The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWP271590 (2) PREPARED FOR SUNSHINE BAKING COMPANY i `✓ OF Do u as S. Lynne ��hT oao�o St Engineer , 14091 /Ra_bVrt S. Levinson, P. E. o President1�NAL �xa��as 03i'07/94- GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE NORTHEAST 4TH STREET AND UNION AVENUE NORTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON E-6183-1 September 28, 1993 Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643-3780 222 East 26th Street, Suite 103 Tacoma, Washington 98411-9998 (206) 272-6608 . Earth Consultants Inc. �� I i\\LI�I �I •�l (''vdi•rhni a Iiny;inrrc.(iwdu};itits�f1m'iraunrntal Sc ir•ntitits September 28, 1993 E-6183-1 Safeway Stores, Inc. 1211 - 124th Avenue Northeast P. 0. Box 90947 Bellevue, Washington 98009 Attention: Mr. Mitchell Johnson Dear Mr. Johnson: We are pleased to submit our report titled Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Safeway Store, 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 September 13, 1993 letter of verbal authorization confirmation. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the above referenced site, it is our opinion that the proposed structures may be supported by shallow spread footings bearing on structural fill or on the medium dense to dense native soil, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the construction specifications. 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. � o t S. Levinson, P. E. President DSL/RSL/kml (6183-1 GES.Rpt1 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue,Washington 98005 222 E. 26th Street, Suite 103, Tacoma, Washington 98421.9998 Bellevue(206)643.3780 Seattle(206)464.1584 FAX(206) 746.0860 Tacoma(206)272-6608 TABLE OF CONTENTS E-6183-1 PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Subsurface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Laboratory Testing . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Site Preparation and Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 LateralLoads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Slab-on-Grade Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Seismic Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Excavations and Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Site Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Backfill Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Pavement Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Additional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 APPENDICES Appendix A Field Exploration Appendix B Laboratory Testing Earth Consultants, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued E-6183-1 ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Test Pit Location Plan Plate 3 Retaining Wall Drainage and Backfill Plate Al Legend Plates A2 through A15 Test Pit Logs Plates 131 and B2 Grain Size Analyses Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE NORTHEAST 4TH STREET AND UNION AVENUE RENTON, WASHINGTON E-6183-1 INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study for the proposed Safeway store, 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, existing structures, and exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. Based on the preliminary plans provided to us, we understand that the site is to be developed with a 62,500 square foot Safeway and an additional 8700 square feet of retail space between the existing Safeway and the proposed building. A loading dock is planned for the northeast corner of the building. A 6,000 square foot pad is proposed in the southwest corner of the property. The remainder of the area is to be asphalt parking and landscaping areas. In order to obtain site grades, it is proposed to make cuts and fills to balance the site. It is anticipated cuts of up to twelve (12) feet with fills of up to four feet in thickness (swale area). Based upon our experience with similar structures in the past, we anticipate structural Loading to fall within the following ranges, including maximum dead plus live loads: • Wall footings - 3 kips per lineal foot • Maximum column load - 50 to 100 kips • Slab loads - 250 pounds per square foot (psf) Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-6183-1 September 28, 1993 Page 2 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 the Soils Engineer of Record be retained to perform a general review of the final construction design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site of the proposed facility is located approximately four hundred (400) feet east of the intersection of Northeast 4th Street and Union Avenue Northeast, Renton, Washington. (see Plate 1 , Vicinity Map). The rectangular shaped parcel encompasses about eight acres. To the north and east of the site are two-level apartment buildings, to the south is Northeast 4th Street and to the west is an existing Safeway store. A pump station for King County Water District #90 is located along Northeast 4th Street. A swale drains from northwest to southeast with a hill in the northeast quarter of the property. The hill has downward slopes to the west and south. A drainage ditch is located in the southeast quarter of the parcel. At the time of our exploration, vegetative cover consisted of Scot's Broom, blackberry vines with some Douglas Fir and Cedar trees. A concrete foundation was observed in the southwest quarter of the property. Debris from demolition of previous structures was also observed sporadically across the site. Subsurface The site was explored by excavating fourteen (14) test pits at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Detailed descriptions of the conditions encountered at each location explored are presented on the test pit logs, Plates A2 through A15. