen. Eng. Geol. d Gj • 0 4 .+ � ?� •I,_� yco•S C y a � i -a ti • f + , 4o' '�� �� Sa H. Hong, P.E., President, • L E1K' • Hong Consulting Engineers, Inc. I f I i I-: 8 I r 133 34 35 t 4 '�* I J. [olrc+• F•OMY ■! + k I,< 1 V�7 � VA &> S.E. iMTN ST T.ST SE i ir> k - >• 1 l a i0p IcNc� 'c com ST se ' 4 sT ! RIse, 'SE :O,M ST Z , us IITM '^' : �` � � z»I�`� T � -1T �'�,=rr �.�1•[!_--1 u loet»sr, "" s[,a[r»ST \ \ 9 Gs #t-3!i .,•TI['s'T n�o[ T.iol '= —, — " —'-— -�-- — — -�— � ——— '�—-—- - N �?.»•. E �I W \\.1� '$$AQV4N \ - t t5T �usrvsvc <z - ._� � i lsez,rrt, •%��.a" 0 i H - cI0 ,E+c,� F r•1 " I ""Fy„ :- %a 1! r t w.7:ij S<I ;' _ �`-S - - - h .�� r—�s —� 4L..•. — r�f :'7� IS( '_-.I 5E-�-')lu - .... - .. 1T -[ it "I M ,T =, ., 'ti> S ,�;i• szj T91 SI Pei �=ssl .�. $r ^sE s £ ! •T•I I` i F �.� . 1 s• _ �� `#•s :'� `_'_ ;f is = e� 1 � 7 F �I z ,� ��'f -..< ls'�L;�•w� 3 se 1 aT»S I, l_I s— ........ yi is T' T �y G `'»?i+•c�'� s i't� � - SE :]tIs ST M:[Y SF IrnIT r•• ss..i '-iL/O �; ♦S�!:D� ' ST tE '_2 ST, "-:11ND >T` rC PROJECT LOCATION7c-ail SE 125T. 31 ,I I 7TM 1 _ '_ST.i SE'w'- I SE _ . —; 9q 4s' y s s[,sm"Ir. t {rsE,1;TM a: ��� (� !i I •S" 1 0;� N!- >:' 171snr n � SE IYM P_ ra =f a •1,p» sa I - YYl(apppl 1. -�-sTl t. s,[� - .h r•>[u° I � h LSotwS1':. - � _S t r _s< PROJECT LOCATION MAP KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CONSOLIDATED OFFICE AND SHOP FACILITY PHASE I PROJECTS HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. FIGURE 1 1 _ i PARK DEPARTMENT YARDa MAIN COMPLEX - BUILDING B I z_ BUILDING . RENOVATIO BUILDING D MATERIAL LAB 1 � � ,��,;• � ;�: �;,. _BUILDING M MINI STORAGE c= TP-1013UI*' G \ �, .t 1• TP-8� • TP-9 SOUTHEAST PORTION OF SITE 1 \ \\ \, _ SCALE (IN FEET) 0 400 MASTER SITE PLAN MAP KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS PHASE I PROJECTS CONSOLIDATED OFFICE AND SHOP FACILITY HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. FIGURE 2 �s l TP-1 SCALE (IN FEET) i 0 250 TP-12_ B TP-2 ! - TP-3 SIi I ' i i i i TP-7 i TP-6 I \ TP-1+1 Site Plan MAIN COMPLEX SITE PLAN MAP KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS PHASE I PROJECTS CONSOLIDATED OFFICE AND SHOP FACILITY HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. FIGURE 3 MN-L2-24 W 'SOO.�L9' 31 39.2 35616 t0 ' PAAV. 06MATMENT I U.T 1 I 33.4 us kn ®r= a Q "� - -- "s PUS _ on v SHOP i OFFICE 7 TP-4 i i i I 32.2' f • I� r TP-5 N GIP-15 P- -2 ' 73 M SCALE (IN FEET) �. 0 50 100 150 200 250 PARK DEPARTMENT YARD PLAN MAP L KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS PHASE I PROJECTS r CONSOLIDATED OFFICE AND SHOP FACILITY HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC_ FIGURE 4 I TEST PIT LOG GROUND MOISTURE CONTENT•/. DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION a WATER (feat) a SPT RESISTANCE a CONDITION 10 20 30 40 50 so 70 Dark brown topsoil - sod - 1 Dense brown SAND and GRAVEL 2 trace silt (Fill ) 3 Dark gray burn zone 4 Very dense red brown SAND GRAVEL, COBBLES (weathered Outwash) 5 S-1 • 6 END OF PIT PROJECT DATE 4-15-88 HOLE NO. King Co. Consol . Off. Fac. LOGGED BY SHE TP-1 Figure 5 Monroe Ave N.E. ELEVATION SHEET Renton, WA. DEPTH 515' 1 of 1 TEST PIT LOGS J GROUND MOISTURE CONTENT °/v DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION °° WATER SPT RESISTANCE A (feet) a CONDITION 10 20 ao 