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. Below is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-6183-1 September 28, 1993 Page 3 Based on our site study, the site is generally underlain by about three feet of loose to medium dense, brown silty sand (Unified Soil Classification SM) overlying dense to very dense, gray silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM) to the maximum depth of exploration of twelve feet. In Test Pits 5 and 7, a loose to medium dense, brown poorly graded gravel with sand (Unified Soil Classification GP) was encountered to depths of eight feet and five and one-half feet, respectively. Test Pits 2,3 and 7 encountered a medium dense, brown poorly graded sand (Unified Soil Classification SP). In Test Pit 7, the sand was encountered beneath the gravel and in Test Pits 2 and 3, the sand was encountered beneath a cap of loose, brown silty sand (Unified Soil Classification SM, Fill). Fill was encountered sporadically during the site exploration to depths ranging from one foot to three feet. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was not observed in any of the test pits during the time our site study was performed. 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). Groundwater seepage is not expected to have a significant impact on construction unless the site is developed during periods of heavy precipitation. 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 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 Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-6183-1 September 28, 1993 Page 4 test pit 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 sixty (60) 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, the proposed structure may be supported on spread footings bearing on structural fill or the medium dense to dense native soils. These and other geotechnically related aspects of the project are discussed in the following sections of this report. 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 Safeway Stores, Inc. 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 Construction areas should be stripped and cleared of all existing vegetation, topsoil, demolition debris, and any other deleterious materials. Stripped organic materials should not be mixed with any soils to be used as structural fill. A stripping depth of twelve (12) inches should be adequate for removal of the topsoil. Concrete structures Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-6183-1 September 28, 1993 Page 5 may be broken up into pieces no greater than three inches in diameter and mixed in with the general fill. 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. The native soils exposed in all of the test pits, except Test Pits 3, 5 and 8, are moisture sensitive due to their relatively 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 for use as structural fill. 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 structural fill. The depth of removal will be dependent on the level of disturbance developed during construction. Given the above, a summer earthwork construction schedule is recommended. 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 eight inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum 95 percent of its maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under 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. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-6183-1 September 28, 1993 Page 6 Laboratory tests indicate the majority of native soil expected to be exposed in the excavation has between 20 and 35 percent fines and a natural moisture content ranging from 4 to 10 percent. It is our opinion this soil would be suitable for use as a structural fill in its present condition, given that the moisture content does not increase above optimum. Should the moisture content rise above optimum, grading and earthwork operations will become difficult. 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. Foundations Based on the encountered subsurface soil conditions, preliminary design criteria, and assuming compliance with the preceding "Site Preparation and Grading" section, the proposed structures may be supported on compacted fill or the medium dense to dense native soils. The foundations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) when bearing on structural fill. Footings bearing on the dense to very dense, gray silty sand with gravel (till) may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 3,500 psf. Due to proposed cutting and filling of the site, footings will bear on a transition zone from native, undisturbed soil to structural fill. We recommend using additional reinforcement in the transitional area in order to help alleviate differential settlement between the fill and native soil. Footings should be at least twelve 0 2) inches in width and extend to a depth of at least eighteen (18) inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade. The above allowable bearing values are for dead plus live loads and may be increased one-third for combined dead, live, wind, and seismic forces. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-6183-1 September 28, 1993 Page 7 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. For the above design criteria, total settlements are expected to be less than one inch for foundations bearing on structural fill. Total settlement of foundations bearing in dense native soil is expected to be less than one-quarter inch. Differential settlements between and across foundations are expected to be less than three-quarters of an inch. The majority of the anticipated settlement should occur during construction as the dead loads are applied. Lateral Loads The horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neat" against the competent native soils or backfilled with structural fill. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.35 can be used. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance can be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of three hundred (300) pcf. A factor of safety of 1 .5 is included in the lateral resistance values. As movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance should be neglected if such movement is not acceptable. 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 wight of thirty-five (35) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The equivalent fluid weight should be increased to fifty (50) pcf for walls that are Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-6183-1 September 28, 1993 Page 8 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. 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 (Plate 3, Retaining Wall Drainage and Backfill). 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 clean 3/4-inch rock or should be wrapped with a filter fabric. Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on the existing dense native soil or on structural fill. 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. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-6183-1 September 28, 1993 Page 9 Seismic Design Considerations The Puget Sound region is classified'as Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal events, ranging in depth from 50 to 70 kilometers. 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 .2 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 Rock and Stiff Soils (soil type 1) 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 the subsurface information obtained during our field exploration, it is our opinion that the liquefaction potential at the site is negligible due to the relative high density of the soils encountered and the absence of a groundwater table. Excavations and Slopes You should be aware that in no case should the 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, Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-6183-1 September 28, 1993 Page 10 approximately the upper three feet of loose to medium dense soil would classify as a Type "C",the medium dense to dense poorly graded gravel and poorly graded sand would classify as a Type "B", and the underlying silty sand would be classified as type "A". Therefore temporary cuts greater than four feet in height, should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1 .5H:1 V in the upper three feet, 1 H:1 V in the poorly graded gravel and the poorly graded sand and 0.75H:1 V in the underlying dense silty sand (till). 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 steeper 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. 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 seepage was not encountered in any of the test pits during the time our site study was performed. It is not likely that groundwater levels will present any construction related problems while excavating the foundations. However, if groundwater seepage is encountered in any excavations during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-6183-1 September 28, 1993 Page 11 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. Backfill Procedures All backfill associated with utility trenches should be spread, watered or aerated as required, thoroughly mixed to a uniform near-optimum moisture condition, placed and compacted by mechanical means in lifts approximately eight inches in thickness. The degree of compaction obtained should be at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557-78 laboratory test standard in foundation areas. Where the fill will be supporting walkways and paved drive areas, the fill should be compacted to 90 percent of ASTM-1557-78; except the upper twelve (12) inches, which should be compacted to 95 percent. In non-load supporting areas, the compaction can be reduced to 85 percent. All backfill procedures should be subject to compaction control monitoring and testing by the geotechnical engineer. 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 Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-6183-1 September 28, 1993 Page 12 the subgrade be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparation 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). 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. 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. 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. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-6183-1 September 28, 1993 Page 13 The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pits. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits 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 allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. It should be noted that it is generally in the best interests of the owner/client to maintain the same Soils Engineer during construction in order to obtain the project objective, with optimum quality control. Earth Consultants, Inc. All Sim u vk kA ^> N 6TH = PL i z Z a E OLYHPIA o�PL AV HE a' N S1N .ST E SITE LOCATION h� µtN�°� `MlNDSOR FEPNDAL E� < x •i A� st HrLpu HE NE I 4TH N 4TH ST � f t 2 2� (n , 5 s MAI ST Z {� v�i �Z2 �u fiRE p r a ` < ST NE 3R0 PL MTTERY N v, vAar'rsrru S 4 to Y sr �J I NE 3 _ NE __ 2N0 ST H NE 2ND PLC — — V N D `�1ghNTERE` HT ISTg 3 ~ L. MOUNT _Al r dC� 4, W > -OLIVET < 3 � :CEDAR cc `�<' C&ETERY SE PLh 1: RIVER. g s PARK m SE 2N0 P R1: K1Tn o sE S SE SE 411 I RD SE STH —S 5� lacy f,� ,41 - O� Sri AVSQ� y4 lee I > S 6TH ST £� Sf ' r Sr � { � PAN a``� MAPLEWWD I ST I s, GOLF < SE eL COURSE -ST— pmrtm4 w ARNOLD o� •. 11TH ST RrD, o MAP L EWOO D �R y4 W iQy 4 SE tF SE AV - � N •• O � S SjN S` W N = p \ \IJ 7 O �r G Fp � Ay DUts = O�SE 4 ti 16` . SE f ST ti SE 16TH PLol CT ST d` ^'<SE:m �y y� r� .y yj SE ��y ST KI Rr� _ 1S G( i f SE 1157TNH ST �' ` xl�+ ISE ie�'ky SF Reference: King County / Map 656 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 1992 Vicinity Map Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store Gff*mftbCZ1 Cc°'°�n"FTMmnffx"'?Asc'""K'S Renton, Washington Prof. No. 6183-1 Drwn. GLS Date Sept. '93 Checked DSL Date 9/27/93 Plate 1 Existing -- Apartments TP-4 TP-14 _;_ TP-11 4- i PROPOSED SAFEWAY TP-13 -!- TP-10 ' w i 4 ca TP-2 -• TP-3 ' PROPOSED RETAIL CU it w TP-12 l DTP-9 k TP-1 TP-5 TP-8 ' r' TT T .-T I TP-6 ' C7 � TP-7 PAD i o w E N.E. 4th STREET LEGEND TP-1 -i- Approximate Location of i j Existing Building ECI Test Pit, Proj. No. L ---- E-6183-1, Sept. 1993 Q Proposed Building Approximate Scale L_J Proposed Future Addition 0 50 100 200ft. Test Pit Location Plan Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store Gecxechnlcal Fsglrx�.Gcobglsrs 6 FsOron nerttal Sclenfisrs Renton, Washington rM I Proj. No. 6183-1 Drwn. GLS Date Sept. '93 Checked DSL Date 9/27/93 Plate 2 SCHEMATIC ONLY — NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING ° ItIIU= I15_= +D "0 ' I _ H III— I o � .'••�� 'o'i. •°' o' ui 1 ft. min . 1 ft.min. Compacted Subgrade LEGEND Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. oI Free draining, organic free granular material with a maximum size of 3 inches, containing no more than 5,•, -• g percent fines [silt and clay size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sievel• ` Weephole and drainage pocket as described below. O Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Drain line should be bedded on and surrounded with free draining 1 inch minus rock or pea gravel, as desired. The drainrock may be encapsulated with a geo— technical drainage fabric at the engineers discretion. NOTES: • For free standing walls, weepholes may be used. Surround weep— holes with no less than 18 inches of 1 inch minus rock. �-.. RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL Earth Consultants Inc. �,,,,;�,�,��&�,,;,�,,,�„W�,,,� Proposed Safeway Store Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6183-1 Drwn. GLS Date Sept. '93 Checked DSL Dated 9/27/93 Plate 3 APPENDIX A E-6183-1 FIELD EXPLORATION Our field exploration was performed on September 22, 1993. The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating fourteen test pits to a maximum depth of twelve feet below the existing ground surface. The test pits were excavated by Evans Construction, using a rubber tire backhoe. The approximate test pit locations were determined by pacing from existing building corners. The locations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Test Pit 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 test pit, obtained representative samples, 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 test pits are presented in the Appendix on Plates A2 through A15. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory tests on field samples. The strati- fication lines on the logs represent the approximate-bondaries between soil types.` In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Earth Consultants, Inc. MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION ,•�°0o GW Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Gravel 0 0.e;a;e o:e gW Mixtures, Little Or No Fines And Clean Gravels Gravelly (little or no fines) Gp Poorly-Graded Gravels,Gravel- Coarse Soils � ' ♦ ' • ' ! gp Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Grained I I Soils More Than , Is,I :J 1 GM g Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand- 50% Coarse Gravels With �I I'� R1 Silt Mixtures Fraction Fines(appreciable Retained On amount of fines) GC Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand- No. 4 Sieve gC Clay Mixtures 0 0°00 o pOo SW Weil-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sand And Clean Sand o°ee o pOe°' SW Sands, Little Or No Fines Sandy (little or no fines 4. SP Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly More Than Soils 50% Material Sp Sands, Little Or No Fines Larger Than 1.,. k'' ••'+. SM More Than No.200 Sieve Silty Sands, Sand-Silt Mixtures Size 50% Coarse Sands With ( `f`f 4 Snl Fraction .....l....... Fines(appreciable Passing No.4 amount of fines) Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures SC Sieve SC ML Inorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock Flour,Silty- Rll Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts wl Slight Plasticity Fine Silts Liquid