40 50 60 70 Medium dense, brown SAND and GRAVEL, thin sod at top; trace 1 silt (Fill ) 2 Dense, gray interbedded medium SAND, GRAVEL and COBBLES Moist 3 (Glacial Outwash) 4 5 6 END OF PIT i I i PROJECT DATE 7-15-88 HOLE NO. Kin Co. Consol . *Off. Fac. 9 LOGGED B7 SHE TP-2 `` Figure 6 Monroe Ave. N.E. ELEVATION SHEET Renton, WA. DEPTH 5 z 1 of 1 I TEST PIT LOG � GROUND MOISTURE CONTENT'/o OEPTee)H SOIL. DESCRIPTION aCONDITION WAT SPT RESISTANCE A N IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 Medium dense, brown SAND and GRAVEL (Topsoil ) - 1 Dense brown gray medium SAND and 2 GRAVEL and COBBLES (Fill ) 3 Dense brown SAND and GRAVEL: trace silt (Topsoil ) 4 Dense gray sandy GRAVEL: bedded 5 (Glacial Outwash) 6 END OF PIT I l I i f 1 l PROJECT DATE 4-15-88 HOLE NO. King Co. Consol . Off. Fac. SHE �— LOGGED BY TP-3 Figure 7 Monroe AVP_N•E• ELEVATION I SHEET t Renton, WA. DEPTH 1 of 1 TEST PIT LOG f-- J GROUND MOISTURE CONTENT % `` DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION a WATER (feat} a SPT RESISTANCE h CONDITION 10 20 30 40 SO 6070 Dense brown sandy GRAVEL: I cobbles; trace silt (Fill ) I 2 Dense brawn gray -sandy GRAVEL: 3 with cobbles i (Glacial Outwash) 4 i 5 END OF PIT 4 l 6 I 1 . l l-- L PROJECT DATE s15- HOLE No. King Co. Consol . ' Off. Fac. LOGGED BY TP-4 Figure 8 Monroe Ave. N.E. ELEVATION SHEET Renton, WA. DEPTH 4' _ 1 at 1 1. TEST PIT LOG W GROUND MOISTURE CONTENT•/, DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION a WATER (feet) a SPT RESISTANCE N CONDITION 10 20 30 ao 50 6070 Medium dense brown gravelly SAND: (Fill ) 1 2 Medium dense to dense-brown gray F1 3 sandy fine to coarse GRAVEL: bedded q (Glacial Outwash) 5 6 END OF PIT i ! Note: Pit walls exhibited ravelling within the outwash l_ i i I E . l PROJECT DATE HOLE NO. King Co. Consol . Off. Fac. LOGGED BY SHE TP-5 Figure 9 Monroe Ave. N.E. ELEVATION SHEET I Renton, WA. OEPT►+ 5�2' 1 at 1 TEST PIT LOG W GROUND MOISTURE CONTENT V, 0 DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION a WATER � SPT RESISTANCE (feet) N CONDITION 10 20 30 40 50 6070 Dense red brown SAND, GRAVEL and COBBLES 1 (Fill ) 2 3 4 Dense, dark brown SAND and GRAVEL: trace silt (Topsoil ) 5 Dense, red brown silty sandy GRAVEL: 6 (Weathered Outwash) S-1 7 Dense brown gray gravelly fine $ to coarse SAND S-2 (Glacial Outwash) g END OF PIT i I - i_ I PROJECT DATE - - HOLE NO. L King Co. Consol . Off. Fac. LOGGED 9Y TP-6 Figure 10 Monroe Ave. N.E. ELEVATION SHEET iRenton , WA. DEPTH " $' 1 of 1 r TEST PIT LOG GROUND MOISTURE CONTENT •/* 0 DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION a WATER SPT RESISTANCE (feet) N CONDITION ,o 20 30 40 50 60 70 Dense brown silty SAND and GRAVEL (Fill ) 1 2 Dark charcoal horizon Dense red brown sandy GRAVEL: Moist trace silt 3 (Weathered Outwash) 4 Dense brown gray medium to coarse SAND and GRAVEL; bedded 5 (Glacial Outwash) 6 END OF PIT 7 PROJECT DATE 4-15-88 HOLE NO. Kinq Co. Consol . 