Limit Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, CL Grained And Less Than 50 CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean Soils Clays Organic Silts And Organic OL OI Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire More Than mh Sand Or Silty Soils 50% Material Silts Liquid Limit Smaller Than And CH Plasticity. Clays Of High No.200 Sieve Clays Greater Than 50 Ch Plasticity, Fat Clays. Size QI-I Organic Clays Of Medium To High Oh Plasticity, Organic Silts —:' PT Peat. Humus, Swamp Soils Highly Organic Soils Pt I With High Organic Contents Topsoil 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 borderline soil classification.UPPER CASE LETTER SYMBOLS designate sample classifications based upon laboratory testing; LOWER CASE LETTER SYMBOLS designate classifications not verified by laboratory testing. C TORVANE READING,tsf T 2'O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf W MOISTURE, %dry weight 24' I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED i WATER OBSERVATION WELL pcf DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT, % Q DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION T SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/DATE Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND I� J i (iv,at lu,k:il t�i�thwcn.(:cz>iu6'Lsisa�i,vin�uix��i.J Scluul5ls Proj. No.6183-1 Date Sept'93 APIate Al Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: �� 6183-1 Doug Lynne 9/22/93 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Brothers Notes: W 5 _ °' u)o Surface Conditions: 6" of topsoil E cUn E c7 o U cn SM FILL: Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, dry 1 2 7 3 sm Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist 4 7 ;i::: - becomes gray, dense to very dense 5 6 a• 9 10 Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE coolechinir,,F,BineeM CeolooSft•F„~snmw SCk%VMs RENTON, WASHINGTON iProj. No. 6183-1 Dwn. GLS Date Sept'93 Checked DSL I Date 9/30/93 Plate A2 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole.modified by engineering tests.analysis and judgment.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use of interpretation by others of Information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: —� 6183-1 Doug Lynne 9/22/93 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Brothers Notes: W 3 : 2u)5 Surface Conditions: C7� U U) sm FILL: Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium 1 dense, dry �. . 2 GP Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, dry 2 W . ai 3 - caving �. . A -a , : . 4 5 6 sm Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, dry to moist 6 ;.i..: 7 Test pit terminated at 7 feet below existing grade. 8 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE c osectw*alFngwwcmC oiogism&Env%vn<vncWsc+rwtsn RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 6183-1 DWG, GLS Date Sept'93 Checked DSL Date 9/30/93 Plate A3 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hale.modified by engineering tests,analysis and judgment.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use of interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: 6183-1 Doug Lynne 9/22/93 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Brothers Notes: W o r 2 u)o Surface Conditions: %� M >. T rn M sm TOPSOIL: Brown silty SAND, loose, dry 2 3 - roots to 3' sm Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, dry 4 5 sp Brown poorly graded SAND with gravel, medium dense, dry 6 7 2 8 more gravel, becomes dense 9 3 - grade to gray, becomes very dense 10 Test pit terminated at 10 feet below existing grade. 11 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE C,", alengw*-ezerao�s+ Sdc*"ftm RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 6183-1 Dwn. GLs Date Sept'93 Checked DSL Date 9/30/93 Plate A4 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole.modified by engineering tests.analysis and judgment.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use of interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store - 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: �� 6183-1 Doug Lynne 9/22/93 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Brothers Notes: W o r �' cn o Surface Conditions: C7 cn rn rn sm TOPSOIL: Brown silty SAND, loose, dry 2 � �r sm Gray silty SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense to ' :::c• 3 dense, moist r 11 4 7 5 6 s Test pit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade. 9 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE omechncw Fnvvem ceologlsrs t Envimnrnenw scsmvism RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 6183-1 Dwn, GLS Date Sept'93 Checked DSL Date 9/30/93 Plate AS 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 of interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: —� 6183-1 Doug Lynne 9/22/93 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Brothers Notes: W 'Li o r °' CIOo Surface Conditions: CL 0-0 U) U) Z)(n sm Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, dry tJ 1 kk 2 4 k' GP Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, loose to medium 3 :A: dense, dry A.i 4 is is 3 • • - caving !' 5 �• 6 - becomes medium dense 7 caving 2 :i : :w - g Test pit terminated at feet below existing grade. ' 9 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE cc�Enp+ mrs. +E^ ScioTMtsM RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No.6183-1 I Dwn. GLS I Date Sept'93 Checked DSL Date 9/30/93 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 of interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 1 1 V Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: �� 6183-1 Doug Lynne 9/22/93 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Brothers Notes: W mn o Surface Conditions: Lam a a0.0 (%) n a a)ti E 0E C7 0 U) U) } sm Brown •silty SAND with gravel, loose, dry ::a 1 4 3 sm Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, dry 4 4 1; Test pit terminated at 5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE GeoroOr"Engineers.GeoiogiSItS•EnvpormcnW 50erxlsu RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 6183-1 Dwn. GLS Date Sept'93 Checked DSL Date 9/30/93 1 Plate A7 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and locatron of this exploratory mote,modified by engineering tests.analysis and judgment.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use of interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: —� 6183-1 Doug Lynne 9/22/93 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Brothers Notes: W o s °' u)'5Surface Conditions: (%) a aa,li EE Cn E C7 C/1 C) gm FILL: Brown silty GRAVEL, loose to medium dense, dry 1 2 2 0:: !: 3 GP Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, dense, dry to . .0. P: !9• moist ;. 4 5 5 12 sp- Brown poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, dry 6 sm to moist 7 Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE c.Co«tr>rcdE+aWx-emCA-o+oslsm&E+vifonT�mtWScie"ist+ RENTON, WASHINGTON iProj. No. 6183-1 Dwn. GLS Date Sept'93 Checked DSL Date 9/30/93 1 Plate A8 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 of interpretation by others of information presented on this log. _Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: �� 6183-1 Doug Lynne 9/22/93 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Brothers Notes: W 5 s d cn o Surface Conditions: Bare (%) �E., aai ti E E �U) X. sm Brown silty SAND, loose, dry 1 5 2 l..f: sm Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense to very dense, dry 3 5 5 Test pit terminated at 5 feet below existing grade. 6 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE Geo$eCrW cal tfgrumm ♦Fnvfronr ienmi scsmtsm RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 6183-1 Dwn. GSL Date Sept'93 Checked DSL I Date 9/30/93 Plate A9 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 of interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store - 1 1 y Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: �� 6183-1 Doug Lynne 9/22/93 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Borthers Notes: W o Q a 7 U)o Surface Conditions: Bare s� .0 �U) Ij sm Browri silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, dry 2 4 �< 3 4 X. 5 sm Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, dry to { 6 moist S - becomes dense • #:?:• 8 c::: - becomes very dense a: 4 9 10 Test pit terminated at 10 feet below existing grade. 11 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE Geowct,r+,,cd E+ererm cxoiof�a Envtrorr.t„taf 6ck"tscs RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 6183-1 Dwn. GLS Date Sept'93 Checked DSL Date 9/30/93 1 Plate A10 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 of interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: �— �O 6183-1 Doug Lynne 9/22/93 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Brothers Notes: W t 5 T cn-6 Surface Conditions: 3" to 4" of topsoil and sod CL N c > W LL. E Cn E t:k: sm Brown silty SAND, loose, dry 1 5 2 - grades to gray <.... - dense 3 becomes medium 14 SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, dry to moist 4 5 6 ...... .. aaa-:,X 8 _ ;. a10 becomes very dense r , } . ..L ' 12 Test pit terminated at 12 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE ccosectwc En&Wwemc &ErMroff"0"'WS1°"'kM RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No.6183-1 Dwn. GSL Date Sept'93 Checked DSL Date 9/30/93 1 Plate All 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 of interpretation by others of information presented on this log, Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: �_ 6183-1 Doug Lynne 9/22/93 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Brothers Notes: W `—' °'o s u)-6 Surface Conditions: aai ti to T c0. Un U) ' 4t sm Brown silt SAND with ravel, loose, dr 4 .:: Y 9 Y grades to gray becomes dense 3 4 6 X. becomes very dense 6 7 .:} ..: 8 Test pit terminated at -8 feet below existing grade. 9 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE cynical Pngliro" .eeowslsiis a Frvfrorrrwual SOMVIsrs RENTON, WASH INGTON Proj. No. 6183-1 DWn. GLS Date Sept'93 Checked DSL Date 9/30/93 Plate Al2 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 of interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: �— 6183-1 Doug Lynne 9/22/92 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Brothers Notes: W o _ c cn o Surface Conditions: Bare s� . a n (0 i aai � E C7 cn cn . •:I: sm Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, dry 1 2 D. 3 4 9 7 :�:ckkk;; :: SM Gray silty SAND, dense, dry to moist ::t • :: 6 X 7 X :l }::� l: 10 Test pit terminated at 10 feet below existing grade. 11 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE Georocin"Engirxrrs.ceobglSca r Envlrormroat Sdavlus RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 6183-1 Dwn. GLS Date Sept'93 Checked DSL Date 9/22/93 1 Plate A13 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory tole.modified by engineering tests.analysis and judgment.