'Off. Fac. LOGGED B7 SHE TP-7 Figure 11 • Monroe Ave. N.E. ELEVATION SHEET Renton, WA. DEPTH 5.51 I or 1 TEST PIT LOG GROUND MOISTURE CONTENT°/. DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION WATER SPT RESISTANCE (feet) N CONDITION Io 20 30 40 50 60 70 Medium dense gray SAND Fill - 1 Dense red brown SAND and GRAVEL: trace silt; cedar debris Z (Weathered Outwash) 3 Dense brown gray medium SAND and GRAVEL: bedded (Glacial Outwash) 4 5 END OF PIT 6 TFF I f t i 1_ I _ PROJECT DATE 4-15-88 MOLE NO. LLL King Co. Consol . Off. Fac. LOGGED 8Y SHE TP-8 Figure 12 Monroe Ave. N.E. ELEVATION SHEET Renton, WA. DEPTH 4.2' 1 of 1 J � TEST PIT LOG LU GROUND MOISTURE CONTENT% DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION a WATER (feet) Q SPT RESISTANCE 0 N CONDITION IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 Dark brown topsoil 1 Medium dense red brown fine SAND: some silt; trace gravel (Weathered Outwash) 2 3 Medium dense brown gray medium SAND: trace gravel ; occasional 4 boulders (Glacial Outwash) 5 6 Dense brown gray SAND and GRAVEL (Glacial Outwash) 7 END OF PIT r. r f I_. PROJECT DATE - -88 HOLE NO. King Co. Consol . Off. Fac. LOGGED 9Y SHE TP_9 Figure 13 Monroe Ave. N.E. ELE VATIOM SHEET ` Renton, WA. DEPTH . 6.5� 1 or 1 L 1 TEST PIT LOG J GROUND MOISTURE CONTE?4-. DEPTH SOIL. DESCRIPTION WATER sPT RESISTANCE (feet) N CONDITION 10 20 30 e0 50 6070 Medium dense brown SAND and GRAVEL - 1 (Fill ) 2 Medium dense red brown silty 3 fine SAND: trace gravel ; wood debris 4 (Topsoil/bleathered Outwash) 5 i ` 6 Dense brown gray medium to coarse Moist gravelly SAND: bedded 7 (Glacial Outwash) I. END OF PIT l I l ° l l L-- �. PROJECT DATE m m HOLE NO. L King Co. Consol .' Off. Fac. LOGGED 87 SHE TP-10 Figure 14 Monroe Ave. N.E. ELEVATION SHEET Renton , WA. DEPTH 7.5' 1 Of 1 TEST PIT LOG J I GROUND MOISTURE CONTENT% O DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION a WATER (feet) � SPT RESISTANCE N CONDITION 10 20 30 40 50 6070 Very dense red brown SAND and . 1 GRAVEL (Compacted Fill ) 2 Dense, red-brown sandy SILT ,and r,RAVEL: 3 (Weathered Outwash) 4 Dense, gray SAND and GRAVEL: 5 bedded; with cobbles (Outwash) 6 7 3 END OF PIT 9 10 r • l.. PROJECT DATE — — HOLE NO. King Co. Consol . Off. Fac. LOGGED BY SHE TP-11 Figure 15 Monroe Ave. N.E. ELEVATIOU SHEET Renton, WA. DEPTH 8.31 1 of 1 L_ TEST PIT LOG -- GROUND MOISTURE CONTENT V. O DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION CL WATER sPT RESISTANCE (feet) CONDITION � 10 20 30 10 50 6070 Dense brown SAND and GRAVEL (Fill ) 1 Z 3 Dense red brown SAND and GRAVEL 4 (Weathered Outwash) Am 5 Dense, gray SAND and GRAVEL: bedded; pit walls ravel easily 6 (Outwash) 7 8 1 END OF PIT 9 i 1 10 r: i . 1. I f PROJECT DATE -15-88 HOLE NO. King Co. Consol . Off. Fac. LOGGED ®Y SHE _ TP-12 Figure 16 Monroe. Ave. N.E. ELEVATION SHEET Renton , WA. DEPTH 8.21 1 of 1 i HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. • Gsotechnicd Engineering • Materiol Testing • Construction Quality Control Inspection • GRAIN SIZE. DISTRIBUTION Project ...King County Consolidated Office Test Hole Number:....... TP-11, S.S .......................................... and..Repair...Facil?.tY. ...Renton,.► �... .............. Depth..................................................................................................... Project Number.........8846............................ Sample Description Date Tested...........5�2/88.............................. Gravel ....60...�........... ............... Remarks:_ ........... .................................... ..... Sand:.......38..8.......... Silt ............................ ...........1.