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use of interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 1 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: w 6183-1 DougLynne 9/22/93 �{+ Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Brothers Notes: W o c 2cn o Surface Conditions: 12" of topsoil and sod (��O) C T N LL EE U) E C � �6 C/) sp- Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, loose, 1 sin dry 8 2 3 f: 4 sm Gray sitly SAND, dense, dry to moist 10 :: 5 { 6 is •.. 7 Test pit terminated at 9 feet below existing grade. t0 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE c Fi,give-e .GNiog► A Environmental scfenttsm RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 6183-1 Dwn. GLS Date Sept'93 TChecked DSL Date 9/30/93 Plate A14 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 rearesentative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use of interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Test Pit Log ,Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store - 1 1 Job No.: Logged by: Date: Test Pit No: 6183-1 Doug Lynne 9/2293 Excavation Contractor: Ground Surface Elevation: Evans Brothers Notes: W 275 s °' w o Surface Conditions: °%� cb E. a)u- E CCn E �( � �� sm FILL: 'Gray silty SAND, loose, dry 7 1 sm Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, dry to moist 2 3 19 4 sm Gray silty SAND, dense, moist 5 8 6 7 8 Test pit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade. 9 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. PROPOSED SAFEWAY STORE coo,ect,n,cal Engtr mm c, ° •E vkorvnental scientism RENTON, WAS HINGTON Proj. No. 6183-1 DWn GLS Date Sept'93 Checked DSL Date 9/30/93 Plate A15 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole.modified by engineering tests.analysis and rydgment.They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use of interpretation by others of information presented on this log. SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER • " tttttt■tt�t■tt.t■!►.fit■L•1.�� .■��■�■�.■��t■■■■.�� •• s �tt�t■tt.t■■■V►t�lt� .�.t ■ttt� tt��t�■!■�.■�t.tt.�tt�t■■■■■t�t�� , tt.w■�t.■►■.�► .�■■■i�■t!■■ ■. �■w■■w■■■w�.■.�t��■//■■.�ttwttttt� . . :, tt.Ott.t�■�aa��tt�.11�■ttt�tt■tt��tii■t�■�.■�t.t��t■■■■��tt�� , ' t��■�t�■t■t►a■►�.o6,64 f�tie■■■■tt�l�■��■�■■�■tttt�■.■.�■��■■■■■w�tt.■tt■t� �t■tt.tt■■t■tt1.■\\■.tt►\tom i'.!1■t■t.t.■t■■■.■■■■■■■■�.■.■■■■■.�■■■■■.■.■tt■� rtt�t■■t.■.■�t.t►l7■■■■\\�■■ti!■.■t.■■tt■■■t■■�.■�t.tt��t■■■■�t■rttt■� • �■t.�■�■�■��■\�■►�■t�tt►��tt�■ttt�•■t■.�t�■t�■�.■.�tt.�t■■■i.�■t�� ti,�t�t�■��■.�■�■�tttt.�■■tt■�t.taw�t�■t�■�.■�t.tt.tttt�■t■■■■�t.tt�� ., .• �tt�t■�t�it■t.■.t\•� t.tt■■■\��■■■■.�■■sill.■■■■�■�.■.■.■■.�■■■■■.■.■■.� • Ott.t■tt.tt■it■t■■.t.tt[\t.�■ttt►T7�t. ■tt■■�.■■■t.tt.�t/■■■■■t.■tt■tttttt■ �■tt■■■■■■■it■■■■■■■■/t.it■1�i��■tt■it►��■t■■■�■ti■tt■■�t■■t■tt■tt.�t■■■■t■t�ttt■� • • ' ��t■tt. tlt■t.■.t�tt��t��■tttt.tt►�t.ttq■tt■■�.■t■t.ttt■�t/■■■t■t.ttt■ttttt� ' • •• ■t.t■■t. ■■■■■■■■■■■tt■it►'■■ttt.t.t\�t■ttr7tt■■�.■t■t.tt.�■/■■■t■t�ttt■tttttt■ ttttt.tt.t■Ott■■■■■M t■■.■.MM■t■■■t■■�`■1■■■■■■■lI.1�■.■■.►�■■■i!■�.■.■.■■.�■//■■■■�� ■� ■.■t■■■►\■t■■tip■�.■t■tt■tt.�t■■■tIt■t�ttt■� ., � �ttt■t.ttt■tt■■t■■■■t■t.■tt■t<.si,■ttt`�li■■■■■\■t■■tt■■�.■t■t.■t.�t■■■■t■■.ttt■� .. • tttttt■tt.t■tt.tt■■t■■■■.t.ttt■tom■i!■tt■■�t.11�■.\i>■■■■L•• .■t■tt/t■.�t■■■■t■■■■tt■� ' tttttt■tt.t■tt.■t■■■■■■■.t.ttt■■■ ��tttt.t.t■ilAttiL•tt■■ttttti■11■■.■.tt.�■//■■■■t�ttt■tttttt■ mm� tttt■t■tt.■■tt.■t■.t■t■..t�■■t■t■�.tttt.� t.... ■111-..mt. �......t.ttt■ttttt. ' • ' ttttt■■tt.Ott.t�■��■.�tt��■■tt��t��lo■■►!■tt��■t■�t.tt.�t/■■■��tt�� ' • tttttt■ttt■t■tt.tt■■t■t■■■■t�ttt■t■�■■tt■■■.ttt■■■t■■■t■■��■■■■.■■.�■■/■■■■■■■■■■� . 0 , tt.■■■t.■■I■■■I.1■1..1■.■■II■■■1■1■��■�■■11■■1■■1�■�tiii�!!1�■■.��■■■■■.�� • > - - cf) motel • DESCRIPTION • • • TP Sm j; Brown siltly SAND with gravel TP - 2 GP Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 2.0 TP - 4 Sm Gray silt y SAND with gravel 7.1 .. ■ • Brown poorly • .•-• GRAVEL with sand 2.7 SIEVE ANALYSIS �0• • • • MENNEN MIMINNIMNEENU MINE Mill �i1�i1�■�iC��■inl(I.i1i�■i■�.■iiit�■■■■■�ir� • �i1�i1�■is■■��i1��■i,�i10■i■i■�.■.�it�/■■■■.�� M■ m■.mi1W=■ MIMIBiWOMIMMM NO a OVA LW ■i■�.■i�it�/■■■■.�� •. �i1ii1�■e�■.��\��■��iiiii■i■ ON ■■■■■�� IMMil�iti■��■i�i1�� ■��i7��i■iL1:i,.■.iil�/■■■■�� •• • limo■� IIIIIIIIII1111110A i>iii■i■®.■.��/■■■■.ii>� �MUNIi1EiE■mm■.iit��■i,��i■n■•ice 7■.��-/■■■■.�� ilmiiMmmmmm �■�i■.i��'i■��i1�i■i,�.■i�it�/■■■■.�iti, ii1�i1�■��■.�iti IN mom i,i7�i1�■��■.��V�ii7�i■i■��.■.Mit�/■■■■.miti, i i7��i■ii i�it �■►� �i■i■�C ■MENIEW ■■■imi1� .. i,i7�i1�■��■.=��.W C=i■i■�.■ii�C■..■..mites i111 i7ENi■i■�...�� ■■■■■.M•MIMM MEMIMMMINImm Emmmmm • i1�i1■■1/■■lil■1..1■.ill■■■I■I m■En .,11■■I■■1�■�/■�.■ii■■.��/■■■■.�� • • • • ® •,• �® •' m® • , DESCRIPTION • (j) TP 7 Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with SAND • gravel ■ . • Gray silty SAND � e J - DISTRIBUTION E-6183-1 4 Copies Safeway Stores, Inc. 1211 - 124th Avenue Northeast P. 0. Box 90947 Bellevue, Washington 98009 Attention: Mr. Mitchell Johnson Earth Consultants, Inc. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ` ABOUT YOUR r ` GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsur- technical engineers who then render an opinion about face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as overall subsurface conditions, their likely reaction to subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent proposed construction activity,and appropriate founda- have been lessened considerably in recent years, due in tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how the Geosciences. qualified,and no subsurface exploration program, no The following suggestions and observations are offered matter how comprehensive,can reveal what is hidden by to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, earth, rock and time.The actual interface between mate- cost-overruns and other costly headaches that can rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report occur during a construction project. indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden- tify variances,conduct additional tests which may be OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS needed,and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur- face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS set of project-specific factors. These typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size and CAN CHANGE configuration; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; physical concomitants such as Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly- access roads. parking lots, and underground utilities, changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi- and the level of additional risk which the client assumed veering report is based on conditions which existed at by virtue of limitations imposed upon.the exploratory the time of subsurface exploration,construction decisions program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose , adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo- geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors technical consultant to learn if additional tests are which change subsequent to the date of the report may advisable before construction starts. affect its recommendations. 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 client involved and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use MOST,GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" by any other persons for any purpose,or by the client ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi- vidual other than the client should apply this report for its Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical only at those points where samples are taken,when engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- other than that originally contemplated without first conferring sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geotechnical engineer. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING der the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming re- e ° REPORT IS SUBJECT TO sponsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information ' always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing MISINTERPRETATION the best available information to contractors helps pre- vent costly construction problems and the adversarial Costly problems can occur when other design proles- sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate of a geotechnical engineering report.To help avoid scale. these problems, the geotechnical engineer should be READ RESPONSIBILITY retained to work with other appropriate design profes- sionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to CLAUSES CLOSELY review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to geotechnical issues. Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion,it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE consultants.To help prevent this problem,geotechnical engineers have developed model clauses for use in writ- SEPARATED FROM THE ten transmittals.These are not exculpatory clauses ENGINEERING REPORT designed to foist geotechnical engineers' liabilities onto someone else. Rather, they are definitive clauses which Final boring logs are developed by geotechnical engi- identify where geotechnical engineers'responsibilities neers based upon their interpretation of field logs begin and end.Their use helps all parties involved rec- (assembled by site personnel)and laboratory evaluation ognize their individual responsibilities and take appro- of field samples. Only final boring logs customarily are priate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely included in geotechnical engineering reports.These logs to appear in your geotechnical engineering report,and should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in you are encouraged to read them closely. Your geo- architectural or other design drawings, because drafters technical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. answers to your questions. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid prepara- tion. when this occurs,delays,disputes and unantici- REDUCE RISK . pated costs are the all-too-frequent result. Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- discuss other techniques which can be employed to mit- tion, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical igate risk. In addition,ASFE has developed a variety of engineering report prepared or authorized for their use. materials which may be beneficial.Contact ASFE for a Those who do not provide such access may proceed un- complimentary copy of its publications directory. � i Published by THE ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING FIRMS PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G 106/Silver Spring, Maryland 20910/(301) 565-2733 0788/3M ..s