�.2......... ......................................................... Clay:................... ...... ................................................................................................................ SAND GRAVEL CLAY SILT FINE I MEDIUM I CRSE FINE i COARSE SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 4030 20 16 108 4 1g '- �i 1 11t 2 3 100 .... so- .. ....... .. ..... .... 70 ....... .. LU J .... ....... .. .. .. Q 50 ....... .. ....... ....... .... .... ........ Wy....'...... h......: U 40 :.q: ry. cc aW .... ...... . 30 ....... ....... ....... 20 ....... ;....:......; 10 ............. ........}..... o .0005 .001 .002 .005 .01 .02 .05 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 50 GRAIN SIZE—MILLIMETRES ReviewedBy: ................sib, ..................................... All tests pertormed in accordance nnlh ASTM Figure 17 HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. • Geote6nkol Engineering • Mweriol Testing & Constriction Quollty Controi Inspection • GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project:......Ki.ng.„County....Con.s,ol...i,dated....Offi,ce._ Test Hole Number....._..77.1Z.....5$........................................ and....ReA .r...Fac .1.7.ty.,...Renton,...WA........... Depth=................................$.'................................................................. Project Number...........aa;,o......................................................... Sample Description DateTested:...........512/$$........................................................... Gravel:....58.0........... Remarks:. ... ................................................................................... Sand=......4.1,0.......... ........ Silt:.............1".0.... ..... ...............................................................................................I............... Clay:................... ...... ....................................................................................................I....... ..... SAND I GRAVEL � CLAY SILT FINE I MEDIUM I CRSE I FINE I COARSE SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 4030 20 16 108 4 :319 'ltt �a 1 11-2 2 3 100 90 ;.. ... .... ........ ........ so. ........ .. ry :; ....... .. .... .... 70 ....... ....... .. ' ;.. ...... W 50 .........i.... .r. ...... .... 1 50 ....... .. ....... ........... y. ..... z U qQ _...... ....... _ _..y....i...... Cr LLI r: 3Q ... .. 20 ;.;........ ....... _. ....... ....... .y....:....... t0 ........ y4.i .........4.... ...... .... .... ....... ....... 0 .0005 .001 .002 .005 .01 .02 •05 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 50 GRAIN SIZE—MILLIMETRES ReviewedBy: ............ .76.......................................... i All tests performed in accordance with ASTM Figure 18 FOR DISTRIBUTION TO: ° Water Utility Building Division Wastewater Utility Public Works Constr Inspector Surface Water Utility IN Fire Prevention 0 Maintenance Services Transportation Systems J_ Project: Location: Attached please find copies of: RX PERMIT ® BILLS OF SALE 0 RECEIPT ® COST DATA INVENTORY LETTER OF SPECIAL BILLING IN EASEMENT(S) STUB SERVICE AGREEMENT ® COPY OF AS-BUILT PRECON NOTES Im ® PRECON ATTENDEES In DRAINAGE REPORT MEMO-WATER BREAKDOWN MAP WITH NEW MAINS AND VALVES ® OTHER From: Date: C:TB:PREC0N:DISTFRM